Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

nWADDwTPM0zE7QP8

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/03/cnnorc-poll-christies-loss-appears-to-be-clintons-gain/?hpt=po_c1

CNN/ORC Poll: Christie's loss appears to be Clinton's gain

2014-02-03

In late November and early December , in the wake of Chris Christie 's landslide re-election victory , the Republican governor from New Jersey was riding high in the polls . Christie topped the other potential GOP 2016 White House hopefuls in surveys of Republicans ' choice for their next presidential nominee , and he was knotted up with Hillary Clinton in hypothetical general election showdowns . Now , after month of intense media scrutiny over a couple of controversies in his state , Christie 's numbers have faded , according to a new CNN/ORC International survey . In a possible 2016 matchup with Clinton , the poll indicates Christie trails the former secretary of state by 16 percentage points , with Clinton at 55 % and the Governor at 39 % among registered voters nationwide . That 's a dramatic switch from December , when Christie held a 48 % -46 % edge over Clinton . `` Christie has also lost ground among independents , who were the key to his strong showing late last year , '' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` Christie got 59 % support among Independents in December . Now that has dropped to 39 % . '' The survey released Monday indicates that the hunt for the GOP nomination is back to where it was before Christie 's rise in the polls late last year : a pack of potential White House contenders with no obvious frontrunner . But according to the poll , there is a new name on top of the list in hunt for the GOP nomination : Former Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee , a 2008 Republican presidential candidate . Fourteen percent of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would likely support Huckabee for their party 's nomination if he runs . Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is next at 13 % followed by former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush and Christie tied at 10 % . Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin , the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee , and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida are tied at 9 % . One point behind are Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and longtime Texas Gov . Rick Perry . Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania , a 2012 GOP presidential candidate , stands at 4 % . That 's a change from November , when Christie was 11 points ahead of the rest of the field . Huckabee was not tested in the November survey . Christie is facing allegations that some of his aides closed access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee last September to punish that town 's mayor for not endorsing his re-election . Separately , Hoboken 's Democratic mayor alleges that Superstorm Sandy recovery aid for her hard-hit city was dependent on support for a development project backed by the governor – an assertion denied by top Christie officials . `` Because Huckabee was not included in the November poll , any drop in Christie 's support among Republicans may be partly due to Huckabee as well as recent news stories . So it 's impossible to calculate exactly how much support Christie lost as a result of the bridge controversy . But it 's a pretty safe bet that the drop in Christie 's support against Clinton is due to the recent news stories about the bridge , '' added Holland . For all his problems , Christie matches up better against Clinton in the CNN poll than any other possible GOP contender tested . Clinton has a 20-point , 57 % -37 % , lead over Bush , an 18-point , 57 % -39 % , advantage over Paul , a 17-point , 56 % -39 % , lead over Huckabee , and a 55 % -40 % advantage over Ryan . Clinton says she 'll decide whether to make a second run for the White House by the end of the year . If she does launch a candidacy , just about every poll indicates she would start her campaign as the overwhelming front runner to win the Democratic nomination . According to the CNN poll , seven of 10 Democrats and independents who lean toward the party say they 'd be likely to support Clinton as their nominee , with 15 % likely to support a more conservative Democrats and one in 10 more likely to back a more liberal candidate . `` The CNN poll did not name specific Democrats who might run against Clinton , in part to test whether Clinton 's strong position is due to dislike or unfamiliarity with the standard roster of potential Democratic candidates , '' says Holland . `` The fact that Clinton tests so well against generic rivals is is a strong indication that Democrats are not shopping around , hoping that another candidate will throw his or her hat into the ring . '' While Christie deals with the bridge and Sandy funding controversies , Clinton continues to deal with the September 2012 killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in an attack in Benghazi , Libya . The attacks came during her watch as secretary of state , and some Republicans have Clinton heavily over the attack and its aftermath . But according to the poll , 62 % approve of the job she did at the State Department , down 4 points from December 2012 , a month before Clinton stepped down as American 's top diplomat . Nine in 10 Democrats and just over six in 10 independents said they approve of the job she did as secretary of state . That approval drops to 29 % among Republicans . The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International January 31-February 2 , with 1,010 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - What a difference two months makes. In late November and early December, in the wake of Chris Christie's landslide re-election victory, the Republican governor from New Jersey was riding high in the polls. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @psteinhausercnn Christie topped the other potential GOP 2016 White House hopefuls in surveys of Republicans' choice for their next presidential nominee, and he was knotted up with Hillary Clinton in hypothetical general election showdowns. Now, after month of intense media scrutiny over a couple of controversies in his state, Christie's numbers have faded, according to a new CNN/ORC International survey. In a possible 2016 matchup with Clinton, the poll indicates Christie trails the former secretary of state by 16 percentage points, with Clinton at 55% and the Governor at 39% among registered voters nationwide. That's a dramatic switch from December, when Christie held a 48%-46% edge over Clinton. "Christie has also lost ground among independents, who were the key to his strong showing late last year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Christie got 59% support among Independents in December. Now that has dropped to 39%." Race for GOP nomination The survey released Monday indicates that the hunt for the GOP nomination is back to where it was before Christie's rise in the polls late last year: a pack of potential White House contenders with no obvious frontrunner. But according to the poll, there is a new name on top of the list in hunt for the GOP nomination: Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Fourteen percent of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would likely support Huckabee for their party's nomination if he runs. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is next at 13% followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Christie tied at 10%. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida are tied at 9%. One point behind are Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a 2012 GOP presidential candidate, stands at 4%. That's a change from November, when Christie was 11 points ahead of the rest of the field. Huckabee was not tested in the November survey. Christie is facing allegations that some of his aides closed access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee last September to punish that town's mayor for not endorsing his re-election. Separately, Hoboken's Democratic mayor alleges that Superstorm Sandy recovery aid for her hard-hit city was dependent on support for a development project backed by the governor – an assertion denied by top Christie officials. "Because Huckabee was not included in the November poll, any drop in Christie's support among Republicans may be partly due to Huckabee as well as recent news stories. So it's impossible to calculate exactly how much support Christie lost as a result of the bridge controversy. But it's a pretty safe bet that the drop in Christie's support against Clinton is due to the recent news stories about the bridge," added Holland. For all his problems, Christie matches up better against Clinton in the CNN poll than any other possible GOP contender tested. Clinton has a 20-point, 57%-37%, lead over Bush, an 18-point, 57%-39%, advantage over Paul, a 17-point, 56%-39%, lead over Huckabee, and a 55%-40% advantage over Ryan. Clinton in strong polling position Clinton says she'll decide whether to make a second run for the White House by the end of the year. If she does launch a candidacy, just about every poll indicates she would start her campaign as the overwhelming front runner to win the Democratic nomination. According to the CNN poll, seven of 10 Democrats and independents who lean toward the party say they'd be likely to support Clinton as their nominee, with 15% likely to support a more conservative Democrats and one in 10 more likely to back a more liberal candidate. "The CNN poll did not name specific Democrats who might run against Clinton, in part to test whether Clinton's strong position is due to dislike or unfamiliarity with the standard roster of potential Democratic candidates," says Holland. "The fact that Clinton tests so well against generic rivals is is a strong indication that Democrats are not shopping around, hoping that another candidate will throw his or her hat into the ring." While Christie deals with the bridge and Sandy funding controversies, Clinton continues to deal with the September 2012 killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in an attack in Benghazi, Libya. The attacks came during her watch as secretary of state, and some Republicans have Clinton heavily over the attack and its aftermath. But according to the poll, 62% approve of the job she did at the State Department, down 4 points from December 2012, a month before Clinton stepped down as American's top diplomat. Nine in 10 Democrats and just over six in 10 independents said they approve of the job she did as secretary of state. That approval drops to 29% among Republicans. The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International January 31-February 2, with 1,010 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

nWADDwTPM0zE7QP8

test

kEOkQ6JQnCsGWgEC

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2018/august/trump-cancels-military-parade-maybe-next-year

Trump Cancels Military Parade: 'Maybe Next Year'

2018-08-17

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump canceled his plans for a Veteran 's Day military parade due to the `` ridiculously high '' price tag . The local politicians who run Washington , D.C. ( poorly ) know a windfall when they see it . When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade , they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it . Never let someone hold you up ! I will instead ... — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) August 17 , 2018 According to US officials , the parade would 've carried an estimated price tag of $ 92 million , which is more than three times what the White House wanted to spend . The US official told The Associated Press that the Pentagon would have covered roughly $ 50 million for `` aircraft , equipment , personnel and other support for the November parade in Washington . '' But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis hit back , questioning the source . `` I 'm not dignifying that number ( $ 92 million ) with a reply . I would discount that , and anybody who said ( that number ) , I 'll almost guarantee you one thing : They probably said , ' I need to stay anonymous . ' No kidding , because you look like an idiot . And No . 2 , whoever wrote it needs to get better sources . I 'll just leave it at that , '' Mattis said . The White House budget director told lawmakers earlier this year the cost to taxpayers could be between $ 10 million and $ 30 million . The parade was scheduled to include troops , military flyovers and units in period uniforms highlighting times throughout the nation 's history . A Pentagon planning memo released in March said the parade would feature a `` heavy air component , '' likely including older , vintage aircraft . It also said there would be `` wheeled vehicles only , no tanks -- consideration must be given to minimize damage to local infrastructure . '' Last year , Trump decided to move forward with a military parade after attending France 's Bastille Day celebration in Paris . `` We 're going to have to try and top it , '' Trump said at the time . But now it appears the spectacle is being put on hold until , at the earliest , next year .

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump canceled his plans for a Veteran's Day military parade due to the "ridiculously high" price tag. The local politicians who run Washington, D.C. (poorly) know a windfall when they see it. When asked to give us a price for holding a great celebratory military parade, they wanted a number so ridiculously high that I cancelled it. Never let someone hold you up! I will instead... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2018 According to US officials, the parade would've carried an estimated price tag of $92 million, which is more than three times what the White House wanted to spend. The US official told The Associated Press that the Pentagon would have covered roughly $50 million for "aircraft, equipment, personnel and other support for the November parade in Washington." But Defense Secretary Jim Mattis hit back, questioning the source. "I'm not dignifying that number ($92 million) with a reply. I would discount that, and anybody who said (that number), I'll almost guarantee you one thing: They probably said, 'I need to stay anonymous.' No kidding, because you look like an idiot. And No. 2, whoever wrote it needs to get better sources. I'll just leave it at that," Mattis said. The White House budget director told lawmakers earlier this year the cost to taxpayers could be between $10 million and $30 million. The parade was scheduled to include troops, military flyovers and units in period uniforms highlighting times throughout the nation's history. A Pentagon planning memo released in March said the parade would feature a "heavy air component," likely including older, vintage aircraft. It also said there would be "wheeled vehicles only, no tanks -- consideration must be given to minimize damage to local infrastructure." Last year, Trump decided to move forward with a military parade after attending France's Bastille Day celebration in Paris. "We're going to have to try and top it," Trump said at the time. But now it appears the spectacle is being put on hold until, at the earliest, next year.

www1.cbn.com

right

kEOkQ6JQnCsGWgEC

test

dnpsWAJmBLHSxqQO

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/10/facebook-deletes-natural-news-facebook-page/

Facebook Deletes ‘Natural News’ Facebook Page

2019-06-10

Lucas Nolan

Facebook has deleted the popular “ Natural News ” Facebook page according to recent reports . The Daily Beast reports that Facebook removed the popular Natural News Facebook page , which had nearly 3 million followers , this week . In an article posted on Infowars , the administrator of the Natural News page Mike Adams wrote : “ In response to a coordinated , heavily-funded smear campaign against Natural News and myself , the Health Ranger , Facebook has now permanently banned Natural News from posting content . ” Adams has further claimed that Natural News has been banned by Twitter , YouTube , Pinterest , Google News , Apple . Adams , who wrote about alternative medicines and natural remedies on the page writes in his article : “ Anyone who questions the safety of toxic vaccines , 5G cell towers , geoengineering , chemotherapy or glyphosate weed killer chemicals is now maliciously attacked , smeared and de-platformed . You ’ re not even allowed now to talk about nutrition , anti-cancer foods or nutritional supplements without being labeled a “ vitamin ” website accused of pushing fake cures . ” At its peak , the Natural News Facebook page actually had more followers than Infowars , whose founder Alex Jones was also banned from multiple social media platforms . In May , Facebook banned Alex Jones , Infowars contributor and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson , journalist and activist Laura Loomer , and Milo Yiannopoulos . Louis Farrakhan was notably also banned from the platforms at the same time . Adams further attacked Silicon Valley tech giants writing : “ Remember : As all this censorship is taking place , the tech giants somehow claim they aren ’ t censoring anyone at all . They claim to have a monopoly on ‘ facts ’ or ‘ truth ’ and proclaim themselves to have the King ’ s unique right to decide who gets to speak and who must be silenced . These criminals like Zuckerberg , Dorsey and Cook are un-elected , subject to zero transparency and offer no mechanism for due process whereby channels who are banned might defend themselves against unfair , dishonest smears or fake news attacks run by left-wing journo-terrorism hacks . ” He added : “ In essence , the entire internet is now run by the most lawless evil war criminals imaginable , and they have zero respect for human rights , human dignity or free speech. ” Facebook did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast but a spokesperson stated in May following the mass banning of prominent conservative figures : “ We ’ ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate , regardless of ideology . The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today . ”

Facebook has deleted the popular “Natural News” Facebook page according to recent reports. The Daily Beast reports that Facebook removed the popular Natural News Facebook page, which had nearly 3 million followers, this week. In an article posted on Infowars, the administrator of the Natural News page Mike Adams wrote: “In response to a coordinated, heavily-funded smear campaign against Natural News and myself, the Health Ranger, Facebook has now permanently banned Natural News from posting content.” Adams has further claimed that Natural News has been banned by Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Google News, Apple. Adams, who wrote about alternative medicines and natural remedies on the page writes in his article: “Anyone who questions the safety of toxic vaccines, 5G cell towers, geoengineering, chemotherapy or glyphosate weed killer chemicals is now maliciously attacked, smeared and de-platformed. You’re not even allowed now to talk about nutrition, anti-cancer foods or nutritional supplements without being labeled a “vitamin” website accused of pushing fake cures.” At its peak, the Natural News Facebook page actually had more followers than Infowars, whose founder Alex Jones was also banned from multiple social media platforms. In May, Facebook banned Alex Jones, Infowars contributor and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson, journalist and activist Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopoulos. Louis Farrakhan was notably also banned from the platforms at the same time. Adams further attacked Silicon Valley tech giants writing: “Remember: As all this censorship is taking place, the tech giants somehow claim they aren’t censoring anyone at all. They claim to have a monopoly on ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ and proclaim themselves to have the King’s unique right to decide who gets to speak and who must be silenced. These criminals like Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Cook are un-elected, subject to zero transparency and offer no mechanism for due process whereby channels who are banned might defend themselves against unfair, dishonest smears or fake news attacks run by left-wing journo-terrorism hacks.” He added: “In essence, the entire internet is now run by the most lawless evil war criminals imaginable, and they have zero respect for human rights, human dignity or free speech.” Facebook did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast but a spokesperson stated in May following the mass banning of prominent conservative figures: “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.” Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at [email protected]

www.breitbart.com

right

dnpsWAJmBLHSxqQO

test

THKxRyT9SPf6uHm5

cybersecurity

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39920141

WannaCry ransomware cyber-attacks slow but fears remain

A computer malware that has spread across 150 countries appears to be slowing down , with few reports of fresh attacks globally on Monday . A spokesperson for police agency Europol said the situation in Europe `` seems stable '' . In Asia , where many offices closed before the WannaCry ransomware struck on Friday , the attack has been less severe than expected . The ransomware takes over users ' files , demanding $ 300 ( £230 ) to restore them . The White House said on Monday that under $ 70,000 ( £54,000 ) had been paid in total in a bid to get any locked data released . Payments could go up as the ransomware warned the cost would double after three days , and threatened to delete files within seven days if no payment was made . Computer giant Microsoft said the attack , which has affected hundreds of thousands of computers , should serve as a wake-up call . Among the organisations targeted worldwide have been Germany 's rail network Deutsche Bahn , Spanish telecommunications operator Telefonica , US logistics giant FedEx and Russia 's interior ministry . Many firms employed experts over the weekend to try to prevent new infections . Senior spokesman for Europol , Jan Op Gen Oorth , told the AFP news agency : `` The number of victims appears not to have gone up and so far the situation seems stable in Europe , which is a success . `` It seems that a lot of internet security guys over the weekend did their homework and ran the security software updates . '' UK Health Minister Jeremy Hunt confirmed to the BBC that UK intelligence services had found no evidence of a second wave of attacks on Monday . The badly affected National Health Service said seven out of 47 trusts that were hit were still facing serious issues . French carmaker Renault said its plant in the northern town of Douai would not reopen on Monday as it dealt with the cyber-attack . In Asia , the spread was reportedly slowing , with banking systems largely unaffected : Australia : At least eight businesses reported being locked out of their systems : At least eight businesses reported being locked out of their systems South Korea : Four companies reported problems over the weekend . One cinema chain was unable to display trailers : Four companies reported problems over the weekend . One cinema chain was unable to display trailers Indonesia : Records at two hospitals were blocked : Records at two hospitals were blocked Japan : Both Nissan and Hitachi reported some units had been affected , but not seriously : Both Nissan and Hitachi reported some units had been affected , but not seriously China : Computers at nearly 30,000 institutions and organisations were affected , including government agencies and hospitals , internet firm Qihoo 360 said . Some payment systems and government services affected , but less than feared US President Donald Trump 's Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert has also confirmed that no US federal government systems were affected . This wo n't take long . Nobody knows . Europol 's Jan Op Gen Oorth said : `` A bit early to say ... but we are working on a decrypting tool '' . Associated Press quoted Tim Wellsmore , of US security firm FireEye , as saying : `` We expect this is a small operation ... They just happened to hit the mother lode . '' Russian President Vladimir Putin said : `` Russia has absolutely nothing to do with it . '' EU Commissioner for Security Julian King told the BBC on Monday that the EU was proposing legislation to reinforce cyber security in the wake of the attack . Some private sector security researchers say they have seen some similarities between some of the code in the recent attack and some linked to North Korea in the past . Security officials in the UK , however , say they have not seen anything they would regard as hard evidence , Gordon Corera , the BBC 's security correspondent , reports . Companies in Asia and Europe have been warning employees to be careful when clicking on attachments and links in their emails . The message from the UK 's National Crime Agency was `` do not pay ! '' - there is no guarantee that systems will be restored . Michael Gazeley , of Network Box , a Hong Kong-based cyber-security firm , told Reuters there were still `` many 'landmines ' waiting in people 's inboxes '' , adding that his firm had detected a new version that infected users directly via a malicious link on hacked websites . Becky Pinkard , from Digital Shadows , a UK-based cyber-security firm , also said it would be easy for the initial attackers or `` copy-cat authors '' to change the virus code so it is difficult to guard against . A UK security researcher known as `` MalwareTech '' , who helped to limit the ransomware attack , had predicted `` another one coming ... quite likely on Monday '' . MalwareTech , whose name was revealed in UK media to be 22-year-old Marcus Hutchins , was hailed as an `` accidental hero '' after registering a domain name to track the spread of the virus , which actually ended up halting it . The computing giant says the tool used in this current attack had been developed by the US National Security Agency and was stolen by hackers . It is highly critical of the way governments store data on software vulnerabilities . Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said on Sunday : `` We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on Wikileaks , and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world . `` An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the US military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen . '' The organisation also said that many organisations had failed to keep their systems up to date , allowing the virus to spread . Microsoft said it had released a Windows security update in March to tackle the problem involved in the latest attack , but many users were yet to run it . Get news from the BBC in your inbox , each weekday morning

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How to protect yourself online from a cyber-attack A computer malware that has spread across 150 countries appears to be slowing down, with few reports of fresh attacks globally on Monday. A spokesperson for police agency Europol said the situation in Europe "seems stable". In Asia, where many offices closed before the WannaCry ransomware struck on Friday, the attack has been less severe than expected. The ransomware takes over users' files, demanding $300 (£230) to restore them. The White House said on Monday that under $70,000 (£54,000) had been paid in total in a bid to get any locked data released. Payments could go up as the ransomware warned the cost would double after three days, and threatened to delete files within seven days if no payment was made. Computer giant Microsoft said the attack, which has affected hundreds of thousands of computers, should serve as a wake-up call. Among the organisations targeted worldwide have been Germany's rail network Deutsche Bahn, Spanish telecommunications operator Telefonica, US logistics giant FedEx and Russia's interior ministry. What was the situation on Monday? Many firms employed experts over the weekend to try to prevent new infections. Senior spokesman for Europol, Jan Op Gen Oorth, told the AFP news agency: "The number of victims appears not to have gone up and so far the situation seems stable in Europe, which is a success. "It seems that a lot of internet security guys over the weekend did their homework and ran the security software updates." UK Health Minister Jeremy Hunt confirmed to the BBC that UK intelligence services had found no evidence of a second wave of attacks on Monday. The badly affected National Health Service said seven out of 47 trusts that were hit were still facing serious issues. French carmaker Renault said its plant in the northern town of Douai would not reopen on Monday as it dealt with the cyber-attack. In Asia, the spread was reportedly slowing, with banking systems largely unaffected: Australia : At least eight businesses reported being locked out of their systems : At least eight businesses reported being locked out of their systems South Korea : Four companies reported problems over the weekend. One cinema chain was unable to display trailers : Four companies reported problems over the weekend. One cinema chain was unable to display trailers Indonesia : Records at two hospitals were blocked : Records at two hospitals were blocked Japan : Both Nissan and Hitachi reported some units had been affected, but not seriously : Both Nissan and Hitachi reported some units had been affected, but not seriously China: Computers at nearly 30,000 institutions and organisations were affected, including government agencies and hospitals, internet firm Qihoo 360 said. Some payment systems and government services affected, but less than feared US President Donald Trump's Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert has also confirmed that no US federal government systems were affected. Who is behind the attack? This won't take long. Nobody knows. Europol's Jan Op Gen Oorth said: "A bit early to say... but we are working on a decrypting tool". Associated Press quoted Tim Wellsmore, of US security firm FireEye, as saying: "We expect this is a small operation... They just happened to hit the mother lode." Russian President Vladimir Putin said: "Russia has absolutely nothing to do with it." EU Commissioner for Security Julian King told the BBC on Monday that the EU was proposing legislation to reinforce cyber security in the wake of the attack. Some private sector security researchers say they have seen some similarities between some of the code in the recent attack and some linked to North Korea in the past. Security officials in the UK, however, say they have not seen anything they would regard as hard evidence, Gordon Corera, the BBC's security correspondent, reports. Should people pay? Companies in Asia and Europe have been warning employees to be careful when clicking on attachments and links in their emails. The message from the UK's National Crime Agency was "do not pay!" - there is no guarantee that systems will be restored. Michael Gazeley, of Network Box, a Hong Kong-based cyber-security firm, told Reuters there were still "many 'landmines' waiting in people's inboxes", adding that his firm had detected a new version that infected users directly via a malicious link on hacked websites. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Technology explained: what is ransomware? Becky Pinkard, from Digital Shadows, a UK-based cyber-security firm, also said it would be easy for the initial attackers or "copy-cat authors" to change the virus code so it is difficult to guard against. A UK security researcher known as "MalwareTech", who helped to limit the ransomware attack, had predicted "another one coming... quite likely on Monday". MalwareTech, whose name was revealed in UK media to be 22-year-old Marcus Hutchins, was hailed as an "accidental hero" after registering a domain name to track the spread of the virus, which actually ended up halting it. What's behind Microsoft's 'wake-up call' warning? The computing giant says the tool used in this current attack had been developed by the US National Security Agency and was stolen by hackers. It is highly critical of the way governments store data on software vulnerabilities. Image copyright AFP Image caption A railway station system in Chemnitz, eastern Germany, is infected Microsoft president and chief legal officer Brad Smith said on Sunday: "We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on Wikileaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world. "An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the US military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen." The organisation also said that many organisations had failed to keep their systems up to date, allowing the virus to spread. Microsoft said it had released a Windows security update in March to tackle the problem involved in the latest attack, but many users were yet to run it. How roots can be traced to the US Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

www.bbc.com

center

THKxRyT9SPf6uHm5

test

33lbeVzhi6FlZuH8

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50370347

Nikki Haley: Top aides 'told ex-UN envoy to undermine Trump'

Nikki Haley , former US ambassador to the UN , has said two top White House aides encouraged her to undermine President Donald Trump . In a new book , Ms Haley says then-Chief of Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told her to resist some of Mr Trump 's demands . They reportedly told her they were `` trying to save the country '' . There was no immediate comment from Mr Tillerson . Mr Kelly said he had wanted the president to be fully informed . `` If by 'resistance ' and 'stalling ' she means putting a staff process in place ... to ensure [ Mr Trump ] knew all the pros and cons of what policy decision he might be contemplating so he could make an informed decision , then guilty as charged , '' Mr Kelly told US broadcaster CBS . Mr Trump tweeted his approval of the book , writing : `` Good luck Nikki ! '' Ms Haley says Mr Kelly and Mr Tillerson told her they `` were n't being subordinate , they were trying to save the country '' . `` It was their decisions , not the president 's , that were in the best interests of America , they said , '' she wrote in her book With All Due Respect , which was seen by the Washington Post before its release on Tuesday . Mr Tillerson , she added , told her people would die if the president were not restrained . Ms Haley , 47 , said she had refused the request from Mr Kelly and Mr Tillerson , and called it `` dangerous '' and `` offensive '' . `` Instead of saying that to me they should have been saying that to the president , not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan , '' she told CBS . `` It should have been - go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you do n't like what he 's doing . But to undermine a president ... it is really a very dangerous thing and it goes against the constitution , and it goes against what the American people want . It was offensive . '' The former ambassador said she disagreed with the president over his handling of Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Helsinki in 2017 . She also wrote that his comments after the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 , that there were good people on `` both sides '' , had been `` hurtful and dangerous '' . A counter-protester , Heather Heyer , was killed at the demonstration . But Ms Haley also said she supported a number of Mr Trump 's policies that others within the administration opposed - such as his decisions to pull the US out of a nuclear deal with Iran , and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement . In the interview with CBS , she also criticised House Democrats ' moves to impeach the president , saying that impeachment is `` like the death penalty for public officials '' .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nikki Haley says impeachment is the 'death penalty for public officials'. Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the UN, has said two top White House aides encouraged her to undermine President Donald Trump. In a new book, Ms Haley says then-Chief of Staff John Kelly and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told her to resist some of Mr Trump's demands. They reportedly told her they were "trying to save the country". There was no immediate comment from Mr Tillerson. Mr Kelly said he had wanted the president to be fully informed. "If by 'resistance' and 'stalling' she means putting a staff process in place... to ensure [Mr Trump] knew all the pros and cons of what policy decision he might be contemplating so he could make an informed decision, then guilty as charged," Mr Kelly told US broadcaster CBS. Mr Trump tweeted his approval of the book, writing: "Good luck Nikki!" What does she say in the book? Ms Haley says Mr Kelly and Mr Tillerson told her they "weren't being subordinate, they were trying to save the country". "It was their decisions, not the president's, that were in the best interests of America, they said," she wrote in her book With All Due Respect, which was seen by the Washington Post before its release on Tuesday. Mr Tillerson, she added, told her people would die if the president were not restrained. Ms Haley, 47, said she had refused the request from Mr Kelly and Mr Tillerson, and called it "dangerous" and "offensive". "Instead of saying that to me they should have been saying that to the president, not asking me to join them on their sidebar plan," she told CBS. "It should have been - go tell the president what your differences are and quit if you don't like what he's doing. But to undermine a president... it is really a very dangerous thing and it goes against the constitution, and it goes against what the American people want. It was offensive." The former ambassador said she disagreed with the president over his handling of Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Helsinki in 2017. She also wrote that his comments after the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in 2017, that there were good people on "both sides", had been "hurtful and dangerous". A counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was killed at the demonstration. But Ms Haley also said she supported a number of Mr Trump's policies that others within the administration opposed - such as his decisions to pull the US out of a nuclear deal with Iran, and to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. In the interview with CBS, she also criticised House Democrats' moves to impeach the president, saying that impeachment is "like the death penalty for public officials".

www.bbc.com

center

33lbeVzhi6FlZuH8

test

MMRxStNGHAg1eo5P

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2017/05/17/all-this-impeachment-talk-is-pure-trump

All This Impeachment Talk Is Pure Trump Derangement Syndrome

2017-05-17

Nick Gillespie, Eugene Volokh, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion

Donald Trump , the most-unlikely and least-liked president in the history of the United States , had barely celebrated his first 100 days when calls for his impeachment started flying faster than Anthony Weiner dick pics at a Girl Scout cookout . For the good of democracy , do n't you see , the Republicans must not only be kicked to the curb in the 2018 midterms , but the president himself must be thrown into the street , just like he once tried to evict that old lady from her house in Atlantic City ! In the wake of the firing of FBI Director James Comey , whose recent testimony on Hillary Clinton 's emails was so flawed and incompetent that his underlings immediately issued a clarification to the Senate Judiciary Committee , virtually every non-Republican # NeverTrumper ( plus Sen. John McCain , who has some good reasons to hate Trump ) has called for The Donald 's head on a platter . And this was all before the tantalizing possibility of a `` Comey memo '' detailing various attempts by Trump to shut down an investigation of possible ties between former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and Russian operatives . But let 's get real : At this point in the game , all the explainers about how impeachment works ( the 1990s called , they want their sex scandals back ! ) and adapting the 25th Amendment 's ability to remove the president from decision-making during colonoscopies to the current crisis are evidence-free exercises in ideological masturbation . If we are going to survive not just the Trump years but eventually get around to kick-starting the 21st century , we 're going to have become smarter media consumers and demand more from both our politicians and the press . `` The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo , '' explains the Paper of Record , `` but one of Mr. Comey 's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter . '' As ███ 's Scott Shackford has noted , that 's what Joe Biden would call a `` big fucking deal '' if it turns out to exist and to be accurate . It 's also a pretty big if at this point . But even before Comey 's possible `` paper trail '' documenting President Trump 's demands ( which may or may not actually rise to the level of impeachable offense ) came to light , his enemies were out in force . For god 's sake , they wanted him impeached even before he was the Republican nominee . `` An attempt to obstruct justice is an impeachable offense , '' huffed Andrew Sullivan in New York magazine last week . `` And Trump has just openly admitted to such a thing '' because `` sources close to Comey '' said the president-elect asked the FBI director for his `` personal loyalty . '' What unemotional analysis . Remember that a year ago , Sullivan called the possibility of a Trump presidency an `` extinction-level threat '' to mom , apple pie , and Chevrolet . Elsewhere in New York , Jonathan Chait , who is as doggedly a Democratic partisan that exists in print , put out an article under the headline , `` The Law Ca n't Stop Trump . Only Impeachment Can . '' Trump 's high crime for Chait was the completely opaque charge that Trump shared classified intel with Russian officials visiting the White House , a charge flatly rebutted by National Security Advisor H.R . McMaster , who said the shared info was `` wholly appropriate '' and that `` the president in no way compromised any sources or methods . '' For Chait though , and so many more either openly in `` the Resistance '' or just fellow-traveling , the real problem is that America never anticipated peckerwoods being in the Oval Office . `` The system is set up with the unstated presumption that the president is a responsible person who will act in a broadly legitimate , competent fashion , '' writes Chait . `` The system is designed so that the only remedy for a president who can not faithfully act in the public interest is impeachment . '' Forget all that Madisonian mumbo-jumbo about `` if men were angels , no government would be necessary . '' A real-estate developer from Queens with history 's worst comb-over is about to bring the Statue of Liberty to her knees like an ISIS captive . Indeed , whether or not James Comey 's memos detailing his version of Trump 's perfidies against a free-and-independent FBI—you know , that august institution which has one of the very worst records among any law-enforcement agency of abusing power—The Atlantic 's James Fallows has already said that the mere firing of Comey is `` worse than Watergate . '' Think about that for a second . No one disputes the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the president and he can fire him whenever he wants . What `` Watergate '' revealed was not simply Richard Nixon 's willingness to lie and cover up criminal activity committed on his behalf , but an entire apparatus to spy on , pervert , and undermine elected government . Assuming the worst about Trump at this point , his behavior does n't come close to rising to that level or the actions undertaken by , say , Ronald Reagan during Iran-Contra . If anything , Trump is such an idiot that he is sealing his own fate by forcing congressional Republicans , most of whom do n't particularly care for him anyway , to call for bigger and better investigations about Russian influence in the 2016 election . Short-termers such as Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz are already subpoenaing whatever memories James Comey jotted down during his generally mediocre-to-awful tenure as head of the FBI . Comey is the guy , we should recall , who tried to strong-arm Apple into undermining its phone encryption even though it was able to crack the San Bernadino 's phone just fine , who gave Hillary Clinton aides immunity and allowed them to destroy their laptops , and recently attacked the First Amendment because it gave Wikileaks space to publish authentic-if-purloined documents . The best thing you can say about Comey is that he 's no Louis Freeh or J. Edgar Hoover , which is the textbook case of damning with faint approbation . Needless to say , none of this absolves Donald Trump of any wrongdoing . But impeachment talk this soon and this thick is coming not from a place of seriousness but pure partisanship and ideology masquerading as disinterested belief in the public good . When the Republicans moved to impeach Bill Clinton back in the 1990s , it was the same thing and it did n't exactly work out that well for many of the main conspirators , or for the country at large . Among other things , the impeachment push indirectly led to the ouster of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House , which eventuated in an actual child molester being way high up in the presidential line of succession . The impeachment of Bill Clinton was one of the major mileposts in the long , ongoing shift of America from a high-trust to a low-trust country , one in which faith , trust , and confidence in most of our major public , private , and civic institutions have taken a massive beating for decades now . Maybe it was the Warren Commission Report that got the ball rolling , or Lyndon Johnson 's infamous `` credibility gap . '' All the secret wars in Cambodia and Watergate sure did n't help and the mind-boggling revelations of the Church Commission might have the final nail in the coffin of trust . The Pinto disaster sure did n't help , nor did other revelations of private-sector fakery . You throw in freakazoid oddness such as the People 's Temple , United Way scandals , and rampant Catholic Church buggery , and , well , what do you expect ? Across the board , fewer and fewer of us trust the government , the media , labor , corporations , etc . to do the right thing given the option of doing the wrong thing . And get this : However unpopular Donald Trump is , Congress is even less trustworthy . Libertarians especially ignore this slide in trust and the rush to partisan-driven calls to undermine elected officials absent actual evidence at our peril . Low-trust countries do n't actually shrink the size , scope , and spending of government . Perversely , citizens call for `` government regulation , fully recognizing that such regulation leads to corruption . '' It helps to understand that Donald Trump , for all of his obvious bullshitting , flip-flops , and lies , is n't the cause of anything but the effect . The 21st century in the United States began with an election that was effectively settled by a coin toss , which does little to create faith in institutions ( especially as Republicans in Bush v. Gore appealed to the federal government , while Democrats called for state 's rights ) . Then came the 9/11 attacks , an intelligence failure compounded by a massively mendacious disinformation campaign that resulted in a Middle East quagmire , ballooning deficits , and a mind-bending bailout of mega-corporations . President Obama 's stimulus plan failed every measure it proposed as success and was capped by passage of a health-care law that ultimately spawned the `` Lie of the Year '' for 2013 . Along the way , we also had a series of national intelligence heads baldly lie about what sorts of information was being collected ( illegally , legally , does it matter ? ) on law-abiding Americans . We 've learned that police act poorly in many circumstances , that local and state governments are awful as often as they are outstanding , and that corporations ( Volkswagen ! ) will try to get away with lots of chicanery too . Of course trust in institutions is mostly at all-time lows ! That 's why Donald Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton in one of the weirdest , most-unpredictable elections ever . Trump is the function of our disillusionment and that 's one of the reasons why he is ultimately an electoral dead-end . Never a consistent conservative or Republican , he is the sterile end of 20th century politics , the last in a long line of bullies-who-will-tell-us-how-to-live that has no future . Despite some good deregulatory gestures , he is too mired in 1970s nostalgia for a world that ceased to exist even before his first divorce . That was enough to squeak by Hillary Clinton , who also did n't bother to offer a future-oriented vision for America , so secure was she in her historic victory . For the rest of us , though , especially those of us of a libertarian bent , we need not simply to expect better but to demand better . Regardless of slow economic growth throughout this century , regardless of the endless wars in which America is mired , and regardless of the ever-growing wall of petty and grand regulations and restrictions against new ways of doing business and living life , we are living in a fundamentally Libertarian Moment , one in which more and more of us are more able than ever to live where we want , work where we want , marry whom we want , eat what we want , and travel where we want . As Matt Welch and I wrote in The Declaration of Independents : How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What 's Wrong with America , politics is a lagging indicator of where America is headed . Outside of the political realm , our lives are mostly getting better . The challenge—a brutal one given current circumstances—is how to drag politics into the 21st century so that we finally leave behind two major political parties that are so awful neither of their candidates could win even 50 percent of the popular vote . One thing is clear : Cleaving to right/left , conservative/liberal , Republican/Democrat tribes in a world in which more and more people define themselves as libertarian is n't going to work . Neither will falling for fake-news narratives about Trump 's historical badness . We need a new politics that is ultimately based on policy , not personalities ; policy , not politics ; and policy , not partisanship . We need to demand more of our elected representatives and we need to start yesterday .

Well this didn't take long, did it? Donald Trump, the most-unlikely and least-liked president in the history of the United States, had barely celebrated his first 100 days when calls for his impeachment started flying faster than Anthony Weiner dick pics at a Girl Scout cookout. For the good of democracy, don't you see, the Republicans must not only be kicked to the curb in the 2018 midterms, but the president himself must be thrown into the street, just like he once tried to evict that old lady from her house in Atlantic City! In the wake of the firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose recent testimony on Hillary Clinton's emails was so flawed and incompetent that his underlings immediately issued a clarification to the Senate Judiciary Committee, virtually every non-Republican #NeverTrumper (plus Sen. John McCain, who has some good reasons to hate Trump) has called for The Donald's head on a platter. And this was all before the tantalizing possibility of a "Comey memo" detailing various attempts by Trump to shut down an investigation of possible ties between former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn and Russian operatives. But let's get real: At this point in the game, all the explainers about how impeachment works (the 1990s called, they want their sex scandals back!) and adapting the 25th Amendment's ability to remove the president from decision-making during colonoscopies to the current crisis are evidence-free exercises in ideological masturbation. If we are going to survive not just the Trump years but eventually get around to kick-starting the 21st century, we're going to have become smarter media consumers and demand more from both our politicians and the press. "The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo," explains the Paper of Record, "but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." As Reason's Scott Shackford has noted, that's what Joe Biden would call a "big fucking deal" if it turns out to exist and to be accurate. It's also a pretty big if at this point. But even before Comey's possible "paper trail" documenting President Trump's demands (which may or may not actually rise to the level of impeachable offense) came to light, his enemies were out in force. For god's sake, they wanted him impeached even before he was the Republican nominee. "An attempt to obstruct justice is an impeachable offense," huffed Andrew Sullivan in New York magazine last week. "And Trump has just openly admitted to such a thing" because "sources close to Comey" said the president-elect asked the FBI director for his "personal loyalty." What unemotional analysis. Remember that a year ago, Sullivan called the possibility of a Trump presidency an "extinction-level threat" to mom, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Elsewhere in New York, Jonathan Chait, who is as doggedly a Democratic partisan that exists in print, put out an article under the headline, "The Law Can't Stop Trump. Only Impeachment Can." Trump's high crime for Chait was the completely opaque charge that Trump shared classified intel with Russian officials visiting the White House, a charge flatly rebutted by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, who said the shared info was "wholly appropriate" and that "the president in no way compromised any sources or methods." For Chait though, and so many more either openly in "the Resistance" or just fellow-traveling, the real problem is that America never anticipated peckerwoods being in the Oval Office. "The system is set up with the unstated presumption that the president is a responsible person who will act in a broadly legitimate, competent fashion," writes Chait. "The system is designed so that the only remedy for a president who cannot faithfully act in the public interest is impeachment." Forget all that Madisonian mumbo-jumbo about "if men were angels, no government would be necessary." A real-estate developer from Queens with history's worst comb-over is about to bring the Statue of Liberty to her knees like an ISIS captive. Indeed, whether or not James Comey's memos detailing his version of Trump's perfidies against a free-and-independent FBI—you know, that august institution which has one of the very worst records among any law-enforcement agency of abusing power—The Atlantic's James Fallows has already said that the mere firing of Comey is "worse than Watergate." Think about that for a second. No one disputes the FBI director serves at the pleasure of the president and he can fire him whenever he wants. What "Watergate" revealed was not simply Richard Nixon's willingness to lie and cover up criminal activity committed on his behalf, but an entire apparatus to spy on, pervert, and undermine elected government. Assuming the worst about Trump at this point, his behavior doesn't come close to rising to that level or the actions undertaken by, say, Ronald Reagan during Iran-Contra. If anything, Trump is such an idiot that he is sealing his own fate by forcing congressional Republicans, most of whom don't particularly care for him anyway, to call for bigger and better investigations about Russian influence in the 2016 election. Short-termers such as Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz are already subpoenaing whatever memories James Comey jotted down during his generally mediocre-to-awful tenure as head of the FBI. Comey is the guy, we should recall, who tried to strong-arm Apple into undermining its phone encryption even though it was able to crack the San Bernadino's phone just fine, who gave Hillary Clinton aides immunity and allowed them to destroy their laptops, and recently attacked the First Amendment because it gave Wikileaks space to publish authentic-if-purloined documents. The best thing you can say about Comey is that he's no Louis Freeh or J. Edgar Hoover, which is the textbook case of damning with faint approbation. Needless to say, none of this absolves Donald Trump of any wrongdoing. But impeachment talk this soon and this thick is coming not from a place of seriousness but pure partisanship and ideology masquerading as disinterested belief in the public good. When the Republicans moved to impeach Bill Clinton back in the 1990s, it was the same thing and it didn't exactly work out that well for many of the main conspirators, or for the country at large. Among other things, the impeachment push indirectly led to the ouster of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, which eventuated in an actual child molester being way high up in the presidential line of succession. The impeachment of Bill Clinton was one of the major mileposts in the long, ongoing shift of America from a high-trust to a low-trust country, one in which faith, trust, and confidence in most of our major public, private, and civic institutions have taken a massive beating for decades now. Maybe it was the Warren Commission Report that got the ball rolling, or Lyndon Johnson's infamous "credibility gap." All the secret wars in Cambodia and Watergate sure didn't help and the mind-boggling revelations of the Church Commission might have the final nail in the coffin of trust. The Pinto disaster sure didn't help, nor did other revelations of private-sector fakery. You throw in freakazoid oddness such as the People's Temple, United Way scandals, and rampant Catholic Church buggery, and, well, what do you expect? Across the board, fewer and fewer of us trust the government, the media, labor, corporations, etc. to do the right thing given the option of doing the wrong thing. And get this: However unpopular Donald Trump is, Congress is even less trustworthy. Libertarians especially ignore this slide in trust and the rush to partisan-driven calls to undermine elected officials absent actual evidence at our peril. Low-trust countries don't actually shrink the size, scope, and spending of government. Perversely, citizens call for "government regulation, fully recognizing that such regulation leads to corruption." It helps to understand that Donald Trump, for all of his obvious bullshitting, flip-flops, and lies, isn't the cause of anything but the effect. The 21st century in the United States began with an election that was effectively settled by a coin toss, which does little to create faith in institutions (especially as Republicans in Bush v. Gore appealed to the federal government, while Democrats called for state's rights). Then came the 9/11 attacks, an intelligence failure compounded by a massively mendacious disinformation campaign that resulted in a Middle East quagmire, ballooning deficits, and a mind-bending bailout of mega-corporations. President Obama's stimulus plan failed every measure it proposed as success and was capped by passage of a health-care law that ultimately spawned the "Lie of the Year" for 2013. Along the way, we also had a series of national intelligence heads baldly lie about what sorts of information was being collected (illegally, legally, does it matter?) on law-abiding Americans. We've learned that police act poorly in many circumstances, that local and state governments are awful as often as they are outstanding, and that corporations (Volkswagen!) will try to get away with lots of chicanery too. Of course trust in institutions is mostly at all-time lows! That's why Donald Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton in one of the weirdest, most-unpredictable elections ever. Trump is the function of our disillusionment and that's one of the reasons why he is ultimately an electoral dead-end. Never a consistent conservative or Republican, he is the sterile end of 20th century politics, the last in a long line of bullies-who-will-tell-us-how-to-live that has no future. Despite some good deregulatory gestures, he is too mired in 1970s nostalgia for a world that ceased to exist even before his first divorce. That was enough to squeak by Hillary Clinton, who also didn't bother to offer a future-oriented vision for America, so secure was she in her historic victory. For the rest of us, though, especially those of us of a libertarian bent, we need not simply to expect better but to demand better. Regardless of slow economic growth throughout this century, regardless of the endless wars in which America is mired, and regardless of the ever-growing wall of petty and grand regulations and restrictions against new ways of doing business and living life, we are living in a fundamentally Libertarian Moment, one in which more and more of us are more able than ever to live where we want, work where we want, marry whom we want, eat what we want, and travel where we want. As Matt Welch and I wrote in The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, politics is a lagging indicator of where America is headed. Outside of the political realm, our lives are mostly getting better. The challenge—a brutal one given current circumstances—is how to drag politics into the 21st century so that we finally leave behind two major political parties that are so awful neither of their candidates could win even 50 percent of the popular vote. One thing is clear: Cleaving to right/left, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat tribes in a world in which more and more people define themselves as libertarian isn't going to work. Neither will falling for fake-news narratives about Trump's historical badness. We need a new politics that is ultimately based on policy, not personalities; policy, not politics; and policy, not partisanship. We need to demand more of our elected representatives and we need to start yesterday.

www.reason.com

right

MMRxStNGHAg1eo5P

test

o7FUZqxGszuXBAsS

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/18/trump-to-immediately-sign-as-many-as-200-executive-orders/

Trump To Immediately Sign As Many as 200 Executive Orders

2017-01-18

President-elect Donald Trump will sign as many as 200 executive orders targeting a wide range of Obama administration policies , according to Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano . Napolitano told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum Wednesday night that , based on his conversations with the president-elect , Trump could sign hundreds of regulations on his third full day in office . The judge did not say what policies were being targeted by the incoming administration . Trump has hinted he would , for example , work to repeal “ job killing ” energy regulations his first day in office . Trump ’ s also said he ’ d repeal Obama-era executive orders on immigration , and he pledged to begin dismantling the Affordable Care Act . The Trump transition team told reporters Wednesday Trump would issue just “ four to five ” executive orders on Friday after he ’ s sworn in . “ He ’ s got a few of them , probably in the area of four to five , that we ’ re looking at on Friday , ” said incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer . “ Some of it is logistical things that you have to do in terms of government operations . Then there are some other ones that I expect him to sign with regards to some other issues that have been on his priority list , ” Spicer said . But Trump will need Congress to repeal major Obama administration regulations . Congress can vote to remove some administration rules using the Congressional Review Act . Regulatory experts have identified at least 150 regulations Trump could work with Congress to repeal . Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation making it easier to repeal last-minute “ midnight ” regulations from federal agencies , and a bill mandating costly regulations get congressional approval before becoming law .

President-elect Donald Trump will sign as many as 200 executive orders targeting a wide range of Obama administration policies, according to Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum Wednesday night that, based on his conversations with the president-elect, Trump could sign hundreds of regulations on his third full day in office. The judge did not say what policies were being targeted by the incoming administration. Trump has hinted he would, for example, work to repeal “job killing” energy regulations his first day in office. Trump’s also said he’d repeal Obama-era executive orders on immigration, and he pledged to begin dismantling the Affordable Care Act. The Trump transition team told reporters Wednesday Trump would issue just “four to five” executive orders on Friday after he’s sworn in. “He’s got a few of them, probably in the area of four to five, that we’re looking at on Friday,” said incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. WATCH: Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a> “Some of it is logistical things that you have to do in terms of government operations. Then there are some other ones that I expect him to sign with regards to some other issues that have been on his priority list,” Spicer said. But Trump will need Congress to repeal major Obama administration regulations. Congress can vote to remove some administration rules using the Congressional Review Act. Regulatory experts have identified at least 150 regulations Trump could work with Congress to repeal. Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation making it easier to repeal last-minute “midnight” regulations from federal agencies, and a bill mandating costly regulations get congressional approval before becoming law. Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

o7FUZqxGszuXBAsS

test

x6h3comWmSHKEeIs

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/report-trump-jr-allegedly-said-in-email-russia-was-behind-anti-hillary-info/

Report: Trump Jr. Allegedly Told In Email Russia Was Behind Anti-Hillary Info

2017-07-10

Donald Trump Jr. was allegedly informed in an email of a Russian government effort to help his father prior to meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer , according to a Monday night New York Times report . It was recently revealed that Trump Jr. had met with Natalia Veselnitskaya , a Russian lawyer , on June 9 , 2016 because she had promised him that she had damaging information that might hurt Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential campaign . Trump Jr. admitted that he sought the information , but claimed he did not know that the person he was meeting had connections to the Russian government prior to the meeting . “ I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign , ” Trump Jr. said . “ I was not told her name prior to the meeting . I asked Jared and Paul to attend , but told them nothing of the substance . ” However , it is now being reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before arranging the meeting that the Russian government was behind the damaging information , according to three NYT sources with knowledge of the email . The email was allegedly sent by Rob Goldstone , a British reporter who helped Trump Jr. arrange the meeting back in June . According to the three sources , the email indicates that the damaging Clinton information came from the Russian government but does not indicate if they procured the information from the Democratic National Committee hack . “ Obviously I ’ m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen , ” Trump Jr. previously wrote in one tweet about the meeting . “ No inconsistency in statements , meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions , ” he said in another tweet , backing up claims he had made that his meeting with Veselnitskaya centered on Russian adoptions . “ In response to further Q ’ s I simply provided more details . ” Goldstone , who allegedly wrote the email to Trump Jr. , also denied knowing if the Russian government had anything to do with the information . Interestingly , one of NYT ’ s sources said it appeared that Goldstone was simply passing along information he had been given by others . Further attempts by the NYT to reach Goldstone were unsuccessful , leaving questions as to how Goldstone would have authored an email without fully reading or understanding its contents .

Donald Trump Jr. was allegedly informed in an email of a Russian government effort to help his father prior to meeting with a Kremlin-connected lawyer, according to a Monday night New York Times report. It was recently revealed that Trump Jr. had met with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer, on June 9, 2016 because she had promised him that she had damaging information that might hurt Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Trump Jr. admitted that he sought the information, but claimed he did not know that the person he was meeting had connections to the Russian government prior to the meeting. “I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign,” Trump Jr. said. “I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance.” However, it is now being reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before arranging the meeting that the Russian government was behind the damaging information, according to three NYT sources with knowledge of the email. The email was allegedly sent by Rob Goldstone, a British reporter who helped Trump Jr. arrange the meeting back in June. According to the three sources, the email indicates that the damaging Clinton information came from the Russian government but does not indicate if they procured the information from the Democratic National Committee hack. “Obviously I’m the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent… went nowhere but had to listen,” Trump Jr. previously wrote in one tweet about the meeting. “No inconsistency in statements, meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions,” he said in another tweet, backing up claims he had made that his meeting with Veselnitskaya centered on Russian adoptions. “In response to further Q’s I simply provided more details.” Goldstone, who allegedly wrote the email to Trump Jr., also denied knowing if the Russian government had anything to do with the information. Interestingly, one of NYT’s sources said it appeared that Goldstone was simply passing along information he had been given by others. Further attempts by the NYT to reach Goldstone were unsuccessful, leaving questions as to how Goldstone would have authored an email without fully reading or understanding its contents. Follow Amber on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

x6h3comWmSHKEeIs

test

EaidlP0XFMIS6h2Y

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/c1a934e699054e118ca8c9ecf0fea2d7

Prosecutor: Dallas officer’s testimony ‘absurd,’ ‘garbage’

2019-10-01

Jake Bleiberg

Former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger listens to the prosecutions ' closing arguments in her murder trial in the 204th District Court at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas , Monday , September 30 , 2019 . Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean , an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor in his own apartment last year . She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder . ( Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP , Pool ) Former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger listens to the prosecutions ' closing arguments in her murder trial in the 204th District Court at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas , Monday , September 30 , 2019 . Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean , an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor in his own apartment last year . She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder . ( Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP , Pool ) DALLAS ( AP ) — A prosecutor on Monday dismissed as garbage a former Dallas police officer ’ s claim that she believed she was in her own apartment when she fatally shot a neighbor in his home . Assistant District Attorney Jason Fine used his closing argument to describe Amber Guyger as “ an intruder ” who killed Botham Jean in his apartment — one floor above hers — last September . Guyger tearfully testified last week that she mistook Jean ’ s apartment for her own after a long shift . Speaking publicly for the first time about the events of that night , she said she found the door of what she believed was her apartment unlocked and was afraid that someone had broken in . She said she feared for her life and opened fire using her service weapon when a silhouetted figure walked toward her in the dark . “ Most of what she said was garbage , ” Fine said Monday . Defense attorney Toby Shook said Monday that Guyger made “ a series of horrible mistakes ” that were entirely understandable . He noted that other residents have also gone to the wrong apartments in that complex after parking on the wrong floor . Lead prosecutor Jason Hermus said Guyger should have known she was outside the wrong apartment — at which point she drew her gun — because of the distinctive bright red doormat that lay at the entrance to Jean ’ s home . “ You can ’ t miss this , ” he said , holding it up for jurors . And even if she missed the obvious signs that this wasn ’ t her home , Guyger should have retreated and called for backup when she found the door unlocked , instead of forging forward and opening fire , Hermus said . “ For Amber Guyger , Mr. Jean was dead before that door ever opened , ” he said . “ It sounds so absurd — all of the things that she missed and all of the things that she thought , ” Fine said . The jury can find Guyger guilty of murder , manslaughter or no crime . They deliberated Monday afternoon until 5 p.m. and were expected to resume at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday . In her testimony Friday , the 31-year-old Guyger , who is white , repeatedly apologized for killing Jean , a black accountant from the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia who lived a floor above her . “ I hate that I have to live with this every single day of my life and I ask God for forgiveness , and I hate myself every single day , ” she said as she looked across the courtroom at Jean ’ s family . Prosecutors said Jean was unarmed and eating a bowl of vanilla ice cream in his living room when Guyger killed him . Guyger was arrested on a manslaughter charge three days after the killing . She was later fired and charged with murder . Lee Merritt , an attorney for Jean ’ s family , said the evidence proved Guyger is guilty and that the jury will have to weigh whether Jean ’ s life mattered .

Former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger listens to the prosecutions' closing arguments in her murder trial in the 204th District Court at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas, Monday, September 30, 2019. Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean, an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor in his own apartment last year. She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP, Pool) Former Dallas police Officer Amber Guyger listens to the prosecutions' closing arguments in her murder trial in the 204th District Court at the Frank Crowley Courts Building in Dallas, Monday, September 30, 2019. Guyger shot and killed Botham Jean, an unarmed 26-year-old neighbor in his own apartment last year. She told police she thought his apartment was her own and that he was an intruder. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News via AP, Pool) DALLAS (AP) — A prosecutor on Monday dismissed as garbage a former Dallas police officer’s claim that she believed she was in her own apartment when she fatally shot a neighbor in his home. Assistant District Attorney Jason Fine used his closing argument to describe Amber Guyger as “an intruder” who killed Botham Jean in his apartment — one floor above hers — last September. Full Coverage: Mistaken Apartment Shooting Guyger tearfully testified last week that she mistook Jean’s apartment for her own after a long shift. Speaking publicly for the first time about the events of that night, she said she found the door of what she believed was her apartment unlocked and was afraid that someone had broken in. She said she feared for her life and opened fire using her service weapon when a silhouetted figure walked toward her in the dark. “Most of what she said was garbage,” Fine said Monday. Defense attorney Toby Shook said Monday that Guyger made “a series of horrible mistakes” that were entirely understandable. He noted that other residents have also gone to the wrong apartments in that complex after parking on the wrong floor. Lead prosecutor Jason Hermus said Guyger should have known she was outside the wrong apartment — at which point she drew her gun — because of the distinctive bright red doormat that lay at the entrance to Jean’s home. “You can’t miss this,” he said, holding it up for jurors. And even if she missed the obvious signs that this wasn’t her home, Guyger should have retreated and called for backup when she found the door unlocked, instead of forging forward and opening fire, Hermus said. “For Amber Guyger, Mr. Jean was dead before that door ever opened,” he said. “It sounds so absurd — all of the things that she missed and all of the things that she thought,” Fine said. The jury can find Guyger guilty of murder, manslaughter or no crime. They deliberated Monday afternoon until 5 p.m. and were expected to resume at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. In her testimony Friday, the 31-year-old Guyger, who is white, repeatedly apologized for killing Jean, a black accountant from the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia who lived a floor above her. “I hate that I have to live with this every single day of my life and I ask God for forgiveness, and I hate myself every single day,” she said as she looked across the courtroom at Jean’s family. Prosecutors said Jean was unarmed and eating a bowl of vanilla ice cream in his living room when Guyger killed him. Guyger was arrested on a manslaughter charge three days after the killing. She was later fired and charged with murder . Lee Merritt, an attorney for Jean’s family, said the evidence proved Guyger is guilty and that the jury will have to weigh whether Jean’s life mattered. ___ Associated Press writer Jamie Stengle contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

EaidlP0XFMIS6h2Y

test

OWRvK6lOTFQVq1Dw

politics

Dick Morris

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/23/dick-morris-james-comey-leader-coup/

Dick Morris: Was James Comey the Leader of the Coup?

2017-08-23

The following excerpt is from Rogue Spooks : The Intelligence War on Donald Trump by ███ and Eileen McGann , published by arrangement with All Points Books , an imprint of St. Martin ’ s Press , a division of Macmillan Publishers . It began with an unverified dossier compiled by Christopher Steele , the former MI6 spy who was hired by a U.S. opposition research firm and paid by Hillary Clinton supporters to find dirt connecting Donald Trump with the Kremlin during the campaign . In retrospect , this highly flawed dossier was the catalyst that triggered everything else . A loss leader . False though it may have been , its allegations were sufficiently outrageous and sensational to attract the kind of nonstop media attention necessary to put the phony issue of a Trump-Putin arrangement on the front pages . We still don ’ t know who was behind the dossier . We don ’ t know the identities of the Hillary supporters who paid for it . More important , we don ’ t know who actually made up the allegations that have been proven false and were passed to Steele . Who went to all that trouble ? It seems unlikely that the Russians would implicate themselves , but they certainly might have . Was it rogue British—and/or U.S.—spooks ? Spies from other countries ? If Steele played the main role in assembling the dossier , who brought it to the public ’ s attention ? There were a number of people who definitely helped out . But more than anyone else , it was former FBI director James Comey who insisted on bringing the unsubstantiated document to the attention of President Obama and congressional leaders , which ultimately led to its widespread publication . And he , more than anyone else , knew how unreliable the document was , but he passed it on anyway . The FBI had actually offered to pay Steele $ 50,000 to help them verify the allegations in the dossier . They ended up paying him expenses ( while he was still working for the Hillary supporters right in the middle of the campaign ) . When the New York Times reported that anonymous government officials alleged that Trump campaign associates had “ repeated contacts with Russian intelligence , ” Comey stayed on the sidelines and didn ’ t correct or clarify the story . Did the FBI know that the story wasn ’ t true ? According to the White House , it was Comey ’ s deputy , Andew McCabe , who had assured Trump ’ s chief of staff that the Times story was “ BS ” but who later reportedly said , “ We ’ d love to help but we can ’ t get into the position of making statements on every story . ” So , with no comment from the FBI , the claims that Trump aides were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence entered into the bloodstream of the Trump-Russia story line . And , knowing that Trump was not under investigation , Comey deliberately leaked his own memos about his private meetings with President Trump , no doubt expecting they would trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor . Why was Comey so invested in the anti-Trump dossier ? And how did his relationships with others help kickstart this massive investigation that got so out of hand and so off track ? There is little doubt that Comey has an exalted self-image . Does he think he is the last good man on earth ? Sometimes it looks like that . Others in Washington may wallow in half-truths , evasions , and corruption , but sometimes it seems that Comey believes he stands like a beacon above them all , a model of honesty and integrity . Is he really that , or is he a headline hunter ? Comey seems addicted to the limelight . His career has been a parade of revolving headlines , always with Comey center stage , accompanied by an adrenaline rush from the publicity and controversy . To the outside observer , he looks like he ’ s suffering from an inside-the-Beltway strain of attention deficit disorder ( ADD ) —when he doesn ’ t get enough attention , he becomes disordered . The coup progressed when the unverified allegations in Steele ’ s dossier went public . But when Steele had first tried to pitch it to media outlets , he came up cold . They wouldn ’ t touch it without verification and proof . So Steele and his colleagues asked Senator John McCain for help . With the senator ’ s intervention , Steele got the dossier to Comey . It was Comey who considered the dossier “ so important that he insisted the document be included in January ’ s final intelligence community report on Russian meddling in the U.S. election. ” That got it distributed to the president and leaders of Congress . Comey had to know that the very act of giving a summary of the dossier to the president and Congress would lead to its leaking and publication all over the Internet . He once testified that he knew how Congress works—you give them something confidential and they leak it . So he was not blind to the likely consequences of his actions . Once the dossier leaked , the other half of the new Intel/Media complex kicked in , as every major news organ breathlessly featured each new leak by the rogue spooks to give the impression that the president was nothing more than a desperate criminal trying to cover up his fraud during the election . Trump knew he had done nothing wrong and had been assured several times by Comey in private that he was not under investigation personally . But all this noise was getting in the way of the real progress he wanted to make . He couldn ’ t be an effective president with this nonsense—which he knew had no basis in fact—obscuring his presidency . Confronted with this kind of false narrative overshadowing his administration , it was predictable that Donald Trump , activist that he is , would ask for a public affirmation of exactly what he had been told in private—that he was not under investigation . After all , he knew they wouldn ’ t find anything . That there was nothing to find . But Comey did not comply with that request . Instead , Trump ’ s intervention created a new narrative : The president was obstructing justice . After Comey met with the president , he wrote a memo to himself about their discussion . In his telling , it sounded as if Trump had leaned on him to discontinue his investigations of former national security advisor Mike Flynn . But that wasn ’ t the end of it . Comey , no stranger to the ways of Washington , leaked the memo through a friend to the New York Times . We don ’ t have to speculate what his goal was . He explained it himself : “ I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. ” He got fired in the process , but no matter , that goal was achieved : A special prosecutor was now inevitable . Attorney General Jeff Sessions—a loyal Trump friend—had already removed himself from the process surrounding the Russian investigation , and thus could not appoint a special prosecutor . Instead , it was done by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , a step down in the food chain . He named Robert S. Mueller , former head of the FBI . But Mueller has a problem—there is no evidence that the president actually conspired with Putin . Comey had already told Trump that he was not under investigation several times . Now , instead , the investigation shifted to whether Trump obstructed justice by asking his appointees to bring the Russia investigation to an end ( the same investigation in which he was not a target ) . And now , Mueller can use the license of the special prosecutor to probe any other crimes he comes across . Now Donald Trump ’ s entire life and all his business dealings will be open to scrutiny and prosecution by a special prosecutor . Already , leaks are flowing into the media from what appears to be Mueller ’ s office , so that the president will be tried in the press before any issue gets to Congress . What a scenario for impeachment . What a way to plan a coup ! From Rogue Spooks : The Intelligence War on Donald Trump by ███ and Eileen McGann , published by arrangement with All Points Books , an imprint of St. Martin ’ s Press , a division of Macmillan Publishers . Copyright © 2017 by ███ and Eileen McGann .

The following excerpt is from Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, published by arrangement with All Points Books, an imprint of St. Martin’s Press, a division of Macmillan Publishers. *** Who Is Behind The Intelligence Coup? It began with an unverified dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, the former MI6 spy who was hired by a U.S. opposition research firm and paid by Hillary Clinton supporters to find dirt connecting Donald Trump with the Kremlin during the campaign. In retrospect, this highly flawed dossier was the catalyst that triggered everything else. A loss leader. False though it may have been, its allegations were sufficiently outrageous and sensational to attract the kind of nonstop media attention necessary to put the phony issue of a Trump-Putin arrangement on the front pages. We still don’t know who was behind the dossier. We don’t know the identities of the Hillary supporters who paid for it. More important, we don’t know who actually made up the allegations that have been proven false and were passed to Steele. Who went to all that trouble? It seems unlikely that the Russians would implicate themselves, but they certainly might have. Was it rogue British—and/or U.S.—spooks? Spies from other countries? The Democratic/Hillary Clinton supporters? Political operatives? If Steele played the main role in assembling the dossier, who brought it to the public’s attention? There were a number of people who definitely helped out. But more than anyone else, it was former FBI director James Comey who insisted on bringing the unsubstantiated document to the attention of President Obama and congressional leaders, which ultimately led to its widespread publication. And he, more than anyone else, knew how unreliable the document was, but he passed it on anyway. The FBI had actually offered to pay Steele $50,000 to help them verify the allegations in the dossier. They ended up paying him expenses (while he was still working for the Hillary supporters right in the middle of the campaign). When the New York Times reported that anonymous government officials alleged that Trump campaign associates had “repeated contacts with Russian intelligence,” Comey stayed on the sidelines and didn’t correct or clarify the story. Did the FBI know that the story wasn’t true? According to the White House, it was Comey’s deputy, Andew McCabe, who had assured Trump’s chief of staff that the Times story was “BS” but who later reportedly said, “We’d love to help but we can’t get into the position of making statements on every story.” So, with no comment from the FBI, the claims that Trump aides were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence entered into the bloodstream of the Trump-Russia story line. And, knowing that Trump was not under investigation, Comey deliberately leaked his own memos about his private meetings with President Trump, no doubt expecting they would trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor. He succeeded. Why was Comey so invested in the anti-Trump dossier? And how did his relationships with others help kickstart this massive investigation that got so out of hand and so off track? There is little doubt that Comey has an exalted self-image. Does he think he is the last good man on earth? Sometimes it looks like that. Others in Washington may wallow in half-truths, evasions, and corruption, but sometimes it seems that Comey believes he stands like a beacon above them all, a model of honesty and integrity. Is he really that, or is he a headline hunter? Comey seems addicted to the limelight. His career has been a parade of revolving headlines, always with Comey center stage, accompanied by an adrenaline rush from the publicity and controversy. To the outside observer, he looks like he’s suffering from an inside-the-Beltway strain of attention deficit disorder (ADD)—when he doesn’t get enough attention, he becomes disordered. Don’t get between Comey and a camera. How the Coup is Unfolding The coup progressed when the unverified allegations in Steele’s dossier went public. But when Steele had first tried to pitch it to media outlets, he came up cold. They wouldn’t touch it without verification and proof. So Steele and his colleagues asked Senator John McCain for help. With the senator’s intervention, Steele got the dossier to Comey. It was Comey who considered the dossier “so important that he insisted the document be included in January’s final intelligence community report on Russian meddling in the U.S. election.” That got it distributed to the president and leaders of Congress. Comey had to know that the very act of giving a summary of the dossier to the president and Congress would lead to its leaking and publication all over the Internet. He once testified that he knew how Congress works—you give them something confidential and they leak it. So he was not blind to the likely consequences of his actions. Once the dossier leaked, the other half of the new Intel/Media complex kicked in, as every major news organ breathlessly featured each new leak by the rogue spooks to give the impression that the president was nothing more than a desperate criminal trying to cover up his fraud during the election. Trump knew he had done nothing wrong and had been assured several times by Comey in private that he was not under investigation personally. But all this noise was getting in the way of the real progress he wanted to make. He couldn’t be an effective president with this nonsense—which he knew had no basis in fact—obscuring his presidency. Confronted with this kind of false narrative overshadowing his administration, it was predictable that Donald Trump, activist that he is, would ask for a public affirmation of exactly what he had been told in private—that he was not under investigation. After all, he knew they wouldn’t find anything. That there was nothing to find. But Comey did not comply with that request. Instead, Trump’s intervention created a new narrative: The president was obstructing justice. After Comey met with the president, he wrote a memo to himself about their discussion. In his telling, it sounded as if Trump had leaned on him to discontinue his investigations of former national security advisor Mike Flynn. But that wasn’t the end of it. Comey, no stranger to the ways of Washington, leaked the memo through a friend to the New York Times. We don’t have to speculate what his goal was. He explained it himself: “I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” He got fired in the process, but no matter, that goal was achieved: A special prosecutor was now inevitable. But who? Attorney General Jeff Sessions—a loyal Trump friend—had already removed himself from the process surrounding the Russian investigation, and thus could not appoint a special prosecutor. Instead, it was done by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a step down in the food chain. He named Robert S. Mueller, former head of the FBI. But Mueller has a problem—there is no evidence that the president actually conspired with Putin. Comey had already told Trump that he was not under investigation several times. Now, instead, the investigation shifted to whether Trump obstructed justice by asking his appointees to bring the Russia investigation to an end (the same investigation in which he was not a target). And now, Mueller can use the license of the special prosecutor to probe any other crimes he comes across. Now Donald Trump’s entire life and all his business dealings will be open to scrutiny and prosecution by a special prosecutor. Already, leaks are flowing into the media from what appears to be Mueller’s office, so that the president will be tried in the press before any issue gets to Congress. What a scenario for impeachment. What a way to plan a coup! From Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, published by arrangement with All Points Books, an imprint of St. Martin’s Press, a division of Macmillan Publishers. Copyright © 2017 by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.

www.breitbart.com

right

OWRvK6lOTFQVq1Dw

test

hJeSRa5h1h7xDwcc

race_and_racism

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/us/us-george-floyd-death-investigation/2020/06/08/id/971092/

Officer Charged in Floyd's Death Has 1st Court Appearance

2020-06-08

Steve Karnowski

A judge on Monday set $ 1 million bail for a Minneapolis police officer charged with second-degree murder in George Floyd 's death . Derek Chauvin , 44 , said almost nothing during an 11-minute hearing in which he appeared before Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly on closed-circuit television from the state 's maximum security prison in Oak Park Heights . His attorney , Eric Nelson , did not contest the bail — raised from the $ 500,000 initially set in the case — and did n't address the substance of the charges , which also include third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter . Chauvin 's next appearance was set for June 29 at 1:30 p.m . Floyd , a handcuffed black man , died May 25 after the white police officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after Floyd stopped moving and pleading for air . His death set off protests , some violent , in Minneapolis that swiftly spread to cities around the U.S. and the globe . Chauvin and three other officers on the scene were fired the day after Floyd 's death . The other three officers — J. Kueng , Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — are charged with aiding and abetting . They remain in the Hennepin County jail on $ 750,000 bond . Lane ’ s family has set up a website seeking donations to help him post bond . The site highlights Lane ’ s relative lack of experience -- he had only recently completed his probationary period -- and his questions to Chauvin about whether Floyd should be rolled onto his side . It also noted his volunteer work . Floyd 's death has ignited calls to reform the Minneapolis Police Department , which community activists have long accused of entrenched racial discrimination and brutality . A majority of Minneapolis City Council members said Sunday that they favor disbanding the department entirely , though they have yet to offer concrete plans for what would replace it . “ Nobody is saying we want to abolish health or safety , ” Council Member Alondra Cano told WCCO-AM on Monday . “ What we are saying is we have a broken system that is not producing the outcomes we want . ” The state last week launched a civil rights investigation of the department . On Friday , the council approved a stipulated agreement that immediately banned the use of chokeholds and neck restraints and included several other changes . That investigation is ongoing .

A judge on Monday set $1 million bail for a Minneapolis police officer charged with second-degree murder in George Floyd's death. Derek Chauvin, 44, said almost nothing during an 11-minute hearing in which he appeared before Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly on closed-circuit television from the state's maximum security prison in Oak Park Heights. His attorney, Eric Nelson, did not contest the bail — raised from the $500,000 initially set in the case — and didn't address the substance of the charges, which also include third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Nelson did not speak with reporters afterward. Chauvin's next appearance was set for June 29 at 1:30 p.m. Floyd, a handcuffed black man, died May 25 after the white police officer pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes even after Floyd stopped moving and pleading for air. His death set off protests, some violent, in Minneapolis that swiftly spread to cities around the U.S. and the globe. Chauvin and three other officers on the scene were fired the day after Floyd's death. The other three officers — J. Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao — are charged with aiding and abetting. They remain in the Hennepin County jail on $750,000 bond. Lane’s family has set up a website seeking donations to help him post bond. The site highlights Lane’s relative lack of experience -- he had only recently completed his probationary period -- and his questions to Chauvin about whether Floyd should be rolled onto his side. It also noted his volunteer work. Floyd's death has ignited calls to reform the Minneapolis Police Department, which community activists have long accused of entrenched racial discrimination and brutality. A majority of Minneapolis City Council members said Sunday that they favor disbanding the department entirely, though they have yet to offer concrete plans for what would replace it. “Nobody is saying we want to abolish health or safety,” Council Member Alondra Cano told WCCO-AM on Monday. “What we are saying is we have a broken system that is not producing the outcomes we want.” The state last week launched a civil rights investigation of the department. On Friday, the council approved a stipulated agreement that immediately banned the use of chokeholds and neck restraints and included several other changes. That investigation is ongoing.

www.newsmax.com

right

hJeSRa5h1h7xDwcc

test

SU5pZwW2eqv9URqO

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/05/forced-spending-cuts-cutting-into-obamas-numbers/

Forced spending cuts cutting into Obama's numbers?

2013-03-05

Washington ( CNN ) - President Barack Obama 's approval rating appears to be edging down . A new CNN Poll of Polls , which averages the most recent non-partisan , live operator , national surveys on the president 's approval rating , puts Obama 's approval at 48 % approval , with 45 % saying they disapprove of the job he 's doing in the White House . That 48 % approval rating is down four points from a CNN Polls of Polls from mid-February which had the president at 52 % . But even while the president 's approval appears to be dipping , his numbers are still way above where Congress , and the Republican Party , are registering in the minds of Americans . The new average of the president 's approval rating comes as another national poll indicates a decline in Obama 's advantage over Republicans in Congress when it comes to who 's to blame for the failure to avert the forced federal spending cuts . And according to that survey , by CBS News , a majority now say they will be affected by the cuts , known inside the Beltway as the sequester . `` Washington sure is n't making it easier , '' the president said Friday , speaking to reporters hours before the forced spending cuts started to take effect . And the new polling suggests that Americans agree and may be taking some of their frustrations out on the president . The new CNN Polls of Polls , compiled and released Tuesday , is an average of three surveys conducted in the last week and a half , leading up to and just after the start of the forced spending cuts . During this period there was an explosion of news regarding the forced spending cuts . The surveys included in the average are Gallup daily tracking poll ( March 2-4 ) ; Fox News ( Feb. 25-27 ) and NBC News/Wall Street Journal ( Feb. 21-24 ) . The CNN Poll of Polls from mid-February came during a period when there were less headlines regarding the forced spending cuts . The poll averaged four mostly different surveys : Gallup daily tracking poll ( Feb. 17-20 ) ; Bloomberg ( Feb. 15-18 ) ; Pew Research/USA Today ( Feb. 13-18 ) ; and American Research Group ( Feb. 17-20 ) . It appears to be mostly from Gallup 's Daily Tracking Poll , which had the president at or slightly above 50 % from mid-January until this past weekend , when his numbers dropped four points in one day ( right as the force spending cuts took affect ) . Gallup 's latest number has the president 's approval rating slightly rebounding to 49 % . The new CNN Poll of Poll average also includes Fox News ( 46 % ) and NBC/WSJ ( 50 % ) . The previous CNN Poll of Polls from mid-February included earlier surveys which mostly had the president at or above 50 % : Bloomberg ( 55 % ) ; Pew/USA Today ( 51 % ) ; Gallup Daily Tracking ( 51 % ) and ARG ( 49 % ) . `` A few days ago , the Gallup tracking poll dropped four points overnight , and now is up three points in a single day . It 's possible that this is due to dramatic fluctuations in public opinion , but it 's more likely that it 's the result of an inherent problem with all tracking polls , '' said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` A close reading of the numbers suggests that Gallup got an extremely low number for Obama on March 1 that was extremely different than the one-night results on every other day of the week . If we ignore the three-day averages that include March 1 , we see Obama at 51 % late last week and at 49 % now - fairly stable results that suggest a small decline rather than the nosedive that appeared to be in progress only a day ago . This is a good indication of the pitfalls inherent in any tracking poll methodology . '' The approval rating numbers came up in Tuesday 's press briefing at the White House , with Press Secretary Jay Carney warning of `` the folly of chasing one poll 's results and making grand conclusions about it . '' Besides the president 's approval rating , the new CBS survey has an interesting finding on the blame game over the forced spending cuts . According to the poll , 38 % said they would place more blame on the GOP in Congress over the failure to avert the cuts , with 33 % saying they 'd point more fingers at the president and Democrats in Congress , and nearly one in five saying both sides deserve equal blame . The president 's five point advantage over congressional Republicans on the blame game is down from a 13 point advantage he held in a Pew Research Center/Washington Post survey conducted late last month . The new CBS poll also indicates that a majority ( 53 % ) say they 'll be affected by the forced spending cuts . That level is higher than in previous surveys from other organizations . While the president 's poll numbers are edging down , he would still have a long way to go to be in the company of Congress . The approval rating for Congress was in the mid-teens in national surveys from Gallup , CBS , and Fox conducted last month . And the approval ratings for Republicans in Congress are about 10-15 points lower than their Democratic counterparts . And a recent Pew Research Center poll indicated that a majority of Americans said the GOP was out of touch and too extreme in its positions .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - President Barack Obama's approval rating appears to be edging down. A new CNN Poll of Polls, which averages the most recent non-partisan, live operator, national surveys on the president's approval rating, puts Obama's approval at 48% approval, with 45% saying they disapprove of the job he's doing in the White House. That 48% approval rating is down four points from a CNN Polls of Polls from mid-February which had the president at 52%. Follow @politicalticker But even while the president's approval appears to be dipping, his numbers are still way above where Congress, and the Republican Party, are registering in the minds of Americans. The new average of the president's approval rating comes as another national poll indicates a decline in Obama's advantage over Republicans in Congress when it comes to who's to blame for the failure to avert the forced federal spending cuts. And according to that survey, by CBS News, a majority now say they will be affected by the cuts, known inside the Beltway as the sequester. "Washington sure isn't making it easier," the president said Friday, speaking to reporters hours before the forced spending cuts started to take effect. And the new polling suggests that Americans agree and may be taking some of their frustrations out on the president. The new CNN Polls of Polls, compiled and released Tuesday, is an average of three surveys conducted in the last week and a half, leading up to and just after the start of the forced spending cuts. During this period there was an explosion of news regarding the forced spending cuts. The surveys included in the average are Gallup daily tracking poll (March 2-4); Fox News (Feb. 25-27) and NBC News/Wall Street Journal (Feb. 21-24). The CNN Poll of Polls from mid-February came during a period when there were less headlines regarding the forced spending cuts. The poll averaged four mostly different surveys: Gallup daily tracking poll (Feb. 17-20); Bloomberg (Feb. 15-18); Pew Research/USA Today (Feb. 13-18); and American Research Group (Feb. 17-20). So why the drop? It appears to be mostly from Gallup's Daily Tracking Poll, which had the president at or slightly above 50% from mid-January until this past weekend, when his numbers dropped four points in one day (right as the force spending cuts took affect). Gallup's latest number has the president's approval rating slightly rebounding to 49%. The new CNN Poll of Poll average also includes Fox News (46%) and NBC/WSJ (50%). The previous CNN Poll of Polls from mid-February included earlier surveys which mostly had the president at or above 50%: Bloomberg (55%); Pew/USA Today (51%); Gallup Daily Tracking (51%) and ARG (49%). "A few days ago, the Gallup tracking poll dropped four points overnight, and now is up three points in a single day. It's possible that this is due to dramatic fluctuations in public opinion, but it's more likely that it's the result of an inherent problem with all tracking polls," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A close reading of the numbers suggests that Gallup got an extremely low number for Obama on March 1 that was extremely different than the one-night results on every other day of the week. If we ignore the three-day averages that include March 1, we see Obama at 51% late last week and at 49% now - fairly stable results that suggest a small decline rather than the nosedive that appeared to be in progress only a day ago. This is a good indication of the pitfalls inherent in any tracking poll methodology." The approval rating numbers came up in Tuesday's press briefing at the White House, with Press Secretary Jay Carney warning of "the folly of chasing one poll's results and making grand conclusions about it." Besides the president's approval rating, the new CBS survey has an interesting finding on the blame game over the forced spending cuts. According to the poll, 38% said they would place more blame on the GOP in Congress over the failure to avert the cuts, with 33% saying they'd point more fingers at the president and Democrats in Congress, and nearly one in five saying both sides deserve equal blame. The president's five point advantage over congressional Republicans on the blame game is down from a 13 point advantage he held in a Pew Research Center/Washington Post survey conducted late last month. The new CBS poll also indicates that a majority (53%) say they'll be affected by the forced spending cuts. That level is higher than in previous surveys from other organizations. While the president's poll numbers are edging down, he would still have a long way to go to be in the company of Congress. The approval rating for Congress was in the mid-teens in national surveys from Gallup, CBS, and Fox conducted last month. And the approval ratings for Republicans in Congress are about 10-15 points lower than their Democratic counterparts. And a recent Pew Research Center poll indicated that a majority of Americans said the GOP was out of touch and too extreme in its positions.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

SU5pZwW2eqv9URqO

test

yNwNLDuHTnaTAibJ

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/january/mitt-romney-vs-jerry-falwell-jr-two-takes-on-trump-derangement-syndrome

Mitt Romney vs Jerry Falwell, Jr: Two Takes on 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'

2019-01-02

Just days away from joining the Senate 's Republican majority , Sen.-elect Mitt Romney broadly criticized President Donald Trump 's policies and character and argued that the president `` has not risen to the mantle of the office . '' `` With the nation so divided , resentful and angry , presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable . And it is in this province where the incumbent 's shortfall has been most glaring , '' Romney writes in a Washington Post op-ed . Trump 's campaign manager Brad Parscale replied to Romney in a tweet Tuesday night saying Romney 's just jealous because he was incapable of rescuing America while Trump `` has saved it . `` `` The truth is @ MittRomney lacked the ability to save this nation . @ realDonaldTrump has saved it . Jealously is a drink best served warm and Romney just proved it . So sad , I wish everyone had the courage @ realDonaldTrump had , '' he said . The truth is @ MittRomney lacked the ability to save this nation . @ realDonaldTrump has saved it . Jealously is a drink best served warm and Romney just proved it . So sad , I wish everyone had the courage @ realDonaldTrump had . https : //t.co/mbxoTqbSX6 — Brad Parscale ( @ parscale ) January 2 , 2019 Romney 's critique is getting full coverage on all the national media which has been openly hostile to Trump all along . The Media Research Center says Trump-bashing by the media itself was extreme in 2018 and it has a name – `` Trump Derangement Syndrome . '' ███ News 's Charlene Aaron talked with MRC 's Tim Graham about the facts behind their findings . The video will soon be posted above with more on the media 's anti-Trump bias . Meanwhile , Jerry Falwell , Jr. says he ca n't imagine President Trump `` doing anything that 's not good for the country . '' The president of Liberty University made the comment in an interview with the Washington Post where he talked about evangelicals and politics . He was asked if it 's hypocritical for evangelical leaders to support someone who has a past like Donald Trump . Falwell replied that you ca n't just choose a president based on their personal behavior . He said , `` So you do n't choose a president based on how good they are ; you choose a president based on what their policies are . That 's why I do n't think it 's hypocritical . ''

Just days away from joining the Senate's Republican majority, Sen.-elect Mitt Romney broadly criticized President Donald Trump's policies and character and argued that the president "has not risen to the mantle of the office." "With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent's shortfall has been most glaring," Romney writes in a Washington Post op-ed. Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale replied to Romney in a tweet Tuesday night saying Romney's just jealous because he was incapable of rescuing America while Trump "has saved it.""The truth is @MittRomney lacked the ability to save this nation. @realDonaldTrump has saved it. Jealously is a drink best served warm and Romney just proved it. So sad, I wish everyone had the courage @realDonaldTrump had," he said. The truth is @MittRomney lacked the ability to save this nation. @realDonaldTrump has saved it. Jealously is a drink best served warm and Romney just proved it. So sad, I wish everyone had the courage @realDonaldTrump had. https://t.co/mbxoTqbSX6 — Brad Parscale (@parscale) January 2, 2019 Romney's critique is getting full coverage on all the national media which has been openly hostile to Trump all along. The Media Research Center says Trump-bashing by the media itself was extreme in 2018 and it has a name – "Trump Derangement Syndrome." CBN News's Charlene Aaron talked with MRC's Tim Graham about the facts behind their findings. The video will soon be posted above with more on the media's anti-Trump bias. Meanwhile, Jerry Falwell, Jr. says he can't imagine President Trump "doing anything that's not good for the country." The president of Liberty University made the comment in an interview with the Washington Post where he talked about evangelicals and politics. He was asked if it's hypocritical for evangelical leaders to support someone who has a past like Donald Trump. Falwell replied that you can't just choose a president based on their personal behavior. He said, "So you don't choose a president based on how good they are; you choose a president based on what their policies are. That's why I don't think it's hypocritical."

www1.cbn.com

right

yNwNLDuHTnaTAibJ

test

4JbYseXnIsvyXEkQ

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-protest-police/get-your-knee-off-our-necks-activist-sharpton-says-at-floyd-memorial-idUSKBN23C1A7

'Get your knee off our necks,' activist Sharpton says at Floyd memorial

2020-06-08

Andrea Shalal

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - A mounting wave of protests demanding police reform after the killing of a black man in Minneapolis swept across the United States on Sunday , building on the momentum of huge demonstrations across the country the day before . In response , a majority of city council members in Minneapolis pledged to abolish the police department , though how they would navigate that long , complex undertaking was not yet known . In some of the largest protests yet seen across the United States , a near-festive tone prevailed over the weekend . Most unfolded with no major violence , in sharp contrast to heated clashes between marchers and police in previous days . The outpouring of protests followed the May 25 killing of George Floyd , a 46-year-old black man who died after being pinned by the neck for nine minutes by a white officer ’ s knee . A bystander ’ s cellphone captured the scene as Floyd pleaded with the officer , choking out the words “ I can ’ t breathe . ” “ I have cops in my family , I do believe in a police presence , ” said Nikky Williams , a black Air Force veteran who marched in Washington on Sunday . “ But I do think that reform has got to happen . ” The change in the tenor of the demonstrations this weekend may reflect a sense that the demands of protesters for sweeping police reform were resonating in many strata of American society . Nine members of the 13-person Minneapolis City Council pledged on Sunday to do away with the police department in favor of a community-led safety model , a step that would have seemed unthinkable just two weeks ago . “ A veto-proof majority of the MPLS City Council just publicly agreed that the Minneapolis Police Department is not reformable and that we ’ re going to end the current policing system , ” Alondra Cano , a member of the Minneapolis council , said on Twitter . Minneapolis City Council president Lisa Bender told CNN “ the idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term . ” In New York , Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a series of reforms he said were designed to build trust between city residents and the police department . De Blasio told reporters he would shift an unspecified amount of money out of the police budget and reallocate it to youth and social services in communities of color . He said he would also take enforcement of rules on street vending out of the hands of police , who have been accused of using the regulations to harass minority communities . Curfews were removed in New York and other major cities including Philadelphia and Chicago . Demonstrators lie down during a protest against racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington , U.S. , June 6 , 2020 . ███/Joey Roulette In the nation ’ s capital , a large and diverse gathering of protesters packed streets near the White House , chanting “ This is what democracy looks like ! ” and “ I can ’ t breathe . ” A newly erected fence around the White House was decorated by protesters with signs , including some that read : “ Black Lives Matter ” and “ No Justice , No Peace . ” Republican Senator Mitt Romney marched alongside evangelical Christians in Washington on Sunday , telling the Washington Post that he wanted to find “ a way to end violence and brutality , and to make sure that people understand that black lives matter . ” A common theme of weekend rallies was a determination to transform outrage over Floyd ’ s death last month into a broader movement seeking far-reaching reforms to the U.S. criminal justice system and its treatment of minorities . The intensity of protests over the past week began to ebb on Wednesday after prosecutors in Minneapolis arrested all four police officers implicated in Floyd ’ s death . Derek Chauvin , the officer who kneed Floyd , was charged with second-degree murder . Still , anger in Minneapolis remained intense . The city ’ s mayor ran a gauntlet of jeering protesters on Saturday after telling them he opposed their demands for defunding the city police department . The renewed calls for racial equality are breaking out across the country as the United States reopens after weeks of unprecedented lockdowns for the coronavirus pandemic and just five months before the Nov. 3 presidential election . U.S. Democrats have largely embraced the activists packing into streets to decry the killings of black men and women by law enforcement , but have so far expressed wariness at protesters ’ calls to defund the police . Former U.S. President Barack Obama said in an YouTube commencement address for 2020 graduates that the protests roiling America right now “ speak to decades of inaction over unequal treatment and a failure to reform police practices in the broader criminal justice system . ” For a graphic on Weapons of Control : What U.S. police are using to corral , subdue and disperse demonstrators : here

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A mounting wave of protests demanding police reform after the killing of a black man in Minneapolis swept across the United States on Sunday, building on the momentum of huge demonstrations across the country the day before. In response, a majority of city council members in Minneapolis pledged to abolish the police department, though how they would navigate that long, complex undertaking was not yet known. In some of the largest protests yet seen across the United States, a near-festive tone prevailed over the weekend. Most unfolded with no major violence, in sharp contrast to heated clashes between marchers and police in previous days. The outpouring of protests followed the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man who died after being pinned by the neck for nine minutes by a white officer’s knee. A bystander’s cellphone captured the scene as Floyd pleaded with the officer, choking out the words “I can’t breathe.” “I have cops in my family, I do believe in a police presence,” said Nikky Williams, a black Air Force veteran who marched in Washington on Sunday. “But I do think that reform has got to happen.” The change in the tenor of the demonstrations this weekend may reflect a sense that the demands of protesters for sweeping police reform were resonating in many strata of American society. Nine members of the 13-person Minneapolis City Council pledged on Sunday to do away with the police department in favor of a community-led safety model, a step that would have seemed unthinkable just two weeks ago. “A veto-proof majority of the MPLS City Council just publicly agreed that the Minneapolis Police Department is not reformable and that we’re going to end the current policing system,” Alondra Cano, a member of the Minneapolis council, said on Twitter. Minneapolis City Council president Lisa Bender told CNN “the idea of having no police department is certainly not in the short term.” In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a series of reforms he said were designed to build trust between city residents and the police department. De Blasio told reporters he would shift an unspecified amount of money out of the police budget and reallocate it to youth and social services in communities of color. He said he would also take enforcement of rules on street vending out of the hands of police, who have been accused of using the regulations to harass minority communities. Curfews were removed in New York and other major cities including Philadelphia and Chicago. Demonstrators lie down during a protest against racial inequality in the aftermath of the death in Minneapolis police custody of George Floyd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, U.S., June 6, 2020. REUTERS/Joey Roulette TALKING REFORM In the nation’s capital, a large and diverse gathering of protesters packed streets near the White House, chanting “This is what democracy looks like!” and “I can’t breathe.” A newly erected fence around the White House was decorated by protesters with signs, including some that read: “Black Lives Matter” and “No Justice, No Peace.” Republican Senator Mitt Romney marched alongside evangelical Christians in Washington on Sunday, telling the Washington Post that he wanted to find “a way to end violence and brutality, and to make sure that people understand that black lives matter.” A common theme of weekend rallies was a determination to transform outrage over Floyd’s death last month into a broader movement seeking far-reaching reforms to the U.S. criminal justice system and its treatment of minorities. The intensity of protests over the past week began to ebb on Wednesday after prosecutors in Minneapolis arrested all four police officers implicated in Floyd’s death. Derek Chauvin, the officer who kneed Floyd, was charged with second-degree murder. Still, anger in Minneapolis remained intense. The city’s mayor ran a gauntlet of jeering protesters on Saturday after telling them he opposed their demands for defunding the city police department. The renewed calls for racial equality are breaking out across the country as the United States reopens after weeks of unprecedented lockdowns for the coronavirus pandemic and just five months before the Nov. 3 presidential election. U.S. Democrats have largely embraced the activists packing into streets to decry the killings of black men and women by law enforcement, but have so far expressed wariness at protesters’ calls to defund the police. Slideshow (21 Images) Former U.S. President Barack Obama said in an YouTube commencement address for 2020 graduates that the protests roiling America right now “speak to decades of inaction over unequal treatment and a failure to reform police practices in the broader criminal justice system.” For a graphic on Weapons of Control: What U.S. police are using to corral, subdue and disperse demonstrators: here For a graphic on Floyd’s death sparks worldwide protests: here

www.reuters.com

center

4JbYseXnIsvyXEkQ

test

rnSgArEzQy92kJiZ

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/back-to-reality/

Back to Reality

Jed Babbin, Dwayne Ryan Menezes, William Murchison, Andrew Harrod, Ralph Schoellhammer, Ali Atia

One of the worst legacies of the Clinton era is the never-ending presidential campaign . In practical terms it means that for at least two out of every four years , America pays attention to little else and flatly ignores the most important goings on around the world . Only a major war or financial crisis is allowed to intrude on our egocentric reverie , and then only briefly . Now that the 2016 campaign is finally over , it ’ s time to take stock of what ’ s going on beyond daily poll numbers and the Twitter accounts of candidates , media mavens , and pollsters . It ’ s not a pretty picture . Every president , soon after he ’ s inaugurated , is challenged by an adversary to test his and his administration ’ s resolve and skills . Some , such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon , face ongoing wars . Messrs. Trump and Pence will have to deal with ongoing wars in Iraq , Afghanistan , Syria — where U.S. air and ground forces are engaged , whether President Obama admits it or not — and in places such as Libya , Somalia , and other parts of Africa where our special forces are engaged against various terrorist groups . Some or all of these wars will erupt in crises during Trump ’ s first hundred days in office . Immediately public , such crises will require action . And that ’ s just the start . High on any list of threats are the cyberattacks our military , intelligence , and defense industries suffer every day from many sources including China , Iran , and several terrorist groups as well as nations usually believed to be friendly . These attacks are mostly kept secret . A successful cyberattack on our defense and intelligence satellite constellations could render us deaf , dumb , and blind . Putin ’ s Russia is high on the threat list because he works hard to achieve that status . It would be a mistake to disregard the Russian threat , although there are many reasons to be tempted to do so . ( Putin ’ s gang is rife with turf battles and corruption , and is greatly weakened by a Russian economy that continues to sink along with oil prices . ) It is in Putin ’ s interest to keep the flames of nationalism high as he did with the invasions of Crimea and Ukraine . Putin could raise the stakes in two ways by conducting another covert invasion , this time of Estonia . The stakes for Trump are much higher in such a case because Estonia is a member of NATO . That means Estonia could invoke the NATO treaty provision on mutual defense . That would put Trump on the spot regarding NATO as a whole . Trump couldn ’ t abandon Estonia regardless of how much he disdains NATO because , as he rightly points out , almost all of the NATO countries have , for far too long , been leaving their defense to us rather than doing their part . Nor could he rely on NATO ’ s European members to defend Estonia from another of Putin ’ s invasions using his forces of “ little green men , ” who are Russian soldiers wearing uniforms from which national insignia have been removed . Other challenges to Trump — a major terrorist attack on American citizens here or abroad , or a massive Iran-induced Hizballah missile attack launched against Israel — are among the most likely . There are too many other threats to list here , including those that will have to be dealt with by forceful diplomacy . There ’ s no reason to believe these enemy-induced crises will come singly . There is reason to believe — not just hope — that the new Trump administration will be able to deal with these crises when they happen . One principal reason is Vice President-elect Mike Pence . I knew him well when he was in the House and I was editor of Human Events . Pence is a calm , competent conservative who has a great deal of experience in foreign affairs as a result of his decade-long experience on the House Foreign Relations Committee . Unlike Joe Biden who , in spending three decades on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee , managed to be wrong on virtually everything , Pence has learned much and takes a common sense approach to these matters . Another reason to believe that such crises can be dealt with effectively is Trump ’ s choice of Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn as his National Security Advisor . I don ’ t know Flynn , but I ’ ve read his book The Field of Fight , co-authored by Michael Ledeen . Flynn is a real warrior and an old intelligence hand , having led the Defense Intelligence Agency . Remember , please , that the DIA has proven a more reliable intelligence source than the CIA . Just as importantly , Flynn has a realistic view of the Islamic terrorist threat . In chapter 4 of The Field of Fight , Flynn lists the top two ways to win the war . First , to destroy the jihadi armies while killing or capturing their leaders . Second , “ Discrediting their ideology , which will be greatly helped by our military victories , but which requires a serious program all its own ( emphasis added ) . Readers will remember that this column has argued for exactly that approach since 2006 . We can not win the kinetic war against Islamic terrorism without winning the ideological war at the same time . Flynn will know how that can be done — both overtly and covertly — and may have already persuaded Trump to authorize it . We can have confidence in the Two Mikes . But what of the rest of Trump ’ s nascent government ? At this writing we don ’ t know who he will pick for defense secretary or secretary of state . Retired Marine General James Mattis may become defense secretary . Mattie , whose on-record quotes warm the hearts of those who want to win wars instead of settling into Obama ’ s way of war , would be a great choice . As would former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for secretary of state . If Trump picks others for those jobs , our foreign and defense policies may be in far less capable hands . We can ’ t predict where the first crisis will challenge Trump , but we know it will come quickly . President George W. Bush had to respond when Chinese aircraft forced a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft down on Hainan Island on April 1 , 2001 , less than two months after his inauguration . Bush did well ( helped greatly by the courageous aircraft commander who dumped all the classified equipment into the ocean before landing ) without igniting a war with China that would have had uncertain results . Trump has to expect a crisis equally soon . Will he deal with the inevitable challenge in his first hundred days ? His selection of cabinet members will tell us .

One of the worst legacies of the Clinton era is the never-ending presidential campaign. In practical terms it means that for at least two out of every four years, America pays attention to little else and flatly ignores the most important goings on around the world. Only a major war or financial crisis is allowed to intrude on our egocentric reverie, and then only briefly. Now that the 2016 campaign is finally over, it’s time to take stock of what’s going on beyond daily poll numbers and the Twitter accounts of candidates, media mavens, and pollsters. It’s not a pretty picture. Every president, soon after he’s inaugurated, is challenged by an adversary to test his and his administration’s resolve and skills. Some, such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, face ongoing wars. Messrs. Trump and Pence will have to deal with ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria — where U.S. air and ground forces are engaged, whether President Obama admits it or not — and in places such as Libya, Somalia, and other parts of Africa where our special forces are engaged against various terrorist groups. Some or all of these wars will erupt in crises during Trump’s first hundred days in office. Immediately public, such crises will require action. And that’s just the start. High on any list of threats are the cyberattacks our military, intelligence, and defense industries suffer every day from many sources including China, Iran, and several terrorist groups as well as nations usually believed to be friendly. These attacks are mostly kept secret. A successful cyberattack on our defense and intelligence satellite constellations could render us deaf, dumb, and blind. Putin’s Russia is high on the threat list because he works hard to achieve that status. It would be a mistake to disregard the Russian threat, although there are many reasons to be tempted to do so. (Putin’s gang is rife with turf battles and corruption, and is greatly weakened by a Russian economy that continues to sink along with oil prices.) It is in Putin’s interest to keep the flames of nationalism high as he did with the invasions of Crimea and Ukraine. Putin could raise the stakes in two ways by conducting another covert invasion, this time of Estonia. The stakes for Trump are much higher in such a case because Estonia is a member of NATO. That means Estonia could invoke the NATO treaty provision on mutual defense. That would put Trump on the spot regarding NATO as a whole. Trump couldn’t abandon Estonia regardless of how much he disdains NATO because, as he rightly points out, almost all of the NATO countries have, for far too long, been leaving their defense to us rather than doing their part. Nor could he rely on NATO’s European members to defend Estonia from another of Putin’s invasions using his forces of “little green men,” who are Russian soldiers wearing uniforms from which national insignia have been removed. Other challenges to Trump — a major terrorist attack on American citizens here or abroad, or a massive Iran-induced Hizballah missile attack launched against Israel — are among the most likely. There are too many other threats to list here, including those that will have to be dealt with by forceful diplomacy. There’s no reason to believe these enemy-induced crises will come singly. There is reason to believe — not just hope — that the new Trump administration will be able to deal with these crises when they happen. One principal reason is Vice President-elect Mike Pence. I knew him well when he was in the House and I was editor of Human Events. Pence is a calm, competent conservative who has a great deal of experience in foreign affairs as a result of his decade-long experience on the House Foreign Relations Committee. Unlike Joe Biden who, in spending three decades on the Senate Foreign Affairs committee, managed to be wrong on virtually everything, Pence has learned much and takes a common sense approach to these matters. Another reason to believe that such crises can be dealt with effectively is Trump’s choice of Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn as his National Security Advisor. I don’t know Flynn, but I’ve read his book The Field of Fight, co-authored by Michael Ledeen. Flynn is a real warrior and an old intelligence hand, having led the Defense Intelligence Agency. Remember, please, that the DIA has proven a more reliable intelligence source than the CIA. Just as importantly, Flynn has a realistic view of the Islamic terrorist threat. In chapter 4 of The Field of Fight, Flynn lists the top two ways to win the war. First, to destroy the jihadi armies while killing or capturing their leaders. Second, “Discrediting their ideology, which will be greatly helped by our military victories, but which requires a serious program all its own (emphasis added). Readers will remember that this column has argued for exactly that approach since 2006. We cannot win the kinetic war against Islamic terrorism without winning the ideological war at the same time. Flynn will know how that can be done — both overtly and covertly — and may have already persuaded Trump to authorize it. We can have confidence in the Two Mikes. But what of the rest of Trump’s nascent government? At this writing we don’t know who he will pick for defense secretary or secretary of state. Retired Marine General James Mattis may become defense secretary. Mattie, whose on-record quotes warm the hearts of those who want to win wars instead of settling into Obama’s way of war, would be a great choice. As would former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for secretary of state. If Trump picks others for those jobs, our foreign and defense policies may be in far less capable hands. We can’t predict where the first crisis will challenge Trump, but we know it will come quickly. President George W. Bush had to respond when Chinese aircraft forced a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft down on Hainan Island on April 1, 2001, less than two months after his inauguration. Bush did well (helped greatly by the courageous aircraft commander who dumped all the classified equipment into the ocean before landing) without igniting a war with China that would have had uncertain results. Trump has to expect a crisis equally soon. Will he deal with the inevitable challenge in his first hundred days? His selection of cabinet members will tell us.

www.spectator.org

right

rnSgArEzQy92kJiZ

test

6n0EI8MduReVD22Q

media_bias

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/20/study-fox-news-msnbc-more-extreme-in-final-week-of-campaign/?hpt=po_c1

Study: Fox News, MSNBC more 'extreme' in final week of campaign

2012-11-20

( CNN ) – A new study finds the discrepancy between Fox News and MSNBC 's coverage of the two presidential candidates differed most substantially during the final week of the campaign compared to the rest of the press ' coverage of the election . While the study , conducted by the Pew Research Center 's Project for Excellence in Journalism , shows two cable news channels differed from the rest of the media 's coverage about the candidates throughout the election , the difference was more pronounced from October 29 through November 5 , the final week of the campaign . `` In the final week of the campaign , both Fox News and MSNBC became even more extreme in how they differed from the rest of the press in coverage of the two candidates , '' said the Pew Research Center about this portion of the study 's findings . `` Fox News was much more positive about ( Mitt ) Romney than the press as a whole and substantially more negative about ( President Barack ) Obama . MSNBC was even more overwhelmingly negative about Romney and offered mostly positive coverage about Obama . '' The study indicates Fox News ' negative coverage of Obama grew from 47 % in the first four weeks of October to 56 % in the final week , while positive coverage of Romney grew eight points , from 34 % to 42 % , in the final week . Meanwhile on MSNBC , positive coverage of Obama grew from 33 % during the first four weeks of October to 51 % in the last week . MSNBC 's negative coverage of Romney increased 11 points in the last week , from 57 % to 68 % . In the final week of the campaign , news focused around Superstorm Sandy , its devastating effect on the East Coast and emergency response on both the federal and local level . Overall , the president received more positive coverage during the final week while the tone of Romney 's coverage remained similar to previous weeks . The study stated the storm appeared to reduce the amount of coverage Romney received leading up to the election and may have influenced attitudes about Obama . The study was conducted from October 22 through November 5 , the last 15 days of the campaign , among 660 stories from 49 mainstream outlets .

7 years ago (CNN) – A new study finds the discrepancy between Fox News and MSNBC's coverage of the two presidential candidates differed most substantially during the final week of the campaign compared to the rest of the press' coverage of the election. While the study, conducted by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, shows two cable news channels differed from the rest of the media's coverage about the candidates throughout the election, the difference was more pronounced from October 29 through November 5, the final week of the campaign. - Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker "In the final week of the campaign, both Fox News and MSNBC became even more extreme in how they differed from the rest of the press in coverage of the two candidates," said the Pew Research Center about this portion of the study's findings. "Fox News was much more positive about (Mitt) Romney than the press as a whole and substantially more negative about (President Barack) Obama. MSNBC was even more overwhelmingly negative about Romney and offered mostly positive coverage about Obama." The study indicates Fox News' negative coverage of Obama grew from 47% in the first four weeks of October to 56% in the final week, while positive coverage of Romney grew eight points, from 34% to 42%, in the final week. Meanwhile on MSNBC, positive coverage of Obama grew from 33% during the first four weeks of October to 51% in the last week. MSNBC's negative coverage of Romney increased 11 points in the last week, from 57% to 68%. In the final week of the campaign, news focused around Superstorm Sandy, its devastating effect on the East Coast and emergency response on both the federal and local level. Overall, the president received more positive coverage during the final week while the tone of Romney's coverage remained similar to previous weeks. The study stated the storm appeared to reduce the amount of coverage Romney received leading up to the election and may have influenced attitudes about Obama. The study was conducted from October 22 through November 5, the last 15 days of the campaign, among 660 stories from 49 mainstream outlets.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

6n0EI8MduReVD22Q

test

VlwP7uA4ilV0P7Px

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-speech-analysis/despite-bipartisan-sheen-trumps-speech-spoke-to-his-base-idUSKCN1PV0EV

Despite bipartisan sheen, Trump's speech spoke to his base

2019-02-06

James Oliphant

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Even as he appealed for unity , President Donald Trump made it clear in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that his idea of common ground is having Democrats back his policy agenda and stop investigating his administration . For all of Trump ’ s talk about bridging “ old divisions ” and pursuing bipartisan initiatives , Trump previewed the well-trod themes that will power his 2020 re-election campaign : a hard line on immigration and border security , a deep suspicion of trade deals , and an “ America First ” foreign policy . This time , the dissonance between Trump ’ s words and the political reality was more jarring than ever . For the first time in his presidency , Trump had a Democrat seated behind him in the House chamber , Speaker Nancy Pelosi , and spoke to a Congress where Democrats share power with Republicans . Beyond Capitol Hill , the field of Democrats seeking to challenge Trump for the presidency is growing by the week . The speech suggested that Trump , while talking up such lofty bipartisan goals such as combating HIV and childhood cancer , was signaling to his most passionate supporters that he was not about to compromise on the issues that matter most to them . “ While there were many unifying moments , the president took time to appeal to his base over issues that split the parties such as investigations , immigration and abortion , ” said Ron Bonjean , a longtime Republican strategist in Washington . “ Nothing has changed after tonight ’ s delivery by Trump because both sides are simply too dug in to allow any sort of major compromise legislation to occur , ” Bonjean said . Fresh off a month-long partial government shutdown that damaged him politically , Trump showed no inclination he would back off his demand for more than $ 5 billion for a barrier along the U.S border with Mexico — and in fact used a large portion of the speech to make his case for the wall to the American people . In doing so , Trump employed much of same rhetoric he used during last year ’ s congressional elections , warning of an “ onslaught ” of migrants from Central America , labeling the border “ lawless ” and declaring that “ countless ” Americans had been murdered by illegal immigrants . For a reminder of how his party fared in those midterm elections , Trump only had to look at the sea of white outfits worn by Democratic women in attendance on the House floor . They chanted “ USA ! USA ! ” when Trump recognized their achievement . Regardless , Trump delivered a stark warning to Democrats such as Pelosi who have said they will push to hold his administration accountable : Back off , or I won ’ t work with you . “ If there is going to be peace and legislation , there can not be war and investigation , ” Trump said . “ It just doesn ’ t work that way . ” And in talking about the vibrant American economy , Trump implied he would be quick to blame Democrats for any slowdown . Trump also re-stoked America ’ s culture wars , spending a portion of the speech blasting abortion-rights legislation in New York and Virginia , a move that will endear him to evangelical voters . “ There was very little difference between this speech and what you ’ d hear at one of his campaign rallies , ” said Doug Thornell , a longtime Democratic congressional aide . “ To many people this speech will be remembered for his continued obsession with the wall , the demonization of immigrants , and his bizarre attack on congressional investigations . Truly stunning . ” But Alex Conant , a former top aide to Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio , said that Trump succeeded in showing that he was open to working with Democrats on issues such as prescription drug prices . “ After a tough couple of weeks , this was the reset that Trump needed , ” Conant said . “ He laid out a popular agenda and framed the big political issues of the day in the most favorable way possible . ” There are clear signs that the showdown over the border wall has dinged the president : The most recent ███/Ipsos tracking poll had Trump ’ s approval rating at a shade over 39 percent , the lowest it has been since early last October . The number of Americas who disapprove of Trump ’ s job performance stood at more than 56 percent . With Trump ’ s re-election campaign set to begin in earnest , the president must also await the final determination of Special Counsel Robert Mueller , who is investigating ties between Trump ’ s campaign team and Russian officials as well as possible obstruction of justice . A year ago , Trump made a similar plea for bread-breaking with Democrats , only to have the year swallowed up by scorched-earth congressional elections , a divisive fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , and finally the 35-day government shutdown . All the while , Trump regularly blasted Democrats on his Twitter feed as unhelpful , obstructionist and unpatriotic . “ There is no reason to think he wants unity . He thrives on disunity , ” said John Geer , an expert on public opinion at Vanderbilt University . “ The president may call for working together , but past behavior suggests otherwise . ”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Even as he appealed for unity, President Donald Trump made it clear in his State of the Union address on Tuesday that his idea of common ground is having Democrats back his policy agenda and stop investigating his administration. For all of Trump’s talk about bridging “old divisions” and pursuing bipartisan initiatives, Trump previewed the well-trod themes that will power his 2020 re-election campaign: a hard line on immigration and border security, a deep suspicion of trade deals, and an “America First” foreign policy. This time, the dissonance between Trump’s words and the political reality was more jarring than ever. For the first time in his presidency, Trump had a Democrat seated behind him in the House chamber, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and spoke to a Congress where Democrats share power with Republicans. Beyond Capitol Hill, the field of Democrats seeking to challenge Trump for the presidency is growing by the week. The speech suggested that Trump, while talking up such lofty bipartisan goals such as combating HIV and childhood cancer, was signaling to his most passionate supporters that he was not about to compromise on the issues that matter most to them. “While there were many unifying moments, the president took time to appeal to his base over issues that split the parties such as investigations, immigration and abortion,” said Ron Bonjean, a longtime Republican strategist in Washington. “Nothing has changed after tonight’s delivery by Trump because both sides are simply too dug in to allow any sort of major compromise legislation to occur,” Bonjean said. Fresh off a month-long partial government shutdown that damaged him politically, Trump showed no inclination he would back off his demand for more than $5 billion for a barrier along the U.S border with Mexico — and in fact used a large portion of the speech to make his case for the wall to the American people. In doing so, Trump employed much of same rhetoric he used during last year’s congressional elections, warning of an “onslaught” of migrants from Central America, labeling the border “lawless” and declaring that “countless” Americans had been murdered by illegal immigrants. For a reminder of how his party fared in those midterm elections, Trump only had to look at the sea of white outfits worn by Democratic women in attendance on the House floor. They chanted “USA! USA!” when Trump recognized their achievement. Regardless, Trump delivered a stark warning to Democrats such as Pelosi who have said they will push to hold his administration accountable: Back off, or I won’t work with you. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation,” Trump said. “It just doesn’t work that way.” And in talking about the vibrant American economy, Trump implied he would be quick to blame Democrats for any slowdown. CULTURE WARS Trump also re-stoked America’s culture wars, spending a portion of the speech blasting abortion-rights legislation in New York and Virginia, a move that will endear him to evangelical voters. “There was very little difference between this speech and what you’d hear at one of his campaign rallies,” said Doug Thornell, a longtime Democratic congressional aide. “To many people this speech will be remembered for his continued obsession with the wall, the demonization of immigrants, and his bizarre attack on congressional investigations. Truly stunning.” But Alex Conant, a former top aide to Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, said that Trump succeeded in showing that he was open to working with Democrats on issues such as prescription drug prices. “After a tough couple of weeks, this was the reset that Trump needed,” Conant said. “He laid out a popular agenda and framed the big political issues of the day in the most favorable way possible.” There are clear signs that the showdown over the border wall has dinged the president: The most recent Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll had Trump’s approval rating at a shade over 39 percent, the lowest it has been since early last October. The number of Americas who disapprove of Trump’s job performance stood at more than 56 percent. With Trump’s re-election campaign set to begin in earnest, the president must also await the final determination of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating ties between Trump’s campaign team and Russian officials as well as possible obstruction of justice. A year ago, Trump made a similar plea for bread-breaking with Democrats, only to have the year swallowed up by scorched-earth congressional elections, a divisive fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and finally the 35-day government shutdown. All the while, Trump regularly blasted Democrats on his Twitter feed as unhelpful, obstructionist and unpatriotic. “There is no reason to think he wants unity. He thrives on disunity,” said John Geer, an expert on public opinion at Vanderbilt University. “The president may call for working together, but past behavior suggests otherwise.”

www.reuters.com

center

VlwP7uA4ilV0P7Px

test

TCqKOQH25E9QBi78

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/22/the-media-is-lying-to-the-parkland-survivors/

OPINION: The Media Is Lying To The Parkland Survivors

2018-02-22

I don ’ t usually write opinion columns and I wasn ’ t planning on writing one after Wednesday night ’ s CNN town hall , but the more I thought and reflected on it , the more I became convinced of one ugly truth : the media is failing the Parkland students 1 ) We ’ re lying to them about the political process . Two moments from the CNN town hall , which represented a WWE cage match more than a conversation , offer clear examples . The first came when Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio pointed out that a truly effective assault weapons ban , one without loopholes , “ would literally ban every semi-automatic rifle that ’ s sold in America. ” The students on stage and in the crowd erupted in applause . Anybody with a working knowledge of the political process knows a ban on semi-automatic weapons will never happen . I say weapons here because it ’ s not just about rifles . Dylan Roof used a pistol to slaughter several church goers . The reality is that semi-automatic weapons of any stripe could be used to commit such atrocities . Due largely to impracticality , Congress isn ’ t going to ban semi-automatic rifles in America . Rubio voiced the idea as an example of a fairy tale . It will never happen . Full stop . Journalists on both sides of the aisle know it won ’ t . Or at least we should . And yet reporters indulged the fantasy anyway , playing up the exchange as a “ win ” for the students and a “ loss ” for Rubio , as if cheering fairy tales makes them more likely to come true . The second moment came when a student , Cameron Kasky , confronted Rubio about donations from the NRA and used his classmates ’ deaths to demand Rubio denounce the NRA ’ s support . “ In the name of 17 people , you can not ask the NRA to keep their money out of your campaign ? ” asked Kasky . Attacking the NRA has been a consistent theme of the student campaign for gun control . The idea , encouraged by journalists and liberal activists , is that NRA donations are the reason Republican politicians ( and many Democrats ) aren ’ t going to ban most rifles or ( as some would like ) ban guns outright . The truth is the NRA supports members who already support the Second Amendment , rather than the reverse . Further , the organization ’ s campaign donations make up a tiny drop in the bucket of political spending . The actual money carries nominal weight compared to the millions of NRA members who vote for politicians who represent their beliefs and values about the Second Amendment . That roughly half the country supports these congressmen gets to the heart of the matter : the political process is fundamentally about compromise . If the gun control crowd wants to achieve substantive goals , they ’ re going to have to find points of compromise with those millions of NRA members — the same members they are , much to the glee of their fans in the media , smearing as child murderers . Has anybody bothered informing these kids of how the political process works ? We ’ re setting them up for further hurt and disappointment by giving them false hope of political goals that aren ’ t going to happen . Look no further than the Florida legislature ’ s vote on banning assault weapons on Tuesday . The bill immediately died in the House . The truth is the vote was a political stunt . Democratic state Rep. Jared Moskowitz admitted as much Wednesday and chastised his Democratic colleagues for playing “ procedural games ” with the vote . Did the students watching in the gallery know it was all just a game ? Judging by their grief-stricken faces , it sure didn ’ t look like it . But at least Florida Democrats got a day or two of good PR from CNN . Congress has real options at its disposal to curb gun violence , such as improving the background check system or exploring gun violence restraining orders . But if these students are expecting their protests to result in Washington banning the vast majority of rifles in America , they ’ re going to be deeply disappointed . And anyone who allows them to play up that fantasy is doing them a profound disservice . 2 ) We ’ re failing the Parkland survivors in another way : by indulging and applauding grieving teenagers ’ worst impulses . These teenagers ( and adults as well but especially the teenagers ) are hurting and searching for answers . I don ’ t blame them for being angry — they ’ re in tremendous amounts of pain , it ’ s a natural reaction — but I do blame the adults goading these teens on as they lash out in anger , accusing people who had nothing to do with a mass murder of being responsible for it . Audience member : “ You ’ re a murderer ! ” to Dana Loesch . — Jim Swift ( @ JSwiftTWS ) February 22 , 2018 It may make a 16-year-old boy feel good for a moment to blame Dana Loesch for his friends ’ deaths , but it ’ s not really going to make his pain go away . Again , has anybody mentioned that ? Or has everybody been too busy ooh-ing and ah-ing as they share viral clips of grieving teenagers totally “ DESTROYING ” the NRA ? When all is said and done , when the next scandal or tragedy is dominating the news cycle and rifles are still legal , these poor kids will still be searching for answers that yelling at the NRA won ’ t give them . 3 ) Which brings me to my third point : we ’ re exploiting the Parkland survivors . We may not be doing so intentionally but the fact is we are . For if the media aren ’ t operating with the students ’ best interests at heart — and the first two points make clear that ’ s not the case — then we ’ re operating with some other primary motivation . It ’ s no secret that the people cheering on these pained and suffering students just happen to share the same political goals ( and enemies ) as the students . It ’ s a lot easier to cheer somebody on when they ’ re skewering your political opponents as child murderers . And then we have traffic and ratings incentives for the media , which are to package these teenagers ’ hurt and confusion into segments and clips to be aired over and over again , turning their real pain into reality TV for the rest of us . When CNN executives give the order to put emotional and vulnerable teenagers front and center all day , do we really think their thought process is guided by what ’ s best for the teens ? Is Jeff Zucker all of a sudden an altruist ? The more likely and more uncomfortable truth is that networks are putting their own interests first ( as networks tend to do ) and rationalizing it away as a public service . You can rationalize exploitation any way you want to , but it ’ s still exploitation . The ugly truth is we ’ re lying to the Parkland survivors about the political process , enflaming their pain and exploiting their grief . May God have mercy on us all .

I don’t usually write opinion columns and I wasn’t planning on writing one after Wednesday night’s CNN town hall, but the more I thought and reflected on it, the more I became convinced of one ugly truth: the media is failing the Parkland students We’re doing so in three ways. 1) We’re lying to them about the political process. Two moments from the CNN town hall, which represented a WWE cage match more than a conversation, offer clear examples. The first came when Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio pointed out that a truly effective assault weapons ban, one without loopholes, “would literally ban every semi-automatic rifle that’s sold in America.” The students on stage and in the crowd erupted in applause. Anybody with a working knowledge of the political process knows a ban on semi-automatic weapons will never happen. I say weapons here because it’s not just about rifles. Dylan Roof used a pistol to slaughter several church goers. The reality is that semi-automatic weapons of any stripe could be used to commit such atrocities. Due largely to impracticality, Congress isn’t going to ban semi-automatic rifles in America. Rubio voiced the idea as an example of a fairy tale. It will never happen. Full stop. Journalists on both sides of the aisle know it won’t. Or at least we should. And yet reporters indulged the fantasy anyway, playing up the exchange as a “win” for the students and a “loss” for Rubio, as if cheering fairy tales makes them more likely to come true. The second moment came when a student, Cameron Kasky, confronted Rubio about donations from the NRA and used his classmates’ deaths to demand Rubio denounce the NRA’s support. “In the name of 17 people, you cannot ask the NRA to keep their money out of your campaign?” asked Kasky. Attacking the NRA has been a consistent theme of the student campaign for gun control. The idea, encouraged by journalists and liberal activists, is that NRA donations are the reason Republican politicians (and many Democrats) aren’t going to ban most rifles or (as some would like) ban guns outright. The truth is the NRA supports members who already support the Second Amendment, rather than the reverse. Further, the organization’s campaign donations make up a tiny drop in the bucket of political spending. The actual money carries nominal weight compared to the millions of NRA members who vote for politicians who represent their beliefs and values about the Second Amendment. That roughly half the country supports these congressmen gets to the heart of the matter: the political process is fundamentally about compromise. If the gun control crowd wants to achieve substantive goals, they’re going to have to find points of compromise with those millions of NRA members — the same members they are, much to the glee of their fans in the media, smearing as child murderers. Has anybody bothered informing these kids of how the political process works? We’re setting them up for further hurt and disappointment by giving them false hope of political goals that aren’t going to happen. Look no further than the Florida legislature’s vote on banning assault weapons on Tuesday. The bill immediately died in the House. The truth is the vote was a political stunt. Democratic state Rep. Jared Moskowitz admitted as much Wednesday and chastised his Democratic colleagues for playing “procedural games” with the vote. Did the students watching in the gallery know it was all just a game? Judging by their grief-stricken faces, it sure didn’t look like it. But at least Florida Democrats got a day or two of good PR from CNN. Congress has real options at its disposal to curb gun violence, such as improving the background check system or exploring gun violence restraining orders. But if these students are expecting their protests to result in Washington banning the vast majority of rifles in America, they’re going to be deeply disappointed. And anyone who allows them to play up that fantasy is doing them a profound disservice. 2) We’re failing the Parkland survivors in another way: by indulging and applauding grieving teenagers’ worst impulses. These teenagers (and adults as well but especially the teenagers) are hurting and searching for answers. I don’t blame them for being angry — they’re in tremendous amounts of pain, it’s a natural reaction — but I do blame the adults goading these teens on as they lash out in anger, accusing people who had nothing to do with a mass murder of being responsible for it. Audience member: “You’re a murderer!” to Dana Loesch. — Jim Swift (@JSwiftTWS) February 22, 2018 It may make a 16-year-old boy feel good for a moment to blame Dana Loesch for his friends’ deaths, but it’s not really going to make his pain go away. Again, has anybody mentioned that? Or has everybody been too busy ooh-ing and ah-ing as they share viral clips of grieving teenagers totally “DESTROYING” the NRA? When all is said and done, when the next scandal or tragedy is dominating the news cycle and rifles are still legal, these poor kids will still be searching for answers that yelling at the NRA won’t give them. 3) Which brings me to my third point: we’re exploiting the Parkland survivors. We may not be doing so intentionally but the fact is we are. For if the media aren’t operating with the students’ best interests at heart — and the first two points make clear that’s not the case — then we’re operating with some other primary motivation. It’s no secret that the people cheering on these pained and suffering students just happen to share the same political goals (and enemies) as the students. It’s a lot easier to cheer somebody on when they’re skewering your political opponents as child murderers. And then we have traffic and ratings incentives for the media, which are to package these teenagers’ hurt and confusion into segments and clips to be aired over and over again, turning their real pain into reality TV for the rest of us. When CNN executives give the order to put emotional and vulnerable teenagers front and center all day, do we really think their thought process is guided by what’s best for the teens? Is Jeff Zucker all of a sudden an altruist? The more likely and more uncomfortable truth is that networks are putting their own interests first (as networks tend to do) and rationalizing it away as a public service. You can rationalize exploitation any way you want to, but it’s still exploitation. The ugly truth is we’re lying to the Parkland survivors about the political process, enflaming their pain and exploiting their grief. May God have mercy on us all.

www.dailycaller.com

right

TCqKOQH25E9QBi78

test

lNolxJP3p0JOusG4

culture

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/c6927167304644afb90f8c5be6fc799e

Hockey commentator Don Cherry fired for rant over immigrants

2019-11-12

Rob Gillies

FILE _ In this March 24 , 2010 , file photo , hockey personality Don Cherry , right , speaks during a news conference as actor Jared Keeso is displayed on a video screen while playing Cherry in the bio film `` Keep Your Head Up Kid : The Don Cherry Story '' in Toronto . Sportsnet cut ties with Cherry on Monday , Nov. 11 , 2019 , after the veteran hockey commentator called new immigrants `` you people '' on his `` Coach 's Corner '' segment while claiming they do not wear poppies to honor Canadian veterans . ( AP Photo/The Canadian Press , Darren Calabrese , File ) FILE _ In this March 24 , 2010 , file photo , hockey personality Don Cherry , right , speaks during a news conference as actor Jared Keeso is displayed on a video screen while playing Cherry in the bio film `` Keep Your Head Up Kid : The Don Cherry Story '' in Toronto . Sportsnet cut ties with Cherry on Monday , Nov. 11 , 2019 , after the veteran hockey commentator called new immigrants `` you people '' on his `` Coach 's Corner '' segment while claiming they do not wear poppies to honor Canadian veterans . ( AP Photo/The Canadian Press , Darren Calabrese , File ) TORONTO ( AP ) — Don Cherry , Canada ’ s most polarizing , flamboyant and opinionated hockey commentator , was fired Monday for calling immigrants “ you people ” in a television rant in which he said new immigrants are not honoring the country ’ s fallen soldiers . Rogers Sportsnet President Bart Yabsley announced the decision following discussions with the 85-year-old broadcaster . “ It has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down , ” Yabsley said in a statement . “ During the broadcast , he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for . ” Cherry derided immigrants by saying Saturday night , “ You people ... you love our way of life , you love our milk and honey , at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that . These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada , these guys paid the biggest price . ” The tradition of wearing poppies in Canada honors the country ’ s war dead on Remembrance Day , which was observed Monday . Cherry has provided commentary following the first intermission of “ Hockey Night in Canada ” for more than three decades . “ I know what I said and I meant it . Still do . Everybody in Canada should wear a poppy to honor our fallen soldiers , ” Cherry told The Canadian Press . “ I did not say minorities , I did not say immigrants . If you watch ‘ Coach ’ s Corner , ’ I did not say that . I said ‘ everybody. ’ And I said ‘ you people , ’ ” Cherry said . “ Irish , Scotch , anybody that ’ s newcomers to Canada , and they should wear a poppy to honor our dead from the past , whether they ’ re Scotch or Irish or English , or where they come from . ” Cherry added he could have stayed on “ if I had turned into a tame robot who nobody would recognize . ” Known for his outlandish suits , Cherry often mangled the names of foreign-born players over the years and occasionally weighed in with thoughts on politics . He has been a part of the Hockey Night broadcast since 1980 . “ Don is synonymous with hockey and has played an integral role in growing the game , ” Yabsley said . “ We would like to thank Don for his contributions to hockey and sports broadcasting in Canada . ” The National Hockey League said in a statement that Cherry ’ s remarks were “ offensive and contrary to the values we believe in . ” Ron MacLean , the longtime co-host of “ Coach ’ s Corner , ” apologized Sunday evening . “ Don Cherry made remarks that were hurtful , discriminatory , where flat-out wrong , ” MacLean said . “ I owe you an apology too . That ’ s the big thing I want to emphasize . I sat there , I did not catch it. , I did not respond . ” MacLean didn ’ t object to Cherry ’ s remarks Saturday and gave Cherry a thumbs-up during the broadcast . In his remarks , Cherry complained that in downtown Toronto “ nobody wears a poppy ” and in small cities they do . The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council said it was so overloaded with complaints about the segment that it exceeded the organization ’ s technical processing capacity . Budweiser , the sponsor of Cherry ’ s “ Coach ’ s Corner , ” put out a statement condemning Cherry ’ s comments . “ The comments made Saturday on Coach ’ s Corner were clearly inappropriate and divisive , and in no way reflect Budweiser ’ s views , ” says Todd Allen , vice president of marketing for Labatt Breweries of Canada , which has Budweiser as one of its brands . “ As a sponsor of the broadcast , we immediately expressed our concerns and respect the decision which was made by Sportsnet today . ” Before beginning his life in front of the camera in 1980 , Cherry was a rugged defenseman and career minor leaguer . He played all of one game in the NHL — a playoff game with the Boston Bruins , with whom he won coach of the year honors in 1976 . In 1989 , when asked about then-Winnipeg Jets assistant coach Alpo Suhonen , Cherry said his name sounded like “ dog food . ” Cherry was voted the seventh-greatest Canadian on The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television project , The Greatest Canadian , in 2004 . He finished ahead of Wayne Gretzky and Canada ’ s first prime minister Sir John A. MacDonald . That same year , Cherry was publicly reprimanded by the CBC and subjected to a seven-second tape delay when he said only “ Europeans and French guys ” wore visors . In 2013 Cherry said he was against women reporters being allowed in NHL dressing rooms . Last year he asked his co-host McLean if he and his “ left-wing pinko friends ” could explain their concerns over rising global temperatures while Toronto was experiencing a cold snap . Cherry ’ s remarks on Saturday prompted Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan , who is Sikh , and Toronto Mayor John Tory to say Cherry ’ s remarks were wrong . Tory said Cherry was “ way off base to question the devotion of newer Canadians. ” Bonnie Crombie , the mayor of Mississauga , the Toronto suburb where Cherry lives , called Cherry ’ s remarks despicable . The Royal Canadian Legion , which raises money through the sale of poppies , said Cherry ’ s “ personal opinion was hurtful , divisive and in no way condoned by the Legion . We do remain appreciative of his passionate support for Veterans . ” “ We know many new Canadians understand and welcome the tradition of the red poppy and will continue to educate all citizens about the significance of this powerful symbol , ” the statement said .

FILE _ In this March 24, 2010, file photo, hockey personality Don Cherry, right, speaks during a news conference as actor Jared Keeso is displayed on a video screen while playing Cherry in the bio film "Keep Your Head Up Kid: The Don Cherry Story" in Toronto. Sportsnet cut ties with Cherry on Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, after the veteran hockey commentator called new immigrants "you people" on his "Coach's Corner" segment while claiming they do not wear poppies to honor Canadian veterans. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Darren Calabrese, File) FILE _ In this March 24, 2010, file photo, hockey personality Don Cherry, right, speaks during a news conference as actor Jared Keeso is displayed on a video screen while playing Cherry in the bio film "Keep Your Head Up Kid: The Don Cherry Story" in Toronto. Sportsnet cut ties with Cherry on Monday, Nov. 11, 2019, after the veteran hockey commentator called new immigrants "you people" on his "Coach's Corner" segment while claiming they do not wear poppies to honor Canadian veterans. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Darren Calabrese, File) TORONTO (AP) — Don Cherry, Canada’s most polarizing, flamboyant and opinionated hockey commentator, was fired Monday for calling immigrants “you people” in a television rant in which he said new immigrants are not honoring the country’s fallen soldiers. Rogers Sportsnet President Bart Yabsley announced the decision following discussions with the 85-year-old broadcaster. “It has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down,” Yabsley said in a statement. “During the broadcast, he made divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what we stand for.” Cherry derided immigrants by saying Saturday night, “You people ... you love our way of life, you love our milk and honey, at least you can pay a couple bucks for a poppy or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada, these guys paid the biggest price.” The tradition of wearing poppies in Canada honors the country’s war dead on Remembrance Day, which was observed Monday. Cherry has provided commentary following the first intermission of “Hockey Night in Canada” for more than three decades. He said late Monday he would not be apologizing. “I know what I said and I meant it. Still do. Everybody in Canada should wear a poppy to honor our fallen soldiers,” Cherry told The Canadian Press. Cherry denies he was singling out visible minorities. “I did not say minorities, I did not say immigrants. If you watch ‘Coach’s Corner,’ I did not say that. I said ‘everybody.’ And I said ‘you people,’” Cherry said. “Irish, Scotch, anybody that’s newcomers to Canada, and they should wear a poppy to honor our dead from the past, whether they’re Scotch or Irish or English, or where they come from.” Cherry added he could have stayed on “if I had turned into a tame robot who nobody would recognize.” “I can’t do that after 38 years,” he said Known for his outlandish suits, Cherry often mangled the names of foreign-born players over the years and occasionally weighed in with thoughts on politics. He has been a part of the Hockey Night broadcast since 1980. “Don is synonymous with hockey and has played an integral role in growing the game,” Yabsley said. “We would like to thank Don for his contributions to hockey and sports broadcasting in Canada.” The National Hockey League said in a statement that Cherry’s remarks were “offensive and contrary to the values we believe in.” Ron MacLean, the longtime co-host of “Coach’s Corner,” apologized Sunday evening. “Don Cherry made remarks that were hurtful, discriminatory, where flat-out wrong,” MacLean said. “I owe you an apology too. That’s the big thing I want to emphasize. I sat there, I did not catch it., I did not respond.” MacLean didn’t object to Cherry’s remarks Saturday and gave Cherry a thumbs-up during the broadcast. In his remarks, Cherry complained that in downtown Toronto “nobody wears a poppy” and in small cities they do. The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council said it was so overloaded with complaints about the segment that it exceeded the organization’s technical processing capacity. Budweiser, the sponsor of Cherry’s “Coach’s Corner,” put out a statement condemning Cherry’s comments. “The comments made Saturday on Coach’s Corner were clearly inappropriate and divisive, and in no way reflect Budweiser’s views,” says Todd Allen, vice president of marketing for Labatt Breweries of Canada, which has Budweiser as one of its brands. “As a sponsor of the broadcast, we immediately expressed our concerns and respect the decision which was made by Sportsnet today.” Before beginning his life in front of the camera in 1980, Cherry was a rugged defenseman and career minor leaguer. He played all of one game in the NHL — a playoff game with the Boston Bruins, with whom he won coach of the year honors in 1976. In 1989, when asked about then-Winnipeg Jets assistant coach Alpo Suhonen, Cherry said his name sounded like “dog food.” Cherry was voted the seventh-greatest Canadian on The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television project, The Greatest Canadian, in 2004. He finished ahead of Wayne Gretzky and Canada’s first prime minister Sir John A. MacDonald. That same year, Cherry was publicly reprimanded by the CBC and subjected to a seven-second tape delay when he said only “Europeans and French guys” wore visors. In 2013 Cherry said he was against women reporters being allowed in NHL dressing rooms. Last year he asked his co-host McLean if he and his “left-wing pinko friends” could explain their concerns over rising global temperatures while Toronto was experiencing a cold snap. Cherry’s remarks on Saturday prompted Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan, who is Sikh, and Toronto Mayor John Tory to say Cherry’s remarks were wrong. Tory said Cherry was “way off base to question the devotion of newer Canadians.” Bonnie Crombie, the mayor of Mississauga, the Toronto suburb where Cherry lives, called Cherry’s remarks despicable. The Royal Canadian Legion, which raises money through the sale of poppies, said Cherry’s “personal opinion was hurtful, divisive and in no way condoned by the Legion. We do remain appreciative of his passionate support for Veterans.” “We know many new Canadians understand and welcome the tradition of the red poppy and will continue to educate all citizens about the significance of this powerful symbol,” the statement said. ___ More AP NHL: http://apnews.com/NHL and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports

www.apnews.com

center

lNolxJP3p0JOusG4

test

tSsiCHYGb6kLFXuV

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/27/cnn-producer-calls-trump-russia-story-mostly-bullsht-says-ceo-encouraged-russia-coverage-video/

Hidden Camera Catches CNN Producer Saying Trump ‘Probably Right’ About Russia ‘Witch Hunt’ [VIDEO]

2017-06-27

A video released Tuesday by James O ’ Keefe ’ s Project Veritas shows a CNN producer speaking candidly about the network ’ s coverage of President Trump and Russia . In the hidden camera video , John Bonifield , a supervising producer at CNN Health , talks about how CNN uses the Trump-Russia allegations to boost ratings and how directions to focus on it have come from CNN ’ s CEO Jeff Zucker . When asked by the Project Veritas reporter , “ But honestly , you think the whole Russia shit is just like , bullshit ? ” Bonifield replies , “ Could be bullshit . I mean , it ’ s mostly bullshit right now . Like we , don ’ t have any big giant proof . ” “ 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 . Like , you have no smoking gun , you have no real proof , ” he adds . ( RELATED : Here Are Five Fake Stories CNN Pushed ) Bonifield also reveals that CNN ’ s CEO , Jeff Zucker was giving directions on coverage , encouraging CNN to focus on the Russia story . “ 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 ( Jeff Zucker ) said in our internal meeting , he said good job everybody covering the climate accords , but we ’ re done with that , let ’ s get back to Russia . ” At another point , the Project Veritas journalist asks , “ Then why is CNN constantly like , Russia this , Russia that ? ” “ It ’ s a business , people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…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 , ” Bonifield also says . This Project Veritas report comes after CNN saw three employees resign for helping to push a story that a member of Trump ’ s transition team was under investigation , which was later debunked . ( RELATED : Three CNN Employees Resign Over Botched Trump-Russia Story )

A video released Tuesday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas shows a CNN producer speaking candidly about the network’s coverage of President Trump and Russia. In the hidden camera video, John Bonifield, a supervising producer at CNN Health, talks about how CNN uses the Trump-Russia allegations to boost ratings and how directions to focus on it have come from CNN’s CEO Jeff Zucker. When asked by the Project Veritas reporter, “But honestly, you think the whole Russia shit is just like, bullshit?” Bonifield replies, “Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like we, don’t have any big giant proof.” “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. Like, you have no smoking gun, you have no real proof,” he adds. (RELATED: Here Are Five Fake Stories CNN Pushed) Bonifield also reveals that CNN’s CEO, Jeff Zucker was giving directions on coverage, encouraging CNN to focus on the Russia story. “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 (Jeff Zucker) said in our internal meeting, he said good job everybody covering the climate accords, but we’re done with that, let’s get back to Russia.” At another point, the Project Veritas journalist asks, “Then why is CNN constantly like, Russia this, Russia that?” “Because it’s ratings,” Bonifield answers. “It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssssss…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,” Bonifield also says. “Trump is good for business right now.” This Project Veritas report comes after CNN saw three employees resign for helping to push a story that a member of Trump’s transition team was under investigation, which was later debunked. (RELATED: Three CNN Employees Resign Over Botched Trump-Russia Story) Follow Justin on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

tSsiCHYGb6kLFXuV

test

AeATuOvhNC5I6mT6

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/7c536548b165befa04a45b75851307f2

In 2015 audio, Bloomberg advocates targeting minorities

2020-02-11

Alexandra Jaffe

FILE - In this Tuesday , Feb. 4 , 2020 , file photo , Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks to supporters , in Detroit . Bloomberg won the votes of New Hampshire 's Dixville Notch community , hanging onto its tradition of being among the first to cast ballots in the presidential primary , early Tuesday , Feb. 11 . ( AP Photo/Carlos Osorio , File ) FILE - In this Tuesday , Feb. 4 , 2020 , file photo , Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks to supporters , in Detroit . Bloomberg won the votes of New Hampshire 's Dixville Notch community , hanging onto its tradition of being among the first to cast ballots in the presidential primary , early Tuesday , Feb. 11 . ( AP Photo/Carlos Osorio , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Mike Bloomberg is under fire for resurfaced comments in which he says the way to bring down murder rates is to “ put a lot of cops ” in minority neighborhoods because that ’ s where “ all the crime is . ” The billionaire and former New York mayor made the comments at a 2015 appearance at the Aspen Institute , as part of an overall defense of his support for the controversial “ stop and frisk ” policing tactic that has been found to disproportionately affect minorities . Bloomberg launched his Democratic presidential bid late last year with an apology for his support for the policy . On Tuesday , after the comments resurfaced , he reiterated his apology and said his 2015 remarks “ do not reflect my commitment to criminal justice reform and racial equity . ” But the audio of his Aspen speech highlights his embrace of the policy just a few years ago , and suggests he was aware of the disproportionate impact of stop-and-frisk on minorities . Bloomberg says that “ 95 percent ” of murders and murder victims are young male minorities and that “ you can just take the description , Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. ” To combat crime , he says , “ put a lot of cops where the crime is , which means in minority neighborhoods . ” In the audio , he acknowledges focusing police forces in minority neighborhoods means minorities are disproportionately arrested for marijuana possession , but dismisses that as a necessary consequence of the crime in those neighborhoods . And to “ get the guns out of the kids hands , ” Bloomberg says , police must “ throw ’ em against the wall and frisk ’ em . ” “ And they say , ‘ oh , I don ’ t want that , I don ’ t wan na get caught. ’ So they don ’ t bring the gun , ” he says . According to a report in the Aspen Times that year , Bloomberg blocked the release of video of the Aspen Institute appearance , but the Aspen Times reporter uploaded what appears to be the full audio online , and it drew renewed attention Monday after podcaster Benjamin Dixon circulated it on twitter . In his Tuesday statement , Bloomberg notes that he “ inherited the practice of stop and frisk ” from the previous administration , and noted that by the time he left office he significantly reduced its use . He said , “ I should have done it faster and sooner . ” But stop and frisk expanded dramatically on Bloomberg ’ s watch , reaching a peak in 2011 when over 685,000 people were stopped , according to ACLU data . While its use declined significantly after that , Bloomberg stood by the program even in the face of widespread criticism and legal challenges . The former New York mayor has distanced himself from the policy since launching his presidential campaign as part of a broader strategy aimed at appealing to minority voters , which are a key voting bloc for Democrats . He ’ s also acknowledged his own white privilege and released policies focused on issues central to some African American communities , like black homeownership and maternal mortality rates . Joe Biden has long held an overwhelming advantage with African Americans , pointing to their support as his firewall that would provide him with a much-needed primary win in South Carolina at the end of the month . But Biden lost in Iowa and trails in New Hampshire and as his candidacy has become imperiled , recent polling suggests he has lost some African American support . None of his Democratic rivals has yet to truly capitalize , though both Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders have made some inroads . Both have received a number of prominent African American endorsements and have been holding campaign events specifically aimed at the black community . Early Tuesday , Bloomberg faced sharp criticism . Symone Sanders , a top adviser to Biden ’ s campaign , called the comments “ sad and despicable , ” and said he “ will have to answer for these comments. ” President Donald Trump , who himself has supported stop-and-frisk policies , sent out a tweet with a clip of the audio declaring “ Bloomberg ’ s a racist . ” Trump later deleted the tweet but his campaign seized upon its argument . “ These are clearly racist comments and are unacceptable . It also shows that his apology for ‘ stop and frisk ’ was fake and was only designed to win him votes , ” said Trump campaign communications director , Tim Murtagh . “ In a Democrat primary , this kind of talk is poison . Now everyone can see what a fraud Mike Bloomberg is . ” In an October 2018 speech to the International Association of Police Chiefs , Trump touted its use in New York under former mayor Rudy Giuliani , now his personal attorney , and urged Chicago to adopt it . And in 2013 , he defended both the tactic and Bloomberg ’ s police commissioner , tweeting “ Stop and frisk works . Instead of criticizing @ NY_POLICE Chief Ray Kelly , New Yorkers should be thanking him for keeping NY safe . ” Bloomberg focused the bulk of his statement about the audio on Trump , arguing the president ’ s attack “ reflects his fear over the growing strength of my campaign . ” “ Make no mistake Mr. President : I am not afraid of you and I will not let you bully me or anyone else in America , ” Bloomberg said . And indeed , the attacks on Bloomberg follow two tracks for the Trump campaign : they reveal a growing concern about the billionaire ’ s candidacy and an unlikely push to attract black voters . The president and his campaign team have been warily watching Bloomberg ’ s spending spree since the former mayor ’ s late entry into the presidential race . Trump ’ s campaign manager , Brad Parscale , had previously told staffers he would not worry about Bloomberg until he cracked double digits , which the former mayor has now exceeded in some recent national polls . Parscale told aides recently that the campaign would soon be doing more Bloomberg-centric polling , according to a campaign aide not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations . But Trump himself has been fixated on the Democratic race even amid his impeachment trial . Ignoring counsel from some aides , including senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner , to ignore Bloomberg and thus avoid elevating him in a Democratic field that remains unsettled , Trump has delivered frequent broadsides against the far-richer billionaire . Annoyed by Bloomberg ’ s wealth , favorable press and easy entree into the upper realm of New York ’ s elite that long ago rejected him , Trump has repeatedly attacked the former mayor , including recent digs about his height and golf game . The Trump campaign also believes that uncertainty in the Democratic field could lead to a chance to chip away at the other party ’ s advantage with black voters . The campaign has made its own pitch , touting economic growth for minorities since 2016 and highlighting the president ’ s advocacy for criminal justice reform , including in a highly watched Super Bowl ad . Though Trump polls unfavorably with African Americans , the push has two goals : to win over more black voters and to discourage African Americans from turning out for Democrats on Election Day by convincing them there is little difference between the two parties ’ agendas . Black voters turned out overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 but at a lesser rate than for Barack Obama , contributing to Trump ’ s slim margin of victory in several battleground states . ███ writer Jonathan Lemire contributed reporting from Manchester , N.H .

FILE - In this Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2020, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks to supporters, in Detroit. Bloomberg won the votes of New Hampshire's Dixville Notch community, hanging onto its tradition of being among the first to cast ballots in the presidential primary, early Tuesday, Feb. 11. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File) FILE - In this Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2020, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg talks to supporters, in Detroit. Bloomberg won the votes of New Hampshire's Dixville Notch community, hanging onto its tradition of being among the first to cast ballots in the presidential primary, early Tuesday, Feb. 11. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — Mike Bloomberg is under fire for resurfaced comments in which he says the way to bring down murder rates is to “put a lot of cops” in minority neighborhoods because that’s where “all the crime is.” The billionaire and former New York mayor made the comments at a 2015 appearance at the Aspen Institute, as part of an overall defense of his support for the controversial “stop and frisk” policing tactic that has been found to disproportionately affect minorities. Bloomberg launched his Democratic presidential bid late last year with an apology for his support for the policy . On Tuesday, after the comments resurfaced, he reiterated his apology and said his 2015 remarks “do not reflect my commitment to criminal justice reform and racial equity.” But the audio of his Aspen speech highlights his embrace of the policy just a few years ago, and suggests he was aware of the disproportionate impact of stop-and-frisk on minorities. Bloomberg says that “95 percent” of murders and murder victims are young male minorities and that “you can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops.” To combat crime, he says, “put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.” In the audio, he acknowledges focusing police forces in minority neighborhoods means minorities are disproportionately arrested for marijuana possession, but dismisses that as a necessary consequence of the crime in those neighborhoods. And to “get the guns out of the kids hands,” Bloomberg says, police must “throw ’em against the wall and frisk ’em.” “And they say, ‘oh, I don’t want that, I don’t wanna get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun,” he says. According to a report in the Aspen Times that year, Bloomberg blocked the release of video of the Aspen Institute appearance, but the Aspen Times reporter uploaded what appears to be the full audio online, and it drew renewed attention Monday after podcaster Benjamin Dixon circulated it on twitter. In his Tuesday statement, Bloomberg notes that he “inherited the practice of stop and frisk” from the previous administration, and noted that by the time he left office he significantly reduced its use. He said, “I should have done it faster and sooner.” But stop and frisk expanded dramatically on Bloomberg’s watch, reaching a peak in 2011 when over 685,000 people were stopped, according to ACLU data. While its use declined significantly after that, Bloomberg stood by the program even in the face of widespread criticism and legal challenges. The former New York mayor has distanced himself from the policy since launching his presidential campaign as part of a broader strategy aimed at appealing to minority voters, which are a key voting bloc for Democrats. He’s also acknowledged his own white privilege and released policies focused on issues central to some African American communities, like black homeownership and maternal mortality rates. Joe Biden has long held an overwhelming advantage with African Americans, pointing to their support as his firewall that would provide him with a much-needed primary win in South Carolina at the end of the month. But Biden lost in Iowa and trails in New Hampshire and as his candidacy has become imperiled, recent polling suggests he has lost some African American support. None of his Democratic rivals has yet to truly capitalize, though both Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders have made some inroads. Both have received a number of prominent African American endorsements and have been holding campaign events specifically aimed at the black community. Early Tuesday, Bloomberg faced sharp criticism. Symone Sanders, a top adviser to Biden’s campaign, called the comments “sad and despicable,” and said he “will have to answer for these comments.” President Donald Trump, who himself has supported stop-and-frisk policies, sent out a tweet with a clip of the audio declaring “Bloomberg’s a racist.” Trump later deleted the tweet but his campaign seized upon its argument. “These are clearly racist comments and are unacceptable. It also shows that his apology for ‘stop and frisk’ was fake and was only designed to win him votes,” said Trump campaign communications director, Tim Murtagh. “In a Democrat primary, this kind of talk is poison. Now everyone can see what a fraud Mike Bloomberg is.” But Trump himself has long defended the tactic. In an October 2018 speech to the International Association of Police Chiefs, Trump touted its use in New York under former mayor Rudy Giuliani, now his personal attorney, and urged Chicago to adopt it. And in 2013, he defended both the tactic and Bloomberg’s police commissioner, tweeting “Stop and frisk works. Instead of criticizing @NY_POLICE Chief Ray Kelly, New Yorkers should be thanking him for keeping NY safe.” Bloomberg focused the bulk of his statement about the audio on Trump, arguing the president’s attack “reflects his fear over the growing strength of my campaign.” “Make no mistake Mr. President: I am not afraid of you and I will not let you bully me or anyone else in America,” Bloomberg said. And indeed, the attacks on Bloomberg follow two tracks for the Trump campaign: they reveal a growing concern about the billionaire’s candidacy and an unlikely push to attract black voters. The president and his campaign team have been warily watching Bloomberg’s spending spree since the former mayor’s late entry into the presidential race. Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, had previously told staffers he would not worry about Bloomberg until he cracked double digits, which the former mayor has now exceeded in some recent national polls. Parscale told aides recently that the campaign would soon be doing more Bloomberg-centric polling, according to a campaign aide not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations. But Trump himself has been fixated on the Democratic race even amid his impeachment trial. Ignoring counsel from some aides, including senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, to ignore Bloomberg and thus avoid elevating him in a Democratic field that remains unsettled, Trump has delivered frequent broadsides against the far-richer billionaire. Annoyed by Bloomberg’s wealth, favorable press and easy entree into the upper realm of New York’s elite that long ago rejected him, Trump has repeatedly attacked the former mayor, including recent digs about his height and golf game. The Trump campaign also believes that uncertainty in the Democratic field could lead to a chance to chip away at the other party’s advantage with black voters. The campaign has made its own pitch, touting economic growth for minorities since 2016 and highlighting the president’s advocacy for criminal justice reform, including in a highly watched Super Bowl ad. Though Trump polls unfavorably with African Americans, the push has two goals: to win over more black voters and to discourage African Americans from turning out for Democrats on Election Day by convincing them there is little difference between the two parties’ agendas. Black voters turned out overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton in 2016 but at a lesser rate than for Barack Obama, contributing to Trump’s slim margin of victory in several battleground states. —————— Associated Press writer Jonathan Lemire contributed reporting from Manchester, N.H.

www.apnews.com

center

AeATuOvhNC5I6mT6

test

rerztMDTuSf08sy4

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-warren/senator-warren-mocked-by-trump-as-pocahontas-releases-dna-test-idUSKCN1MP1I0

Senator Warren, mocked by Trump as 'Pocahontas,' releases DNA test

2018-10-16

Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren , ridiculed by U.S. President Donald Trump as “ Pocahontas ” for claiming Native American heritage , hit back on Monday with DNA evidence she said supported her assertion , a possible preview of a bare-knuckles presidential campaign in 2020 . The Massachusetts lawmaker , known as a liberal firebrand in her party , said last month she would take a “ hard look ” at running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Trump in 2020 . She and Trump clashed frequently through the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump has cast aspersions on her claim to Native American ancestry . “ When I decided to run for Senate in 2012 , I never thought that my family ’ s Native American heritage would come under attack and my dead parents would be called liars , ” she said in a statement on Monday . “ And I never expected the president of the United States to use my family ’ s story as a racist political joke , ” she said . Trump taunted Warren over the issue at a July rally in Montana . “ I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity , paid for by Trump , if you take the test and it shows you ’ re an Indian , ” he said . “ I have a feeling she will say ‘ no . ’ ” Warren reminded the president on Monday of his promise . “ Please send the check to the National Indigenous Women ’ s Resource Center , ” she said on Twitter . When asked about the DNA test , Trump said : “ Who cares ? ” Then he denied making the comment , as he left Washington to visit hurricane-stricken areas in Florida and Georgia . Later , Trump suggested to reporters in Georgia he could pay the $ 1 million he had wagered , but with a caveat : “ I ’ ll only do it if I can test her personally . That will not be something I will enjoy doing either , ” he said . Trump ’ s use of the name Pocahontas refers to a 17th century Native American woman associated with the British colony in Jamestown , Virginia , and was aimed at drawing attention to a controversy over her heritage raised during Warren ’ s 2012 Senate race . Trump ’ s mocking reference has drawn criticism from Native American groups . Warren provided the DNA test results in a statement , showing the lineage goes back six to 10 generations . bit.ly/2OqLmUz The analysis of Warren ’ s DNA was done by Carlos Bustamante , a Stanford University professor whom the Boston Globe reported was an expert in the field . The professor concluded that most of the senator ’ s DNA showed European ancestry but that it had a Native American segment . Warren has said that her Native American ancestry possibly goes back to the 1700s , including Cherokee blood on her mother ’ s side , according to family lore . Warren ’ s release of the results was criticized by Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. , who said ; “ Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation , even vaguely , is inappropriate and wrong . ” Warren ’ s move could be a prelude to a possible presidential run . An architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau set up after the 2008 financial crisis , Warren has been a strong voice in the U.S. Senate on financial issues . Warren , campaigning with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 , attacked Trump as an “ insecure money grubber ” driven by greed and hate . “ I hope she ’ s running for president , because I think she ’ ll be very easy , ” Trump said as he left the White House on Monday .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, ridiculed by U.S. President Donald Trump as “Pocahontas” for claiming Native American heritage, hit back on Monday with DNA evidence she said supported her assertion, a possible preview of a bare-knuckles presidential campaign in 2020. The Massachusetts lawmaker, known as a liberal firebrand in her party, said last month she would take a “hard look” at running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican Trump in 2020. She and Trump clashed frequently through the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump has cast aspersions on her claim to Native American ancestry. “When I decided to run for Senate in 2012, I never thought that my family’s Native American heritage would come under attack and my dead parents would be called liars,” she said in a statement on Monday. “And I never expected the president of the United States to use my family’s story as a racist political joke,” she said. Trump taunted Warren over the issue at a July rally in Montana. “I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian,” he said. “I have a feeling she will say ‘no.’” Warren reminded the president on Monday of his promise. “Please send the check to the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center,” she said on Twitter. When asked about the DNA test, Trump said: “Who cares?” Then he denied making the comment, as he left Washington to visit hurricane-stricken areas in Florida and Georgia. FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks at the Netroots Nation annual conference for political progressives in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S. August 3, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman/File Photo Later, Trump suggested to reporters in Georgia he could pay the $1 million he had wagered, but with a caveat: “I’ll only do it if I can test her personally. That will not be something I will enjoy doing either,” he said. Trump’s use of the name Pocahontas refers to a 17th century Native American woman associated with the British colony in Jamestown, Virginia, and was aimed at drawing attention to a controversy over her heritage raised during Warren’s 2012 Senate race. Trump’s mocking reference has drawn criticism from Native American groups. POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL RUN? Warren provided the DNA test results in a statement, showing the lineage goes back six to 10 generations. bit.ly/2OqLmUz The analysis of Warren’s DNA was done by Carlos Bustamante, a Stanford University professor whom the Boston Globe reported was an expert in the field. The professor concluded that most of the senator’s DNA showed European ancestry but that it had a Native American segment. Warren has said that her Native American ancestry possibly goes back to the 1700s, including Cherokee blood on her mother’s side, according to family lore. Warren’s release of the results was criticized by Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr., who said; “Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.” Warren’s move could be a prelude to a possible presidential run. Slideshow (2 Images) An architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau set up after the 2008 financial crisis, Warren has been a strong voice in the U.S. Senate on financial issues. Warren, campaigning with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, attacked Trump as an “insecure money grubber” driven by greed and hate. “I hope she’s running for president, because I think she’ll be very easy,” Trump said as he left the White House on Monday.

www.reuters.com

center

rerztMDTuSf08sy4

test

AyyuemYOyHyNpUh6

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2019/january/lindsey-graham-says-ag-pick-bob-barr-committed-to-letting-special-counsel-finish-russia-probe

Lindsey Graham Says AG Pick Bob Barr 'Committed' to Letting Special Counsel Finish Russia Probe

2019-01-10

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump 's attorney general nominee , William Barr , is assuring Republican senators he will not interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller 's Russia investigation . On Wednesday , Barr met with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) ahead of his confirmation hearings , which are scheduled for next week . `` I asked Mr. Barr directly , 'Do you think Mr. Mueller is on a witch hunt ? ' He said no , '' Graham recalled . `` 'Do you think he would be fair to the president and the country as a whole ? ' He said yes . 'And do you see any reason for Mr. Mueller 's investigation to be stopped ? ' He said no . 'Do you see any reason for a termination based on cause ? ' He said no . 'Are you committed to making sure Mr. Mueller can finish his job ? ' 'Yes . ' '' The news comes as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , who 's overseeing the investigation , announced he 's stepping down after Barr is confirmed . Some Democrats want Barr to recuse himself from the Mueller probe because of his previous statements criticizing the investigation . Specifically , they 're referring to a controversial memo Barr wrote last year to Rosenstein calling the probe `` fatally misconceived . '' `` The Senate ... should subject Mr. Barr 's views to the strictest of scrutiny next week and I still believe , after the revelations about Mr. Barr 's unsolicited memo , President Trump ought to withdraw this nomination , '' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) said Wednesday . Likewise , Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) said the memo was `` deeply worrisome because in effect he says the president is above the law ... that 's incorrect as a matter of law but certainly for an attorney general to have that position is deeply wrong . '' However , Graham says Democrats ' fears are unfounded , noting that Barr and Mueller are good friends of more than 20 years and their wives attend a Bible study together . `` I can assure you he has a very high opinion of Mr. Mueller and he is committed to letting Mr. Mueller finish his job , '' the South Carolina lawmaker said .

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump's attorney general nominee, William Barr, is assuring Republican senators he will not interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. On Wednesday, Barr met with Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) ahead of his confirmation hearings, which are scheduled for next week. "I asked Mr. Barr directly, 'Do you think Mr. Mueller is on a witch hunt?' He said no," Graham recalled. "'Do you think he would be fair to the president and the country as a whole?' He said yes. 'And do you see any reason for Mr. Mueller's investigation to be stopped?' He said no. 'Do you see any reason for a termination based on cause?' He said no. 'Are you committed to making sure Mr. Mueller can finish his job?' 'Yes.'" The news comes as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who's overseeing the investigation, announced he's stepping down after Barr is confirmed. Some Democrats want Barr to recuse himself from the Mueller probe because of his previous statements criticizing the investigation. Specifically, they're referring to a controversial memo Barr wrote last year to Rosenstein calling the probe "fatally misconceived." "The Senate...should subject Mr. Barr's views to the strictest of scrutiny next week and I still believe, after the revelations about Mr. Barr's unsolicited memo, President Trump ought to withdraw this nomination," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday. Likewise, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said the memo was "deeply worrisome because in effect he says the president is above the law... that's incorrect as a matter of law but certainly for an attorney general to have that position is deeply wrong." However, Graham says Democrats' fears are unfounded, noting that Barr and Mueller are good friends of more than 20 years and their wives attend a Bible study together. "I can assure you he has a very high opinion of Mr. Mueller and he is committed to letting Mr. Mueller finish his job," the South Carolina lawmaker said.

www1.cbn.com

right

AyyuemYOyHyNpUh6

test

JNl4kGxFw67CxXnh

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/february/after-accusations-of-racism-and-infanticide-resignation-calls-grow-louder-for-embattled-gov-northam

After Accusations of Racism and Infanticide, Resignation Calls Grow Louder for Embattled Gov. Northam

2019-02-04

Virginia Gov . Ralph Northam says he 's staying in office despite a growing chorus of demands for his resignation over accusations of racism . After calling an urgent meeting with his staff Sunday night , Northam is reportedly looking for the best way forward . On Friday , the Democratic governor apologized and admitted he was one of two people pictured in a racist photo appearing in the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School Yearbook . The photo shows one person in blackface and the other in a KKK outfit . But on Saturday , Northam reversed his statement , saying he was n't in the photo . `` I was appalled that they appeared on my page , but I believed then and now that I am not either of the people in that photo , '' Northam said during a press conference . At that same event , he did acknowledge darkening his face in the past for a Michael Jackson dance contest . His friend and former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe ( D ) is n't buying it . `` Instinctively , you know if you put black paint on your face , you know if you put a hood on , '' McAuliffe told CNN . McAuliffe praised Northam for his work in the commonwealth but stood firm on his call to resign . `` It was one of the hardest things I had to do , '' he said of his former Lt . Governor . McAuliffe is just one of a multitude of fellow Democrats condemning the governor . With race relations a likely hot button issue for 2020 , nearly every major declared and potential candidate were on the record early , rebuking Northam and saying he should resign . But at least one Democrat thinks he should remain in office . `` I think it is a rush to judgment before we know all of the facts , '' warned former Congressman Jim Moran ( D-VA ) . `` Facts that we do know are that Ralph has expanded Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of uninsured Virginians , a disproportionate number of whom are African Americans , '' Moran continued . Even so , McAuliffe – like other Democrats – believes it 's time to move on to new leadership . `` We have to move Virginia forward . Justin Fairfax , an African American Lt . Governor , will do a great job of bringing folks back together , '' said McAuliffe . The 39-year-old Fairfax is a Columbia Law graduate and the second African American ever to win a statewide election in Virginia . The loud calls for Northam 's resignation also come not long after he made headlines for comments regarding an abortion bill introduced in Virginia 's House of Delegates . Northam defended the bill , saying in a radio interview that babies born with defects could be allowed to die right after they 're born . Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) accused Northam of supporting infanticide .

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam says he's staying in office despite a growing chorus of demands for his resignation over accusations of racism. After calling an urgent meeting with his staff Sunday night, Northam is reportedly looking for the best way forward. On Friday, the Democratic governor apologized and admitted he was one of two people pictured in a racist photo appearing in the 1984 Eastern Virginia Medical School Yearbook. The photo shows one person in blackface and the other in a KKK outfit. But on Saturday, Northam reversed his statement, saying he wasn't in the photo. "I was appalled that they appeared on my page, but I believed then and now that I am not either of the people in that photo," Northam said during a press conference. At that same event, he did acknowledge darkening his face in the past for a Michael Jackson dance contest. His friend and former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) isn't buying it. "Instinctively, you know if you put black paint on your face, you know if you put a hood on," McAuliffe told CNN. McAuliffe praised Northam for his work in the commonwealth but stood firm on his call to resign. "It was one of the hardest things I had to do," he said of his former Lt. Governor. McAuliffe is just one of a multitude of fellow Democrats condemning the governor. With race relations a likely hot button issue for 2020, nearly every major declared and potential candidate were on the record early, rebuking Northam and saying he should resign. But at least one Democrat thinks he should remain in office. "I think it is a rush to judgment before we know all of the facts," warned former Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA). "Facts that we do know are that Ralph has expanded Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of uninsured Virginians, a disproportionate number of whom are African Americans," Moran continued. Even so, McAuliffe – like other Democrats – believes it's time to move on to new leadership. "We have to move Virginia forward. Justin Fairfax, an African American Lt. Governor, will do a great job of bringing folks back together," said McAuliffe. The 39-year-old Fairfax is a Columbia Law graduate and the second African American ever to win a statewide election in Virginia. The loud calls for Northam's resignation also come not long after he made headlines for comments regarding an abortion bill introduced in Virginia's House of Delegates. Northam defended the bill, saying in a radio interview that babies born with defects could be allowed to die right after they're born. Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) accused Northam of supporting infanticide.

www1.cbn.com

right

JNl4kGxFw67CxXnh

test

nCAz0izMqVs21POj

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2017/08/31/gorka-starting-maga-phase-two-working-outside-support-president-trump/

Gorka: ‘We’re Starting MAGA Phase Two’ and Working from Outside to Support President Trump

2017-08-31

John Hayward

Former Deputy Adviser to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka discussed his exit from the White House with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday ’ s ███ Daily . Gorka said the simple version of the reason he resigned is that “ people like myself , people like Steve Bannon , came into the building because of a very clear agenda , which was the MAGA agenda , Make America Great Again — and , in the last seven months , we ’ ve seen people who really had nothing to do with MAGA , who weren ’ t affiliated with the campaign , rise in influence inside the building . ” “ The issues that I was brought in to deal with — national security , counterterrorism specifically — weren ’ t heading in the right direction , ” he lamented . Gorka said the last straw was “ the speech written for the president on Afghanistan last week when I realized the best I can do to support the president is from the outside . ” “ When you have one of the most important national security speeches in his early tenure not mention the key phrase ‘ radical Islam ’ or ‘ radical Islamic terrorism , ’ then we have to take the game to the outside . So we ’ re starting MAGA Phase Two , and people like Steve and myself have a whole slew of tools — I was going to say ‘ weapons , ’ but let ’ s say tools , that ’ s a ‘ basket full of tools ’ for our fellow deplorables — that we can use on the outside to support the president and keep the MAGA train running on its rails , ” Gorka said , riffing on Hillary Clinton ’ s infamous “ basket of deplorables ” comment from the 2016 presidential campaign . Gorka explained why he thought he could be more effective on President Trump ’ s behalf outside the White House . “ Let me give you an example : I came in to do national security work for Steve , a chief strategist , as a deputy to the president , but after the first executive order on the moratorium for travel into the United States , I was thrown into representing the White House in the media , ” he recalled . “ Every time I went on media , somebody else had to approve it . Somebody else had to write my talking points . Somebody else kept that relationship with the individual who was booking me to themselves . ” “ We have a great team inside the White House , but I can do whatever I like , ” he said happily . “ I think I broke a personal record on Monday . I think I did about 30 media hits . That ’ s how you make the MAGA agenda happen : get the message out there , reassure the base , and make sure that the Swamp does not control the narrative . Just media alone , it ’ s incredibly liberating not to be a government employee . ” Gorka hoped President Trump would feel liberated in the same way and follow his instincts as a communicator . “ I completely subscribe to the philosophy : Let Donald Trump be Donald Trump , ” Gorka declared . “ Look , he reached out to me the day after I resigned , and his message to me was very simple : ‘ Thank you for your support . I ’ m going to stay on the agenda . Can you help me from the outside as you did on the inside ? ’ My message back was , ‘ Absolutely . That ’ s why I did what I did , so I can be more effective . ’ ” He offered another example of the White House communications environment : “ Do you remember the Jim Acosta/Steven Miller moment ? For me , that was MAGA because you had somebody who loved America , knew what he was talking about 101 percent — it ’ s like going to a gunfight with a knife , going up against Steven Miller on immigration , you just don ’ t do it , right ? And in that three-minute interchange , you saw why the president won . You saw this elitist bubble attitude : ‘ Well , only Australians and English people speak English , so what are you saying to all the other immigrants ? ’ I mean , it was the Swamp incarnate . ” Gorka recalled White House staffers cheering as they watched the exchange , but later there were “ voices afterward for days inside the building saying ‘ how embarrassing , what did he do with Jim Acosta ? ’ ” “ No , that ’ s how you treat people who think that the press briefing in the White House is a CNN event , ” he declared . “ No , Jim Acosta , it ’ s not the Jim Acosta briefing . It is the presidential press spokesman ’ s briefing . That ’ s what we have to get out of the building , this idea that we are here to please the elite . ” “ Donald J. Trump was the consummate insurgent outsider . He was as much an anti-right wing establishment candidate as he was an anti-Democrat . That ’ s what we have to reinforce , and that ’ s what the GOP has to understand . I ’ m going to be doing everything in my power to make sure that the establishment doesn ’ t win , ” he promised . Gorka modulated his criticism of establishment voices in the White House by saying he doesn ’ t want to “ create more palace intrigue . ” “ I was at the brunt of enough of that , ” he noted ruefully . “ There are some amazing people there , ” he added . “ Kellyanne : hero . Sarah Huckabee Sanders : what she has done to the media to put them in their place is superb . She ’ s a happy warrior . But there definitely are these two different worldviews , that we are there to please the Fake News-industrial complex , and people like myself , people like Steven Miller , like Sarah , like Kellyanne , who say no . They are morally bankrupt — not just financially bankrupt — and we are not here to please them . ” ███ Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern .

Former Deputy Adviser to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka discussed his exit from the White House with SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily. Gorka said the simple version of the reason he resigned is that “people like myself, people like Steve Bannon, came into the building because of a very clear agenda, which was the MAGA agenda, Make America Great Again — and, in the last seven months, we’ve seen people who really had nothing to do with MAGA, who weren’t affiliated with the campaign, rise in influence inside the building.” “The issues that I was brought in to deal with — national security, counterterrorism specifically — weren’t heading in the right direction,” he lamented. Gorka said the last straw was “the speech written for the president on Afghanistan last week when I realized the best I can do to support the president is from the outside.” “When you have one of the most important national security speeches in his early tenure not mention the key phrase ‘radical Islam’ or ‘radical Islamic terrorism,’ then we have to take the game to the outside. So we’re starting MAGA Phase Two, and people like Steve and myself have a whole slew of tools — I was going to say ‘weapons,’ but let’s say tools, that’s a ‘basket full of tools’ for our fellow deplorables — that we can use on the outside to support the president and keep the MAGA train running on its rails,” Gorka said, riffing on Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” comment from the 2016 presidential campaign. Gorka explained why he thought he could be more effective on President Trump’s behalf outside the White House. “Let me give you an example: I came in to do national security work for Steve, a chief strategist, as a deputy to the president, but after the first executive order on the moratorium for travel into the United States, I was thrown into representing the White House in the media,” he recalled. “Every time I went on media, somebody else had to approve it. Somebody else had to write my talking points. Somebody else kept that relationship with the individual who was booking me to themselves.” “We have a great team inside the White House, but I can do whatever I like,” he said happily. “I think I broke a personal record on Monday. I think I did about 30 media hits. That’s how you make the MAGA agenda happen: get the message out there, reassure the base, and make sure that the Swamp does not control the narrative. Just media alone, it’s incredibly liberating not to be a government employee.” Gorka hoped President Trump would feel liberated in the same way and follow his instincts as a communicator. “I completely subscribe to the philosophy: Let Donald Trump be Donald Trump,” Gorka declared. “Look, he reached out to me the day after I resigned, and his message to me was very simple: ‘Thank you for your support. I’m going to stay on the agenda. Can you help me from the outside as you did on the inside?’ My message back was, ‘Absolutely. That’s why I did what I did, so I can be more effective.’” He offered another example of the White House communications environment: “Do you remember the Jim Acosta/Steven Miller moment? For me, that was MAGA because you had somebody who loved America, knew what he was talking about 101 percent — it’s like going to a gunfight with a knife, going up against Steven Miller on immigration, you just don’t do it, right? And in that three-minute interchange, you saw why the president won. You saw this elitist bubble attitude: ‘Well, only Australians and English people speak English, so what are you saying to all the other immigrants?’ I mean, it was the Swamp incarnate.” Gorka recalled White House staffers cheering as they watched the exchange, but later there were “voices afterward for days inside the building saying ‘how embarrassing, what did he do with Jim Acosta?’” “No, that’s how you treat people who think that the press briefing in the White House is a CNN event,” he declared. “No, Jim Acosta, it’s not the Jim Acosta briefing. It is the presidential press spokesman’s briefing. That’s what we have to get out of the building, this idea that we are here to please the elite.” “Donald J. Trump was the consummate insurgent outsider. He was as much an anti-right wing establishment candidate as he was an anti-Democrat. That’s what we have to reinforce, and that’s what the GOP has to understand. I’m going to be doing everything in my power to make sure that the establishment doesn’t win,” he promised. Gorka modulated his criticism of establishment voices in the White House by saying he doesn’t want to “create more palace intrigue.” “I was at the brunt of enough of that,” he noted ruefully. “There are some amazing people there,” he added. “Kellyanne: hero. Sarah Huckabee Sanders: what she has done to the media to put them in their place is superb. She’s a happy warrior. But there definitely are these two different worldviews, that we are there to please the Fake News-industrial complex, and people like myself, people like Steven Miller, like Sarah, like Kellyanne, who say no. They are morally bankrupt — not just financially bankrupt — and we are not here to please them.” Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. Eastern.

www.breitbart.com

right

nCAz0izMqVs21POj

test

8ktcKSSx8ZtB4wXQ

politics

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/speaking-truth-to-power-becomes-sucking-up-to-power/

Speaking Truth to Power Becomes Sucking Up to Power

Daniel J. Flynn, E. Donald Elliott, Geoff Shepard, J.T. Young, John C. Wohlstetter, Philip Leigh

Despite a past Democratic nominee inventing the internet , the current party standard bearer struggles terribly with gizmos , gadgets , and other doohickeys associated with interweb technology . Hackers CC the emails of since-removed DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz , Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta , and current DNC chair Donna Brazile to , well , everyone . But Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that foreign hackers overlooked her inclusion of classified documents on a private server . They just targeted all of her friends and ignored her . Sure , and she “ lost ” those 13 missing Blackberry devices the FBI wanted , too . One secretary of state ’ s indiscretion is the same presidential candidate ’ s discretion . She failed to protect classified documents in an effort to protect herself . Freedom of Information Act requests and Congressional subpoenas for public records prove terrible nuisances to one ’ s political ambitions . Best for the candidate to keep her doings secret — from her government but none of the others . Clinton corrupted her office . So , too , do her well-wishers in the Fourth Estate who misheard “ speaking truth to power ” in journalism school as “ sucking up to power . ” “ From time to time I get the questions in advance , ” Donna Brazile informed Clinton campaign manager John Podesta . Brazile , supposedly impartial as both a CNN employee and DNC official , provided Clinton ’ s campaign manager with the text of a question on the death penalty asked the next day at a CNN debate between Mrs. Clinton and Bernie Sanders . She allegedly received the question from TV One ’ s Roland Martin , also supposedly impartial as a moderator of the town hall-style debate . Donald Trump juxtaposed Charles Van Doren receiving the answers on rigged 1950s game show Twenty One , which The Apprentice host misidentified as The $ 64,000 Question , with Clinton receiving the heads up for the town-hall test . It ’ s called cheating , and Van Doren resigned from his position at Columbia University in disgrace after owning up to participating in such a fraud . One suspects that a job at CNN , or some other network , awaits Brazile when the campaign ends . It turns out that the rube in the red “ Make America Great Again ” trucker hat shouting “ Clinton News Network ” at Trump rallies offered the most insightful analysis of Election 2016 . When Trump cited the media as “ dishonest ” and “ corrupt ” in calling the election “ rigged ” at Wednesday ’ s debate he came off as a premature sore loser and more significantly stripped himself of the “ winner ” aura that has served him well since the primaries . Like many political figures , he misspoke but spoke truth . Lest CNN rigging debates for Clinton leaves an impression of malfeasance occurring at a lone , low-rated cable network , WikiLeaks offers a trove of emails revealing the message coordination between the press and the politicians . Politico ’ s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush , correctly identifying himself as a “ hack , ” sent an article on Clinton to her campaign manager for vetting with the plaintive petition “ please don ’ t share or tell anyone I did this. ” Haim Saban , co-owner of Univision , advised the Clinton campaign to more aggressively counter Trump ’ s stance on immigration . John Harwood , a moderator of a Republican debate last year , seconded Obama ’ s notion of the “ opposition party veering off the rails ” in one email to Podesta . “ Amazing , ” the CNBC reporter and New York Times contributor wrote to Podesta in another , “ that some people still think it ’ s worth burning so much interview time with person most likely to be next president on her emails . ” Podesta himself , barring incoming emails about benevolent extraterrestrials helping to alleviate global warming , comes across as more grounded and less rabid than the campaign ’ s votaries in the media . You can ’ t blame the campaign manager for cultivating the cultish journalists for his cause . And one sympathizes with him in his efforts dodging and ducking a stalking David Brock , a man with many “ eccentricities ” that Podesta speculates falls into the “ unhinged narcissist ” category . But when the guy with the UFO tic looks like the sanest one in the chatroom , well , you can fill in the rest . Journalists predictably report on their own shady emails with even less zeal than they reported on Hillary Clinton ’ s not-so-shielded ones . “ Remember , it ’ s illegal to possess these stolen documents , ” CNN ’ s Chris Cuomo — strange how Kennedys , Cuomos , Clintons , and other members of Democratic Party royal families land so many jobs in the media — misinformed viewers last week about WikiLeaks releases . “ It ’ s different for the media , so everything you ’ re learning about this , you ’ re learning from us . ” And there lies the problem . When the guys in the striped shirts drop their whistles to push the ball over the goal line , the star player on the opposing team , and his fans in the stands , might just yell “ rigged. ” And the malefactors might just blame anyone — even the Russians — for their own misdeeds .

Despite a past Democratic nominee inventing the internet, the current party standard bearer struggles terribly with gizmos, gadgets, and other doohickeys associated with interweb technology. Hackers CC the emails of since-removed DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and current DNC chair Donna Brazile to, well, everyone. But Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that foreign hackers overlooked her inclusion of classified documents on a private server. They just targeted all of her friends and ignored her. Sure, and she “lost” those 13 missing Blackberry devices the FBI wanted, too. One secretary of state’s indiscretion is the same presidential candidate’s discretion. She failed to protect classified documents in an effort to protect herself. Freedom of Information Act requests and Congressional subpoenas for public records prove terrible nuisances to one’s political ambitions. Best for the candidate to keep her doings secret — from her government but none of the others. Clinton corrupted her office. So, too, do her well-wishers in the Fourth Estate who misheard “speaking truth to power” in journalism school as “sucking up to power.” “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Donna Brazile informed Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. Brazile, supposedly impartial as both a CNN employee and DNC official, provided Clinton’s campaign manager with the text of a question on the death penalty asked the next day at a CNN debate between Mrs. Clinton and Bernie Sanders. She allegedly received the question from TV One’s Roland Martin, also supposedly impartial as a moderator of the town hall-style debate. Donald Trump juxtaposed Charles Van Doren receiving the answers on rigged 1950s game show Twenty One, which The Apprentice host misidentified as The $64,000 Question, with Clinton receiving the heads up for the town-hall test. It’s called cheating, and Van Doren resigned from his position at Columbia University in disgrace after owning up to participating in such a fraud. One suspects that a job at CNN, or some other network, awaits Brazile when the campaign ends. It turns out that the rube in the red “Make America Great Again” trucker hat shouting “Clinton News Network” at Trump rallies offered the most insightful analysis of Election 2016. When Trump cited the media as “dishonest” and “corrupt” in calling the election “rigged” at Wednesday’s debate he came off as a premature sore loser and more significantly stripped himself of the “winner” aura that has served him well since the primaries. Like many political figures, he misspoke but spoke truth. Lest CNN rigging debates for Clinton leaves an impression of malfeasance occurring at a lone, low-rated cable network, WikiLeaks offers a trove of emails revealing the message coordination between the press and the politicians. Politico’s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush, correctly identifying himself as a “hack,” sent an article on Clinton to her campaign manager for vetting with the plaintive petition “please don’t share or tell anyone I did this.” Haim Saban, co-owner of Univision, advised the Clinton campaign to more aggressively counter Trump’s stance on immigration. John Harwood, a moderator of a Republican debate last year, seconded Obama’s notion of the “opposition party veering off the rails” in one email to Podesta. “Amazing,” the CNBC reporter and New York Times contributor wrote to Podesta in another, “that some people still think it’s worth burning so much interview time with person most likely to be next president on her emails.” Podesta himself, barring incoming emails about benevolent extraterrestrials helping to alleviate global warming, comes across as more grounded and less rabid than the campaign’s votaries in the media. You can’t blame the campaign manager for cultivating the cultish journalists for his cause. And one sympathizes with him in his efforts dodging and ducking a stalking David Brock, a man with many “eccentricities” that Podesta speculates falls into the “unhinged narcissist” category. But when the guy with the UFO tic looks like the sanest one in the chatroom, well, you can fill in the rest. Journalists predictably report on their own shady emails with even less zeal than they reported on Hillary Clinton’s not-so-shielded ones. “Remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo — strange how Kennedys, Cuomos, Clintons, and other members of Democratic Party royal families land so many jobs in the media — misinformed viewers last week about WikiLeaks releases. “It’s different for the media, so everything you’re learning about this, you’re learning from us.” And there lies the problem. When the guys in the striped shirts drop their whistles to push the ball over the goal line, the star player on the opposing team, and his fans in the stands, might just yell “rigged.” And the malefactors might just blame anyone — even the Russians — for their own misdeeds.

www.spectator.org

right

8ktcKSSx8ZtB4wXQ

test

LJ6Mg3jLPm05FtRT

race_and_racism

Newsmax (News)

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/washington-nfl-team-drop/2020/07/13/id/976858/

Washington's NFL Team Officially Drops Redskins Team Name

2020-07-13

The Washington NFL franchise announced Monday it is dropping the “ Redskins ” name and Indian head logo , bowing to pressure from sponsors and decades of criticism that they are offensive to Native Americans . A new name must still be selected for one of the oldest and most storied teams in the National Football League , and it was unclear how soon that will happen . But for now , arguably the most polarizing name in North American professional sports is gone at a time of reckoning over racial injustice , iconography and racism in the U.S . The move came less than two weeks after owner Dan Snyder , a boyhood fan of the team who once declared he would never get rid of the name , launched a “ thorough review ” amid pressure from sponsors . FedEx , Nike , Pepsi and Bank of America all lined up against the name , which was given to the franchise in 1933 when the team was still based in Boston . The team said it is “ retiring ” the name and logo and that Snyder and coach Ron Rivera are working closely to develop a new moniker and design . The announcement came on the old letterhead with the Redskins name because the team technically retains it until a new one is chosen and approved . Native American advocates and experts have long criticized the name they call a “ dictionary-defined racial slur. ” Over a dozen Native leaders and organizations wrote to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell last week demanding an immediate end to Washington ’ s use of the name . Goodell , who has fielded questions on the topic for years , said he supported the review . Protests against the name predate Snyder buying the team in 1999 , and , until now , he had shown no willingness to consider a change . Strong words from sponsors — including a company run by a minority stakeholder of the team — changed the equation . FedEx earlier this month became the first sponsor to announce it had asked the organization to change the name , particularly important because CEO Frederick Smith owns part of the team . FedEx paid $ 205 million for the long-term naming rights to the team ’ s stadium in Landover , Maryland . The lease at FedEx Field expires in 2027 , and dropping the name keeps open various possibilities in Maryland , Virginia and Washington for the team ’ s new stadium and headquarters . District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the name was an “ obstacle ” to Snyder building on the old RFK Stadium site , which is believed to be his preference . The team recently started cutting ties with racist founder George Preston Marshall , removing his name from the Ring of Fame and renaming the lower bowl at FedEx Field for the team ’ s first Black player , late Hall of Famer Bobby Mitchell . Marshall , who renamed the Boston Braves the Redskins in 1933 and moved the team to D.C. four years later , was a segregationist and the last NFL owner to integrate his team . The current logo shows the profile of a red-faced Native American with feathers in his hair . Major League Baseball ’ s Atlanta Braves and the National Hockey League ’ s Chicago Blackhawks have said they have no inclination to change their names . Some advocates would like to see all Native American names , mascots and imagery out of sports . Long removed from the glory days of winning Super Bowl titles in the 1982 , 1987 and 1991 seasons under coach Joe Gibbs , Washington 's NFL team has just five playoff appearances in 21 years and no postseason victories since 2005 . The team has lacked a nationally marketable player since Robert Griffin III ’ s short-lived stardom , and the 2020 schedule features zero prime-time games for a franchise that used to be a draw . Re-branding with a new name and logo — and perhaps the same burgundy and gold colors — coupled with turning football operations over to Rivera could be a boon for Snyder on and off the field . Even if a segment of the fan base opposes the change in the name of tradition , winning would more than make up for those losses .

The Washington NFL franchise announced Monday it is dropping the “Redskins” name and Indian head logo, bowing to pressure from sponsors and decades of criticism that they are offensive to Native Americans. A new name must still be selected for one of the oldest and most storied teams in the National Football League, and it was unclear how soon that will happen. But for now, arguably the most polarizing name in North American professional sports is gone at a time of reckoning over racial injustice, iconography and racism in the U.S. The move came less than two weeks after owner Dan Snyder, a boyhood fan of the team who once declared he would never get rid of the name, launched a “thorough review” amid pressure from sponsors. FedEx, Nike, Pepsi and Bank of America all lined up against the name, which was given to the franchise in 1933 when the team was still based in Boston. The team said it is “retiring” the name and logo and that Snyder and coach Ron Rivera are working closely to develop a new moniker and design. The announcement came on the old letterhead with the Redskins name because the team technically retains it until a new one is chosen and approved. Native American advocates and experts have long criticized the name they call a “dictionary-defined racial slur.” Over a dozen Native leaders and organizations wrote to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell last week demanding an immediate end to Washington’s use of the name. Goodell, who has fielded questions on the topic for years, said he supported the review. Protests against the name predate Snyder buying the team in 1999, and, until now, he had shown no willingness to consider a change. Strong words from sponsors — including a company run by a minority stakeholder of the team — changed the equation. FedEx earlier this month became the first sponsor to announce it had asked the organization to change the name, particularly important because CEO Frederick Smith owns part of the team. FedEx paid $205 million for the long-term naming rights to the team’s stadium in Landover, Maryland. The lease at FedEx Field expires in 2027, and dropping the name keeps open various possibilities in Maryland, Virginia and Washington for the team’s new stadium and headquarters. District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser has said the name was an “obstacle” to Snyder building on the old RFK Stadium site, which is believed to be his preference. The team recently started cutting ties with racist founder George Preston Marshall, removing his name from the Ring of Fame and renaming the lower bowl at FedEx Field for the team’s first Black player, late Hall of Famer Bobby Mitchell. Marshall, who renamed the Boston Braves the Redskins in 1933 and moved the team to D.C. four years later, was a segregationist and the last NFL owner to integrate his team. The current logo shows the profile of a red-faced Native American with feathers in his hair. Major League Baseball’s Atlanta Braves and the National Hockey League’s Chicago Blackhawks have said they have no inclination to change their names. Some advocates would like to see all Native American names, mascots and imagery out of sports. Long removed from the glory days of winning Super Bowl titles in the 1982, 1987 and 1991 seasons under coach Joe Gibbs, Washington's NFL team has just five playoff appearances in 21 years and no postseason victories since 2005. The team has lacked a nationally marketable player since Robert Griffin III’s short-lived stardom, and the 2020 schedule features zero prime-time games for a franchise that used to be a draw. Re-branding with a new name and logo — and perhaps the same burgundy and gold colors — coupled with turning football operations over to Rivera could be a boon for Snyder on and off the field. Even if a segment of the fan base opposes the change in the name of tradition, winning would more than make up for those losses.

www.newsmax.com

right

LJ6Mg3jLPm05FtRT

test

79n5nv2qxkHO9LSF

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/e27cfce9464809aa8c91afd74c930bb5?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP

Minneapolis cop who knelt on man’s neck charged with murder

2020-05-29

Amy Forliti, Tim Sullivan

In this May 29 , 2020 , photo , a check-cashing business burns during protests in Minneapolis . Protests continued following the death of George Floyd , who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day . ( AP Photo/John Minchillo ) In this May 29 , 2020 , photo , a check-cashing business burns during protests in Minneapolis . Protests continued following the death of George Floyd , who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day . ( AP Photo/John Minchillo ) MINNEAPOLIS ( AP ) — The white Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee into George Floyd ’ s neck as he begged for air was arrested Friday and charged with murder , and crowds broke overnight curfews imposed to try to stem violent protests over police killings of African Americans that have spread to cities across the U.S . On Minneapolis ’ south side , officers fired tear gas and rubber bullets to drive back crowds of protesters who then set cars and businesses on fire and broke into stores , including some near a police station . Shortly before midnight , scores of officers on foot and in vehicles moved in to curb the violence a day after city and state leaders faced blowback for their handling of the crisis . Protesters on Thursday torched a police station soon after it was abandoned by police and vandalized dozens of businesses . The Pentagon took the rare step Friday of ordering the Army to put several active-duty U.S. military police units on the ready to deploy to Minneapolis , according to three people with direct knowledge of the orders who did not want their names used because they were not authorized to discuss the preparations . Ben Hubert , 26 , of Minneapolis , said he wasn ’ t surprised people were breaking curfew and setting fires . “ I ’ m outraged , ” he said of the Floyd case . “ But I ’ m also sad . The injustice has been going on for so long . It ’ s been swelling for years . ” Downtown , thousands of protesters encircled a police station after the 8 p.m. curfew . “ Prosecute the police ! ” some chanted , and “ Say his name : George Floyd ! ” There was no violence , though some protesters sprayed graffiti on buildings . The renewed protests came after Officer Derek Chauvin , 44 , was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter . He also was accused of ignoring another officer who expressed concerns about Floyd as he lay handcuffed on the ground , pleading that he could not breathe while Chauvin pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes . Floyd , who was black , had been arrested on suspicion of using a counterfeit bill at a store . Chauvin , who was fired along with three other officers who were at the scene , faces more than 12 years in prison if convicted of murder . An attorney for Floyd ’ s family welcomed the arrest but said he expected a more serious murder charge and wants the other officers arrested , too . Prosecutor Mike Freeman said more charges were possible , but authorities “ felt it appropriate to focus on the most dangerous perpetrator . ” As the night dragged on , more fires erupted on the south side : A Japanese restaurant , a Wells Fargo bank , another restaurant , an Office Depot . Many burned for hours . Mayor Jacob Frey tweeted that firefighters could not respond until areas were secure . He said the city was working with the National Guard and the state to “ provide support in the south . ” Protests nationwide have been fueled by outrage over Floyd ’ s death and years of police violence against African Americans . Protesters smashed windows at CNN headquarters in Atlanta , set a police car on fire and struck officers with bottles . Large demonstrations in New York , Houston , Washington , D.C. , and dozens of other cities ranged from people peacefully blocking roads to repeated clashes with police . “ You are disgracing our city , ” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told protesters . “ You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country . ” Police were trying to put Floyd in a squad car Monday when he stiffened and fell to the ground , saying he was claustrophobic , a criminal complaint said . Chauvin and Officer Tou Thoa arrived and tried several times to get the struggling Floyd into the car . Chauvin eventually pulled Floyd out of the car , and the handcuffed Floyd went to the ground face down . Officer J.K. Kueng held Floyd ’ s back and Officer Thomas Lane held his legs while Chauvin put his knee on Floyd ’ s head and neck area , the complaint said . When Lane asked if Floyd should be rolled onto his side , Chauvin said , “ No , staying put is where we got him. ” Lane said he was “ worried about excited delirium or whatever . ” An autopsy said the combined effects of being restrained , potential intoxicants in Floyd ’ s system and his underlying health issues , including heart disease , likely contributed to his death . It revealed nothing to support strangulation as the cause of death . There were no other details about intoxicants , and toxicology results can take weeks . In the 911 call that drew police , the caller describes the man suspected of paying with counterfeit money as “ awfully drunk and he ’ s not in control of himself . ” After Floyd apparently stopped breathing , Lane again said he wanted to roll Floyd onto his side . Kueng checked for a pulse and said he could not find one , according to the complaint . Chauvin had his knee on Floyd ’ s neck for 8 minutes , 46 seconds , including nearly three minutes after Floyd stopped moving and talking , the complaint said . Chauvin ’ s attorney had no comment when reached by The ███ . The prosecutor highlighted the “ extraordinary speed ” in charging the case four days after Floyd ’ s death and defended himself against questions about why it did not happen sooner . Freeman said his office needed time to gather evidence , including what he called the “ horrible ” video recorded by a bystander . News of the arrest came moments after Minnesota Gov . Tim Walz acknowledged the “ abject failure ” in responding to this week ’ s protests and called for swift justice for the officers . Walz said the state took the lead after the police station burned . “ Minneapolis and St. Paul are on fire . The fire is still smoldering in our streets . The ashes are symbolic of decades and generations of pain , of anguish unheard , ” Walz said . President Donald Trump said Friday that he ’ d spoken to Floyd ’ s family and “ expressed my sorrow . ” He called video of the arrest “ just a horrible thing to witness and to watch . It certainly looked like there was no excuse for it . ” Attorney Benjamin Crump , who is representing Floyd ’ s family , asked to take custody of Floyd ’ s body for an independent autopsy . The doctor who will do the autopsy is Michael Baden , former chief medical examiner of New York City , who was hired to do an autopsy for Eric Garner , a black man who died in 2014 after New York police placed him in a chokehold and he pleaded that he could not breathe .

In this May 29, 2020, photo, a check-cashing business burns during protests in Minneapolis. Protests continued following the death of George Floyd, who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) In this May 29, 2020, photo, a check-cashing business burns during protests in Minneapolis. Protests continued following the death of George Floyd, who died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers on Memorial Day. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The white Minneapolis police officer who pressed his knee into George Floyd’s neck as he begged for air was arrested Friday and charged with murder, and crowds broke overnight curfews imposed to try to stem violent protests over police killings of African Americans that have spread to cities across the U.S. On Minneapolis’ south side, officers fired tear gas and rubber bullets to drive back crowds of protesters who then set cars and businesses on fire and broke into stores, including some near a police station. Shortly before midnight, scores of officers on foot and in vehicles moved in to curb the violence a day after city and state leaders faced blowback for their handling of the crisis. Protesters on Thursday torched a police station soon after it was abandoned by police and vandalized dozens of businesses. ADVERTISEMENT The Pentagon took the rare step Friday of ordering the Army to put several active-duty U.S. military police units on the ready to deploy to Minneapolis, according to three people with direct knowledge of the orders who did not want their names used because they were not authorized to discuss the preparations. Ben Hubert, 26, of Minneapolis, said he wasn’t surprised people were breaking curfew and setting fires. “I’m outraged,” he said of the Floyd case. “But I’m also sad. The injustice has been going on for so long. It’s been swelling for years.” Downtown, thousands of protesters encircled a police station after the 8 p.m. curfew. “Prosecute the police!” some chanted, and “Say his name: George Floyd!” There was no violence, though some protesters sprayed graffiti on buildings. The renewed protests came after Officer Derek Chauvin, 44, was charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. He also was accused of ignoring another officer who expressed concerns about Floyd as he lay handcuffed on the ground, pleading that he could not breathe while Chauvin pressed his knee into his neck for several minutes. Floyd, who was black, had been arrested on suspicion of using a counterfeit bill at a store. Chauvin, who was fired along with three other officers who were at the scene, faces more than 12 years in prison if convicted of murder. An attorney for Floyd’s family welcomed the arrest but said he expected a more serious murder charge and wants the other officers arrested, too. ADVERTISEMENT Prosecutor Mike Freeman said more charges were possible, but authorities “felt it appropriate to focus on the most dangerous perpetrator.” As the night dragged on, more fires erupted on the south side: A Japanese restaurant, a Wells Fargo bank, another restaurant, an Office Depot. Many burned for hours. Mayor Jacob Frey tweeted that firefighters could not respond until areas were secure. He said the city was working with the National Guard and the state to “provide support in the south.” Protests nationwide have been fueled by outrage over Floyd’s death and years of police violence against African Americans. Protesters smashed windows at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, set a police car on fire and struck officers with bottles. Large demonstrations in New York, Houston, Washington, D.C., and dozens of other cities ranged from people peacefully blocking roads to repeated clashes with police. “You are disgracing our city,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told protesters. “You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country.” Police were trying to put Floyd in a squad car Monday when he stiffened and fell to the ground, saying he was claustrophobic, a criminal complaint said. Chauvin and Officer Tou Thoa arrived and tried several times to get the struggling Floyd into the car. Chauvin eventually pulled Floyd out of the car, and the handcuffed Floyd went to the ground face down. Officer J.K. Kueng held Floyd’s back and Officer Thomas Lane held his legs while Chauvin put his knee on Floyd’s head and neck area, the complaint said. When Lane asked if Floyd should be rolled onto his side, Chauvin said, “No, staying put is where we got him.” Lane said he was “worried about excited delirium or whatever.” An autopsy said the combined effects of being restrained, potential intoxicants in Floyd’s system and his underlying health issues, including heart disease, likely contributed to his death. It revealed nothing to support strangulation as the cause of death. There were no other details about intoxicants, and toxicology results can take weeks. In the 911 call that drew police, the caller describes the man suspected of paying with counterfeit money as “awfully drunk and he’s not in control of himself.” After Floyd apparently stopped breathing, Lane again said he wanted to roll Floyd onto his side. Kueng checked for a pulse and said he could not find one, according to the complaint. Chauvin had his knee on Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes, 46 seconds, including nearly three minutes after Floyd stopped moving and talking, the complaint said. Chauvin’s attorney had no comment when reached by The Associated Press. The prosecutor highlighted the “extraordinary speed” in charging the case four days after Floyd’s death and defended himself against questions about why it did not happen sooner. Freeman said his office needed time to gather evidence, including what he called the “horrible” video recorded by a bystander. News of the arrest came moments after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz acknowledged the “abject failure” in responding to this week’s protests and called for swift justice for the officers. Walz said the state took the lead after the police station burned. “Minneapolis and St. Paul are on fire. The fire is still smoldering in our streets. The ashes are symbolic of decades and generations of pain, of anguish unheard,” Walz said. President Donald Trump said Friday that he’d spoken to Floyd’s family and “expressed my sorrow.” He called video of the arrest “just a horrible thing to witness and to watch. It certainly looked like there was no excuse for it.” Attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing Floyd’s family, asked to take custody of Floyd’s body for an independent autopsy. The doctor who will do the autopsy is Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner of New York City, who was hired to do an autopsy for Eric Garner, a black man who died in 2014 after New York police placed him in a chokehold and he pleaded that he could not breathe. State and federal authorities also are investigating Floyd’s death. ___ Associated Press writers Steve Karnowski, Aaron Morrison and Doug Glass in Minneapolis, Gretchen Ehlke in Milwaukee, Bernard Condon in New York, and James LaPorta in Delray Beach, Fla., contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

79n5nv2qxkHO9LSF

test

67Xsm3KXujy1fuVh

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eric-holder-stepping-down/2014/09/25/id/596839/

US Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to Resign

2014-09-25

Eric Holder , who served as the public face of the Obama administration 's legal fight against terrorism and pushed to make the criminal justice system more even-handed , is resigning after six years on the job . He is the nation 's first black attorney general . The White House said Thursday that President Barack Obama planned to announce Holder 's departure later Thursday . The White House said Holder plans to remain at the Justice Department until his successor is in place . The 63-year-old former judge and prosecutor took office in early 2009 as the U.S. government grappled with the worst financial crisis in decades and with divisive questions on the handling of captured terrorism suspects , issues that helped shape his six-year tenure as the country 's top law enforcement official . He is the fourth-longest serving attorney general in U.S. history . In his first few years on the job , Holder endured a succession of firestorms over , among other things , an ultimately-abandoned plan to try terrorism suspects in New York City , a botched gun-running probe along the Southwest border that prompted Republican calls for his resignation , and a perceived failure to hold banks accountable for the economic meltdown . But he stayed on after President Barack Obama won re-election , turning in his final stretch to issues that he said were personally important to him . He promoted voting rights and legal benefits for same-sex couples and pushed for changes to a criminal justice system that he said meted out punishment disproportionately to minorities . Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Deputy Attorney General James Cole ; Kathryn Ruemmler , the former White House counsel ; Deval Patrick , the Democratic governor of Massachusetts ; and at least three Democratic U.S. senators , Claire McCaskill of Missouri , Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , have been mentioned by congressional and administration officials as qualified successors.California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been a supporter and ally of Obama and is another potential candidate . Preet Bharara , the U.S. attorney in Manhattan also has been mentioned at a possible successor . Bharara ’ s response when asked about higher office has consistently been “ I love my job . ” Holder has been discussing plans to leave the job for more than a year as he tried complete his agenda on federal sentencing and civil rights . Holder positioned himself at the vanguard of protecting racial and ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians from discrimination , fixing what he considers related flaws in the justice system , sometimes without congressional action . Last year , he sued North Carolina and Texas to overturn voter-identification laws that he says unfairly target minorities . He has instructed federal prosecutors to avoid charging low-level drug offenders in a way that triggered what he considers “ draconian ” mandatory minimum sentences . He also has been a target for congressional Republicans , over his role in overseeing a botched attempt to track gun smuggling called Fast and Furious . The House held Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012 . Myrlie Evers , widow of civil right pioneer Medgar Evers , said Holder never shied away from the tough issues . “ There has been no greater ally in the fight for justice , civil rights , equal rights , and voting rights than Attorney General Holder , ” she said in a statement today . “ The attorney general was always there ready to correct injustices and offer common sense reforms to better our nation . ” More recently , Obama asked him and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnston to deliver recommendations on actions the administration could take to ease deportations of undocumented immigrants and provide some of them with legal status . Obama has deferred making a decision until after the November congressional elections . Holder also has been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Republicans . South Carolina Republican Representative Jeff Duncan said via Twitter : “ Good riddance Eric Holder . Your disregard for the Constitution of the United States will not be missed . ” In February , he suffered a health scare that sent him to the hospital . Holder felt faint during a morning meeting in late February and was taken by ambulance to a hospital , where he was treated for an elevated heart rate . He described the experience as “ spooky . ” “ It will happen to all of you at some point , you zoom past your 30th , 40th , 50th birthday . When you get to 60 , there is a certain sense of mortality you have to come to grips with , when you realize you have more yesterdays than tomorrows , ” he said in an interview with Bloomberg News in March . Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ?

Eric Holder, who served as the public face of the Obama administration's legal fight against terrorism and pushed to make the criminal justice system more even-handed, is resigning after six years on the job. He is the nation's first black attorney general. The White House said Thursday that President Barack Obama planned to announce Holder's departure later Thursday. The White House said Holder plans to remain at the Justice Department until his successor is in place. The 63-year-old former judge and prosecutor took office in early 2009 as the U.S. government grappled with the worst financial crisis in decades and with divisive questions on the handling of captured terrorism suspects, issues that helped shape his six-year tenure as the country's top law enforcement official. He is the fourth-longest serving attorney general in U.S. history. In his first few years on the job, Holder endured a succession of firestorms over, among other things, an ultimately-abandoned plan to try terrorism suspects in New York City, a botched gun-running probe along the Southwest border that prompted Republican calls for his resignation, and a perceived failure to hold banks accountable for the economic meltdown. But he stayed on after President Barack Obama won re-election, turning in his final stretch to issues that he said were personally important to him. He promoted voting rights and legal benefits for same-sex couples and pushed for changes to a criminal justice system that he said meted out punishment disproportionately to minorities. NPR was first to report his departure Vote Now: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Deputy Attorney General James Cole; Kathryn Ruemmler, the former White House counsel; Deval Patrick, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts; and at least three Democratic U.S. senators, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, have been mentioned by congressional and administration officials as qualified successors.California Attorney General Kamala Harris has been a supporter and ally of Obama and is another potential candidate. Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan also has been mentioned at a possible successor. Bharara’s response when asked about higher office has consistently been “I love my job.” Holder has been discussing plans to leave the job for more than a year as he tried complete his agenda on federal sentencing and civil rights. Holder positioned himself at the vanguard of protecting racial and ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians from discrimination, fixing what he considers related flaws in the justice system, sometimes without congressional action. Last year, he sued North Carolina and Texas to overturn voter-identification laws that he says unfairly target minorities. He has instructed federal prosecutors to avoid charging low-level drug offenders in a way that triggered what he considers “draconian” mandatory minimum sentences. He also has been a target for congressional Republicans,over his role in overseeing a botched attempt to track gun smuggling called Fast and Furious. The House held Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012. Myrlie Evers, widow of civil right pioneer Medgar Evers, said Holder never shied away from the tough issues. “There has been no greater ally in the fight for justice, civil rights, equal rights, and voting rights than Attorney General Holder,” she said in a statement today. “The attorney general was always there ready to correct injustices and offer common sense reforms to better our nation.” More recently, Obama asked him and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnston to deliver recommendations on actions the administration could take to ease deportations of undocumented immigrants and provide some of them with legal status. Obama has deferred making a decision until after the November congressional elections. Holder also has been a frequent target of criticism from congressional Republicans. South Carolina Republican Representative Jeff Duncan said via Twitter: “Good riddance Eric Holder. Your disregard for the Constitution of the United States will not be missed.” In February, he suffered a health scare that sent him to the hospital. Holder felt faint during a morning meeting in late February and was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he was treated for an elevated heart rate. He described the experience as “spooky.” “It will happen to all of you at some point, you zoom past your 30th, 40th, 50th birthday. When you get to 60, there is a certain sense of mortality you have to come to grips with, when you realize you have more yesterdays than tomorrows,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg News in March. Vote Now: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance?

www.newsmax.com

right

67Xsm3KXujy1fuVh

test

eB9gOfoD4F4sGBPO

lgbt_rights

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/04/the_gops_ludicrous_kim_davis_primary_how_raging_homophobia_took_the_republican_campaign_by_storm/

The GOP's ludicrous Kim Davis primary: How raging homophobia took the Republican campaign by storm

2015-09-04

If someone were to hold a gun to my head and force me to vote in the Republican primary , I 'd first attempt to desperately wrestle the gun away . But , short of that , I 'd probably go ahead and vote for Lindsey Graham . I hasten to underscore that I vigorously disagree with Graham on a wide range of issues , especially his interventionist posture on Iraq and the broader Middle East . Although from what I 've witnessed , especially throughout the Republican nominating process , Graham has comported himself at least as a man of integrity . Not for nothing , but he appears on the surface to be a nice enough guy -- at least compared with his GOP colleagues who mostly drive one to violent profanity-strewn outbursts . This week 's big story is the saga of a Rowan County , KY , clerk Kim Davis , who was jailed indefinitely Thursday by U.S. District Judge David Bunning for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in compliance with an earlier court order . Davis will remain in federal custody until she agrees to issue the appropriate licenses . Last month , meanwhile , a Texas clerk named Katie Lang was hit with a court settlement to the tune of $ 44,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a license for a gay couple . But it clearly was n't punitive enough to scare Davis who 's clearly acting in contempt of Judge Bunning 's order . Davis believes that by issuing the licenses she 'll be condemned to Hell . Of course her perceived biblical trespass is ridiculously cherrypicked , as it always is . Homophobes like Davis seem to only zero-in on Leviticus and a few letters written by the apostle Paul . ( Regarding the latter , and briefly put , Paul was merely recruiting pagan gentiles to the ascetic Christian lifestyle . Paganism often included sex acts in temple rituals , so naturally converts would have to reject those old forms of worship . Paul , by the way , in Romans , also expressly forbid debating , boasting , deception , being unmerciful and wine-drinking . That 'd be a quintuple Hell-worthy condemnation for John Boehner . It 's also worth noting that the terms `` homosexuality '' and `` same-sex marriage '' were anachronistic in the ancient world , making it impossible for the Bible to explicitly condemn either . ) Incidentally , it 's come to light that Davis has been divorced three times and married four . So much for the sanctity of marriage . And in the various video clips and photos of Davis , she 's clearly wearing two types of cloth at the same time , which is a direct violation of God 's decree in Leviticus 19:19 . The bottom line here is that Davis works in the public sector and therefore is forbidden by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from imposing her ( blindingly contradictory ) faith on the public . Naturally , she 's also acting in defiance of the Supreme Court 's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges . My cynical side tells me there 's more to Davis ' motives . She 's already been lionized by the bigoted far-right , with at least two GOP presidential candidates rushing to her support , so it 's not unfair to speculate that she 's gripped by the lure of national attention . To wit : Mike Huckabee personally called Davis to offer his encouragement and , naturally , his prayers . Meanwhile , Rand Paul said that Davis ' actions are indicative of the `` American way . '' Paul went on to say : `` I think one way to get around the whole idea of what the Supreme Court is forcing on the states is for states just to get out of the business of giving out licenses , '' Paul said . `` Alabama has already voted to do this , they ’ re just no longer going to give out licenses . And anybody can make a contract . And then if you want a marriage contract you go to a church . And so I ’ ve often said we could have gotten around all of this also in the sense that I do believe everybody has a right to a contract . '' This is bizarre given how Paul is one of the most vocal supporters of states ' rights -- letting the states take control of nearly everything . Then again , he 's such a notorious flip-flopper that he makes Mitt Romney look like a steadfast pillar of unwavering integrity . Speaking of which , let 's return to integrity . A third presidential candidate , Lindsey Graham , also weighed in on the Davis story , but not in the way you 'd expect from a conservative Republican . It turns out Graham said exactly what any sane , rational human being might say . `` As a public official , comply with the law or resign , '' Graham told clerk Kim Davis [ ... ] `` The rule of law is the rule of law , '' Graham said . `` We are a rule of law nation . And I appreciate her conviction , and I support traditional marriage , but she ’ s accepted a job where she has to apply the law to everyone and that ’ s her choice . '' Okay , that was precisely the correct reaction to the story . ( Except , of course , the thing about supporting traditional marriage , but nobody 's perfect . ) What 's more noteworthy , however , is that Graham said this in total defiance of both his party and his congressional delegation , each of which routinely scrambles over itself to pander as much if not more to anti-gay Americans as it does to racists and sexists . Additionally , Graham had the guts to say it to one of the top-shelf nationally syndicated conservative radio hosts , Hugh Hewitt . The liberal equivalent might 've been , for example , Elizabeth Warren hypothetically defending the NRA on `` Real Time with Bill Maher . No wonder Graham is losing badly in a GOP presidential field populated by goofballs , racists and over-paid comment trolls . While he 's not going to win any popularity polls on the left , there are two things any liberal ought to be able to say about Graham : ( 1 ) He obviously possesses at least a modicum of integrity that 's unmatched by the majority of his colleagues ; and ( 2 ) he appears to be one of the few remaining national politicians who , at least in the here and now , has n't sold out to the inchoate screeching and personality politics of the Tea Party and Fox News Channel . And that 's a real accomplishment , given the strong incentives in the other direction . In the blurting culture of Trump-era politics we need more leaders like Graham who are willing to take the rational high-road rather than dutifully falling in line with the fire-eaters , extremists and carnival geeks of his party .

If someone were to hold a gun to my head and force me to vote in the Republican primary, I'd first attempt to desperately wrestle the gun away. But, short of that, I'd probably go ahead and vote for Lindsey Graham. I hasten to underscore that I vigorously disagree with Graham on a wide range of issues, especially his interventionist posture on Iraq and the broader Middle East. Although from what I've witnessed, especially throughout the Republican nominating process, Graham has comported himself at least as a man of integrity. Not for nothing, but he appears on the surface to be a nice enough guy -- at least compared with his GOP colleagues who mostly drive one to violent profanity-strewn outbursts. Advertisement: Let's talk about the integrity thing specifically. This week's big story is the saga of a Rowan County, KY, clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed indefinitely Thursday by U.S. District Judge David Bunning for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in compliance with an earlier court order. Davis will remain in federal custody until she agrees to issue the appropriate licenses. Last month, meanwhile, a Texas clerk named Katie Lang was hit with a court settlement to the tune of $44,000 in damages and legal fees for refusing to issue a license for a gay couple. But it clearly wasn't punitive enough to scare Davis who's clearly acting in contempt of Judge Bunning's order. Davis believes that by issuing the licenses she'll be condemned to Hell. Of course her perceived biblical trespass is ridiculously cherrypicked, as it always is. Homophobes like Davis seem to only zero-in on Leviticus and a few letters written by the apostle Paul. (Regarding the latter, and briefly put, Paul was merely recruiting pagan gentiles to the ascetic Christian lifestyle. Paganism often included sex acts in temple rituals, so naturally converts would have to reject those old forms of worship. Paul, by the way, in Romans, also expressly forbid debating, boasting, deception, being unmerciful and wine-drinking. That'd be a quintuple Hell-worthy condemnation for John Boehner. It's also worth noting that the terms "homosexuality" and "same-sex marriage" were anachronistic in the ancient world, making it impossible for the Bible to explicitly condemn either.) Incidentally, it's come to light that Davis has been divorced three times and married four. So much for the sanctity of marriage. And in the various video clips and photos of Davis, she's clearly wearing two types of cloth at the same time, which is a direct violation of God's decree in Leviticus 19:19. But I nitpick. The bottom line here is that Davis works in the public sector and therefore is forbidden by the establishment clause of the First Amendment from imposing her (blindingly contradictory) faith on the public. Naturally, she's also acting in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. My cynical side tells me there's more to Davis' motives. She's already been lionized by the bigoted far-right, with at least two GOP presidential candidates rushing to her support, so it's not unfair to speculate that she's gripped by the lure of national attention. Advertisement: To wit: Mike Huckabee personally called Davis to offer his encouragement and, naturally, his prayers. Meanwhile, Rand Paul said that Davis' actions are indicative of the "American way." Paul went on to say: "I think one way to get around the whole idea of what the Supreme Court is forcing on the states is for states just to get out of the business of giving out licenses," Paul said. "Alabama has already voted to do this, they’re just no longer going to give out licenses. And anybody can make a contract. And then if you want a marriage contract you go to a church. And so I’ve often said we could have gotten around all of this also in the sense that I do believe everybody has a right to a contract." This is bizarre given how Paul is one of the most vocal supporters of states' rights -- letting the states take control of nearly everything. Then again, he's such a notorious flip-flopper that he makes Mitt Romney look like a steadfast pillar of unwavering integrity. Speaking of which, let's return to integrity. A third presidential candidate, Lindsey Graham, also weighed in on the Davis story, but not in the way you'd expect from a conservative Republican. It turns out Graham said exactly what any sane, rational human being might say. Said the South Carolina Republican: Advertisement: "As a public official, comply with the law or resign," Graham told clerk Kim Davis [...] "The rule of law is the rule of law," Graham said. "We are a rule of law nation. And I appreciate her conviction, and I support traditional marriage, but she’s accepted a job where she has to apply the law to everyone and that’s her choice." Okay, that was precisely the correct reaction to the story. (Except, of course, the thing about supporting traditional marriage, but nobody's perfect.) What's more noteworthy, however, is that Graham said this in total defiance of both his party and his congressional delegation, each of which routinely scrambles over itself to pander as much if not more to anti-gay Americans as it does to racists and sexists. Additionally, Graham had the guts to say it to one of the top-shelf nationally syndicated conservative radio hosts, Hugh Hewitt. The liberal equivalent might've been, for example, Elizabeth Warren hypothetically defending the NRA on "Real Time with Bill Maher. No wonder Graham is losing badly in a GOP presidential field populated by goofballs, racists and over-paid comment trolls. While he's not going to win any popularity polls on the left, there are two things any liberal ought to be able to say about Graham: (1) He obviously possesses at least a modicum of integrity that's unmatched by the majority of his colleagues; and (2) he appears to be one of the few remaining national politicians who, at least in the here and now, hasn't sold out to the inchoate screeching and personality politics of the Tea Party and Fox News Channel. And that's a real accomplishment, given the strong incentives in the other direction. In the blurting culture of Trump-era politics we need more leaders like Graham who are willing to take the rational high-road rather than dutifully falling in line with the fire-eaters, extremists and carnival geeks of his party.

www.salon.com

left

eB9gOfoD4F4sGBPO

test

4ogBLqHeJsZVh0t6

education

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/fe67b0cad7a94047a50c4bc21d9b82d1

No classes, parents scramble as Chicago teacher strike looms

2019-10-17

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates hold a press conference after members turned down the district 's latest offer , Wednesday , Oct. 16 , 2019 in Chicago . Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers ' strike set to begin Thursday , prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation 's third-largest school district . ( Matthew Hendrickson/Chicago Sun-Times via AP ) Members of the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates hold a press conference after members turned down the district 's latest offer , Wednesday , Oct. 16 , 2019 in Chicago . Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers ' strike set to begin Thursday , prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation 's third-largest school district . ( Matthew Hendrickson/Chicago Sun-Times via AP ) CHICAGO ( AP ) — Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers ’ strike set to begin Thursday , prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation ’ s third-largest school district . The Chicago Teachers Union confirmed Wednesday night that its 25,000 members would not return to their classrooms Thursday after months of negotiation between the union and Chicago Public Schools failed to resolve disputes over pay and benefits , class size and teacher preparation time . The strike is Chicago ’ s first major walkout by teachers since 2012 and city officials announced early Wednesday that all classes had been canceled for Thursday in hopes of giving more planning time to the parents of more than 300,000 students . “ We want this to be a short strike with an agreement that will benefit our schools and our teachers . We have a ways to go , ” Chicago Teachers Union President Jesse Sharkey said during a union news conference . “ We actually want to see improvement on all the issues we are talking about here . ” Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she was disappointed by the union ’ s decision to strike . “ We are offering a historic package on the core issues — salary , staffing and class size , ” she said Wednesday night at her own news conference , adding that school district negotiators will remain at the bargaining table and that she hopes the union does , too . During the 2012 strike , the district kept some schools open for half days during a seven-day walkout . District officials said this time they will keep all buildings open during school hours , staffed by principals and employees who usually work in administrative roles . Breakfast and lunch will be served , but all after-school activities and school buses are suspended in the district serving more than 300,000 students . Janice Jackson , the district ’ s CEO , encouraged parents to send their children to the school that they normally attend , however they will be welcome in any district schools . “ We ’ ve put together a really comprehensive plan for the students , ” Jackson said . “ We will make sure they are safe and they have a productive day . ” Also striking will be 7,000 support staffers , whose union also failed to reach a contract agreement . Before the strike announcement , June Davis said if teachers walked out , she would likely send her 7-year-old son , Joshua , to his usual elementary school — Smyth Elementary on the city ’ s South Side where almost all students are low-income and minority . Davis , 38 , said she would otherwise have to take her son to his grandmother ’ s in a southern suburb , requiring an hourlong trip on a regional bus line . “ Everybody ’ s hoping they will come to some kind of agreement , find some compromise , ” Davis said . Lightfoot preemptively announced that classes on Thursday would be canceled , saying she wanted to give parents more time to plan . A clearly frustrated Lightfoot said the city had not only offered a 16 % pay raise over the five-year contract , but the city also had agreed to put language in the contract addressing “ enforceable targets ” on class size and increasing staffing levels for positions such as nurses , librarians and social workers — items the union said were critical . She said the union ’ s demands would cost an unaffordable $ 2.5 billion per year . Union leaders disputed Lightfoot ’ s characterization of the city ’ s willingness to concede to their demands on several issues , including class sizes . “ CPS ’ current class size offer falls far short of what ’ s needed to address the sweeping scale of the problem , ” they said in a statement . Lightfoot said the city agreed to make substantial changes on some of the union ’ s top priorities , but its negotiators responded by issuing additional demands , including some she deemed unacceptable . “ The union is still demanding to shorten instructional time by 30 minutes in the morning , ” she said . “ We won ’ t do that . We will not cheat our children out of instructional time . ” Before heading into a downtown law firm for bargaining talks Wednesday morning , union vice president Stacy Davis Gates said there is a “ gross disconnect ” between Lightfoot ’ s comments and what negotiators have put in writing . “ To say that you have offered a proposal that respects what we are asking for , to say you ’ ve bent over backward ... it ’ s absolutely ridiculous , ” Davis Gates said . Community organizations have been preparing for days to welcome students , ranging from a $ 100 per day camp for elementary school kids at the Shedd Aquarium to all-day programs run by the Boys & Girls Club of Chicago and accessible for a $ 20 annual membership fee . Mimi LeClair , president of the Boys & Girls Club of Chicago , said a strike is particularly difficult for single parents and those whose jobs have inflexible schedules . “ It ’ s a horrendous dilemma , deciding between likely losing their job or having their paycheck docked when they rely on every penny or leaving their children home alone , ” LeClair said . The city ’ s public libraries also are planning programs for students , along with a network of churches and community centers that are part of the city ’ s Safe Haven program intended to give kids a safe place during the summer months particularly on the city ’ s South and West sides . The YMCA of Metro Chicago expects highest demand for its all-day programs for children between the ages of 5 and 12 , who are too young to stay home alone but whose parents may oppose sending them to schools unstaffed by teachers . “ Real life still happens , ” said Man-Yee Lee , a spokeswoman for the organization . “ Parents still need to go to work and their kids still need somewhere to go . ”

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates hold a press conference after members turned down the district's latest offer, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2019 in Chicago. Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers' strike set to begin Thursday, prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation's third-largest school district. (Matthew Hendrickson/Chicago Sun-Times via AP) Members of the Chicago Teachers Union House of Delegates hold a press conference after members turned down the district's latest offer, Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2019 in Chicago. Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers' strike set to begin Thursday, prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation's third-largest school district. (Matthew Hendrickson/Chicago Sun-Times via AP) CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago parents and community groups are scrambling to prepare for a massive teachers’ strike set to begin Thursday, prompting the city to preemptively cancel classes in the nation’s third-largest school district. The Chicago Teachers Union confirmed Wednesday night that its 25,000 members would not return to their classrooms Thursday after months of negotiation between the union and Chicago Public Schools failed to resolve disputes over pay and benefits, class size and teacher preparation time. Full Coverage: Strikes The strike is Chicago’s first major walkout by teachers since 2012 and city officials announced early Wednesday that all classes had been canceled for Thursday in hopes of giving more planning time to the parents of more than 300,000 students. “We want this to be a short strike with an agreement that will benefit our schools and our teachers. We have a ways to go,” Chicago Teachers Union President Jesse Sharkey said during a union news conference. “We actually want to see improvement on all the issues we are talking about here.” Mayor Lori Lightfoot said she was disappointed by the union’s decision to strike. “We are offering a historic package on the core issues — salary, staffing and class size,” she said Wednesday night at her own news conference, adding that school district negotiators will remain at the bargaining table and that she hopes the union does, too. During the 2012 strike, the district kept some schools open for half days during a seven-day walkout. District officials said this time they will keep all buildings open during school hours, staffed by principals and employees who usually work in administrative roles. Breakfast and lunch will be served, but all after-school activities and school buses are suspended in the district serving more than 300,000 students. Janice Jackson, the district’s CEO, encouraged parents to send their children to the school that they normally attend, however they will be welcome in any district schools. “We’ve put together a really comprehensive plan for the students,” Jackson said. “We will make sure they are safe and they have a productive day.” Also striking will be 7,000 support staffers, whose union also failed to reach a contract agreement. Before the strike announcement, June Davis said if teachers walked out, she would likely send her 7-year-old son, Joshua, to his usual elementary school — Smyth Elementary on the city’s South Side where almost all students are low-income and minority. Davis, 38, said she would otherwise have to take her son to his grandmother’s in a southern suburb, requiring an hourlong trip on a regional bus line. “Everybody’s hoping they will come to some kind of agreement, find some compromise,” Davis said. Lightfoot preemptively announced that classes on Thursday would be canceled, saying she wanted to give parents more time to plan. A clearly frustrated Lightfoot said the city had not only offered a 16% pay raise over the five-year contract, but the city also had agreed to put language in the contract addressing “enforceable targets” on class size and increasing staffing levels for positions such as nurses, librarians and social workers — items the union said were critical. She said the union’s demands would cost an unaffordable $2.5 billion per year. Union leaders disputed Lightfoot’s characterization of the city’s willingness to concede to their demands on several issues, including class sizes. “CPS’ current class size offer falls far short of what’s needed to address the sweeping scale of the problem,” they said in a statement. Lightfoot said the city agreed to make substantial changes on some of the union’s top priorities, but its negotiators responded by issuing additional demands, including some she deemed unacceptable. “The union is still demanding to shorten instructional time by 30 minutes in the morning,” she said. “We won’t do that. We will not cheat our children out of instructional time.” Before heading into a downtown law firm for bargaining talks Wednesday morning, union vice president Stacy Davis Gates said there is a “gross disconnect” between Lightfoot’s comments and what negotiators have put in writing. “To say that you have offered a proposal that respects what we are asking for, to say you’ve bent over backward ... it’s absolutely ridiculous,” Davis Gates said. Community organizations have been preparing for days to welcome students, ranging from a $100 per day camp for elementary school kids at the Shedd Aquarium to all-day programs run by the Boys & Girls Club of Chicago and accessible for a $20 annual membership fee. Mimi LeClair, president of the Boys & Girls Club of Chicago, said a strike is particularly difficult for single parents and those whose jobs have inflexible schedules. “It’s a horrendous dilemma, deciding between likely losing their job or having their paycheck docked when they rely on every penny or leaving their children home alone,” LeClair said. The city’s public libraries also are planning programs for students, along with a network of churches and community centers that are part of the city’s Safe Haven program intended to give kids a safe place during the summer months particularly on the city’s South and West sides. The YMCA of Metro Chicago expects highest demand for its all-day programs for children between the ages of 5 and 12, who are too young to stay home alone but whose parents may oppose sending them to schools unstaffed by teachers. “Real life still happens,” said Man-Yee Lee, a spokeswoman for the organization. “Parents still need to go to work and their kids still need somewhere to go.”

www.apnews.com

center

4ogBLqHeJsZVh0t6

test

YK18VvwQUuOHWjJN

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/479ff9866464254b4a986aa1b61eac14

Justices rule for federal employee over age discrimination

2020-04-06

Mark Sherman

The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for federal employees 40 and older to sue for age discrimination . The justices ruled 8-1 that federal workers have a lower hurdle to overcome than their counterparts in the private sector . The decision came in the case in which Chief Justice John Roberts , a 65-year-old baby boomer , invoked the “ OK , boomer ” meme during arguments in January for the first time in high-court records . The court issued the opinion without taking the bench for the third straight week because of the coronavirus . Arguments scheduled for the spring have been postponed indefinitely . An employee can win a lawsuit by showing that age discrimination was part of the process , even if the people who were selected were better qualified , the court held in an opinion by another boomer , 70-year-old Justice Samuel Alito . The ruling came in the case of a Veterans Affairs Department employee who was in her early 50s when she sued for age discrimination after being denied promotions and training opportunities . The outcome stands in contrast to a 2009 decision in which the court said age has to be the key factor in a private sector employment decision . The language of the law ’ s provisions covering private and federal employees is different . Alito wrote that , “ if Congress had wanted to impose the same standard on all employers , it could have easily done so . ” But the opinion also made clear that an employee could not expect to win back pay or the promotion she sought if discrimination was not the key factor in the employment decision at issue . There could be other options , including a court order forbidding the agency from using the same flawed process in the future , Alito wrote . Justice Clarence Thomas , 71 , also a member of the post-World War II baby boom generation , dissented . Supreme Court justices sometimes will imagine themselves in situations like the ones that land people before the high court , but that can be hard to do when the subject is employment discrimination because the justices have lifetime tenure . The youngest justice , Neil Gorsuch , is 52 . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , 87 , is the eldest .

WASHINGTON (AP) — Well, OK, boomer. The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for federal employees 40 and older to sue for age discrimination. The justices ruled 8-1 that federal workers have a lower hurdle to overcome than their counterparts in the private sector. The decision came in the case in which Chief Justice John Roberts, a 65-year-old baby boomer, invoked the “OK, boomer” meme during arguments in January for the first time in high-court records. The court issued the opinion without taking the bench for the third straight week because of the coronavirus . Arguments scheduled for the spring have been postponed indefinitely. An employee can win a lawsuit by showing that age discrimination was part of the process, even if the people who were selected were better qualified, the court held in an opinion by another boomer, 70-year-old Justice Samuel Alito. The ruling came in the case of a Veterans Affairs Department employee who was in her early 50s when she sued for age discrimination after being denied promotions and training opportunities. The outcome stands in contrast to a 2009 decision in which the court said age has to be the key factor in a private sector employment decision. The language of the law’s provisions covering private and federal employees is different. Alito wrote that, “if Congress had wanted to impose the same standard on all employers, it could have easily done so.” But the opinion also made clear that an employee could not expect to win back pay or the promotion she sought if discrimination was not the key factor in the employment decision at issue. There could be other options, including a court order forbidding the agency from using the same flawed process in the future, Alito wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas, 71, also a member of the post-World War II baby boom generation, dissented. Supreme Court justices sometimes will imagine themselves in situations like the ones that land people before the high court, but that can be hard to do when the subject is employment discrimination because the justices have lifetime tenure. The youngest justice, Neil Gorsuch, is 52. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, is the eldest. The case is Babb v. Wilkie, 18-882.

www.apnews.com

center

YK18VvwQUuOHWjJN

test

U0lD1cr6FaCBlVyN

opioid_crisis

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/fb54abbce60e1fe44926becb84e86edf

North America trade pact deals rare setback to Big Pharma

2019-12-19

Paul Wiseman, Linda A. Johnson, Kevin Freking

FILE - This June 15 , 2018 , file photo shows pharmaceuticals in North Andover , Mass . A revamped North American trade deal is nearing passage in Congress , giving both the White House and House Democrats cause to claim victory . There is relief , too , for farmers and businesses that wanted clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States , Canada and Mexico . But the pact left at least one surprising loser : The pharmaceutical industry , a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington . ( AP Photo/Elise Amendola , File ) FILE - This June 15 , 2018 , file photo shows pharmaceuticals in North Andover , Mass . A revamped North American trade deal is nearing passage in Congress , giving both the White House and House Democrats cause to claim victory . There is relief , too , for farmers and businesses that wanted clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States , Canada and Mexico . But the pact left at least one surprising loser : The pharmaceutical industry , a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington . ( AP Photo/Elise Amendola , File ) A revamped North American trade deal nearing passage in Congress gives both the White House and Democrats a chance to claim victory and offers farmers and businesses clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States , Canada and Mexico . But the pact leaves at least one surprising loser : the pharmaceutical industry , a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington . To satisfy House Democrats , the Trump administration removed a provision that would have given the makers of ultra-expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from less expensive knockoffs . Democrats opposed what they called a giveaway to the industry that could have locked in inflated prices by stifling competition . Top examples of the injected drugs made from living cells include medications to fight cancer and immune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis . “ This is one of the first times we ’ ve actually seen pharma lose , ” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer , an Oregon Democrat who leads a subcommittee on trade . “ They have a remarkable track record because they are a huge political force . They spend lots of money on lobbying , on advertising , on campaign contributions . But we held firm , and we won on all counts . ” The removal of the provision also helped illustrate just how potent a political issue sky-high drug prices have become . It was a reminder , too , that President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to work to lower drug prices . Last week , drug manufacturers absorbed another — though likely only temporary — defeat when House Democrats passed legislation , along party lines , that would authorize Medicare to use its influence in the marketplace to negotiate lower prices from drug companies . The bill is thought to have no chance of passage , though , in the Republican-led Senate . Yet the revamped U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement , Trump ’ s rewrite of the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Act , seems set to clear Congress without the biologics protection that the drug industry had sought . , the House The full House voted 385-41 on Thursday to approve it . The Senate isn ’ t likely to take it up until January . “ It ’ s not a mystery , ’ ’ said Rep. Jan Schakowsky , an Illinois Democrat who helped negotiate with the administration . “ If you poll the American people , the cost of pharmaceuticals is a really big deal . It ’ s at the top of the list . ’ ’ The trade agreement the administration reached last year with Mexico and Canada gave biologics 10 years of protection from cheaper near-copies known as biosimilars . Among the leading biologics are the anti-cancer drug Rituxan and Humira and Enbrel , which fight immune disorders . The industry — and the Trump administration — had argued that manufacturers of biologics require years of protection to profit from their drugs before biosimilars should be allowed to cut into sales . Otherwise , they contend , brand-name drug companies and biotech startups that rely on money from venture capital firms would have little incentive to invest in developing new medicines . “ The announcement made today puts politics over patients , ” the leading drug industry trade group , PhRMA , said in a statement last week . “ Eliminating the biologics provision in the USMCA removes vital protections for innovators while doing nothing to help U.S. patients afford their medicines or access future treatments and cures . ’ ’ The industry also rejected the notion that the biologics provision would keep drug prices high and hurt consumers . Existing U.S. law , they noted , already gives makers of biologics 12 years ’ protection , more than the proposed 10 years in the USMCA . But the provision the Democrats succeeded in removing would have forced Mexico to expand biologics ’ monopoly from five years and Canada from eight , potentially hurting U.S. consumers who seek lower drug prices in those countries . What ’ s more , Democrats argued , if Congress had expanded the biologics ’ monopoly in the USMCA , it would have prevented lawmakers from ever scaling back that monopoly to , say , the seven years that the Obama administration had once proposed . For Big Pharma , the setback marked a sharp turnabout . Four years ago , the drug industry helped scuttle an Obama administration trade deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries , arguing that a provision establishing eight years of protection for biologics was not sufficient . Now the latest U.S. trade deal contains no biologics protections at all . Back in 2006 , the industry scored a major victory when it helped push legislation through Congress that added prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients but barred the government from negotiating lower prices . That restriction opened a “ Pandora ’ s box ” that paved the way for unsustainable price hikes , said Steve Brozak , an analyst at WBB Securities . Drug makers began raising prices of existing drugs several times a year , sometimes totaling more than 20 % annually . They also started launching biologics with list prices topping six figures a year . In May , U.S. regulators approved a one-time gene therapy , Zolgensma , with an eye-popping price of $ 2.1 million per patient . A backlash has been growing , especially after news reports and congressional hearings exposed stories of patients rationing medicine and even dying because they couldn ’ t afford insulin or other drugs . Drugmakers have “ been on defense more than we ’ ve ever seen , ” said David Certner , legal counsel for AARP . Last year , Certner noted , Congress dealt the industry two losses : First , by increasing the discounts that drug makers must give to seniors with high drug costs who have landed in a Medicare coverage gap . Then , months later , lawmakers rejected industry efforts to reverse that change . And in January , the industry lost perhaps its biggest champion in Congress when Sen. Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , retired . Trump has long promised to address drug prices . On Wednesday , the administration moved ahead with a plan to allow Americans to safely and legally gain access to lower-priced medicines from abroad . So far , most of Trump ’ s drug-price initiatives have gone nowhere . His trade team negotiated biologics protections into the USMCA . Facing public anger , Democratic resistance and the fact that Canada and Mexico had no reason to support the protections for biologics , the administration yielded . When it reached a deal with House Democrats on the USMCA last week , the biologics provision was out . “ Clearly , getting rid of the biologic provision was a step backwards , ” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said Tuesday in an interview with the Fox Business Network . “ And that was a compromise . You know , there are consequences of the Democrats ’ control of the House . And that was necessary . And I ’ m sorry about that . ” Jeffrey Francer , general counsel for the Association for Accessible Medicines , which represents generic and biosimilar drug companies , put it another way : “ The president decided not to fall on his sword for Big Pharma . ’ ’

FILE - This June 15, 2018, file photo shows pharmaceuticals in North Andover, Mass. A revamped North American trade deal is nearing passage in Congress, giving both the White House and House Democrats cause to claim victory. There is relief, too, for farmers and businesses that wanted clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States, Canada and Mexico. But the pact left at least one surprising loser: The pharmaceutical industry, a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File) FILE - This June 15, 2018, file photo shows pharmaceuticals in North Andover, Mass. A revamped North American trade deal is nearing passage in Congress, giving both the White House and House Democrats cause to claim victory. There is relief, too, for farmers and businesses that wanted clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States, Canada and Mexico. But the pact left at least one surprising loser: The pharmaceutical industry, a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File) A revamped North American trade deal nearing passage in Congress gives both the White House and Democrats a chance to claim victory and offers farmers and businesses clearer rules governing the vast flow of goods among the United States, Canada and Mexico. But the pact leaves at least one surprising loser: the pharmaceutical industry, a near-invincible lobbying powerhouse in Washington. To satisfy House Democrats, the Trump administration removed a provision that would have given the makers of ultra-expensive biologic drugs 10 years of protection from less expensive knockoffs. Democrats opposed what they called a giveaway to the industry that could have locked in inflated prices by stifling competition. Top examples of the injected drugs made from living cells include medications to fight cancer and immune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis. “This is one of the first times we’ve actually seen pharma lose,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who leads a subcommittee on trade. “They have a remarkable track record because they are a huge political force. They spend lots of money on lobbying, on advertising, on campaign contributions. But we held firm, and we won on all counts.” The removal of the provision also helped illustrate just how potent a political issue sky-high drug prices have become. It was a reminder, too, that President Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to work to lower drug prices. Last week, drug manufacturers absorbed another — though likely only temporary — defeat when House Democrats passed legislation, along party lines, that would authorize Medicare to use its influence in the marketplace to negotiate lower prices from drug companies. The bill is thought to have no chance of passage, though, in the Republican-led Senate. Yet the revamped U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Trump’s rewrite of the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Act, seems set to clear Congress without the biologics protection that the drug industry had sought. , the House The full House voted 385-41 on Thursday to approve it. The Senate isn’t likely to take it up until January. “It’s not a mystery,’’ said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who helped negotiate with the administration. “If you poll the American people, the cost of pharmaceuticals is a really big deal. It’s at the top of the list.’’ The trade agreement the administration reached last year with Mexico and Canada gave biologics 10 years of protection from cheaper near-copies known as biosimilars. Among the leading biologics are the anti-cancer drug Rituxan and Humira and Enbrel, which fight immune disorders. The industry — and the Trump administration — had argued that manufacturers of biologics require years of protection to profit from their drugs before biosimilars should be allowed to cut into sales. Otherwise, they contend, brand-name drug companies and biotech startups that rely on money from venture capital firms would have little incentive to invest in developing new medicines. “The announcement made today puts politics over patients,” the leading drug industry trade group, PhRMA, said in a statement last week. “Eliminating the biologics provision in the USMCA removes vital protections for innovators while doing nothing to help U.S. patients afford their medicines or access future treatments and cures.’’ The industry also rejected the notion that the biologics provision would keep drug prices high and hurt consumers. Existing U.S. law, they noted, already gives makers of biologics 12 years’ protection, more than the proposed 10 years in the USMCA. But the provision the Democrats succeeded in removing would have forced Mexico to expand biologics’ monopoly from five years and Canada from eight, potentially hurting U.S. consumers who seek lower drug prices in those countries. What’s more, Democrats argued, if Congress had expanded the biologics’ monopoly in the USMCA, it would have prevented lawmakers from ever scaling back that monopoly to, say, the seven years that the Obama administration had once proposed. “We would have been locked in,’’ Schakowsky said. For Big Pharma, the setback marked a sharp turnabout. Four years ago, the drug industry helped scuttle an Obama administration trade deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries, arguing that a provision establishing eight years of protection for biologics was not sufficient. Now the latest U.S. trade deal contains no biologics protections at all. Back in 2006, the industry scored a major victory when it helped push legislation through Congress that added prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients but barred the government from negotiating lower prices. That restriction opened a “Pandora’s box” that paved the way for unsustainable price hikes, said Steve Brozak, an analyst at WBB Securities. Drug makers began raising prices of existing drugs several times a year, sometimes totaling more than 20% annually. They also started launching biologics with list prices topping six figures a year. In May, U.S. regulators approved a one-time gene therapy, Zolgensma, with an eye-popping price of $2.1 million per patient. A backlash has been growing, especially after news reports and congressional hearings exposed stories of patients rationing medicine and even dying because they couldn’t afford insulin or other drugs. Drugmakers have “been on defense more than we’ve ever seen,” said David Certner, legal counsel for AARP. Last year, Certner noted, Congress dealt the industry two losses: First, by increasing the discounts that drug makers must give to seniors with high drug costs who have landed in a Medicare coverage gap. Then, months later, lawmakers rejected industry efforts to reverse that change. And in January, the industry lost perhaps its biggest champion in Congress when Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, retired. Trump has long promised to address drug prices. On Wednesday, the administration moved ahead with a plan to allow Americans to safely and legally gain access to lower-priced medicines from abroad. So far, most of Trump’s drug-price initiatives have gone nowhere. His trade team negotiated biologics protections into the USMCA. Facing public anger, Democratic resistance and the fact that Canada and Mexico had no reason to support the protections for biologics, the administration yielded. When it reached a deal with House Democrats on the USMCA last week, the biologics provision was out. “Clearly, getting rid of the biologic provision was a step backwards,” U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said Tuesday in an interview with the Fox Business Network. “And that was a compromise. You know, there are consequences of the Democrats’ control of the House. And that was necessary. And I’m sorry about that.” Jeffrey Francer, general counsel for the Association for Accessible Medicines, which represents generic and biosimilar drug companies, put it another way: “The president decided not to fall on his sword for Big Pharma.’’ ___ Johnson reported from Trenton, New Jersey.

www.apnews.com

center

U0lD1cr6FaCBlVyN

test

lshAAy5n2kbBSFvh

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/james-comey-deep-state-conspiracy-fbi/2019/05/28/id/917926/

Comey Rips Trump's 'Lies': 'Worst Deep-State Conspiracy Ever'

2019-05-28

Jason Devaney

Former FBI director James Comey tore into President Donald Trump and claims the bureau tried to prevent him from winning the 2016 election , calling the idea the `` worst deep-state conspiracy ever . '' Comey wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post and called Trump a liar throughout . `` We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason , that we spied on the Trump campaign , and tried to defeat Donald Trump . We must constantly return to the stubborn facts , '' wrote Comey , who then explained the process of how the FBI got involved in the Russia investigation . Comey wrote that in June 2016 , the FBI noticed Russia was trying to influence the presidential election . The bureau started investigating and eventually obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page . Through it all , Comey wrote the FBI 's actions remained a secret because it was a counterintelligence probe . `` Page was no longer with the campaign , but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government , '' Comey wrote . `` We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it , all without revealing our work , despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump . Worst deep-state conspiracy ever . `` But wait , the conspiracy idea gets dumber . On Oct. 28 , after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options , I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation . I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth . '' Comey argued claims of a conspiracy at the FBI to take down Trump are empty . `` There is a reason the non-fringe media does n't spend much time on this 'treason ' and 'corruption ' business , '' Comey wrote . `` The conspiracy theory makes no sense . The FBI was n't out to get Donald Trump . It also was n't out to get Hillary Clinton . It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield . `` But go ahead , investigate the investigators , if you must . When those investigations are over , they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations . There was no corruption . There was no treason . There was no attempted coup . Those are lies , and dumb lies at that . There were just good people trying to figure out what was true , under unprecedented circumstances . ''

Former FBI director James Comey tore into President Donald Trump and claims the bureau tried to prevent him from winning the 2016 election, calling the idea the "worst deep-state conspiracy ever." Comey wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post and called Trump a liar throughout. "We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign, and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts," wrote Comey, who then explained the process of how the FBI got involved in the Russia investigation. Comey wrote that in June 2016, the FBI noticed Russia was trying to influence the presidential election. The bureau started investigating and eventually obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Through it all, Comey wrote the FBI's actions remained a secret because it was a counterintelligence probe. "Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government," Comey wrote. "We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever. "But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth." Comey argued claims of a conspiracy at the FBI to take down Trump are empty. "There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn't spend much time on this 'treason' and 'corruption' business," Comey wrote. "The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn't out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn't out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield. "But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, they will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances."

www.newsmax.com

right

lshAAy5n2kbBSFvh

test

zOsMi3n4PilDwxH0

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/05/20/the-new-york-times-recoils-at-the-predictable-consequences-of-the-mandatory-covid-19-precautions-it-supports/

The New York Times Recoils at the Predictable Consequences of the Mandatory COVID-19 Precautions It Supports

2020-05-20

Jacob Sullum, Scott Shackford, Eugene Volokh, Christian Britschgi, Zuri Davis, Brian Doherty, Josh Blackman

Contrast that with photographs across social media showing crowds of sun-seekers packed into parks in wealthy , whiter areas of the city , lounging undisturbed as police officers hand out masks… . Without a significant course correction , the [ police ] department 's role in the pandemic may look more and more like stop-and-frisk , the policing tactic that led to the harassment of hundreds of thousands of innocent people , most of them black and Hispanic , while rarely touching white New Yorkers . [ Mayor Bill ] de Blasio has scoffed at the comparison , though it 's not clear why . The `` course correction '' suggested by the Times—a `` public health corps '' consisting of `` specially trained civilians '' who would `` fan out across the neighborhoods and parks , helping with pedestrian traffic control and politely encouraging New Yorkers entering parks to protect one another by wearing masks and keeping their distance '' —presents problems of its own . While those specially trained civilians presumably would be less likely than police officers to tackle , beat , and tase people for perceived violations of COVID-19 precautions , the potential for violence would still exist . What would a member of this public health corps do if a parkgoer says he intends to keep his distance from other people but is not willing to wear a mask , since he ( correctly ) views the risk of virus transmission in an uncrowded , open-air environment as negligible ? ( Fun fact : In New York , a masked person who `` congregates '' in a public place with `` other persons so masked '' is guilty of loitering , a violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail . ) The Times says `` the Police Department would play only a minimal role in this approach . '' But if cops serve as a backstop in responding to recalcitrant pedestrians , we are back to a situation in which social distancing rules are enforced by blatantly violating them through the physical contact and close proximity required to arrest , book , and jail people ( which puts them in an environment where the risk of catching COVID-19 is especially high ) . We also have to allow for the possibility that disputes between social distancing encouragers ( who may not be as polite as they are supposed to be ) and uncooperative targets ( some of whom will be indignant and perhaps belligerent ) will escalate into physical altercations . That danger is by no means theoretical . The Times can not have it both ways . If COVID-19 precautions are mandatory , they must at some point be legally enforced , with all the risks that entails , including violence and racial discrimination . The public health payoff might justify those risks in certain contexts—if a dense crowd happens to gather in Central Park , for instance , or if subway riders refuse to wear masks ( although that was the situation in the video that the Times cites as evidence of overkill ) . But the risks can not be eliminated if voluntary compliance is less than perfect , as it always will be . Police officers charged with enforcing mask-wearing and social distancing requirements have to constantly weigh the costs of forcible intervention against the likely benefits . As the Times notes , it is not a task they welcome . `` This situation is untenable , '' says Patrick Lynch , president of the New York City Police Benevolent Association . `` The NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether . '' But that effectively means mandates will become recommendations . And while most people probably will follow those recommendations , out of concern for their own welfare if not out of consideration for others , some wo n't . The Times ca n't will away that tradeoff by pretending it does not exist .

Contrast that with photographs across social media showing crowds of sun-seekers packed into parks in wealthy, whiter areas of the city, lounging undisturbed as police officers hand out masks…. Without a significant course correction, the [police] department's role in the pandemic may look more and more like stop-and-frisk, the policing tactic that led to the harassment of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, most of them black and Hispanic, while rarely touching white New Yorkers. [Mayor Bill] de Blasio has scoffed at the comparison, though it's not clear why. The "course correction" suggested by the Times—a "public health corps" consisting of "specially trained civilians" who would "fan out across the neighborhoods and parks, helping with pedestrian traffic control and politely encouraging New Yorkers entering parks to protect one another by wearing masks and keeping their distance"—presents problems of its own. While those specially trained civilians presumably would be less likely than police officers to tackle, beat, and tase people for perceived violations of COVID-19 precautions, the potential for violence would still exist. What would a member of this public health corps do if a parkgoer says he intends to keep his distance from other people but is not willing to wear a mask, since he (correctly) views the risk of virus transmission in an uncrowded, open-air environment as negligible? (Fun fact: In New York, a masked person who "congregates" in a public place with "other persons so masked" is guilty of loitering, a violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail.) The Times says "the Police Department would play only a minimal role in this approach." But if cops serve as a backstop in responding to recalcitrant pedestrians, we are back to a situation in which social distancing rules are enforced by blatantly violating them through the physical contact and close proximity required to arrest, book, and jail people (which puts them in an environment where the risk of catching COVID-19 is especially high). We also have to allow for the possibility that disputes between social distancing encouragers (who may not be as polite as they are supposed to be) and uncooperative targets (some of whom will be indignant and perhaps belligerent) will escalate into physical altercations. That danger is by no means theoretical. The Times cannot have it both ways. If COVID-19 precautions are mandatory, they must at some point be legally enforced, with all the risks that entails, including violence and racial discrimination. The public health payoff might justify those risks in certain contexts—if a dense crowd happens to gather in Central Park, for instance, or if subway riders refuse to wear masks (although that was the situation in the video that the Times cites as evidence of overkill). But the risks cannot be eliminated if voluntary compliance is less than perfect, as it always will be. Police officers charged with enforcing mask-wearing and social distancing requirements have to constantly weigh the costs of forcible intervention against the likely benefits. As the Times notes, it is not a task they welcome. "This situation is untenable," says Patrick Lynch, president of the New York City Police Benevolent Association. "The NYPD needs to get cops out of the social distancing enforcement business altogether." But that effectively means mandates will become recommendations. And while most people probably will follow those recommendations, out of concern for their own welfare if not out of consideration for others, some won't. The Times can't will away that tradeoff by pretending it does not exist.

www.reason.com

right

zOsMi3n4PilDwxH0

test

mcP8QfRNQNQ3cf6J

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/cb3306b386904f5b8ff36f4351565cad

Supreme Court to hear abortion regulation case

2019-10-04

Mark Sherman

FILE - In this June 20 , 2019 file photo , The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington . The Supreme Court is adding an abortion case to its busy election-year docket . The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic . The justices won ’ t hear arguments until the winter . A decision is likely to come by the end of June . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) FILE - In this June 20 , 2019 file photo , The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington . The Supreme Court is adding an abortion case to its busy election-year docket . The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic . The justices won ’ t hear arguments until the winter . A decision is likely to come by the end of June . ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to plunge into the abortion debate in the midst of the 2020 presidential campaign , taking on a Louisiana case that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to chip away at abortion rights . The justices will examine a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital . The law is virtually identical to one in Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 , when Justice Anthony Kennedy was on the bench and before the addition of President Donald Trump ’ s two high court picks , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , who have shifted the court to the right . The court ’ s new term begins Monday , but arguments in the Louisiana case won ’ t take place until the winter . A decision is likely to come by the end of June , four months before the presidential election . The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect in February , when Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court ’ s four liberal justices to put it on hold . Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were among the four conservatives who would have allowed the law to take effect . Those preliminary votes do not bind the justices when they undertake a thorough review of an issue , but they often signal how a case will come out . Roberts ’ vote to block the Louisiana law was a rare vote against an abortion restriction in his more than 13 years as chief justice . That may reflect his new role since Kennedy ’ s retirement as the court ’ s swing justice , his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and respect for a prior decision of the court , even one he disagreed with . In the Texas case , he voted in dissent to uphold the admitting privileges requirement . The Louisiana case and a separate appeal over an Indiana ultrasound requirement for women seeking an abortion , on which the court took no action Friday , were the most significant of hundreds of pending appeals the justices considered when they met in private on Tuesday . Both cases involve the standard first laid out by the court in 1992 that while states can regulate abortion , they can ’ t do things that place an “ undue burden ” on a woman ’ s right to an abortion . The regulations are distinct from other state laws making their way through court challenges that would ban abortions early in a pregnancy . Louisiana abortion providers and a district judge who initially heard the case said one or maybe two of the state ’ s three abortion clinics would have to close under the new law . There would be at most two doctors who could meet its requirements , they said . But the appeals court in New Orleans rejected those claims , doubting that any clinics would have to close and saying the doctors had not tried hard enough to establish relationships with local hospitals . In January , the full appeals court voted 9-6 not to get involved in the case , setting up the Supreme Court appeal . The Hope Medical Group clinic in Shreveport , Louisiana , and two doctors whose identities are not revealed said in their appeal that the justices should strike down the law without even holding arguments because the decision so clearly conflicts with the Texas ruling from 2016 . There also was no action on a third abortion-related appeal that involves a challenge to a Chicago ordinance that stops protesters from getting within 8 feet ( 2.4 meters ) of people entering abortion clinics and other health care facilities without their consent . Anti-abortion activists had challenged the Chicago law as a violation of their free speech rights . The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the law , though grudgingly . The Supreme Court upheld a similar Colorado law in 2000 , but in 2014 struck down a Massachusetts provision that set a fixed 35-foot ( 10.7-meter ) buffer zone outside abortion clinics . Also Friday , the court agreed to hear an appeal by energy companies and the Trump administration asking the court to overturn an appeals court ruling and reinstate a permit to allow construction of a natural gas pipeline through two national forests , including parts of the Appalachian Trail . The 605-mile ( 970-kilometer ) pipeline would begin in West Virginia and travel through parts of Virginia and North Carolina . The proposed route , which the administration had approved , would include the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests , as well as a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail .

FILE - In this June 20, 2019 file photo, The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington. The Supreme Court is adding an abortion case to its busy election-year docket. The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic. The justices won’t hear arguments until the winter. A decision is likely to come by the end of June. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) FILE - In this June 20, 2019 file photo, The Supreme Court is seen under stormy skies in Washington. The Supreme Court is adding an abortion case to its busy election-year docket. The justices have agreed to take up a Louisiana law that could leave the state with just one clinic. The justices won’t hear arguments until the winter. A decision is likely to come by the end of June. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to plunge into the abortion debate in the midst of the 2020 presidential campaign, taking on a Louisiana case that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to chip away at abortion rights. The justices will examine a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The law is virtually identical to one in Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was on the bench and before the addition of President Donald Trump’s two high court picks, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who have shifted the court to the right. The court’s new term begins Monday, but arguments in the Louisiana case won’t take place until the winter. A decision is likely to come by the end of June, four months before the presidential election. The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect in February, when Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices to put it on hold. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were among the four conservatives who would have allowed the law to take effect. Those preliminary votes do not bind the justices when they undertake a thorough review of an issue, but they often signal how a case will come out. Roberts’ vote to block the Louisiana law was a rare vote against an abortion restriction in his more than 13 years as chief justice. That may reflect his new role since Kennedy’s retirement as the court’s swing justice, his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and respect for a prior decision of the court, even one he disagreed with. In the Texas case, he voted in dissent to uphold the admitting privileges requirement. The Louisiana case and a separate appeal over an Indiana ultrasound requirement for women seeking an abortion, on which the court took no action Friday, were the most significant of hundreds of pending appeals the justices considered when they met in private on Tuesday. Both cases involve the standard first laid out by the court in 1992 that while states can regulate abortion, they can’t do things that place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. The regulations are distinct from other state laws making their way through court challenges that would ban abortions early in a pregnancy. Louisiana abortion providers and a district judge who initially heard the case said one or maybe two of the state’s three abortion clinics would have to close under the new law. There would be at most two doctors who could meet its requirements, they said. But the appeals court in New Orleans rejected those claims, doubting that any clinics would have to close and saying the doctors had not tried hard enough to establish relationships with local hospitals. In January, the full appeals court voted 9-6 not to get involved in the case, setting up the Supreme Court appeal. The Hope Medical Group clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana, and two doctors whose identities are not revealed said in their appeal that the justices should strike down the law without even holding arguments because the decision so clearly conflicts with the Texas ruling from 2016. The court did not follow that path Friday. There also was no action on a third abortion-related appeal that involves a challenge to a Chicago ordinance that stops protesters from getting within 8 feet (2.4 meters) of people entering abortion clinics and other health care facilities without their consent. Anti-abortion activists had challenged the Chicago law as a violation of their free speech rights. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the law, though grudgingly. The Supreme Court upheld a similar Colorado law in 2000, but in 2014 struck down a Massachusetts provision that set a fixed 35-foot (10.7-meter) buffer zone outside abortion clinics. Also Friday, the court agreed to hear an appeal by energy companies and the Trump administration asking the court to overturn an appeals court ruling and reinstate a permit to allow construction of a natural gas pipeline through two national forests, including parts of the Appalachian Trail. The 605-mile (970-kilometer) pipeline would begin in West Virginia and travel through parts of Virginia and North Carolina. The proposed route, which the administration had approved, would include the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests, as well as a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail.

www.apnews.com

center

mcP8QfRNQNQ3cf6J

test

jGXMrVt6UEsyvUif

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/25/trump-supporters-elect-again-100-days

Would Trump supporters elect him again now?

2017-04-25

Tom Mccarthy

Those are some of the messages Donald Trump voters had for the president as the 100-day milemarker of his presidency approached , in a politically centrist county where ███ has been tracking Trump support since before the inauguration . Backing for the president in Northampton County , Pennsylvania , a former industrial juggernaut which voted for Barack Obama twice before falling for Trump in 2016 , appeared to be healthy , three months in . Both Democrats and Republicans who voted for Trump gave him positive marks – a B-plus or A-minus – although many supporters said the clock is ticking for the president to deliver on tax reform and other promises . “ The people who were for Trump and who supported him and voted for him are still 100 % behind him , ” said John Morganelli , the Democratic county district attorney who has been re-elected six times ( and who declined to say whom he voted for last November ) . “ So I think if the election was held again today , in Northampton County there ’ s a good chance that Trump would carry this county again . And it might be slightly closer , but I think that he would probably do well . ” Northampton was not supposed to jump for Trump in 2016 . The Hillary Clinton campaign was so confident of victory here that it moved local operatives out of state , to North Carolina and elsewhere , in the run-up to the election . But Trump ’ s promise to make America great again found unexpected traction in Northampton , among Democratic voters who remembered the heyday of Bethlehem steel , once a local symbol of national strength , or who sensed , they say , that Clinton did not truly care about their lives and challenges . Trump won here by four points . To hear many voters in Northampton tell it , he would do the same tomorrow . “ It ’ s only 100 days , ” said Christy Facciponti , 54 , a former engineer at Bethlehem Steel , who was flying a Trump flag outside her home in Nazareth , Pennsylvania , last week . “ Please , give him a second . He ’ s already done more than Obama ever did . ” The little fat boy over there , I think he ’ s putting a set of manners on him . Barber Joe D ’ Ambrosio Joe D ’ Ambrosio , a barber in Bethlehem who changed his party registration from Democratic in 2016 to vote for Trump in the primary , praised the president ’ s conduct of foreign policy , especially his showdown with the North Korean leader , Kim Jong-un . “ Trump tells the strongest guys in town , if you want to mess with him , he ’ ll mess with you , ” D ’ Ambrosio said . “ And the little fat boy over there , I think he ’ s putting a set of manners on him . ” Bruce Haines , a Republican former steel executive who runs the Historic Hotel Bethlehem , praised Trump ’ s installation of Neil Gorsuch on the supreme court and said support for the president in the business community was robust . Health insurance woes helped elect Trump , but his cure may be more painful Read more “ The divisions are as strong as they were on election night , ” Haines said . “ The Trump people are just as supportive of Trump as they were on election night , and the anti-Trump voters are probably stronger against – there isn ’ t anything that guy ’ s going to do to get the Hillary voters . They ’ re just not going to accept anything . ” But even Trump ’ s strongest supporters say the clock is ticking for the president to sign major legislation in multiple areas , no matter how out to lunch Congress may be . “ Goodness sakes alive , Republicans have run on tax reform as long as I can remember , and we don ’ t seem to get it , ” said Lee Snover , a Republican activist who is a kind of Patient Zero for Trump support in Northampton . “ I mean I ’ ve got a Republican House , and a Republican Senate and a Republican president , and I still don ’ t have lower taxes ? So I ’ m really having a difficult time internalizing that , coming to grips with that and accepting that . I really am . As the dogwoods and magnolias bloomed and lawnmowers came out across Northampton county , interviews with Trump voters did reveal some pockets of discontent with the president , especially among people who said they had backed him on an impulse , or who had expected him to do more , sooner . Marie Claire Placide is a two-time Obama voter whose dress shop in Bangor , in the north of the county , is going out of business . She voted for Trump , she said , “ because I know he ’ s a businessman , and , you know , he used to be a Democrat ” . “ So I chose him , ” Placide said . “ I even had some Democrat friends angry – ‘ Why were you voting for Trump ? ’ I said it ’ s a free country . I vote for who I want . ” ███ asked Placide , who was naturalized as an American citizen in 1990 and who works an evening shift for a nursing agency to put her two children through college , whether she thought Trump had made America great again . “ I don ’ t watch the news any more , ” Placide continued . “ I ’ m not interested any more . After the election , I didn ’ t watch the news . ” Around the corner from Placide ’ s soon-to-be-shuttered shop sits Miller ’ s Paint and Wallpaper , a local mainstay since 1923 . Duane Miller , the 79-year-old owner and a Democrat , was mayor of Bangor from 1974 to 1990 . “ As a very last-minute voter , I voted for Trump , ” Miller said . “ My first reaction was that Hillary would be the president and was unbeatable , you know , and there would be no problem . Having said that , my customers here , I was extremely surprised to find how many voted for Donald Trump . And it was almost as a protest . “ It ’ s the disillusionment of the common man with government , because government has done nothing to help the average working man . ” Miller said that he had detected a provisional fall-off in enthusiasm for Trump around town , and he said that if the election were held in Bangor tomorrow , there was a chance Trump might lose . Trump loyalists stand by their man – but the resistance is taking root Read more “ There ’ s been a change , but how much I ’ m not sure , ” Miller said . “ In other words , people are saying , well , ‘ I don ’ t agree with Trump that he did this , or I don ’ t agree with that. ’ But not to a big factor . The factor is , ‘ I voted for Trump , but I ’ m not sure I should have , ’ would be the best way to say it . ” Melissa Hough runs the Slate Belt Heritage Center in Bangor , which showcases the region ’ s once-thriving slate quarries and the historic immigration flows that shaped its diverse labor pool . As the 100-day mark approached , Hough said : “ I think the support remains . ” “ The economy improved elsewhere , ” she said . “ It didn ’ t improve here , so I think a lot of people blamed the government , because that ’ s what they heard on TV , and they do not blame the factors closest to them – like the companies they worked for , the corporations . ” Miller said voters had noticed that Trump has not repealed Obama ’ s healthcare law , has not started construction on a border wall and has not enacted tax reform . On health reform , Miller says , “ he promised a promise he can ’ t keep ” . “ And other things he promised , he can ’ t keep . So how will that come out in the long run ? If it continues that he can ’ t keep these promises , or some of them , then we won ’ t have a Republican president next time . “ If he can ’ t produce , then he ’ ll be as bad as Hillary . ” Back down south , in Bethlehem , D ’ Ambrosio , the barber , pointed out a bumper sticker someone had left on his car , which already had a Trump sticker . The anonymously gifted sticker read : “ Trump 2016 : Finally someone with balls ! ” “ I think my customers , they ’ re all behind him , ” D ’ Ambrosio said . “ I knew you were coming , so I did a little survey this week . And I said to everybody , ‘ This guy ’ s gon na come from ███ , and is gon na ask these questions. ’ I said , ‘ What do you want me to tell him ? ’ D ’ Ambrosio said that some customers faulted Trump for using Twitter too much , but the reception for his cabinet appointments , his leadership style and particularly for his military actions had been “ very positive ” . “ He jumped in polls , ” the barber said . “ Why did he jump in polls ? Because he showed strength . And listened to the people he put in charge . ‘ Cause hell , he ’ s no general . “ He doesn ’ t have to know everything about everything , because you know , he doesn ’ t walk on water . But as long as he ’ s a good administrator , and he picks good people , and he works with them , that ’ s what we want . ” Snover , the Republican activist , said people took confidence from what they perceived as Trump ’ s projection of power . “ I think the people have a lot more confidence in America , ” Snover said . “ They ’ re losing fear and they ’ re gaining courage , especially from the military positions he ’ s taken . His overall theme , that we ’ re powerful , has made Americans feel encouraged – they feel confident . I think he ’ s brought on that feeling . ” Haines , the hotel owner , said he gave Trump an A-minus on the strength of the Gorsuch appointment to the supreme court , but added that the president needed to reach across the aisle to close deals on healthcare reform and tax cuts . “ I don ’ t really have a strike against him , ” Haines said . “ I would encourage him to try and find some moderate Democrats that he can schmooze . ” Snover said that , for now , Congress was catching the blame for whatever was not getting done . “ A lot of people , people in the party , are not blaming Trump for anything that ’ s not been accomplished , ” she said . “ They ’ re blaming Congress , including the Republicans , because they ’ ve been there longer and they ’ ve always been the problem . ” Facciponti , the Nazareth resident flying a Trump flag , sat down for a chat on her porch swing . “ We put it back up for the inauguration and kept it up , ” she said of the flag . If the election were held again today , she said , “ I think he ’ d win by more . ” A conversation about possible areas where Trump had fallen short quickly turned to what Facciponti said were the media ’ s efforts to tear down the president . “ The media just hates him , ” she said . “ It ’ s really sad . If the mainstream media would give him one-tenth of the chance they gave Obama , he would be so loved . It ’ s just sad that people – the Never Trumpers – that people are that stubborn . ” Larry Hallett , the owner of a restaurant and paving company outside Bangor , also thought that Trump ’ s good intentions and efforts to compromise had been undercut by antagonists in the media and the Washington establishment . “ I think he ’ s trying actually , I think he ’ s sincerely trying to get everybody together and try to use them all , but they ’ re making it very difficult for him . I really do , ” said Hallett . “ I think if the Democrats came up with something that was a very good decision , I think he would try everything , no matter how much it takes . The man I seem to know there would cherish all of them . ” Morganelli , the district attorney , said “ a lot of people ” agreed with that assessment . “ Everywhere I go , restaurants , I bump into folks , sometimes just in casual conversation , ” he said . “ It ’ s anecdotal evidence , but , ‘ What do you think of Trump ? ’ “ And over and over again , the people who voted for him say ‘ Hey , I voted for him , I ’ m still thinking what he ’ s doing is right . ’ “ There are a lot of people who agree that the media overall has been tough on him , maybe perhaps tougher than they have on other presidents . ” D ’ Ambrosio saw Trump ’ s clashes with the media as a sign of his tactical canniness . “ I think his big thing is unpredictability , and that ’ s the best thing that you could do . And that comes from negotiating , ” D ’ Ambrosio said . “ He throws the bait out with these tweets , and lets people chew on it . He knows what he ’ s going to do , he wasn ’ t born yesterday . He actually plays the game , and I think the press doesn ’ t know it , and they take the bait all the time .

Tax reform needs to happen now. Neil Gorsuch is gold. Keep giving the media hell. Keep showing evil dictators who’s boss. Try again on healthcare. And don’t forget the tax cuts. Those are some of the messages Donald Trump voters had for the president as the 100-day milemarker of his presidency approached, in a politically centrist county where the Guardian has been tracking Trump support since before the inauguration. Backing for the president in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, a former industrial juggernaut which voted for Barack Obama twice before falling for Trump in 2016, appeared to be healthy, three months in. Both Democrats and Republicans who voted for Trump gave him positive marks – a B-plus or A-minus – although many supporters said the clock is ticking for the president to deliver on tax reform and other promises. “The people who were for Trump and who supported him and voted for him are still 100% behind him,” said John Morganelli, the Democratic county district attorney who has been re-elected six times (and who declined to say whom he voted for last November). “So I think if the election was held again today, in Northampton County there’s a good chance that Trump would carry this county again. And it might be slightly closer, but I think that he would probably do well.” Northampton was not supposed to jump for Trump in 2016. The Hillary Clinton campaign was so confident of victory here that it moved local operatives out of state, to North Carolina and elsewhere, in the run-up to the election. But Trump’s promise to make America great again found unexpected traction in Northampton, among Democratic voters who remembered the heyday of Bethlehem steel, once a local symbol of national strength, or who sensed, they say, that Clinton did not truly care about their lives and challenges. Trump won here by four points. To hear many voters in Northampton tell it, he would do the same tomorrow. “It’s only 100 days,” said Christy Facciponti, 54, a former engineer at Bethlehem Steel, who was flying a Trump flag outside her home in Nazareth, Pennsylvania, last week. “Please, give him a second. He’s already done more than Obama ever did.” The little fat boy over there, I think he’s putting a set of manners on him. Barber Joe D’Ambrosio Joe D’Ambrosio, a barber in Bethlehem who changed his party registration from Democratic in 2016 to vote for Trump in the primary, praised the president’s conduct of foreign policy, especially his showdown with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. “Trump tells the strongest guys in town, if you want to mess with him, he’ll mess with you,” D’Ambrosio said. “And the little fat boy over there, I think he’s putting a set of manners on him.” Bruce Haines, a Republican former steel executive who runs the Historic Hotel Bethlehem, praised Trump’s installation of Neil Gorsuch on the supreme court and said support for the president in the business community was robust. Health insurance woes helped elect Trump, but his cure may be more painful Read more “The divisions are as strong as they were on election night,” Haines said. “The Trump people are just as supportive of Trump as they were on election night, and the anti-Trump voters are probably stronger against – there isn’t anything that guy’s going to do to get the Hillary voters. They’re just not going to accept anything.” But even Trump’s strongest supporters say the clock is ticking for the president to sign major legislation in multiple areas, no matter how out to lunch Congress may be. “Goodness sakes alive, Republicans have run on tax reform as long as I can remember, and we don’t seem to get it,” said Lee Snover, a Republican activist who is a kind of Patient Zero for Trump support in Northampton. “I mean I’ve got a Republican House, and a Republican Senate and a Republican president, and I still don’t have lower taxes? So I’m really having a difficult time internalizing that, coming to grips with that and accepting that. I really am. “They need to get it done.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Marie Claire Placide, a dress shop owner and fashion designer, in Bangor, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘I’m not interested any more’ As the dogwoods and magnolias bloomed and lawnmowers came out across Northampton county, interviews with Trump voters did reveal some pockets of discontent with the president, especially among people who said they had backed him on an impulse, or who had expected him to do more, sooner. Marie Claire Placide is a two-time Obama voter whose dress shop in Bangor, in the north of the county, is going out of business. She voted for Trump, she said, “because I know he’s a businessman, and, you know, he used to be a Democrat”. “So I chose him,” Placide said. “I even had some Democrat friends angry – ‘Why were you voting for Trump?’ I said it’s a free country. I vote for who I want.” The Guardian asked Placide, who was naturalized as an American citizen in 1990 and who works an evening shift for a nursing agency to put her two children through college, whether she thought Trump had made America great again. “No, I don’t,” she said, with a dismissive headshake. “I don’t watch the news any more,” Placide continued. “I’m not interested any more. After the election, I didn’t watch the news.” Around the corner from Placide’s soon-to-be-shuttered shop sits Miller’s Paint and Wallpaper, a local mainstay since 1923. Duane Miller, the 79-year-old owner and a Democrat, was mayor of Bangor from 1974 to 1990. “As a very last-minute voter, I voted for Trump,” Miller said. “My first reaction was that Hillary would be the president and was unbeatable, you know, and there would be no problem. Having said that, my customers here, I was extremely surprised to find how many voted for Donald Trump. And it was almost as a protest. “It’s the disillusionment of the common man with government, because government has done nothing to help the average working man.” Miller said that he had detected a provisional fall-off in enthusiasm for Trump around town, and he said that if the election were held in Bangor tomorrow, there was a chance Trump might lose. Trump loyalists stand by their man – but the resistance is taking root Read more “There’s been a change, but how much I’m not sure,” Miller said. “In other words, people are saying, well, ‘I don’t agree with Trump that he did this, or I don’t agree with that.’ But not to a big factor. The factor is, ‘I voted for Trump, but I’m not sure I should have,’ would be the best way to say it.” Melissa Hough runs the Slate Belt Heritage Center in Bangor, which showcases the region’s once-thriving slate quarries and the historic immigration flows that shaped its diverse labor pool. As the 100-day mark approached, Hough said: “I think the support remains.” “The economy improved elsewhere,” she said. “It didn’t improve here, so I think a lot of people blamed the government, because that’s what they heard on TV, and they do not blame the factors closest to them – like the companies they worked for, the corporations.” Miller said voters had noticed that Trump has not repealed Obama’s healthcare law, has not started construction on a border wall and has not enacted tax reform. On health reform, Miller says, “he promised a promise he can’t keep”. “And other things he promised, he can’t keep. So how will that come out in the long run? If it continues that he can’t keep these promises, or some of them, then we won’t have a Republican president next time. “If he can’t produce, then he’ll be as bad as Hillary.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Melissa Hough, president of the board of trustees of the Slate Belt Heritage Center in Bangor, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘Finally someone with balls’ Back down south, in Bethlehem, D’Ambrosio, the barber, pointed out a bumper sticker someone had left on his car, which already had a Trump sticker. The anonymously gifted sticker read: “Trump 2016: Finally someone with balls!” “I think my customers, they’re all behind him,” D’Ambrosio said. “I knew you were coming, so I did a little survey this week. And I said to everybody, ‘This guy’s gonna come from the Guardian, and is gonna ask these questions.’ I said, ‘What do you want me to tell him?’ “Everybody said they gave him a B-plus.” D’Ambrosio said that some customers faulted Trump for using Twitter too much, but the reception for his cabinet appointments, his leadership style and particularly for his military actions had been “very positive”. “He jumped in polls,” the barber said. “Why did he jump in polls? Because he showed strength. And listened to the people he put in charge. ‘Cause hell, he’s no general. “He doesn’t have to know everything about everything, because you know, he doesn’t walk on water. But as long as he’s a good administrator, and he picks good people, and he works with them, that’s what we want.” Snover, the Republican activist, said people took confidence from what they perceived as Trump’s projection of power. “I think the people have a lot more confidence in America,” Snover said. “They’re losing fear and they’re gaining courage, especially from the military positions he’s taken. His overall theme, that we’re powerful, has made Americans feel encouraged – they feel confident. I think he’s brought on that feeling.” Haines, the hotel owner, said he gave Trump an A-minus on the strength of the Gorsuch appointment to the supreme court, but added that the president needed to reach across the aisle to close deals on healthcare reform and tax cuts. “I don’t really have a strike against him,” Haines said. “I would encourage him to try and find some moderate Democrats that he can schmooze.” Snover said that, for now, Congress was catching the blame for whatever was not getting done. “A lot of people, people in the party, are not blaming Trump for anything that’s not been accomplished,” she said. “They’re blaming Congress, including the Republicans, because they’ve been there longer and they’ve always been the problem.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest The Northampton County district attorney, John Morganelli, in Easton, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian ‘The media just hates him’ Facciponti, the Nazareth resident flying a Trump flag, sat down for a chat on her porch swing. “We put it back up for the inauguration and kept it up,” she said of the flag. If the election were held again today, she said, “I think he’d win by more.” A conversation about possible areas where Trump had fallen short quickly turned to what Facciponti said were the media’s efforts to tear down the president. Can Trump really make America great again? Read more “The media just hates him,” she said. “It’s really sad. If the mainstream media would give him one-tenth of the chance they gave Obama, he would be so loved. It’s just sad that people – the Never Trumpers – that people are that stubborn.” Larry Hallett, the owner of a restaurant and paving company outside Bangor, also thought that Trump’s good intentions and efforts to compromise had been undercut by antagonists in the media and the Washington establishment. “I think he’s trying actually, I think he’s sincerely trying to get everybody together and try to use them all, but they’re making it very difficult for him. I really do,” said Hallett. “I think if the Democrats came up with something that was a very good decision, I think he would try everything, no matter how much it takes. The man I seem to know there would cherish all of them.” Morganelli, the district attorney, said “a lot of people” agreed with that assessment. “Everywhere I go, restaurants, I bump into folks, sometimes just in casual conversation,” he said. “It’s anecdotal evidence, but, ‘What do you think of Trump?’ “And over and over again, the people who voted for him say ‘Hey, I voted for him, I’m still thinking what he’s doing is right.’ “There are a lot of people who agree that the media overall has been tough on him, maybe perhaps tougher than they have on other presidents.” D’Ambrosio saw Trump’s clashes with the media as a sign of his tactical canniness. “I think his big thing is unpredictability, and that’s the best thing that you could do. And that comes from negotiating,” D’Ambrosio said. “He throws the bait out with these tweets, and lets people chew on it. He knows what he’s going to do, he wasn’t born yesterday. He actually plays the game, and I think the press doesn’t know it, and they take the bait all the time. “They really take the bait.” Sign up for regular email dispatches throughout the year to hear from Tom and the people of Northampton County

www.theguardian.com

left

jGXMrVt6UEsyvUif

test

QICA1WvNf9iXSDnq

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/2018/february/evidence-of-sabotage-trump-pushes-to-release-classified-memo-despite-fbis-grave-concerns

Evidence of Sabotage? Trump Pushes to Release Classified Memo Despite FBI's 'Grave Concerns'

2018-02-01

A political showdown over a classified government memo is pitting President Trump and Republicans against Democrats and the FBI . The president and members of the House Intelligence Committee want it released , but the FBI says it has `` grave concerns '' over its accuracy . A White House official said Thursday Congress will probably be informed of the decision to release the memo Friday , adding Trump was `` OK '' with its release . A second White House official said Trump was likely to declassify the memo but the exact method for making it public was still being considered . The House Intellligence Committee , led by chairman Devin Nunes , voted to release the classified , four-page Republican memo , but only after a review by the White House and FBI . FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met at the White House Monday with Chief of Staff John Kelly . They expressed concerns over `` material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo 's accuracy . '' But moments after the State of the Union Address Tuesday night , the president said he 's for full disclosure . As Trump left the House Chamber , one congressman told him , `` Let 's release the memo . '' The president responded , `` Oh yeah , do n't worry , 100 percent . '' Republicans say the memo reveals abuses of government surveillance power by the FBI and Justice Department concerning secret FISA court warrants and monitoring of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign . Anytime FBI and Justice Department officials need to conduct surveillance on a foreign national , they 're required by law to get approval – a warrant from the FISA court , which is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court . They have to show evidence that the warrant is needed . But questionable evidence may have been given to the FISA court in the attempt to get a warrant involving surveillance of the Trump campaign team . That supposed evidence was a dossier from a political group called Fusion GPS and former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele . It was about alleged Trump and Russia collusion . Former FBI Director James Comey called the dossier `` salacious and unverified . '' Despite Comey 's statement , some Trump administration officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the dossier may have been presented to the FISA court to provide the basis for the government investigation of the Trump campaign and surveillance of Trump campaign meetings at Trump Tower . Some congressional Republicans wrote the Nunes memo as a summary of intelligence information about the Fusion GPS dossier . `` There may have been malfeasance by people at the FBI . So , it 's our job in conducting transparent oversight of the executive branch to get to the bottom of that , '' said Ryan . And Republican Rep. Mark Meadows said it 's `` troubling '' – he did n't expect such abuses of government surveillance power to occur in the United States of America . Some critics have likened the surveillance to KGB-style tactics from the old Soviet communist era . In response to the FBI 's objections that it has `` grave concerns '' about the GOP memo , House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes says the FBI stonewalled requests for information for nearly a year and Democrats say the Republican memo is n't accurate . And despite all these concerns – even from members of the president 's own administration – the memo could be released to the public very soon . President Trump believes it will be more evidence proving that his campaign was subjected to illegal wiretaps and that people at the highest levels of government worked to sabotage his campaign and presidency .

A political showdown over a classified government memo is pitting President Trump and Republicans against Democrats and the FBI. The president and members of the House Intelligence Committee want it released, but the FBI says it has "grave concerns" over its accuracy. A White House official said Thursday Congress will probably be informed of the decision to release the memo Friday, adding Trump was "OK" with its release. A second White House official said Trump was likely to declassify the memo but the exact method for making it public was still being considered. The House Intellligence Committee, led by chairman Devin Nunes, voted to release the classified, four-page Republican memo, but only after a review by the White House and FBI. FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met at the White House Monday with Chief of Staff John Kelly. They expressed concerns over "material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy." But moments after the State of the Union Address Tuesday night, the president said he's for full disclosure. As Trump left the House Chamber, one congressman told him, "Let's release the memo." The president responded, "Oh yeah, don't worry, 100 percent." Republicans say the memo reveals abuses of government surveillance power by the FBI and Justice Department concerning secret FISA court warrants and monitoring of the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Anytime FBI and Justice Department officials need to conduct surveillance on a foreign national, they're required by law to get approval – a warrant from the FISA court, which is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. They have to show evidence that the warrant is needed. But questionable evidence may have been given to the FISA court in the attempt to get a warrant involving surveillance of the Trump campaign team. That supposed evidence was a dossier from a political group called Fusion GPS and former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It was about alleged Trump and Russia collusion. Former FBI Director James Comey called the dossier "salacious and unverified." Despite Comey's statement, some Trump administration officials and Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the dossier may have been presented to the FISA court to provide the basis for the government investigation of the Trump campaign and surveillance of Trump campaign meetings at Trump Tower. Some congressional Republicans wrote the Nunes memo as a summary of intelligence information about the Fusion GPS dossier. House Speaker Paul Ryan favors the memo's release. "There may have been malfeasance by people at the FBI. So, it's our job in conducting transparent oversight of the executive branch to get to the bottom of that," said Ryan. Republican Congressman Jim Jordan called the memo "alarming." And Republican Rep. Mark Meadows said it's "troubling" – he didn't expect such abuses of government surveillance power to occur in the United States of America. Some critics have likened the surveillance to KGB-style tactics from the old Soviet communist era. In response to the FBI's objections that it has "grave concerns" about the GOP memo, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes says the FBI stonewalled requests for information for nearly a year and Democrats say the Republican memo isn't accurate. And despite all these concerns – even from members of the president's own administration – the memo could be released to the public very soon. President Trump believes it will be more evidence proving that his campaign was subjected to illegal wiretaps and that people at the highest levels of government worked to sabotage his campaign and presidency.

www1.cbn.com

right

QICA1WvNf9iXSDnq

test

NTALWCkbm2ywaSDA

supreme_court

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/16/ilhan-omar-impeaching-supreme-court-justice-brett-kavanaugh-is-our-constitutional-duty/

Ilhan Omar: Impeaching Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh Is ‘Our Constitutional Duty’

2019-09-16

Kristina Wong

Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) called for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be impeached on Sunday after the New York Times ran a piece Saturday alleging that an eyewitness saw friends of Kavanaugh push “ his penis into the hand of ” a female student at a college party . The Times later added to its piece on Sunday evening that the female student did not recall the incident , according to friends , and declined to comment : An earlier version of this article , which was adapted from a forthcoming book , did not include one element of the book ’ s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party . The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident . That information has been added to the article . However , before the Times added what amounted to a walk-back of the new allegation , Democrats such as Omar began lining up for calls for Kavanaugh ’ s impeachment . On Sunday she tweeted , “ Nothing terrifies this corrupt president more than the idea of Congress upholding the rule of law . We must open impeachment inquiries against Trump * and * Kavanaugh immediately . It ’ s our constitutional duty ” : Nothing terrifies this corrupt president more than the idea of Congress upholding the rule of law . We must open impeachment inquiries against Trump * and * Kavanaugh immediately . It ’ s our constitutional duty . https : //t.co/OVjBDWSqZT — Ilhan Omar ( @ IlhanMN ) September 15 , 2019 Omar has not commented or taken back her tweet as of Monday . The Times piece was adapted from a forthcoming book by two Times journalists Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh : An Investigation . The walk-back of the allegation was prompted by backlash from conservative media commentators and journalists , led by The Federalist ’ s Mollie Hemingway , who had received an early copy of the book and noted that the book itself said that the alleged victim did not recall the incident . After the Times acquiesced in an “ Editors ’ note , ” the paper was criticized by the right and the left for omitting the important detail that the alleged female victim did not recall the incident . MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough questioned why the Times originally left out that the alleged victim could not recall the episode . “ Everybody makes mistakes , ” he said Monday , according to the Washington Examiner . “ We were on the phone yesterday asking each other , wait a second , there ’ s a woman who [ Max ] Stier claims was abused by Kavanaugh . Has she denied this ? Has she claimed this happened ? Why is there this glaring omission in the New York Times story ? ” “ I could not believe the New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it , ” he added . The Times piece also failed to mention that the person making the new allegation , Max Stier , had served on former President Bill Clinton ’ s defense team during impeachment proceedings . Kavanaugh had served on independent counsel Kenneth Starr ’ s team .

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) called for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to be impeached on Sunday after the New York Times ran a piece Saturday alleging that an eyewitness saw friends of Kavanaugh push “his penis into the hand of” a female student at a college party. The Times later added to its piece on Sunday evening that the female student did not recall the incident, according to friends, and declined to comment: Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019 An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article. However, before the Times added what amounted to a walk-back of the new allegation, Democrats such as Omar began lining up for calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. On Sunday she tweeted, “Nothing terrifies this corrupt president more than the idea of Congress upholding the rule of law. We must open impeachment inquiries against Trump *and* Kavanaugh immediately. It’s our constitutional duty”: Nothing terrifies this corrupt president more than the idea of Congress upholding the rule of law. We must open impeachment inquiries against Trump *and* Kavanaugh immediately. It’s our constitutional duty. https://t.co/OVjBDWSqZT — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) September 15, 2019 Omar has not commented or taken back her tweet as of Monday. The Times piece was adapted from a forthcoming book by two Times journalists Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly titled The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation. The walk-back of the allegation was prompted by backlash from conservative media commentators and journalists, led by The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, who had received an early copy of the book and noted that the book itself said that the alleged victim did not recall the incident. After the Times acquiesced in an “Editors’ note,” the paper was criticized by the right and the left for omitting the important detail that the alleged female victim did not recall the incident. MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough questioned why the Times originally left out that the alleged victim could not recall the episode. “Everybody makes mistakes,” he said Monday, according to the Washington Examiner. “We were on the phone yesterday asking each other, wait a second, there’s a woman who [Max] Stier claims was abused by Kavanaugh. Has she denied this? Has she claimed this happened? Why is there this glaring omission in the New York Times story?” “I could not believe the New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it,” he added. The Times piece also failed to mention that the person making the new allegation, Max Stier, had served on former President Bill Clinton’s defense team during impeachment proceedings. Kavanaugh had served on independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s team. Follow Breitbart News’s @Kristina_Wong.

www.breitbart.com

right

NTALWCkbm2ywaSDA

test

ahNtF7yUJ77DlSdU

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/03/13/twitter-china-redfield-coronavirus/

Twitter Won’t Remove Chinese Official’s Tweet Suggesting US Army Introduced Virus Into Wuhan

2020-03-13

A Chinese official ’ s tweets suggesting the U.S. Army is responsible for injecting coronavirus into Wuhan , China , will not be removed , a Twitter spokesman told ███ News Foundation . A tweet from Chinese politician Lijian Zhao suggesting the United States is trying to keep secret a plan to inject the virus into China does not violate Twitter rules , a company spokesman said . The spokesman reiterated the company ’ s existing rules but did not provide a reason for speaking anonymously . Zhao is deputy director of China ’ s Foreign Ministry Information Department . Zhao falsely stated in a Thursday tweet that Centers For Disease Control Robert Redfield was “ arrested ” before floating the conspiracy theory to his 317,000 followers . ( RELATED : Chinese Official Blames US For Introducing Coronavirus To Wuhan , Says US ‘ Owes Us An Explanation ’ ) “ When did Patient Zero appear in the United States ? How many people are infected ? What is the name of the hospital ? ” he said in the tweet . “ It may be that the US military brought the epidemic to Wuhan . ” Zhao added : “ America needs to be transparent ! The United States owes us an explanation ! ” The first case of coronavirus , or COVID-19 , is believed to have appeared December 2019 in Wuhan , China . The virus has spread since February to 36 other countries and territories and has a global death toll of 3,041 , according to the CDC ‘ s numbers . Deaths from the virus in China hit 811 on Feb. 9 , surpassing the number of patients who died from SARS , China ’ s National Health Commission noted at the time . China has reported roughly 80,000 cases since February , though the number of cases in the country appears to be declining . Twitter ’ s decision to decline action came after the company announced in June 2019 that it will begin labeling and down ranking politicians ’ most vitriolic tweets , a move that could affect how President Donald Trump promotes his message . The label applies to all verified political candidates and officials with more than 100,000 followers , Twitter noted in a blog post . Users who want to view flagged content must click on a screen that says Twitter ’ s rules against abusive behavior apply to the tweet . The Trump administration asked big tech companies on Wednesday to help stomp out misinformation and conspiracy theories related to coronavirus . Twitter was among those companies that attended a conference addressing misinformation with White House officials . “ With a critical mass of expert organizations , official government accounts , health professionals , and epidemiologists on Twitter , our goal is to elevate and amplify authoritative health information on our service , ” Twitter spokesman Trenton Kennedy said in a statement following the conference .

A Chinese official’s tweets suggesting the U.S. Army is responsible for injecting coronavirus into Wuhan, China, will not be removed, a Twitter spokesman told the Daily Caller News Foundation. A tweet from Chinese politician Lijian Zhao suggesting the United States is trying to keep secret a plan to inject the virus into China does not violate Twitter rules, a company spokesman said. The spokesman reiterated the company’s existing rules but did not provide a reason for speaking anonymously. Zhao is deputy director of China’s Foreign Ministry Information Department. Zhao falsely stated in a Thursday tweet that Centers For Disease Control Robert Redfield was “arrested” before floating the conspiracy theory to his 317,000 followers. (RELATED: Chinese Official Blames US For Introducing Coronavirus To Wuhan, Says US ‘Owes Us An Explanation’) WATCH: “When did Patient Zero appear in the United States? How many people are infected? What is the name of the hospital?” he said in the tweet. “It may be that the US military brought the epidemic to Wuhan.” Zhao added: “America needs to be transparent! The United States owes us an explanation!” The first case of coronavirus, or COVID-19, is believed to have appeared December 2019 in Wuhan, China. The virus has spread since February to 36 other countries and territories and has a global death toll of 3,041, according to the CDC‘s numbers. Deaths from the virus in China hit 811 on Feb. 9, surpassing the number of patients who died from SARS, China’s National Health Commission noted at the time. China has reported roughly 80,000 cases since February, though the number of cases in the country appears to be declining. Twitter’s decision to decline action came after the company announced in June 2019 that it will begin labeling and down ranking politicians’ most vitriolic tweets, a move that could affect how President Donald Trump promotes his message. The label applies to all verified political candidates and officials with more than 100,000 followers, Twitter noted in a blog post. Users who want to view flagged content must click on a screen that says Twitter’s rules against abusive behavior apply to the tweet. The Trump administration asked big tech companies on Wednesday to help stomp out misinformation and conspiracy theories related to coronavirus. Twitter was among those companies that attended a conference addressing misinformation with White House officials. “With a critical mass of expert organizations, official government accounts, health professionals, and epidemiologists on Twitter, our goal is to elevate and amplify authoritative health information on our service,” Twitter spokesman Trenton Kennedy said in a statement following the conference. 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

ahNtF7yUJ77DlSdU

test

6pnVRSFkEQLBJcYj

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/steve-bannons-rightwing-europe-operation-undermined-by-election-laws

Steve Bannon's far-right Europe operation undermined by election laws

2018-11-21

Paul Lewis, Jennifer Rankin, Cas Mudde

Exclusive : ambitious plan to campaign in EU elections would fall foul of laws in nine of 13 targeted states Steve Bannon ’ s political operation to help rightwing populists triumph in next year ’ s European parliamentary elections is in disarray after he conceded that his campaign efforts could be illegal in most of the countries in which he planned to intervene . The former chief strategist to Donald Trump has spent months trying to recruit European parties to his Brussels-based group , the Movement , which he promised would operate as kind of a political consultancy for like-minded parties campaigning in the bloc-wide vote in May 2019 . But ███ has established that Bannon would be barred or prevented from doing any meaningful work in nine of the 13 countries in which he is seeking to campaign , according to national electoral bodies and relevant ministries . Confronted with the findings , Bannon acknowledged he was taking legal advice on the matter . “ I ’ m not totally disagreeing with you , ” he told ███ in Paris . “ I think there is more flexibility in some areas . But there ’ s no chance we would ever break the law . ” Further disclosures about Bannon ’ s operation to foment a Trump-style populist insurgency in Europe are revealed in a Guardian documentary . Bannon ’ s intervention in European politics comes amid heightened sensitivity about foreign involvement in elections . Questions have been mounting over the scale of Russia ’ s influence over the 2016 US presidential campaign and the UK ’ s referendum to leave the EU . However , in an interview with ███ , Bannon rejected the comparison between his movement and meddling by foreign states . “ It ’ s very different from Russia , or Chinese , or other people trying to have influence , because I ’ m a private citizen , ” he said . “ I ’ m not associated with the White House . ” A former investment banker with a reported net worth of about $ 50m ( £40m ) , Bannon is personally bankrolling his European operation . He has pledged to spend millions of dollars to provide nativist and ultra-conservative European parties free access to specialised polling data , analytics , social media advice and help with candidate selection . But officials working on electoral law and independent experts in multiple countries said this kind of assistance would be considered in-kind donations . Professional services that have a monetary value and are provided by foreign sources are banned in France , Spain , Poland , Czech Republic , Hungary and Finland . In Germany and Austria , in-kind services must be valued and are included in the limited sums parties may take from foreign donors . In October , Bannon told ███ he had already spent $ 1m of his money on polling he planned to provide for free to parties in seven European countries . He described it as the most significant and most expensive political polling ever undertaken in Europe , and said it would be used by political consultants with experience in data analytics to help target voters in the European elections . By the time the elections conclude in May 2019 , Bannon estimated , the project would have spent between $ 5m and $ 15m . There are no other known financial backers to his operation , although he has repeatedly referred to other unidentified donors who are “ quite interested in what happens in Europe ” . Asked recently if any of his donors were Russian , Bannon replied : “ This will all be Europeans , ” he said . “ And me . ” Bannon ’ s project was already in turmoil after parties he was courting in Sweden , Denmark , Finland , Austria , Poland , the Czech Republic and Germany indicated they will not join his project . He now faces the challenge of persuading prospective recruits that they will not risk sanctions for receiving help from a Brussels-based group bankrolled by an American . Bannon insisted his operation was not failing and that he had time to recruit more parties . “ Some people may not ever admit they ’ re signed up until after the European elections , ” he said . “ I ’ m doing all the polling whether there ’ s a country officially in or not . I ’ m doing all the data analytics whether the country is in or not . ” The scale of legal challenges facing Bannon ’ s operation emerged six weeks ago , when his partner , the Belgian far-right politician Mischaël Modrikamen , told ███ his own party was forbidden under Belgium ’ s electoral law from receiving contributions from the Movement . “ It is a bit frustrating for me , ” he said . “ I would have loved to have a godfather … a benefactor . ” A former corporate lawyer , Modrikamen confessed he did not know what electoral laws permitted in Germany , Italy or France , saying he was focused on recruiting parties to their operation . “ For me right now I ’ m focusing more on getting the members , ” he said . “ I ’ m a bit frustrated because I have no time . ” In the weeks since , ███ conducted a review of the domestic laws in the 13 European Union countries in which Bannon and Modrikamen had signalled they wanted to operate . It revealed that parties in France , Finland , Belgium , Spain , Hungary and Czech Republic would risk sanctions for breaches of electoral law if they agreed to accept the assistance of the former Trump strategist . Parties in Germany and Austria can only accept such small sums that his war chest would be useless . Bannon ’ s activities would be permitted in Denmark and Sweden , but the parties he wanted to recruit in both Scandinavian countries have declined his offers of help . The only EU countries where Bannon has both willing partners and sufficiently lax electoral laws to allow him to boost party campaigns are the Netherlands and Italy . Bannon has poured most of his efforts into Italy , which elected a populist coalition government this year . His efforts to recruit the anti-establishment Five Star Movement have so far been rebuffed , but he has succeeded in enlisting the interior minister , Matteo Salvini , the leader of the far-right League , and Giorgia Meloni of the smaller party Brothers of Italy . However , legislation being considered by the Italian parliament would prohibit foreign donations to parties in the country . Should it be passed into law as expected , Bannon ’ s grand European project would in effect be restricted to the Netherlands , where the anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders appears keen to cooperate . Informed about the findings of ███ ’ s research , Modrikamen said : “ There is certainly a problem , as you say , with contributions in-kind. ” He added there may have been “ some over-enthusiasm ” in Bannon ’ s public declarations about turning the Movement into a nonprofit to help with campaigning in the European elections . When the findings were relayed to Bannon , during a meeting in Paris last week , he conceded that the polling , data analytics , and help with social media he had promised far-right parties in Europe may turn out to be unlawful . “ We ’ ve got counsel looking at the same thing , ” he said . “ What we ’ re not going to do is anything that violates elections laws in those countries . ” When it was suggested that Bannon ’ s European project may be restricted to providing campaign help to one Dutch MP , he replied : “ It ’ s a start . ” He added that if lawyers advised his operation was “ close ” to violating laws banning foreign interference “ then there ’ s no chance we ’ ll do it ” . Concerns about foreign influence on domestic elections have multiplied in recent months . In the US , the special counsel , Robert Mueller , is investigating the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election , including possible collusion with the Trump campaign . Mueller ’ s team has interviewed Bannon four times . In the UK , the National Crime Agency is investigating the former Ukip donor Arron Banks , after the Electoral Commission said there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was “ not the true source ” of £8m in funding to the Leave.EU Brexit campaign . Emails published by the Observer last weekend suggest Banks was keen to involve Bannon – a founder of Cambridge Analytica – in a scheme to raise US cash for his Brexit campaign as far back as 2015 . Neither Bannon nor Banks has responded to the report . In his final interview before the Observer ’ s disclosure , Bannon , who spent much of October and early November campaigning for pro-Trump Republicans in the US midterms , insisted his intervention in Europe could not be described as foreign “ interference ” . “ I think it is very different , ” he said . “ I ’ m not doing this as a White House guy . I ’ m not associated with the White House , I ’ m not associated with the Republican party . ” Additional reporting by Kim Willsher in Paris , Josie Le Blond in Berlin , Sam Jones in Spain , Angela Giuffrida in Rome , Shaun Walker in Budapest , Christian Davies in Warsaw and Robert Tait in Prague .

Exclusive: ambitious plan to campaign in EU elections would fall foul of laws in nine of 13 targeted states Steve Bannon’s political operation to help rightwing populists triumph in next year’s European parliamentary elections is in disarray after he conceded that his campaign efforts could be illegal in most of the countries in which he planned to intervene. The former chief strategist to Donald Trump has spent months trying to recruit European parties to his Brussels-based group, the Movement, which he promised would operate as kind of a political consultancy for like-minded parties campaigning in the bloc-wide vote in May 2019. But the Guardian has established that Bannon would be barred or prevented from doing any meaningful work in nine of the 13 countries in which he is seeking to campaign, according to national electoral bodies and relevant ministries. Confronted with the findings, Bannon acknowledged he was taking legal advice on the matter. “I’m not totally disagreeing with you,” he told the Guardian in Paris. “I think there is more flexibility in some areas. But there’s no chance we would ever break the law.” Further disclosures about Bannon’s operation to foment a Trump-style populist insurgency in Europe are revealed in a Guardian documentary. Bannon’s intervention in European politics comes amid heightened sensitivity about foreign involvement in elections. Questions have been mounting over the scale of Russia’s influence over the 2016 US presidential campaign and the UK’s referendum to leave the EU. However, in an interview with the Guardian, Bannon rejected the comparison between his movement and meddling by foreign states. “It’s very different from Russia, or Chinese, or other people trying to have influence, because I’m a private citizen,” he said. “I’m not associated with the White House.” A former investment banker with a reported net worth of about $50m (£40m), Bannon is personally bankrolling his European operation. He has pledged to spend millions of dollars to provide nativist and ultra-conservative European parties free access to specialised polling data, analytics, social media advice and help with candidate selection. But officials working on electoral law and independent experts in multiple countries said this kind of assistance would be considered in-kind donations. Professional services that have a monetary value and are provided by foreign sources are banned in France, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Finland. In Germany and Austria, in-kind services must be valued and are included in the limited sums parties may take from foreign donors. In October, Bannon told the Guardian he had already spent $1m of his money on polling he planned to provide for free to parties in seven European countries. He described it as the most significant and most expensive political polling ever undertaken in Europe, and said it would be used by political consultants with experience in data analytics to help target voters in the European elections. By the time the elections conclude in May 2019, Bannon estimated, the project would have spent between $5m and $15m. There are no other known financial backers to his operation, although he has repeatedly referred to other unidentified donors who are “quite interested in what happens in Europe”. Asked recently if any of his donors were Russian, Bannon replied: “This will all be Europeans,” he said. “And me.” Bannon’s project was already in turmoil after parties he was courting in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany indicated they will not join his project. He now faces the challenge of persuading prospective recruits that they will not risk sanctions for receiving help from a Brussels-based group bankrolled by an American. Bannon insisted his operation was not failing and that he had time to recruit more parties. “Some people may not ever admit they’re signed up until after the European elections,” he said. “I’m doing all the polling whether there’s a country officially in or not. I’m doing all the data analytics whether the country is in or not.” The scale of legal challenges facing Bannon’s operation emerged six weeks ago, when his partner, the Belgian far-right politician Mischaël Modrikamen, told the Guardian his own party was forbidden under Belgium’s electoral law from receiving contributions from the Movement. “It is a bit frustrating for me,” he said. “I would have loved to have a godfather … a benefactor.” A former corporate lawyer, Modrikamen confessed he did not know what electoral laws permitted in Germany, Italy or France, saying he was focused on recruiting parties to their operation. “For me right now I’m focusing more on getting the members,” he said. “I’m a bit frustrated because I have no time.” In the weeks since, the Guardian conducted a review of the domestic laws in the 13 European Union countries in which Bannon and Modrikamen had signalled they wanted to operate. It revealed that parties in France, Finland, Belgium, Spain, Hungary and Czech Republic would risk sanctions for breaches of electoral law if they agreed to accept the assistance of the former Trump strategist. Parties in Germany and Austria can only accept such small sums that his war chest would be useless. Bannon’s activities would be permitted in Denmark and Sweden, but the parties he wanted to recruit in both Scandinavian countries have declined his offers of help. The only EU countries where Bannon has both willing partners and sufficiently lax electoral laws to allow him to boost party campaigns are the Netherlands and Italy. Bannon has poured most of his efforts into Italy, which elected a populist coalition government this year. His efforts to recruit the anti-establishment Five Star Movement have so far been rebuffed, but he has succeeded in enlisting the interior minister, Matteo Salvini, the leader of the far-right League, and Giorgia Meloni of the smaller party Brothers of Italy. However, legislation being considered by the Italian parliament would prohibit foreign donations to parties in the country. Should it be passed into law as expected, Bannon’s grand European project would in effect be restricted to the Netherlands, where the anti-Islam MP Geert Wilders appears keen to cooperate. Informed about the findings of the Guardian’s research, Modrikamen said: “There is certainly a problem, as you say, with contributions in-kind.” He added there may have been “some over-enthusiasm” in Bannon’s public declarations about turning the Movement into a nonprofit to help with campaigning in the European elections. When the findings were relayed to Bannon, during a meeting in Paris last week, he conceded that the polling, data analytics, and help with social media he had promised far-right parties in Europe may turn out to be unlawful. “We’ve got counsel looking at the same thing,” he said. “What we’re not going to do is anything that violates elections laws in those countries.” When it was suggested that Bannon’s European project may be restricted to providing campaign help to one Dutch MP, he replied: “It’s a start.” He added that if lawyers advised his operation was “close” to violating laws banning foreign interference “then there’s no chance we’ll do it”. Concerns about foreign influence on domestic elections have multiplied in recent months. In the US, the special counsel, Robert Mueller, is investigating the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Mueller’s team has interviewed Bannon four times. In the UK, the National Crime Agency is investigating the former Ukip donor Arron Banks, after the Electoral Commission said there were reasonable grounds to suspect he was “not the true source” of £8m in funding to the Leave.EU Brexit campaign. Emails published by the Observer last weekend suggest Banks was keen to involve Bannon – a founder of Cambridge Analytica – in a scheme to raise US cash for his Brexit campaign as far back as 2015. Neither Bannon nor Banks has responded to the report. In his final interview before the Observer’s disclosure, Bannon, who spent much of October and early November campaigning for pro-Trump Republicans in the US midterms, insisted his intervention in Europe could not be described as foreign “interference”. “I think it is very different,” he said. “I’m not doing this as a White House guy. I’m not associated with the White House, I’m not associated with the Republican party.” Additional reporting by Kim Willsher in Paris, Josie Le Blond in Berlin, Sam Jones in Spain, Angela Giuffrida in Rome, Shaun Walker in Budapest, Christian Davies in Warsaw and Robert Tait in Prague.

www.theguardian.com

left

6pnVRSFkEQLBJcYj

test

6MzPjzW1MkPhkd3c

race_and_racism

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/07/philadelphia-inquirer-editor-resigns-buildings-matter-too-headline/

Philadelphia Inquirer Editor Resigns After Blow-Up Over ‘Buildings Matter Too’ Headline

2020-06-07

The Philadelphia Inquirer ’ s top editor has resigned after staffers complained about a “ deeply offensive ” headline that was published earlier in the week . Stan Wischnowski , who worked for the Inquirer for two decades , published an article about the looting and destruction that came as peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd gave way to violent riots and looting in major cities nationwide — Philadelphia included . The article ’ s headline read , “ Buildings Matter Too. ” ( RELATED : Philadelphia Inquirer Apologizes For Telling Protestors ‘ Buildings Matter , Too ’ ) Philadelphia Inquirer top editor forced to resign after publishing piece with ‘ Buildings Matter ’ headline . Was with paper 20 years ; led team to Pulitzer ; doubled minority staff . Apologized for ‘ Buildings Matter , Too ’ headline . ‘ Deeply offensive. ’ https : //t.co/eY0sOsgfiG — Byron York ( @ ByronYork ) June 7 , 2020 During Wischnowski ’ s tenure as editor , the newsroom has taken strides to double the number of minority staffers — minorities now make up over 25 % of the newsroom — but a Zoom call with staffers made it clear that many did not believe enough had been done . That call was followed by an open letter from some of the staff . Today , I ’ m joining my colleagues of color at the @ PhillyInquirer and calling in sick and tired . Things need to change . We call on The Inquirer to do better . To be better . Here is the open letter we sent our newsroom leadership : https : //t.co/itNknoDvE5 — Melanie Burney ( @ MLBURNEY ) June 4 , 2020 The next day , a number of minority staffers called out “ sick and tired ” over the issue . BREAKING : More than 30 journalists of color at the Philadelphia Inquirer are calling out sick today in protest of systemic racism ; others are taking part in a byline strike . This was prompted by the paper ’ s disastrous ‘ Buildings Matter , Too ’ headline https : //t.co/YNi1agJBh6 — Dave Jamieson ( @ jamieson ) June 4 , 2020 Wischnowski signed off on a letter from several editors apologizing for the headline . “ The Philadelphia Inquirer published a headline in Tuesday ’ s edition that was deeply offensive . We should not have printed it . We ’ re sorry , and regret that we did . We also know that an apology on its own is not sufficient , ” the letter read in part .

The Philadelphia Inquirer’s top editor has resigned after staffers complained about a “deeply offensive” headline that was published earlier in the week. Stan Wischnowski, who worked for the Inquirer for two decades, published an article about the looting and destruction that came as peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd gave way to violent riots and looting in major cities nationwide — Philadelphia included. The article’s headline read, “Buildings Matter Too.” (RELATED: Philadelphia Inquirer Apologizes For Telling Protestors ‘Buildings Matter, Too’) Philadelphia Inquirer top editor forced to resign after publishing piece with ‘Buildings Matter’ headline. Was with paper 20 years; led team to Pulitzer; doubled minority staff. Apologized for ‘Buildings Matter, Too’ headline. ‘Deeply offensive.’ https://t.co/eY0sOsgfiG — Byron York (@ByronYork) June 7, 2020 During Wischnowski’s tenure as editor, the newsroom has taken strides to double the number of minority staffers — minorities now make up over 25% of the newsroom — but a Zoom call with staffers made it clear that many did not believe enough had been done. That call was followed by an open letter from some of the staff. Today, I’m joining my colleagues of color at the @PhillyInquirer and calling in sick and tired. Things need to change. We call on The Inquirer to do better. To be better. Here is the open letter we sent our newsroom leadership:https://t.co/itNknoDvE5 — Melanie Burney (@MLBURNEY) June 4, 2020 The next day, a number of minority staffers called out “sick and tired” over the issue. BREAKING: More than 30 journalists of color at the Philadelphia Inquirer are calling out sick today in protest of systemic racism; others are taking part in a byline strike. This was prompted by the paper’s disastrous ‘Buildings Matter, Too’ headline https://t.co/YNi1agJBh6 — Dave Jamieson (@jamieson) June 4, 2020 Wischnowski signed off on a letter from several editors apologizing for the headline. “The Philadelphia Inquirer published a headline in Tuesday’s edition that was deeply offensive. We should not have printed it. We’re sorry, and regret that we did. We also know that an apology on its own is not sufficient,” the letter read in part.

www.dailycaller.com

right

6MzPjzW1MkPhkd3c

test

2YNfXYaw9qtKH4kB

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/25/exclusive-ted-cruz-use-antitrust-laws-to-break-massive-power-of-tech-lords-to-subvert-our-democratic-process/

Ted Cruz: Use Antitrust Laws to Break ‘Massive Power’ of Tech Lords to ‘Subvert Our Democratic Process’

2018-04-25

Robert Kraychik

Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) recommended usingantitrust laws to curb the “ massive power ” of Facebook and other technology companies during a Tuesday interview with SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on ███ Tonight . Pollak asked Cruz about possible solutions to “ censorship of conservatives ” on Facebook and across the broader internet landscape . Cruz described technology companies ’ growing control over the flow of information as a threat to democratic processes . He said , “ I think , number one , the growing power of tech to censor speech is a profound threat . We ’ re seeing now some two-thirds of Americans are getting their news through social media , and these tech companies are hard-left . They are are partisan Democrats , and what we ’ re seeing is they ’ re amplifying the views they agree with , those of liberal Democrats , and they are suppressing the views of conservatives . They are blocking conservatives . ” Cruz added , “ The scope of the power is truly unprecedented . You think back to the heights of yellow journalism , when publisher William Randolph Hearst controlled much of media and in fact got America into the Spanish-American War . These tech companies have power William Randolph Hearst could never have imagined . The ability , if there ’ s a view they dislike , simply to silence it so that if you put a post out there , if you put a tweet out there , it simply goes into the void , into oblivion , and no one sees it . Likewise , they have the ability , if there are views they want to promote , to just have everything on your feed be the views they want to promote . That is invidious . It is invisible , and it is profoundly dangerous . ” Cruz considered exposing technology firms to libel lawsuits to curb their political manipulation of the availability of information on their platforms . He said , “ Now your question is a hard one and a good one . What remedies are there ? I would say there are principally two . Number one , the question I asked Mark Zuckerberg , the opening question was , ‘ Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public form ? ’ He danced around and refused to answer that . The reason the question matters is much , is under current law , Facebook and other tech companies have immunity from liability , so if someone posts something on their site , they can ’ t be sued for it , and it ’ s under what ’ s called the Communications Decency Act , section 230 . The entire reason Congress enacted section 230 was under the assumption these tech sites would be neutral public forums , [ that ] they would allow people to be speaking . So the reasoning was , we ’ ll protect you from being sued because it ’ s not you speaking , it ’ s somebody else . Well , if Facebook and the other tech companies are going to choose instead to be partisan political speakers , they have a right to do that . They ’ ve got a First Amendment to become and to be partisan political speakers , but there ’ s no reason on Earth they should get a special immunity from liability from Congress . ” Cruz continued , “ Breitbart , if y ’ all go on the radio and say something that ’ s slanderous , you can be sued . If the New York Times prints something that is libel , they can be sued . So why on Earth should Facebook get a special immunity from liability that nobody else does . I think that ’ s one remedy . ” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act described the United States ’ s policy as , “ [ encouraging ] the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals , families , and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services . ” Cruz also considered the use f antitrust laws to curb technology companies ’ power . He remarked , “ A second remedy is considering using anti-trust laws . By any measure , Facebook is larger and more powerful than Standard Oil was the antitrust laws broke it up . It ’ s larger and more power than AT & T was when antitrust laws broke it up and given that , I think we need to have serious consideration about the massive power we ’ re seeing of these tech companies to subvert our democratic process . ” ███ Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM ’ s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern ( 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific ) .

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) recommended usingantitrust laws to curb the “massive power” of Facebook and other technology companies during a Tuesday interview with SiriusXM hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak on Breitbart News Tonight. Pollak asked Cruz about possible solutions to “censorship of conservatives” on Facebook and across the broader internet landscape. LISTEN: Cruz described technology companies’ growing control over the flow of information as a threat to democratic processes. He said, “I think, number one, the growing power of tech to censor speech is a profound threat. We’re seeing now some two-thirds of Americans are getting their news through social media, and these tech companies are hard-left. They are are partisan Democrats, and what we’re seeing is they’re amplifying the views they agree with, those of liberal Democrats, and they are suppressing the views of conservatives. They are blocking conservatives.” Cruz added, “The scope of the power is truly unprecedented. You think back to the heights of yellow journalism, when publisher William Randolph Hearst controlled much of media and in fact got America into the Spanish-American War. These tech companies have power William Randolph Hearst could never have imagined. The ability, if there’s a view they dislike, simply to silence it so that if you put a post out there, if you put a tweet out there, it simply goes into the void, into oblivion, and no one sees it. Likewise, they have the ability, if there are views they want to promote, to just have everything on your feed be the views they want to promote. That is invidious. It is invisible, and it is profoundly dangerous.” Cruz considered exposing technology firms to libel lawsuits to curb their political manipulation of the availability of information on their platforms. He said, “Now your question is a hard one and a good one. What remedies are there? I would say there are principally two. Number one, the question I asked Mark Zuckerberg, the opening question was, ‘Does Facebook consider itself a neutral public form?’ He danced around and refused to answer that. The reason the question matters is much, is under current law, Facebook and other tech companies have immunity from liability, so if someone posts something on their site, they can’t be sued for it, and it’s under what’s called the Communications Decency Act, section 230. The entire reason Congress enacted section 230 was under the assumption these tech sites would be neutral public forums, [that] they would allow people to be speaking. So the reasoning was, we’ll protect you from being sued because it’s not you speaking, it’s somebody else. Well, if Facebook and the other tech companies are going to choose instead to be partisan political speakers, they have a right to do that. They’ve got a First Amendment to become and to be partisan political speakers, but there’s no reason on Earth they should get a special immunity from liability from Congress.” Cruz continued, “Breitbart, if y’all go on the radio and say something that’s slanderous, you can be sued. If the New York Times prints something that is libel, they can be sued. So why on Earth should Facebook get a special immunity from liability that nobody else does. I think that’s one remedy.” Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act described the United States’s policy as, “[encouraging] the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services.” Cruz also considered the use f antitrust laws to curb technology companies’ power. He remarked, “A second remedy is considering using anti-trust laws. By any measure, Facebook is larger and more powerful than Standard Oil was the antitrust laws broke it up. It’s larger and more power than AT&T was when antitrust laws broke it up and given that, I think we need to have serious consideration about the massive power we’re seeing of these tech companies to subvert our democratic process.” Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific). Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter @rkraychik.

www.breitbart.com

right

2YNfXYaw9qtKH4kB

test

P2RR0Yw3cD7Ln2fk

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/219da234c8bbfbd07c49b07154af22ee

Virginia governor to propose Juneteenth as state holiday

2020-06-16

Alan Suderman, Denise Lavoie

In this June 4 , 2020 file photo Virginia Gov . Ralph Northam speaks during a news conference in Richmond , Va. Northam announced Tuesday , June 16 , 2020 that he 's making Juneteenth _ a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. _ an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy . ( AP Photo/Steve Helber , file ) In this June 4 , 2020 file photo Virginia Gov . Ralph Northam speaks during a news conference in Richmond , Va. Northam announced Tuesday , June 16 , 2020 that he 's making Juneteenth _ a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. _ an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy . ( AP Photo/Steve Helber , file ) RICHMOND , Va. ( AP ) — Virginia Gov . Ralph Northam announced Tuesday that he ’ s making Juneteenth — a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. — an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy . Juneteenth , which is also called Emancipation Day and Freedom Day , is celebrated annually on June 19 . Texas first made it a state holiday in 1980 . The holiday would be a paid day off for all state employees . Northam said he thinks Virginia would be only the second state to do so . “ It ’ s time we elevate this , ” Northam said of the June 19 commemoration . “ Not just a celebration by and for some Virginians but one acknowledged and celebrated by all of us . ” The Democratic governor is giving every executive branch employee this Friday off as a paid holiday and will work with the legislature later this year to pass a law codifying Juneteenth as a permanent state holiday . The legislation is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled legislature with little trouble . The holiday commemorates June 19 , 1865 , when news finally reached African Americans in Texas that President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves living in Confederate states two years earlier . When Union soldiers arrived in Galveston to bring the news that slavery had been abolished , former slaves celebrated . The announcement came less than two weeks after Northam announced he was ordering the removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee along Richmond ’ s prominent Monument Avenue . It is one of the country ’ s most iconic monuments to the Confederacy . Earlier this year , Northam signed legislation scrapping Lee-Jackson Day , a state holiday named after two Confederate generals . Nearly forced from office last year after a racist yearbook photo surfaced , Northam has won widespread praise among black lawmakers for his actions in Virginia following the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a Minneapolis officer pressed his knee into Floyd ’ s neck as he pleaded for air . President Donald Trump announced last week that he has rescheduled a campaign rally that was planned in Tulsa , Oklahoma , on Juneteenth . The announcement of the rally had sparked an outcry because Tulsa was the site of one of the worst instances of racial violence in U.S. history in 1921 , when hundreds of African Americans were massacred by a white mob that burned black-owned businesses and homes . Northam was joined Tuesday at his news conference by musician Pharrell Williams , who is from Virginia . Williams said Juneteenth deserves the same level of recognition and celebration as Independence Day . “ Here ’ s our day , and if you love us , it ’ ll be your day too , ” Williams said . In a statement , state House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert echoed the same sentiments . “ July 4th is the birthday of our nation , but Juneteenth is the day where it truly began to fulfill its promise of freedom for all , ” Gilbert said . “ For the first time since enslaved Africans landed at Jamestown in 1619 , the chains of bondage were finally cast off . ” Joseph Rogers , a 29-year-old activist who has been a regular protester in Richmond during more than two weeks of demonstrations over Floyd ’ s killing , hailed Northam ’ s announcement .

In this June 4, 2020 file photo Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam speaks during a news conference in Richmond, Va. Northam announced Tuesday, June 16, 2020 that he's making Juneteenth _ a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. _ an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, file) In this June 4, 2020 file photo Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam speaks during a news conference in Richmond, Va. Northam announced Tuesday, June 16, 2020 that he's making Juneteenth _ a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. _ an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy. (AP Photo/Steve Helber, file) RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam announced Tuesday that he’s making Juneteenth — a day that commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S. — an official holiday in a state that was once home to the capital of the Confederacy. Juneteenth, which is also called Emancipation Day and Freedom Day, is celebrated annually on June 19. Texas first made it a state holiday in 1980. The holiday would be a paid day off for all state employees. Northam said he thinks Virginia would be only the second state to do so. “It’s time we elevate this,” Northam said of the June 19 commemoration. “Not just a celebration by and for some Virginians but one acknowledged and celebrated by all of us.” ADVERTISEMENT The Democratic governor is giving every executive branch employee this Friday off as a paid holiday and will work with the legislature later this year to pass a law codifying Juneteenth as a permanent state holiday. The legislation is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled legislature with little trouble. The holiday commemorates June 19, 1865, when news finally reached African Americans in Texas that President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves living in Confederate states two years earlier. When Union soldiers arrived in Galveston to bring the news that slavery had been abolished, former slaves celebrated. The announcement came less than two weeks after Northam announced he was ordering the removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee along Richmond’s prominent Monument Avenue. It is one of the country’s most iconic monuments to the Confederacy. Earlier this year, Northam signed legislation scrapping Lee-Jackson Day, a state holiday named after two Confederate generals. Nearly forced from office last year after a racist yearbook photo surfaced, Northam has won widespread praise among black lawmakers for his actions in Virginia following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis officer pressed his knee into Floyd’s neck as he pleaded for air. President Donald Trump announced last week that he has rescheduled a campaign rally that was planned in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on Juneteenth. The announcement of the rally had sparked an outcry because Tulsa was the site of one of the worst instances of racial violence in U.S. history in 1921, when hundreds of African Americans were massacred by a white mob that burned black-owned businesses and homes. Northam was joined Tuesday at his news conference by musician Pharrell Williams, who is from Virginia. Williams said Juneteenth deserves the same level of recognition and celebration as Independence Day. “Here’s our day, and if you love us, it’ll be your day too,” Williams said. In a statement, state House Republican Leader Todd Gilbert echoed the same sentiments. “July 4th is the birthday of our nation, but Juneteenth is the day where it truly began to fulfill its promise of freedom for all,” Gilbert said. “For the first time since enslaved Africans landed at Jamestown in 1619, the chains of bondage were finally cast off.” Joseph Rogers, a 29-year-old activist who has been a regular protester in Richmond during more than two weeks of demonstrations over Floyd’s killing, hailed Northam’s announcement. “It’s a step in the right direction,” said Rogers,

www.apnews.com

center

P2RR0Yw3cD7Ln2fk

test

2aKcM4vPgwlCgxCC

palestine

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/3da4fb3671004679a91a7d4ae9ab4e57

US angers Palestinians with reversal on Israeli settlements

2019-11-18

Matthew Lee

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington , Monday , Nov. 18 , 2019 . Pompeo spoke about Iran , Iraq , Israeli settlements in the West Bank , protests in Hong Kong , and Bolivia , among other topics . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington , Monday , Nov. 18 , 2019 . Pompeo spoke about Iran , Iraq , Israeli settlements in the West Bank , protests in Hong Kong , and Bolivia , among other topics . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration on Monday said it no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be a violation of international law , reversing four decades of American policy and further undermining the Palestinians ’ effort to gain statehood . Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. is repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that held that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “ inconsistent with international law. ” Israeli leaders welcomed the decision while Palestinians and other nations warned that it undercut any chance of a broader peace deal . Pompeo told reporters at the State Department that the Trump administration believes any legal questions about settlements should be resolved by Israeli courts and that declaring them a violation of international law distracts from larger efforts to negotiate a peace deal . “ Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace , ” Pompeo said . “ The hard truth is that there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict , and arguments about who is right and who is wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace . ” The change reflects the administration ’ s embrace of a hard-line Israeli view at the expense of the Palestinian quest for statehood . Similar actions have included President Donald Trump ’ s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital , the movement of the U.S. Embassy to that city and the closure of the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington . “ The U.S. administration has lost its credibility to play any future role in the peace process , ” said Nabil Abu Rdeneh , a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas . The European Union warned of the potential repercussions in a statement following the announcement that did not mention the U.S . “ All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace , ” said the statement from the 28-nation bloc . “ The EU calls on Israel to end all settlement activity , in line with its obligations as an occupying power . ” Even though the decision is largely symbolic , it could give a boost to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , who is fighting for his political survival after failing to form a coalition government following recent elections . It could also spell further trouble for the administration ’ s peace plan , which is unlikely to gather much international support by endorsing a position contrary to the global consensus . The Netanyahu government was dealt a blow on settlements just last week when the European Court of Justice ruled products made in Israeli settlements must be labeled as such . The 1978 legal opinion on settlements is known as the Hansell Memorandum . It had been the basis for more than 40 years of carefully worded U.S. opposition to settlement construction that had varied in its tone and strength , depending on the president ’ s position . The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal based in part on the Fourth Geneva Convention , which bars an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory . In the final days of the Obama administration , the U.S. allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution declaring the settlements a “ flagrant violation ” of international law . Pompeo said that the U.S. would not take a position on the legality of specific settlements , that the new policy would not extend beyond the West Bank and that it would not create a precedent for other territorial disputes . He also said the decision did not mean the administration was prejudging the status of the West Bank in any eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement . For Netanyahu , the welcome boost comes at a time when he has been weakened domestically by mounting legal woes and two inconclusive elections this year . Unable to secure a parliamentary majority , Netanyahu is now anxiously waiting to see if his chief rival , Benny Gantz , can put together a coalition . If Gantz fails , the country could be forced into a third election , with Netanyahu facing the distraction of a trial . Netanyahu ’ s office released a statement saying the policy shift “ rights a historical wrong ” concerning settlements . “ This policy reflects an historical truth - that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judea and Samaria , ” it said , using the Israeli terms for the West Bank . Gantz , meanwhile , applauded Pompeo ’ s “ important statement , once again demonstrating its firm stance with Israel and its commitment to the security and future of the entire Middle East . ” Pompeo dismissed suggestions that the decision would further isolate the U.S. or Israel in the international community , though Jordan ’ s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi wrote on Twitter that the settlements hurt peace prospects . “ We warn of the seriousness of the change in the U.S. position towards the settlements and its repercussions on all efforts to achieve peace , ” he said . Shortly after Pompeo ’ s announcement , the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem issued an advisory warning for Americans planning to travel in the West Bank , Jerusalem and Gaza , saying , “ Individuals and groups opposed to ( Pompeo ’ s ) announcement may target U.S. government facilities , U.S. private interests , and U.S. citizens. ” It called on them “ to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness in light of the current environment . ” Israel captured the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and quickly began settling the newly conquered territory . Today , some 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the two areas , which are both claimed by the Palestinians for their state . After the war , it immediately annexed east Jerusalem , home to the holy city ’ s most important religious sites , in a move that is not internationally recognized . But Israel has never annexed the West Bank , even as it has dotted the territory with scores of settlements and tiny settlement outposts . While claiming the fate of the settlements is a subject for negotiations , it has steadily expanded them . Some major settlements have over 30,000 residents , resembling small cities and serving as suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv . The Palestinians and most of the world say the settlements undermine hopes for a two-state solution by gobbling up land sought by the Palestinians . Israel ’ s settlement activities have also drawn attention to its treatment of Palestinians . While Jewish settlers can freely enter Israel and vote in Israeli elections , West Bank Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law , require permits to enter Israel and do not have the right to vote in Israeli elections .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Monday, Nov. 18, 2019. Pompeo spoke about Iran, Iraq, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, protests in Hong Kong, and Bolivia, among other topics. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington, Monday, Nov. 18, 2019. Pompeo spoke about Iran, Iraq, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, protests in Hong Kong, and Bolivia, among other topics. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Monday said it no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be a violation of international law, reversing four decades of American policy and further undermining the Palestinians’ effort to gain statehood. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. is repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that held that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “inconsistent with international law.” Israeli leaders welcomed the decision while Palestinians and other nations warned that it undercut any chance of a broader peace deal. Pompeo told reporters at the State Department that the Trump administration believes any legal questions about settlements should be resolved by Israeli courts and that declaring them a violation of international law distracts from larger efforts to negotiate a peace deal. “Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace,” Pompeo said. “The hard truth is that there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, and arguments about who is right and who is wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace.” The change reflects the administration’s embrace of a hard-line Israeli view at the expense of the Palestinian quest for statehood. Similar actions have included President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the movement of the U.S. Embassy to that city and the closure of the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington. “The U.S. administration has lost its credibility to play any future role in the peace process,” said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The European Union warned of the potential repercussions in a statement following the announcement that did not mention the U.S. “All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace,” said the statement from the 28-nation bloc. “The EU calls on Israel to end all settlement activity, in line with its obligations as an occupying power.” Even though the decision is largely symbolic, it could give a boost to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is fighting for his political survival after failing to form a coalition government following recent elections. It could also spell further trouble for the administration’s peace plan, which is unlikely to gather much international support by endorsing a position contrary to the global consensus. The Netanyahu government was dealt a blow on settlements just last week when the European Court of Justice ruled products made in Israeli settlements must be labeled as such. The 1978 legal opinion on settlements is known as the Hansell Memorandum. It had been the basis for more than 40 years of carefully worded U.S. opposition to settlement construction that had varied in its tone and strength, depending on the president’s position. The international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal based in part on the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bars an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory. In the final days of the Obama administration, the U.S. allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution declaring the settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law. Pompeo said that the U.S. would not take a position on the legality of specific settlements, that the new policy would not extend beyond the West Bank and that it would not create a precedent for other territorial disputes. He also said the decision did not mean the administration was prejudging the status of the West Bank in any eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. For Netanyahu, the welcome boost comes at a time when he has been weakened domestically by mounting legal woes and two inconclusive elections this year. Unable to secure a parliamentary majority, Netanyahu is now anxiously waiting to see if his chief rival, Benny Gantz, can put together a coalition. If Gantz fails, the country could be forced into a third election, with Netanyahu facing the distraction of a trial. Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying the policy shift “rights a historical wrong” concerning settlements. “This policy reflects an historical truth - that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judea and Samaria,” it said, using the Israeli terms for the West Bank. Gantz, meanwhile, applauded Pompeo’s “important statement, once again demonstrating its firm stance with Israel and its commitment to the security and future of the entire Middle East.” Pompeo dismissed suggestions that the decision would further isolate the U.S. or Israel in the international community, though Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi wrote on Twitter that the settlements hurt peace prospects. “We warn of the seriousness of the change in the U.S. position towards the settlements and its repercussions on all efforts to achieve peace,” he said. Shortly after Pompeo’s announcement, the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem issued an advisory warning for Americans planning to travel in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, saying, “Individuals and groups opposed to (Pompeo’s) announcement may target U.S. government facilities, U.S. private interests, and U.S. citizens.” It called on them “to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness in light of the current environment.” Israel captured the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and quickly began settling the newly conquered territory. Today, some 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the two areas, which are both claimed by the Palestinians for their state. After the war, it immediately annexed east Jerusalem, home to the holy city’s most important religious sites, in a move that is not internationally recognized. But Israel has never annexed the West Bank, even as it has dotted the territory with scores of settlements and tiny settlement outposts. While claiming the fate of the settlements is a subject for negotiations, it has steadily expanded them. Some major settlements have over 30,000 residents, resembling small cities and serving as suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The Palestinians and most of the world say the settlements undermine hopes for a two-state solution by gobbling up land sought by the Palestinians. Israel’s settlement activities have also drawn attention to its treatment of Palestinians. While Jewish settlers can freely enter Israel and vote in Israeli elections, West Bank Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law, require permits to enter Israel and do not have the right to vote in Israeli elections. ___ Associated Press writers Josef Federman and Ilan Ben Zion in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

2aKcM4vPgwlCgxCC

test

MZBQlyoa12jjXiSS

politics

AP Fact Check

https://apnews.com/d5610d43d0eedb7caea882814b1659bb

Facebook removes Trump ads with symbols once used by Nazis

2020-06-18

Eric Tucker, Barbara Ortutay

President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America 's small businesses , in the State Dining Room of the White House , Thursday , June 18 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America 's small businesses , in the State Dining Room of the White House , Thursday , June 18 , 2020 , in Washington . ( AP Photo/Alex Brandon ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Facebook has removed campaign ads by President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence that featured an upside-down red triangle , a symbol once used by Nazis to designate political prisoners , communists and others in concentration camps . The company said in a statement Thursday that the ads violated “ our policy against organized hate. ” A Facebook executive who testified at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday said the company does not permit symbols of hateful ideology “ unless they ’ re put up with context or condemnation . ” “ In a situation where we don ’ t see either of those , we don ’ t allow it on the platform and we remove it . That ’ s what we saw in this case with this ad , and anywhere that that symbol is used , we would take the same action , ” Nathaniel Gleicher , the company ’ s head of security policy , told lawmakers at a hearing . The Trump campaign spent more than $ 17,000 on the ads for Trump and Pence combined . The ads began running on Wednesday and received hundreds of thousands of impressions . In a statement , Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said the inverted red triangle was a symbol commonly used by antifa so it was included in an ad about antifa . He said the symbol is not in the Anti-Defamation League ’ s database of symbols of hate . The Trump campaign also argued that the symbol is an emoji . “ But it is ironic that it took a Trump ad to force the media to implicitly concede that Antifa is a hate group , ” he added . Antifa is an umbrella term for leftist militants bound more by belief than organizational structure . Trump has blamed antifa for the violence that erupted during some of the recent protests , but federal law enforcement officials have offered little evidence of this . Some experts disputed that the red triangle was commonly used as an antifa symbol . European anti-fascist groups initially used the red triangle as a symbol , hoping to reclaim its meaning after World War II , but it is no longer widely used by the movement nor by U.S. antifa groups , said Mark Bray , a Rutgers University historian and author of “ Antifa : The Anti-Fascist Handbook . ” The ADL said the triangle was not in its database because it is a historical symbol and the database includes only those symbols used by modern-day extremists and white supremacists . “ Whether aware of the history or meaning , for the Trump campaign to use a symbol — one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps — to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling , ” ADL chief executive officer Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement . Even with the ads removed , Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg , still face persistent criticism for not removing or labeling earlier posts by Trump that spread misinformation about voting by mail and , many said , encouraged violence against protesters during recent unrest in American cities . Those questions arose anew during Thursday ’ s hearing as Democrats pressed the executives about what moral obligations they felt they had when it came to content and about decisions they ’ ve made to remove , label or leave up false or incendiary posts . Facebook , for instance , was asked why it did not swiftly remove a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , last year that appeared to show her slurring her words . “ If we simply take a piece of content like this down , it doesn ’ t go away , ” Gleicher responded . “ It will exist elsewhere on the internet . People who are looking for it will still find it . ” Later Thursday , Twitter labeled a video Trump had posted as “ manipulated media. ” The president had tweeted a doctored video of two young children with a fake , misspelled CNN headline of “ Terrified todler runs from racist baby. ” For the first time last month , Twitter began flagging some of Trump ’ s tweets with a fact-check warning . With Thursday ’ s hearing focused on the spread of disinformation tied to the 2020 election , the companies said they had not yet seen the same sort of concerted foreign influence campaigns like the one four years ago , when Russian sowed discord online by playing up divisive social issues . But that suggests the threat has simply evolved rather than diminished , said the executives , who pointed out that media entities linked to foreign governments were now directly engaging online on American social issues as a way to influence public opinion . Chinese actors , for instance , have likened allegations of police brutality in the U.S. to the criticism China faced for its aggressive treatment of protesters in Hong Kong . “ That shift from platform manipulation to overt state assets is something that we ’ ve observed , ” said Nick Pickles , Twitter ’ s public policy strategy and development director . The companies say they have accelerated efforts to root out fake accounts . Twitter , for instance , said it had challenged in the first six months of 2019 more than 97 million accounts that showed signs of platform manipulation , and Facebook said it had disabled about 1.7 billion fake accounts between January and March . Preventing disinformation ahead of the election is a significant challenge in a country facing potentially dramatic changes in how people vote , with the expected widespread use of mail-in ballots creating openings to cast doubt on the results and spread inaccurate narratives . Facebook said Thursday that it is working to provide Americans with accurate information about the vote-by-mail process , with notifications to users about how to request ballots and about whether the date of their election has changed . The outreach is targeted to voters in states where no excuse is needed to vote by mail or where fears of the coronavirus are accepted as an excuse . “ Providing that accurate information is one of the best ways to mitigate those types of threats , ” Gleicher said .

President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America's small businesses, in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, June 18, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) President Donald Trump looks at his phone during a roundtable with governors on the reopening of America's small businesses, in the State Dining Room of the White House, Thursday, June 18, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) WASHINGTON (AP) — Facebook has removed campaign ads by President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence that featured an upside-down red triangle, a symbol once used by Nazis to designate political prisoners, communists and others in concentration camps. The company said in a statement Thursday that the ads violated “our policy against organized hate.” A Facebook executive who testified at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Thursday said the company does not permit symbols of hateful ideology “unless they’re put up with context or condemnation.” “In a situation where we don’t see either of those, we don’t allow it on the platform and we remove it. That’s what we saw in this case with this ad, and anywhere that that symbol is used, we would take the same action,” Nathaniel Gleicher, the company’s head of security policy, told lawmakers at a hearing. ADVERTISEMENT The Trump campaign spent more than $17,000 on the ads for Trump and Pence combined. The ads began running on Wednesday and received hundreds of thousands of impressions. In a statement, Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh said the inverted red triangle was a symbol commonly used by antifa so it was included in an ad about antifa. He said the symbol is not in the Anti-Defamation League’s database of symbols of hate. The Trump campaign also argued that the symbol is an emoji. “But it is ironic that it took a Trump ad to force the media to implicitly concede that Antifa is a hate group,” he added. Antifa is an umbrella term for leftist militants bound more by belief than organizational structure. Trump has blamed antifa for the violence that erupted during some of the recent protests, but federal law enforcement officials have offered little evidence of this. Some experts disputed that the red triangle was commonly used as an antifa symbol. European anti-fascist groups initially used the red triangle as a symbol, hoping to reclaim its meaning after World War II, but it is no longer widely used by the movement nor by U.S. antifa groups, said Mark Bray, a Rutgers University historian and author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.” The ADL said the triangle was not in its database because it is a historical symbol and the database includes only those symbols used by modern-day extremists and white supremacists. “Whether aware of the history or meaning, for the Trump campaign to use a symbol — one which is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps — to attack his opponents is offensive and deeply troubling,” ADL chief executive officer Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. Even with the ads removed, Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, still face persistent criticism for not removing or labeling earlier posts by Trump that spread misinformation about voting by mail and, many said, encouraged violence against protesters during recent unrest in American cities. Those questions arose anew during Thursday’s hearing as Democrats pressed the executives about what moral obligations they felt they had when it came to content and about decisions they’ve made to remove, label or leave up false or incendiary posts. Facebook, for instance, was asked why it did not swiftly remove a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last year that appeared to show her slurring her words. “If we simply take a piece of content like this down, it doesn’t go away,” Gleicher responded. “It will exist elsewhere on the internet. People who are looking for it will still find it.” Later Thursday, Twitter labeled a video Trump had posted as “manipulated media.” The president had tweeted a doctored video of two young children with a fake, misspelled CNN headline of “Terrified todler runs from racist baby.” For the first time last month, Twitter began flagging some of Trump’s tweets with a fact-check warning. With Thursday’s hearing focused on the spread of disinformation tied to the 2020 election, the companies said they had not yet seen the same sort of concerted foreign influence campaigns like the one four years ago, when Russian sowed discord online by playing up divisive social issues. Full Coverage: AP Fact Check But that suggests the threat has simply evolved rather than diminished, said the executives, who pointed out that media entities linked to foreign governments were now directly engaging online on American social issues as a way to influence public opinion. Chinese actors, for instance, have likened allegations of police brutality in the U.S. to the criticism China faced for its aggressive treatment of protesters in Hong Kong. “That shift from platform manipulation to overt state assets is something that we’ve observed,” said Nick Pickles, Twitter’s public policy strategy and development director. The companies say they have accelerated efforts to root out fake accounts. Twitter, for instance, said it had challenged in the first six months of 2019 more than 97 million accounts that showed signs of platform manipulation, and Facebook said it had disabled about 1.7 billion fake accounts between January and March. Preventing disinformation ahead of the election is a significant challenge in a country facing potentially dramatic changes in how people vote, with the expected widespread use of mail-in ballots creating openings to cast doubt on the results and spread inaccurate narratives. Facebook said Thursday that it is working to provide Americans with accurate information about the vote-by-mail process, with notifications to users about how to request ballots and about whether the date of their election has changed. The outreach is targeted to voters in states where no excuse is needed to vote by mail or where fears of the coronavirus are accepted as an excuse. “Providing that accurate information is one of the best ways to mitigate those types of threats,” Gleicher said. ___ Associated Press writer Amanda Seitz contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

left

MZBQlyoa12jjXiSS

test

4yQEXcwFeMBh9cmN

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/05/22/dont-rush-to-impeachment

Don't Rush to Impeachment

2017-05-22

Steve Chapman, Eugene Volokh, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion

To everything there is a season , the Bible and Pete Seeger told us . The season to impeach Donald Trump may come , or it may not . Trying to do it now would be like harvesting sweet corn before it 's ripe , yielding something stunted and indigestible . Plenty of critics do n't want to wait . `` We 're fiddling while Rome is burning , '' insists Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif. Rep. Al Green , D-Texas , agrees . `` The mantra should be ITN—impeach Trump now , '' he says . The liberal activist group MoveOn.org insists that the president `` must be impeached immediately . '' J.B. Pritzker , a Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois , said , `` We simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for months or years . '' Anyone infuriated and exhausted by the chaos of the Trump administration can be forgiven for wishing it would end as soon as possible . But as Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Ill. , noted the other day , a lot of Democrats `` wanted the president gone on November the 10th of last year . '' They do n't want to miss a chance to be rid of Trump . Forcing a president from office is among the gravest tasks members of Congress can undertake , and they should refrain unless he gives them no choice . To attempt it with so many questions yet unanswered would look like partisan revenge—not just against Trump but against the people who voted for him . Presidential impeachment is a club that has been taken out of the closet only three times—for Andrew Johnson , Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton . Johnson and Clinton fought in the Senate and survived . Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment and removal . It 's a last resort , and anyone who sees it as a first resort is not to be trusted . Given that we have a president who campaigned as though he did n't want to win and governs as though he does n't want to serve , the eagerness to evict is hardly surprising . No president has done so much so soon or so often to indicate he wo n't carry out his duties in a responsible and honest way . Trump gives the impression he is hellbent on self-destruction and wo n't rest until he achieves it . But that 's no ███ for Congress to rush . Too much is still unknown about his campaign 's connections with Russia and his conversations with James Comey concerning the FBI 's investigation of those ties . The independent counsel named on Wednesday will need months to gather evidence , interview witnesses and draw conclusions . Only then will the House have enough information to decide whether to take such a momentous and weighty step . The framers of the Constitution were careful to limit the applicability of this drastic remedy . In considering what sort of conduct to cover , they rejected the terms `` malpractice '' and `` maladministration '' in favor of the narrower `` Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors . '' That formula was the work of James Madison , who did n't want the president to serve at the `` pleasure of the Senate . '' Impeachment is not a task for the impatient . More than two years passed after the Watergate break-in before the House Judiciary Committee voted against Nixon . The special prosecutor 's investigation of Clinton began in January 1994 , and the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light in January 1998 . Not until December of that year did the House approve articles of impeachment . Madison and company did n't want to make impeachment easy . They wanted to make it hard , and they succeeded . Even if a majority could be assembled in the House to bring Trump to the bar of congressional justice , persuading 67 senators to convict would be a heavy lift , absent compelling proof of grave misconduct . After everything that came to light against Clinton , and with Republicans in control of the Senate , only 50 senators voted to find him guilty . It 's crucial for impeachment to reflect more than a campaign against a president by the opposition party . Effectively overturning the result of a democratic election demands a national consensus that the president is guilty of serious offenses . Abusing his powers , behaving corruptly or violating his oath of office qualify . Ineptitude , folly and malignance do n't . Under the best of circumstances , impeachment is a national trauma with lasting consequences , for good or ill. Trump made it to the White House because the nation was so divided . If he is removed , it should be because the nation is united .

To everything there is a season, the Bible and Pete Seeger told us. The season to impeach Donald Trump may come, or it may not. Trying to do it now would be like harvesting sweet corn before it's ripe, yielding something stunted and indigestible. Plenty of critics don't want to wait. "We're fiddling while Rome is burning," insists Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, agrees. "The mantra should be ITN—impeach Trump now," he says. The liberal activist group MoveOn.org insists that the president "must be impeached immediately." J.B. Pritzker, a Democratic candidate for governor of Illinois, said, "We simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for months or years." Anyone infuriated and exhausted by the chaos of the Trump administration can be forgiven for wishing it would end as soon as possible. But as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., noted the other day, a lot of Democrats "wanted the president gone on November the 10th of last year." They don't want to miss a chance to be rid of Trump. Forcing a president from office is among the gravest tasks members of Congress can undertake, and they should refrain unless he gives them no choice. To attempt it with so many questions yet unanswered would look like partisan revenge—not just against Trump but against the people who voted for him. Presidential impeachment is a club that has been taken out of the closet only three times—for Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Johnson and Clinton fought in the Senate and survived. Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment and removal. It's a last resort, and anyone who sees it as a first resort is not to be trusted. Given that we have a president who campaigned as though he didn't want to win and governs as though he doesn't want to serve, the eagerness to evict is hardly surprising. No president has done so much so soon or so often to indicate he won't carry out his duties in a responsible and honest way. Trump gives the impression he is hellbent on self-destruction and won't rest until he achieves it. But that's no reason for Congress to rush. Too much is still unknown about his campaign's connections with Russia and his conversations with James Comey concerning the FBI's investigation of those ties. The independent counsel named on Wednesday will need months to gather evidence, interview witnesses and draw conclusions. Only then will the House have enough information to decide whether to take such a momentous and weighty step. The framers of the Constitution were careful to limit the applicability of this drastic remedy. In considering what sort of conduct to cover, they rejected the terms "malpractice" and "maladministration" in favor of the narrower "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." That formula was the work of James Madison, who didn't want the president to serve at the "pleasure of the Senate." Impeachment is not a task for the impatient. More than two years passed after the Watergate break-in before the House Judiciary Committee voted against Nixon. The special prosecutor's investigation of Clinton began in January 1994, and the Monica Lewinsky affair came to light in January 1998. Not until December of that year did the House approve articles of impeachment. Madison and company didn't want to make impeachment easy. They wanted to make it hard, and they succeeded. Even if a majority could be assembled in the House to bring Trump to the bar of congressional justice, persuading 67 senators to convict would be a heavy lift, absent compelling proof of grave misconduct. After everything that came to light against Clinton, and with Republicans in control of the Senate, only 50 senators voted to find him guilty. It's crucial for impeachment to reflect more than a campaign against a president by the opposition party. Effectively overturning the result of a democratic election demands a national consensus that the president is guilty of serious offenses. Abusing his powers, behaving corruptly or violating his oath of office qualify. Ineptitude, folly and malignance don't. Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a national trauma with lasting consequences, for good or ill. Trump made it to the White House because the nation was so divided. If he is removed, it should be because the nation is united. © Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.reason.com

right

4yQEXcwFeMBh9cmN

test

R23vaj8eG4Q3GTNZ

race_and_racism

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/july/lsquo-our-country-should-be-more-fearful-of-white-man-rsquo-ilhan-omar-rsquo-s-past-comments-ammunition-in-lsquo-political-food-fight-rsquo-with-trump

'Our Country Should Be More Fearful of White Men': Ilhan Omar’s Past Comments Fuel 'Political Food Fight' with Trump

2019-07-23

President Donald Trump and Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-MN ) exchanged more harsh rhetoric Tuesday in a fight that just will not die down . President Trump is not backing down and clearly , neither are the so-called `` squad . '' No , this is a battle to the political death . Racism and politics – not a day goes by without the toxic subject making an appearance . The latest entry : a presidential tweet calling Muslim Congresswoman Omar , `` America hating '' and an `` Anti-Semite . '' `` Right now , even when we are talking about the president , people will say , 'You know , his remarks are racist ' and we 'll forget the inherent racism that has always been part of him , '' Omar fired back . Also on Tuesday , Trump tweeted how Omar and her liberal freshman `` squad '' members are a `` Nightmare for America . '' `` I think it 's clear that President Trump wants to make a foil out of 'the squad , ' '' CBS News Political Director Caitlin Conant said during her appearance on ███ 's 'Faith Nation '' Monday . Trump has no doubt taken what he views as the squad 's anti-American views and morphed it from a news cycle to both a news cyclone and a new contour for the 2020 race . But will that guarantee a second term ? `` In 2016 , President Trump won in large part due to independents and I think they would rather be talking about the economy , the courts , rather than having this Twitter fight play out between the President , and 'the squad , ' '' Conant noted . But conservative groups see an opening . They 've found these comments that Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D-MI ) made a few months ago . `` I 'm more Palestinian in the halls of Congress than I am in the country , in the world , '' she tweeted . Rashida Tlaib : `` I 've never felt more Palestinian than I do in Congress '' pic.twitter.com/t7zazRA2mT — ACT for America ( @ ACTforAmerica ) May 14 , 2019 The material is not hard to find . In doing the research for this story , we came across this interview with Omar , when she was running for Congress . Moderator : `` A lot of conservatives , in particular , would say the rise in Islamaphobia is a result not of hate but of fear . A legitimate fear they say of , 'jihadist terrorism ' whether it 's Fort Hood or San Bernardino , or the recent truck attack in New York . What do you say to them ? '' Omar : `` I would say that our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country . '' In another part of the same interview , Omar adds : `` We should be profiling monitoring and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men . '' Omar is also now the center of an ethics complaint filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch over allegations that the Somalia-born congresswoman may have married her biological brother and in the process committed perjury , immigration fraud , and marriage fraud . Reporters like Reuters ' Jeff Mason know this is just the beginning of a fight relished by the White House . `` I think they 've been relatively happy with how the last week has gone , '' Mason said . `` A lot of controversy for sure but it 's coming down to be a clear part of his strategy going into the 2020 campaign . '' As this political food fight plays out , here 's something to keep in mind : the president may be toxic and despised by liberals but his approval rating is far higher than anyone 's from `` the squad . '' Recent polling shows the highest any of the squad members get is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) who clocks in at a whopping 23 percent .

President Donald Trump and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) exchanged more harsh rhetoric Tuesday in a fight that just will not die down. President Trump is not backing down and clearly, neither are the so-called "squad." No, this is a battle to the political death. Racism and politics – not a day goes by without the toxic subject making an appearance. The latest entry: a presidential tweet calling Muslim Congresswoman Omar, "America hating" and an "Anti-Semite." "Right now, even when we are talking about the president, people will say, 'You know, his remarks are racist' and we'll forget the inherent racism that has always been part of him," Omar fired back. Also on Tuesday, Trump tweeted how Omar and her liberal freshman "squad" members are a "Nightmare for America." "I think it's clear that President Trump wants to make a foil out of 'the squad,'" CBS News Political Director Caitlin Conant said during her appearance on CBN's 'Faith Nation" Monday. Trump has no doubt taken what he views as the squad's anti-American views and morphed it from a news cycle to both a news cyclone and a new contour for the 2020 race. But will that guarantee a second term? "In 2016, President Trump won in large part due to independents and I think they would rather be talking about the economy, the courts, rather than having this Twitter fight play out between the President, and 'the squad,'" Conant noted. But conservative groups see an opening. They've found these comments that Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) made a few months ago. "I'm more Palestinian in the halls of Congress than I am in the country, in the world," she tweeted. Rashida Tlaib: "I've never felt more Palestinian than I do in Congress" pic.twitter.com/t7zazRA2mT — ACT for America (@ACTforAmerica) May 14, 2019 The material is not hard to find. In doing the research for this story, we came across this interview with Omar, when she was running for Congress. Moderator: "A lot of conservatives, in particular, would say the rise in Islamaphobia is a result not of hate but of fear. A legitimate fear they say of, 'jihadist terrorism' whether it's Fort Hood or San Bernardino, or the recent truck attack in New York. What do you say to them?" Omar: "I would say that our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country." In another part of the same interview, Omar adds: "We should be profiling monitoring and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men." Omar is also now the center of an ethics complaint filed by the conservative group Judicial Watch over allegations that the Somalia-born congresswoman may have married her biological brother and in the process committed perjury, immigration fraud, and marriage fraud. Reporters like Reuters' Jeff Mason know this is just the beginning of a fight relished by the White House. "I think they've been relatively happy with how the last week has gone," Mason said. "A lot of controversy for sure but it's coming down to be a clear part of his strategy going into the 2020 campaign." As this political food fight plays out, here's something to keep in mind: the president may be toxic and despised by liberals but his approval rating is far higher than anyone's from "the squad." Recent polling shows the highest any of the squad members get is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who clocks in at a whopping 23 percent.

www1.cbn.com

right

R23vaj8eG4Q3GTNZ

test

PD4TGT5tR22CgRMp

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/democracy-dies-in-darkness-speak-the-whistleblowers-name/

Democracy Dies in Darkness — Speak the Whistleblower’s Name

Daniel J. Flynn, Jeffrey Lord, E. Donald Elliott, David Catron, Dov Fischer, Anne Hendershott, "Patrick OHannigan"

Donald Trump Jr. outed Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower this week as much as I presently out Mark Felt as Deep Throat . But it advances the narrative to say that he did , so fake news — an apt if overused description for outlets that do not let facts get in the way of a good story — report that he did . “ I can not express the horrifying impact of @ DonaldJTrumpJr and @ BreitbartNews to expose the whistleblower for pure retribution , ” reporter Kurt Eichenwald tweeted . A Vanity Fair headline read , “ Of Course Donald Trump Jr. Outed the Alleged Whistle-Blower. ” Even a Drudge Report headline screams , “ Junior Outs the Whistleblower. ” That another Drudge headline , “ Report : Whistleblower Exposed , ” preceded it by more than a week rebuts the notion that Trump Jr. outed anyone . Trump Jr. tweeted a headline , “ Alleged ‘ Whistleblower ’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely With Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer , ” of a story appearing on the 68th most-read website in the United States , Breitbart , which generates more traffic than the Washington Post , Politico , or the Daily Beast . In other words , Trump tweeted material not only already in the public domain but also appearing on one of the most widely read news sites in this country . Beyond this , the Breitbart story appeared a week after Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations wrote this October 30 piece — itself preceded by tweets and blog posts identifying the whistleblower — that points to Eric Ciaramella , a 33-year-old CIA analyst , as the government worker who alleged criminal wrongdoing by Trump to Adam Schiff ’ s staff . The Sperry piece generated a massive amount of discussion . This column focused on it , and the bizarre taboo on saying the words “ Eric Ciaramella , ” a week ago . Rush Limbaugh , the most listened-to voice on the radio airwaves , similarly mentioned Ciaramella . “ There have been all kinds of publications that have mentioned the whistleblower ’ s name , ” he explained earlier this week . “ He has been outed by any number of conservative publications . His picture has been published . He ’ s known . Everybody knows his name ! But look , everybody ’ s still talking like the guy hasn ’ t been outed , like the guy hasn ’ t been identified . He has been . But where ? See , until the mainstream media does it , it hasn ’ t happened ! See how this works ? ” Atop feigning that the president ’ s namesake revealed Ciaramella as the leaker , the narrative maintains that naming a whistleblower violates not only law but also morality . Whistleblower statutes protect government workers from repercussions . They do not command journalists , or even most members of the government , to provide them anonymity . Even NPR affirmed that the president publicizing the whistleblower ’ s identity would not constitute a crime . “ Similarly , ” NPR continued , “ if a news outlet , member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower , legal experts said , no criminal law would be violated . ” The Constitution , silent on the matter of whistleblowers , speaks clearly that “ the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him. ” Whether this extends beyond criminal trials to impeachment trials remains open to debate . But in hiding the key witness — the guy who catalyzed the entire crisis — Democrats obstruct justice . As Devin Nunes explained to Tucker Carlson Wednesday night , the whistleblower ’ s charges represent “ hearsay from a supposed somebody who we ’ ve never met . ” Why does Adam Schiff not want us to meet the whistleblower ? Why did Twitter suspend Donald Trump Jr. ’ s account on Wednesday for mentioning his name ? Why do news outlets claiming that “ democracy dies in darkness ” keep the democracy in the dark about Eric Ciaramella ? Because the Trump White House deported him back to the CIA in 2017 when officials suspected that he leaked information for the purpose of damaging the president , because he worked for Joe Biden , John Brennan , Susan Rice , and others committed to removing this president from office , because , as Mike Cernovich wrote more than two years ago , “ Ciaramella helped draft Susan Rice ’ s anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration , ” because Ciaramella invited Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa , who tried to dig up dirt on Trump abroad in 2016 , to the White House , and because a dozen or more other reasons . The president ’ s antagonists do not want us to know the whistleblower ’ s name because his identity reveals him not as a whistleblower but as an antagonist . Removing his anonymity poses a threat not to Ciaramella but to the project , termed a “ coup ” by his attorney two years ago , he joined to remove the president by any means necessary .

Donald Trump Jr. outed Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower this week as much as I presently out Mark Felt as Deep Throat. But it advances the narrative to say that he did, so fake news — an apt if overused description for outlets that do not let facts get in the way of a good story — report that he did. “I cannot express the horrifying impact of @DonaldJTrumpJr and @BreitbartNews to expose the whistleblower for pure retribution,” reporter Kurt Eichenwald tweeted. A Vanity Fair headline read, “Of Course Donald Trump Jr. Outed the Alleged Whistle-Blower.” Even a Drudge Report headline screams, “Junior Outs the Whistleblower.” That another Drudge headline, “Report: Whistleblower Exposed,” preceded it by more than a week rebuts the notion that Trump Jr. outed anyone. Trump Jr. tweeted a headline, “Alleged ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely With Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer,” of a story appearing on the 68th most-read website in the United States, Breitbart, which generates more traffic than the Washington Post, Politico, or the Daily Beast. In other words, Trump tweeted material not only already in the public domain but also appearing on one of the most widely read news sites in this country. Beyond this, the Breitbart story appeared a week after Paul Sperry of RealClearInvestigations wrote this October 30 piece — itself preceded by tweets and blog posts identifying the whistleblower — that points to Eric Ciaramella, a 33-year-old CIA analyst, as the government worker who alleged criminal wrongdoing by Trump to Adam Schiff’s staff. The Sperry piece generated a massive amount of discussion. This column focused on it, and the bizarre taboo on saying the words “Eric Ciaramella,” a week ago. Rush Limbaugh, the most listened-to voice on the radio airwaves, similarly mentioned Ciaramella. “There have been all kinds of publications that have mentioned the whistleblower’s name,” he explained earlier this week. “He has been outed by any number of conservative publications. His picture has been published. He’s known. Everybody knows his name! But look, everybody’s still talking like the guy hasn’t been outed, like the guy hasn’t been identified. He has been. But where? See, until the mainstream media does it, it hasn’t happened! See how this works?” Atop feigning that the president’s namesake revealed Ciaramella as the leaker, the narrative maintains that naming a whistleblower violates not only law but also morality. Whistleblower statutes protect government workers from repercussions. They do not command journalists, or even most members of the government, to provide them anonymity. Even NPR affirmed that the president publicizing the whistleblower’s identity would not constitute a crime. “Similarly,” NPR continued, “if a news outlet, member of Congress or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.” The Constitution, silent on the matter of whistleblowers, speaks clearly that “the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Whether this extends beyond criminal trials to impeachment trials remains open to debate. But in hiding the key witness — the guy who catalyzed the entire crisis — Democrats obstruct justice. As Devin Nunes explained to Tucker Carlson Wednesday night, the whistleblower’s charges represent “hearsay from a supposed somebody who we’ve never met.” Why does Adam Schiff not want us to meet the whistleblower? Why did Twitter suspend Donald Trump Jr.’s account on Wednesday for mentioning his name? Why do news outlets claiming that “democracy dies in darkness” keep the democracy in the dark about Eric Ciaramella? Because the Trump White House deported him back to the CIA in 2017 when officials suspected that he leaked information for the purpose of damaging the president, because he worked for Joe Biden, John Brennan, Susan Rice, and others committed to removing this president from office, because, as Mike Cernovich wrote more than two years ago, “Ciaramella helped draft Susan Rice’s anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration,” because Ciaramella invited Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa, who tried to dig up dirt on Trump abroad in 2016, to the White House, and because a dozen or more other reasons. The president’s antagonists do not want us to know the whistleblower’s name because his identity reveals him not as a whistleblower but as an antagonist. Removing his anonymity poses a threat not to Ciaramella but to the project, termed a “coup” by his attorney two years ago, he joined to remove the president by any means necessary.

www.spectator.org

right

PD4TGT5tR22CgRMp

test

cl3UAHkT2ySldHje

labor

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/a80c9dc5d83dfa2e0dd3e5a499c09d92

Layoffs stuck at high level as 1.3 million seek jobless aid

2020-07-09

Christopher Rugaber

FILE - In this April 24 , 2020 file photo , empty United Airlines ticket machines are shown at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa , Fla. United United Airlines will send layoff warnings to 36,000 employees - nearly half its U.S. staff - in the clearest signal yet of how deeply the virus outbreak is hurting the airline industry . United officials said Wednesday , July 8 that they still hope to limit the number of layoffs by offering early retirement , but they have to send notices this month to comply with a law requiring that workers get 60 days ' notice ahead of mass job cuts . ( AP Photo/Chris O'Meara , File ) FILE - In this April 24 , 2020 file photo , empty United Airlines ticket machines are shown at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa , Fla. United United Airlines will send layoff warnings to 36,000 employees - nearly half its U.S. staff - in the clearest signal yet of how deeply the virus outbreak is hurting the airline industry . United officials said Wednesday , July 8 that they still hope to limit the number of layoffs by offering early retirement , but they have to send notices this month to comply with a law requiring that workers get 60 days ' notice ahead of mass job cuts . ( AP Photo/Chris O'Meara , File ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The U.S. economy is stumbling as the viral outbreak intensifies , threatening to slow hiring and deepening the uncertainty for employees , consumers and companies across the country . Coronavirus case counts are rising in 38 states , and the nation as a whole has been shattering single-day records for new confirmed cases . In six states representing one-third of the economy — Arizona , California , Colorado , Florida , Michigan , and Texas — governors are reversing their reopening plans . Reopening efforts are on pause in 15 other states . The reversals are keeping layoffs elevated and threatening to weaken hiring . More than 1.3 million people applied for unemployment benefits last week , the Labor Department said Thursday , down from 1.4 million the previous week but still roughly double the pre-pandemic weekly record . Applications had fallen steadily in April and May but have barely declined in the past month . Jobless claims “ are stalled out at a new normal of over a million new claims every week , ” said Daniel Zhao , an economist at Glassdoor . “ The virus is in the driver ’ s seat and we ’ re along for the ride until the current public health crisis is resolved . ” Some economists have even warned that a so-called “ double-dip ” recession , in which the economy shrinks again after rebounding , could develop . Consumers , the primary driver of U.S. economic growth , are pulling back on spending in restaurants and bars , especially in the hardest-hit states . Some small businesses are closing , either under government orders or because of a lack of customers , according to private data . Several companies have warned in recent days that more layoffs are coming . Levi ’ s , the iconic jeans maker , said it will cut 700 corporate jobs . United Airlines has warned 36,000 of its employees — nearly half its workforce — that they could lose their jobs in October . ( Airlines aren ’ t allowed to cut jobs until then as a condition of accepting billions of dollars in government rescue aid . ) Motorcycle maker Harley Davidson said it will eliminate 700 corporate jobs . The pandemic drove Walgreens to a deep loss in the most recent quarter , with customers staying home or limiting shopping to essential supplies from grocery stores . Walgreens will cut 4,000 jobs at its pharmacy chain Boots in the United Kingdom . Bed Bath & Beyond said it will close 200 stores over the next two years as its sales have slid . The uncertainty fanned by the pandemic has led many CEOs to abandon their forecasts for second-quarter results . Just as with the economy , forecasters say it could take years for corporate earnings to return to the levels they were at before the pandemic . With reported viral cases surging , restaurant visits are falling in Arizona , California , Florida , and Texas , which together account for half of new confirmed infections . This week , in Arizona , restaurant traffic was down 65 % from a year earlier , worse than the 50 % year-over-year drop two weeks earlier , according to data from reservation app OpenTable . In Florida , traffic was down 57 % , compared with 45 % two weeks before . Last week , applications for U.S. unemployment benefits spiked in Texas , Nevada , Tennessee and Louisiana — states where confirmed cases of the virus are intensifying . They also jumped in New Jersey and New York , where the pandemic is mostly under control , but where reopening steps have been postponed . Applications dropped in California and Florida , though in California they remained high , with more than 267,000 claims . That is more people than were applying each week for unemployment benefits in the entire country before the pandemic hit . Jobless claims also declined in Michigan and Colorado . The total number of people receiving jobless benefits fell 700,000 to 18 million . That suggests that some companies are continuing to rehire a limited number of workers . An additional 1 million people sought benefits last week under a separate program for self-employed and gig workers that has made them eligible for aid for the first time . These figures aren ’ t adjusted for seasonal variations , so the government doesn ’ t include them in the official count . In New Jersey , about 4,000 people had expected to return to their jobs last week at casinos in Atlantic City , after Gov . Phil Murphy said they could fully reopen . But Murphy later said the casinos couldn ’ t reopen their restaurants and bars because indoor dining was too risky . Employees who had hoped to return to work feel whipsawed . “ I wanted this nightmare to go away , ” said Mineli Polanco , a beverage server at Borgata , a hotel and casino . “ That first call was such a relief : things were going back to normal . Then the second call came , and it was a new nightmare . ” Signs of a weakening jobs picture suggest a turnaround from last week ’ s jobs report for June , which showed a solid gain of 4.8 million jobs and an unemployment rate that fell to 11.1 % from 13.3 % . But the June jobs report reflected surveys of Americans that were conducted in the middle of that month — before the pandemic flared up again . And even counting that hiring gain , the economy has regained only about one-third of the jobs that vanished in March and April . Credit card data from both Bank of America and J.P.Morgan Chase show that spending has slipped in the past two weeks , even in states that don ’ t have sharp outbreaks . “ This suggests that renewed fears about the virus , rather than government restrictions , are driving the pullback in activity , ” said Andrew Hunter , senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics , a forecasting firm . Among retailers , the number of shifts worked changed little last week after steady increases in previous weeks , according to data from Kronos , which makes scheduling software . David Gilbertson , a vice president at Kronos , said this indicates that consumer demand in many cases hasn ’ t picked up enough to justify more employees . “ Everything that ’ s going to be open is open , ” Gilbertson said . “ Now , we just need more people to come in and start spending money before things can pick up again . ” The renewed threat of job losses is arising just as a federal program that provides $ 600 a week in unemployment benefits , on top of whatever jobless aid each state provides , is to expire at the end of this month . Congressional leaders have said they will take up some form of a new rescue package when lawmakers return later this month from a recess . Administration officials have expressed support for additional stimulus . But Senate Republicans have opposed extending the $ 600 a week in unemployment benefits , mainly on the ground that it discourages laid-off people from returning to work . House Democrats have pushed to extend the $ 600 a week through January . In an interview Thursday on CNBC , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that the administration might support an extension of supplemental unemployment aid but at a reduced level . “ We ’ re going to make sure people are ( incentivized ) to go back to jobs , ” Mnuchin said .

FILE - In this April 24, 2020 file photo, empty United Airlines ticket machines are shown at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa, Fla. United United Airlines will send layoff warnings to 36,000 employees - nearly half its U.S. staff - in the clearest signal yet of how deeply the virus outbreak is hurting the airline industry. United officials said Wednesday, July 8 that they still hope to limit the number of layoffs by offering early retirement, but they have to send notices this month to comply with a law requiring that workers get 60 days' notice ahead of mass job cuts. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, File) FILE - In this April 24, 2020 file photo, empty United Airlines ticket machines are shown at the Tampa International Airport in Tampa, Fla. United United Airlines will send layoff warnings to 36,000 employees - nearly half its U.S. staff - in the clearest signal yet of how deeply the virus outbreak is hurting the airline industry. United officials said Wednesday, July 8 that they still hope to limit the number of layoffs by offering early retirement, but they have to send notices this month to comply with a law requiring that workers get 60 days' notice ahead of mass job cuts. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. economy is stumbling as the viral outbreak intensifies, threatening to slow hiring and deepening the uncertainty for employees, consumers and companies across the country. Coronavirus case counts are rising in 38 states, and the nation as a whole has been shattering single-day records for new confirmed cases. In six states representing one-third of the economy — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, and Texas — governors are reversing their reopening plans. Reopening efforts are on pause in 15 other states. The reversals are keeping layoffs elevated and threatening to weaken hiring. More than 1.3 million people applied for unemployment benefits last week, the Labor Department said Thursday, down from 1.4 million the previous week but still roughly double the pre-pandemic weekly record. Applications had fallen steadily in April and May but have barely declined in the past month. ADVERTISEMENT Jobless claims “are stalled out at a new normal of over a million new claims every week,” said Daniel Zhao, an economist at Glassdoor. “The virus is in the driver’s seat and we’re along for the ride until the current public health crisis is resolved.” Some economists have even warned that a so-called “double-dip” recession , in which the economy shrinks again after rebounding, could develop. Consumers, the primary driver of U.S. economic growth, are pulling back on spending in restaurants and bars, especially in the hardest-hit states. Some small businesses are closing, either under government orders or because of a lack of customers, according to private data. Several companies have warned in recent days that more layoffs are coming. Levi’s, the iconic jeans maker, said it will cut 700 corporate jobs. United Airlines has warned 36,000 of its employees — nearly half its workforce — that they could lose their jobs in October. (Airlines aren’t allowed to cut jobs until then as a condition of accepting billions of dollars in government rescue aid.) Motorcycle maker Harley Davidson said it will eliminate 700 corporate jobs. The pandemic drove Walgreens to a deep loss in the most recent quarter, with customers staying home or limiting shopping to essential supplies from grocery stores. Walgreens will cut 4,000 jobs at its pharmacy chain Boots in the United Kingdom. Bed Bath & Beyond said it will close 200 stores over the next two years as its sales have slid. ADVERTISEMENT The uncertainty fanned by the pandemic has led many CEOs to abandon their forecasts for second-quarter results. Just as with the economy, forecasters say it could take years for corporate earnings to return to the levels they were at before the pandemic. With reported viral cases surging, restaurant visits are falling in Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas, which together account for half of new confirmed infections. This week, in Arizona, restaurant traffic was down 65% from a year earlier, worse than the 50% year-over-year drop two weeks earlier, according to data from reservation app OpenTable . In Florida, traffic was down 57%, compared with 45% two weeks before. Last week, applications for U.S. unemployment benefits spiked in Texas, Nevada, Tennessee and Louisiana — states where confirmed cases of the virus are intensifying. They also jumped in New Jersey and New York, where the pandemic is mostly under control, but where reopening steps have been postponed. Applications dropped in California and Florida, though in California they remained high, with more than 267,000 claims. That is more people than were applying each week for unemployment benefits in the entire country before the pandemic hit. Jobless claims also declined in Michigan and Colorado. The total number of people receiving jobless benefits fell 700,000 to 18 million. That suggests that some companies are continuing to rehire a limited number of workers. An additional 1 million people sought benefits last week under a separate program for self-employed and gig workers that has made them eligible for aid for the first time. These figures aren’t adjusted for seasonal variations, so the government doesn’t include them in the official count. In New Jersey, about 4,000 people had expected to return to their jobs last week at casinos in Atlantic City, after Gov. Phil Murphy said they could fully reopen. But Murphy later said the casinos couldn’t reopen their restaurants and bars because indoor dining was too risky. Employees who had hoped to return to work feel whipsawed. “I wanted this nightmare to go away,” said Mineli Polanco, a beverage server at Borgata, a hotel and casino. “That first call was such a relief: things were going back to normal. Then the second call came, and it was a new nightmare.” Signs of a weakening jobs picture suggest a turnaround from last week’s jobs report for June, which showed a solid gain of 4.8 million jobs and an unemployment rate that fell to 11.1% from 13.3%. But the June jobs report reflected surveys of Americans that were conducted in the middle of that month — before the pandemic flared up again. And even counting that hiring gain, the economy has regained only about one-third of the jobs that vanished in March and April. Credit card data from both Bank of America and J.P.Morgan Chase show that spending has slipped in the past two weeks, even in states that don’t have sharp outbreaks. “This suggests that renewed fears about the virus, rather than government restrictions, are driving the pullback in activity,” said Andrew Hunter, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, a forecasting firm. Among retailers, the number of shifts worked changed little last week after steady increases in previous weeks, according to data from Kronos, which makes scheduling software. David Gilbertson, a vice president at Kronos, said this indicates that consumer demand in many cases hasn’t picked up enough to justify more employees. “Everything that’s going to be open is open,” Gilbertson said. “Now, we just need more people to come in and start spending money before things can pick up again.” The renewed threat of job losses is arising just as a federal program that provides $600 a week in unemployment benefits, on top of whatever jobless aid each state provides, is to expire at the end of this month. Congressional leaders have said they will take up some form of a new rescue package when lawmakers return later this month from a recess. Administration officials have expressed support for additional stimulus. But Senate Republicans have opposed extending the $600 a week in unemployment benefits, mainly on the ground that it discourages laid-off people from returning to work. House Democrats have pushed to extend the $600 a week through January. In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin suggested that the administration might support an extension of supplemental unemployment aid but at a reduced level. “We’re going to make sure people are (incentivized) to go back to jobs,” Mnuchin said. ___ Full Coverage: Economy AP Writer Wayne Parry in Atlantic City contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

cl3UAHkT2ySldHje

test

9EOMnTG4LsGWIpfU

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-nevada-poll/from-fringe-candidate-to-front-runner-sanders-wins-nevada-with-diverse-backers-edison-research-poll-idUSKCN20G0T8

From fringe candidate to front-runner: Sanders wins Nevada with diverse backers

2020-02-23

Chris Kahn

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - U.S . Senator Bernie Sanders , often maligned by opponents as a liberal outsider who can not unify the Democratic Party , won the party ’ s Nevada caucuses by a comfortable margin thanks to a diverse coalition of supporters , according to polling agency Edison Research . Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas , Nevada , U.S. , February 21 , 2020 . ███/Mike Segar Edison , which compiles voter polls and live election results for media organizations including ABC News , CBS News , CNN , NBC News and ███ , found Sanders won the largest share of whites and nonwhite caucus-goers . Hispanics in particular - who account for nearly one-third of Nevada ’ s population - loomed large in his victory as he claimed support from more than half of the Latinos attending Saturday ’ s caucuses . Sanders also won caucus-goers of nearly every age group . He won the largest share of women and men , including white college-educated women - a group that is expected to be especially important for Democrats to win against Republican President Donald Trump in November . And despite a public feud with Nevada ’ s 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union over his signature plan to replace private health insurance with a government program , Sanders won the largest share of the union vote . One of every three people who either belonged to a union or had a family member in a union said they would support Sanders . Edison ’ s polling also found Sanders won most of those caucus-goers who said they cared more about a candidate ’ s stance on the issues than their perceived electability . Here are some other highlights from the Edison poll , which was based on interviews with 2,746 Nevada Democrats , including about 1,780 as they entered early voting sites earlier in the week and another 966 on Saturday at 30 locations around the state : * * Among Hispanics , 53 % said they were going to support Sanders ahead of the caucuses . * * Among African Americans , 36 % said they supported former Vice President Joe Biden , while 27 % favored Sanders and 18 % backed billionaire Tom Steyer . * * Among caucus-goers who are members of a labor union or have family members in a union , 34 % said they planned to caucus for Sanders . About one in four caucus-goers said they were part of a union family . * * 62 % said they support replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan . That initiative , also known as Medicare for All , is a signature issue for Sanders and U.S . Senator Elizabeth Warren . It was criticized earlier this month by the state ’ s Culinary Workers Union in what was seen as a boost for more moderate Democrats who are still in the race . * * 43 % of Democratic Nevada caucus-goers say healthcare is the issue that mattered most to them when deciding which candidate to support . Another 25 % said it was climate change , 18 % said it was income inequality and 9 % said foreign policy . * * Among white , college-educated women , 22 % said they planned to caucus for Sanders , compared with 19 % for Klobuchar , 18 % for Warren , 17 % for Buttigieg and 13 % for Biden . * * Sanders had the largest share of support from caucus-goers of all age groups , except those 65 and older . Among the 65-plus group , 28 % said in entrance polling that they supported Biden , 20 % supported Klobuchar , 14 % supported Buttigieg and 12 % supported Sanders . * * 52 % of those participating in the Democratic caucus were doing so for the first time . A record number of Democrats were expected to have attended the Nevada caucuses , in part because of population growth in the state and also the party ’ s decision to allow residents to vote early this year for the first time . * * 65 % say that when picking a candidate to support , they are thinking mostly about that person ’ s electability instead of whether the candidate agrees with them on major issues . * * 66 % of Democratic caucus-goers said they considered themselves to be liberal . Another 31 % said they were moderates and 3 % were conservative . * * Among political moderates , support was largely split among Sanders , Biden and Buttigieg , with those three candidates getting a little more than 20 % each . * * Most of Nevada ’ s caucus-goers came with their minds made up . Eighty-three percent of Democratic caucus-goers said they made their pick for the party ’ s nomination more than a few days before the caucus . * * About half of the poll respondents were college graduates . The other half did not have a college degree .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, often maligned by opponents as a liberal outsider who cannot unify the Democratic Party, won the party’s Nevada caucuses by a comfortable margin thanks to a diverse coalition of supporters, according to polling agency Edison Research. Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S., February 21, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar Edison, which compiles voter polls and live election results for media organizations including ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News and Reuters, found Sanders won the largest share of whites and nonwhite caucus-goers. Hispanics in particular - who account for nearly one-third of Nevada’s population - loomed large in his victory as he claimed support from more than half of the Latinos attending Saturday’s caucuses. Sanders also won caucus-goers of nearly every age group. He won the largest share of women and men, including white college-educated women - a group that is expected to be especially important for Democrats to win against Republican President Donald Trump in November. And despite a public feud with Nevada’s 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union over his signature plan to replace private health insurance with a government program, Sanders won the largest share of the union vote. One of every three people who either belonged to a union or had a family member in a union said they would support Sanders. Edison’s polling also found Sanders won most of those caucus-goers who said they cared more about a candidate’s stance on the issues than their perceived electability. Here are some other highlights from the Edison poll, which was based on interviews with 2,746 Nevada Democrats, including about 1,780 as they entered early voting sites earlier in the week and another 966 on Saturday at 30 locations around the state: ** Among Hispanics, 53% said they were going to support Sanders ahead of the caucuses. ** Among African Americans, 36% said they supported former Vice President Joe Biden, while 27% favored Sanders and 18% backed billionaire Tom Steyer. ** Among caucus-goers who are members of a labor union or have family members in a union, 34% said they planned to caucus for Sanders. About one in four caucus-goers said they were part of a union family. ** 62% said they support replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan. That initiative, also known as Medicare for All, is a signature issue for Sanders and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. It was criticized earlier this month by the state’s Culinary Workers Union in what was seen as a boost for more moderate Democrats who are still in the race. ** 43% of Democratic Nevada caucus-goers say healthcare is the issue that mattered most to them when deciding which candidate to support. Another 25% said it was climate change, 18% said it was income inequality and 9% said foreign policy. ** Among white, college-educated women, 22% said they planned to caucus for Sanders, compared with 19% for Klobuchar, 18% for Warren, 17% for Buttigieg and 13% for Biden. ** Sanders had the largest share of support from caucus-goers of all age groups, except those 65 and older. Among the 65-plus group, 28% said in entrance polling that they supported Biden, 20% supported Klobuchar, 14% supported Buttigieg and 12% supported Sanders. ** 52% of those participating in the Democratic caucus were doing so for the first time. A record number of Democrats were expected to have attended the Nevada caucuses, in part because of population growth in the state and also the party’s decision to allow residents to vote early this year for the first time. ** 65% say that when picking a candidate to support, they are thinking mostly about that person’s electability instead of whether the candidate agrees with them on major issues. ** 66% of Democratic caucus-goers said they considered themselves to be liberal. Another 31% said they were moderates and 3% were conservative. ** Among political moderates, support was largely split among Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg, with those three candidates getting a little more than 20% each. ** Most of Nevada’s caucus-goers came with their minds made up. Eighty-three percent of Democratic caucus-goers said they made their pick for the party’s nomination more than a few days before the caucus. ** About half of the poll respondents were college graduates. The other half did not have a college degree.

www.reuters.com

center

9EOMnTG4LsGWIpfU

test

KCVZPNGR8qAaZTga

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/ten-inconvenient-facts/

Ten Inconvenient Facts

Mark Bauerlein, Jeffrey Lord, Veronique De Rugy, John C. Wohlstetter, Andrew R. Kloster, Ed Morrow, Elad Vaida

The more ambitious liberalism has become in its efforts to transform the United States , the more it has run up against one intransigent circumstance after another . For eight years , the idol worship of Barack Obama gave liberals confidence that they could remediate society and reeducate the citizens . But reality isn ’ t political . It doesn ’ t obey the principles of progressives . Some facts aren ’ t pliable . 1 . The economy is roaring under the Trump tenure . It ’ s no surprise that this fact lands on the list . GDP and the stock market are up and unemployment and food stamp claims are down . If those trends happened under Hillary Clinton , journalists would gush and bow , but instead we get quibbles and warnings of what the future may hold . Ezra Klein even argued that with such a low unemployment rate ( 3.8 % ) , Trump ’ s economy should be performing much better than it is . In other words , even good news is bad news in the liberal mind . 2 . People like walls . Progressives want open borders and limitless migration , and that may please the renowned professor who grew up in one city , went to school 1,000 miles away , took a job in yet another state , and lectures and does research in Europe each year . But most people want a home and they want security . They believe that good fences make good neighbors , that a country without walls isn ’ t a country . Walls reinforce the pride of ownership , too . When liberals decry walls , they belittle the sense of place that people find comforting and meaningful . 3 . Men and women are different . You wouldn ’ t think this obvious fact would be controversial , especially one backed by vast biological and social science findings . ( See here and here . ) But liberals are now committed to the elimination of sexual difference . That ’ s why they have lionized the trans- individual . Difference leads to unequal outcomes , they believe , and so it must be attributed to patriarchy , not to nature . They can ’ t accept scientific evidence that women tend to prefer working with people , men with things . They must , instead , insist that the population of engineers must be 50 percent female . 4 . The LGBT population is tiny . This is an inconvenient fact in that liberals wish to remove any implication of abnormality from non-heterosexual individuals . But the Centers for Disease Control count the LGBT group less than four percent . If we subtract bisexuals from the cohort ( liberals rarely highlight them ) , the rate falls under three percent . When 24 out of 25 people act in one way , we can ’ t help judging them normal and the other one abnormal . 5 . Different groups have different abilities , on average . This proposition makes liberals very nervous , as shown in their response to IQ discussions . We don ’ t have to enter the nature vs. nurture debate , however , to find evidence of average differences between racial groups . Whether they are biological or social/cultural , those differences are in some areas significant and steady , and the liberal demand that they disappear has been repeatedly frustrated . On the crucial yardstick of academic achievement , for instance , gap between blacks and whites hasn ’ t closed for many years ( see scores for 12th graders here ) , and the standard answer given by progressives ( “ systemic racism ” ) has no solid science to support it . The more liberals refuse to consider other causes of achievement gaps such as single-parentage and cultural differences between races , the more obtuse and ideological they sound . 6 . The traditional family is best . Just this week a study came out showing that being a child of divorce cuts in half the likelihood of that child earning a college degree . That ’ s just one of hundreds of studies demonstrating worse outcomes for children from broken homes . The infamous “ Life of Julia ” ad for the Obama 2012 campaign peddled a feminist myth contrary to this mountain of evidence , showing that a woman needn ’ t worry about finding a man to help raise her child . She can do it just fine all by herself . See here , though , for a list of ills suffered by children in fatherless households . 7 . Women are outdoing men . The “ War-on-Women ” motif worked well for Democrats for a time , but it collapses as soon as we look at educational trends . In 2015 , women earned 55 percent of all bachelor ’ s degrees . In 2016 , more women went to law school than men , and one year later women surpassed men going to medical school . In nursing school , too , they still outnumber men nearly ten to one . Furthermore , at the doctoral level , women have earned more PhDs than men for many years now , and there are 135 of them for every 100 men in graduate programs . 8 . The “ deplorables ” have good reason to mistrust their betters . It ’ s not just that politicians , economists and financiers , artists and entertainers , academics and intellectuals have failed so often in the 21st century to act as good stewards of their respective domains . It ’ s also that the men and women of the street now know exactly what the elite think of them . You can ’ t trust people who despise you . 9 . Religious people lead better lives . It ’ s been a long time since Hollywood presented faith in God and regular churchgoing as the basis of happiness . But in measures of well-being , believers keep coming up stronger than non-believers . They are also more charitable . The findings run against the left ’ s determination to chase staunch believers out of the public square because , supposedly , they are nasty and biased . 10 . Donald Trump is not racist . The charge won ’ t go away because it has intimidated conservatives and Republicans for so long . But more Hispanics voted for Mr. Trump than for Mitt Romney , and a recent poll put the president ’ s approval rating among African Americans at an astounding 36 percent . Trump has been in the public eye , too , for 30 years , and he ’ s worked with thousands of people of all different kinds in different ventures . Racists can ’ t hide under that kind of exposure . If Jim Brown doesn ’ t think Donald Trump is a racist , nobody else should , either .

The more ambitious liberalism has become in its efforts to transform the United States, the more it has run up against one intransigent circumstance after another. For eight years, the idol worship of Barack Obama gave liberals confidence that they could remediate society and reeducate the citizens. But reality isn’t political. It doesn’t obey the principles of progressives. Some facts aren’t pliable. 1. The economy is roaring under the Trump tenure. It’s no surprise that this fact lands on the list. GDP and the stock market are up and unemployment and food stamp claims are down. If those trends happened under Hillary Clinton, journalists would gush and bow, but instead we get quibbles and warnings of what the future may hold. Ezra Klein even argued that with such a low unemployment rate (3.8%), Trump’s economy should be performing much better than it is. In other words, even good news is bad news in the liberal mind. 2. People like walls. Progressives want open borders and limitless migration, and that may please the renowned professor who grew up in one city, went to school 1,000 miles away, took a job in yet another state, and lectures and does research in Europe each year. But most people want a home and they want security. They believe that good fences make good neighbors, that a country without walls isn’t a country. Walls reinforce the pride of ownership, too. When liberals decry walls, they belittle the sense of place that people find comforting and meaningful. 3. Men and women are different. You wouldn’t think this obvious fact would be controversial, especially one backed by vast biological and social science findings. (See here and here.) But liberals are now committed to the elimination of sexual difference. That’s why they have lionized the trans- individual. Difference leads to unequal outcomes, they believe, and so it must be attributed to patriarchy, not to nature. They can’t accept scientific evidence that women tend to prefer working with people, men with things. They must, instead, insist that the population of engineers must be 50 percent female. 4. The LGBT population is tiny. This is an inconvenient fact in that liberals wish to remove any implication of abnormality from non-heterosexual individuals. But the Centers for Disease Control count the LGBT group less than four percent. If we subtract bisexuals from the cohort (liberals rarely highlight them), the rate falls under three percent. When 24 out of 25 people act in one way, we can’t help judging them normal and the other one abnormal. 5. Different groups have different abilities, on average. This proposition makes liberals very nervous, as shown in their response to IQ discussions. We don’t have to enter the nature vs. nurture debate, however, to find evidence of average differences between racial groups. Whether they are biological or social/cultural, those differences are in some areas significant and steady, and the liberal demand that they disappear has been repeatedly frustrated. On the crucial yardstick of academic achievement, for instance, gap between blacks and whites hasn’t closed for many years (see scores for 12th graders here), and the standard answer given by progressives (“systemic racism”) has no solid science to support it. The more liberals refuse to consider other causes of achievement gaps such as single-parentage and cultural differences between races, the more obtuse and ideological they sound. 6. The traditional family is best. Just this week a study came out showing that being a child of divorce cuts in half the likelihood of that child earning a college degree. That’s just one of hundreds of studies demonstrating worse outcomes for children from broken homes. The infamous “Life of Julia” ad for the Obama 2012 campaign peddled a feminist myth contrary to this mountain of evidence, showing that a woman needn’t worry about finding a man to help raise her child. She can do it just fine all by herself. See here, though, for a list of ills suffered by children in fatherless households. 7. Women are outdoing men. The “War-on-Women” motif worked well for Democrats for a time, but it collapses as soon as we look at educational trends. In 2015, women earned 55 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. In 2016, more women went to law school than men, and one year later women surpassed men going to medical school. In nursing school, too, they still outnumber men nearly ten to one. Furthermore, at the doctoral level, women have earned more PhDs than men for many years now, and there are 135 of them for every 100 men in graduate programs. 8. The “deplorables” have good reason to mistrust their betters. It’s not just that politicians, economists and financiers, artists and entertainers, academics and intellectuals have failed so often in the 21st century to act as good stewards of their respective domains. It’s also that the men and women of the street now know exactly what the elite think of them. You can’t trust people who despise you. 9. Religious people lead better lives. It’s been a long time since Hollywood presented faith in God and regular churchgoing as the basis of happiness. But in measures of well-being, believers keep coming up stronger than non-believers. They are also more charitable. The findings run against the left’s determination to chase staunch believers out of the public square because, supposedly, they are nasty and biased. 10. Donald Trump is not racist. The charge won’t go away because it has intimidated conservatives and Republicans for so long. But more Hispanics voted for Mr. Trump than for Mitt Romney, and a recent poll put the president’s approval rating among African Americans at an astounding 36 percent. Trump has been in the public eye, too, for 30 years, and he’s worked with thousands of people of all different kinds in different ventures. Racists can’t hide under that kind of exposure. If Jim Brown doesn’t think Donald Trump is a racist, nobody else should, either.

www.spectator.org

right

KCVZPNGR8qAaZTga

test

ok5MD1AUhzWgIZRZ

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-factbox/factbox-i-cant-breathe-protests-spread-across-america-after-minneapolis-killing-idUSKBN2352VY

'I can't breathe' protests spread across America after Minneapolis killing

2020-05-30

NEW YORK ( ███ ) - Thousands of protesters stormed the security perimeter of Barclays Center in New York as protests spread across the United States over the killing of George Floyd , a Minneapolis black man who died after being pinned by the neck under a white police officer ’ s knee . An Atlanta Police car burns as people protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of African-American man George Floyd , near CNN Center in Atlanta , Georgia , U.S. May 29 , 2020 . ███/Dustin Chambers Police made scores of arrests at Friday ’ s massive demonstration in Brooklyn , loading cuffed protesters onto city buses lined up on Atlantic Avenue , shutting down a major thoroughfare . A diverse group of protesters cheered to hip hop music and tried to argue about police brutality with police officers in riot gear , who occasionally lunged into crowds to pluck people out for arrest after bottles and other projectiles were thrown . The demonstrators at a “ We can ’ t breathe ” vigil and rally in lower Manhattan were pressing for legislation outlawing the police “ chokehold ” used by a city police officer in the 2014 death of Eric Garner , who was also black . In an impassioned speech , Bernice King , the youngest daughter of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. , implored people to go home after more than 1,000 protesters marched to the state capitol from the Centennial Olympic Park , blocking traffic and an interstate highway along the way . “ The only way we get what we really want is through non-violence , ” Bernice King said in her father ’ s hometown . “ Let ’ s do this the non-violent way to deal with the evil of our time . ” King was assassinated in 1968 , a year after race riots spread across many big cities . The Atlanta demonstration turned chaotic and at times violent . Fires were burning in downtown Atlanta near the CNN Center , the network ’ s headquarters . At least one police car was among several vehicles burnt . Windows were smashed at the CNN building , along with store fronts . Police pushed back the crowd , but they hurled bottles at officers . Hundreds of protesters defied an 8 p.m. curfew to gather in the streets around a police station burnt the previous night . “ We are out here because we , as a generation , realize things have to change , ” said one marcher , Paul Selman , a 25-year-old black man , who had just graduated with a master ’ s degree in English from Minnesota State . “ We need peace . ” Peter McMahon , 26 , a resident of the area around the police station and owner of two nearby properties , said , “ This is my generation and these are the people I went to high school with , ” adding , “ This is not a surprise . I have lost good friends over this Black Lives Matter shit . ” Hundreds in the automotive capital joined a “ March Against Police Brutality ” late in the afternoon outside the Detroit Public Safety Headquarters . Many chanted , “ No justice , no peace. ” Some carried signs that read , “ End police brutality ” and “ I won ’ t stop yelling until everyone can breathe . ” A 19-year-old man protesting in the city was shot dead on Friday night by a suspect who pulled up to demonstrators in a sport utility vehicle and fired gunshots into the crowd , then fled , the Detroit Free Press and other local media reported . Police could not immediately be reached for comment . Denver saw a second day of protests after hundreds marched peacefully through its downtown demanding justice for Floyd . Hundreds gathered on Friday in a protest organized by the group Black Lives Matter at City Hall . The crowd spilled onto Interstate 45 ’ s entrance ramp near downtown chanting , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” and “ No justice , no peace . ” After a night of violence in which at least seven people were shot , police in the Kentucky city braced for more protests over the killing of Floyd and several others , such as Breonna Taylor , shot by police in her Louisville home in March .

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Thousands of protesters stormed the security perimeter of Barclays Center in New York as protests spread across the United States over the killing of George Floyd, a Minneapolis black man who died after being pinned by the neck under a white police officer’s knee. An Atlanta Police car burns as people protest against the death in Minneapolis police custody of African-American man George Floyd, near CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. May 29, 2020. REUTERS/Dustin Chambers Police made scores of arrests at Friday’s massive demonstration in Brooklyn, loading cuffed protesters onto city buses lined up on Atlantic Avenue, shutting down a major thoroughfare. A diverse group of protesters cheered to hip hop music and tried to argue about police brutality with police officers in riot gear, who occasionally lunged into crowds to pluck people out for arrest after bottles and other projectiles were thrown. The demonstrators at a “We can’t breathe” vigil and rally in lower Manhattan were pressing for legislation outlawing the police “chokehold” used by a city police officer in the 2014 death of Eric Garner, who was also black. ATLANTA In an impassioned speech, Bernice King, the youngest daughter of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., implored people to go home after more than 1,000 protesters marched to the state capitol from the Centennial Olympic Park, blocking traffic and an interstate highway along the way. “The only way we get what we really want is through non-violence,” Bernice King said in her father’s hometown. “Let’s do this the non-violent way to deal with the evil of our time.” King was assassinated in 1968, a year after race riots spread across many big cities. The Atlanta demonstration turned chaotic and at times violent. Fires were burning in downtown Atlanta near the CNN Center, the network’s headquarters. At least one police car was among several vehicles burnt. Windows were smashed at the CNN building, along with store fronts. Police pushed back the crowd, but they hurled bottles at officers. MINNEAPOLIS Hundreds of protesters defied an 8 p.m. curfew to gather in the streets around a police station burnt the previous night. “We are out here because we, as a generation, realize things have to change,” said one marcher, Paul Selman, a 25-year-old black man, who had just graduated with a master’s degree in English from Minnesota State. “We need peace.” Peter McMahon, 26, a resident of the area around the police station and owner of two nearby properties, said, “This is my generation and these are the people I went to high school with,” adding, “This is not a surprise. I have lost good friends over this Black Lives Matter shit.” DETROIT Hundreds in the automotive capital joined a “March Against Police Brutality” late in the afternoon outside the Detroit Public Safety Headquarters. Many chanted, “No justice, no peace.” Some carried signs that read, “End police brutality” and “I won’t stop yelling until everyone can breathe.” A 19-year-old man protesting in the city was shot dead on Friday night by a suspect who pulled up to demonstrators in a sport utility vehicle and fired gunshots into the crowd, then fled, the Detroit Free Press and other local media reported. Police could not immediately be reached for comment. DENVER Denver saw a second day of protests after hundreds marched peacefully through its downtown demanding justice for Floyd. Slideshow (21 Images) HOUSTON Hundreds gathered on Friday in a protest organized by the group Black Lives Matter at City Hall. The crowd spilled onto Interstate 45’s entrance ramp near downtown chanting, “I can’t breathe,” and “No justice, no peace.” LOUISVILLE After a night of violence in which at least seven people were shot, police in the Kentucky city braced for more protests over the killing of Floyd and several others, such as Breonna Taylor, shot by police in her Louisville home in March.

www.reuters.com

center

ok5MD1AUhzWgIZRZ

test

9uAMaWpxiKriCOOV

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/02/22/bernie-sanders-wins-the-nevada-caucus-putting-him-on-track-to-win-the-democratic-presidential-nomination/

Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus. He's on Track To Win the Democratic Presidential Nomination

2020-02-22

Peter Suderman, Scott Shackford, Josh Blackman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm, Stephanie Slade, Christian Britschgi

Multiple news outlets are projecting that Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I–Vt . ) has won today 's Nevada caucus , making him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination . NBC News has now projected Bernie Sanders the winner of the Nevada caucuses — Steve Kornacki ( @ SteveKornacki ) February 23 , 2020 Sanders has n't locked up the race yet , but he 's now in a position to do so . Democrats look very much like they 're about to nominate a self-described democratic socialist for president . The basic takeaway here is that it 's Bernie 's nomination to lose . Exactly how big his margin is in Nevada , who finishes 2nd , etc. , may tell us something about precisely how likely he is to lose it , and who is most likely to take it away from him . But it 's his race to lose . — Nate Silver ( @ NateSilver538 ) February 23 , 2020 There are some hurdles Sanders will have to overcome first—namely the way the large primary field interacts with the complexities of the party 's nominating rules . A total of 3,979 `` pledged '' delegates are up for grabs in state primaries and caucuses ; to win the nomination outright , a candidate must win a majority , or 1,991 , of those delegates . But the unusually large field has made it difficult for any candidate to win an outright majority . Currently , election odds site FiveThirtyEight projects that Sanders will win 1,676 of those delegates , with the projected second-place finisher , former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , winning 922 of those delegates . If that happens , Sanders will have the most votes—but not a majority . And then the party 's superdelegates will suddenly be a factor . Superdelegates are part of state delegations to the Democratic nominating convention . But they 're unpledged , meaning they are n't won by voting . Instead , they get included in the vote if no candidate wins a clear majority of pledged delegates , which the election model at FiveThirtyEight currently says is ( just barely ) the most likely outcome . Currently , most superdelegates remain uncommitted . And as party insiders , it 's at least possible that they will not support an independent who failed to win a majority in the primary and caucus votes . An organized movement by the superdelegates to nominate a lower-placed finisher , combined with a consolidation of votes for other non-Sanders candidates , could keep Sanders from the top of the ticket . Still , it 's hard to imagine that if Sanders won the most votes and the most pledged delegates in the primary/caucus process , the party 's superdelegates would vote to give the nomination to another candidate . After the 2016 election , the Democratic party changed the rules surrounding superdelegate votes in order to weaken their power , partly in response to frustrations and concerns from Sanders supporters , who viewed superdelegates as a mechanism used by the party establishment to thwart outsider candidates . For the superdelegates to step in and give someone else the nomination would be controversial at minimum , and could well spark something resembling a party-breaking revolt . ( In addition , it would raise some eyebrows for the party that has spent the last several years complaining about subversions of democracy to give the nomination to a candidate who did not win the most primary/caucus votes . ) So even if Sanders is n't on track to win a majority of pledged delegates , he is nevertheless on track to win the Democratic Party 's nomination . At a minimum , he has a clearer shot than any other candidate right now , since no rival appears poised to consolidate non-Sanders voters . I 've got news for the Republican establishment . I 've got news for the Democratic establishment . They ca n't stop us . — Bernie Sanders ( @ BernieSanders ) February 22 , 2020 Which means that as it faces off against Donald Trump in the 2020 election , the Democratic Party is probably going to be led by a cantankerous 78-year-old democratic socialist—not only someone who supports foolish and domestically unprecedented government programs such as single-payer health care and free tuition at public universities , but someone who honeymooned in the Soviet Union , proudly supported the brutal Sandinistas in Nicaragua , and who once spoke admiringly of the Cuban government . If they nominated Sanders , Democrats would own his entire radical agenda and history . Should this happen , it would represent a tremendous gamble for the Democratic Party , which would be betting its future on a deeply polarizing figure who is disliked by many in his own party . And in a matchup against Donald Trump , it would represent a no-win scenario for anyone who values individual liberty , free markets , or even just basic executive competence . Some Democrats appear to realize the predicament their party is in . But as former Jeb Bush adviser Tim Miller wrote for The Bulwark , with Super Tuesday , and its giant delegate haul , just days away , it may already be too late . Unless Democratic voters can consolidate around a non-Sanders candidate in a very short period of time , Sanders is set to win . From his heart attack to his honeymoon in the USSR , nothing has stuck to Bernie Sanders . Now , with a burgeoning anti-Sanders effort underway , his Teflon shield face its biggest test . https : //t.co/LTnsaiIuQY via @ NYTimes — Lisa Lerer ( @ llerer ) February 22 , 2020 It 's possible , of course , that nominating Sanders could backfire on both the candidate and the party , and that Sanders could end up losing by a large margin in November . Some Republicans appear to believe that Sanders would be the easiest candidate to beat , and that he would have down-ticket effects on the rest of the party . That scenario does not strike me as out of the range of possibility . Yet I would n't be too sure . Because in many ways , the Democratic Party would be following in the footsteps of Republicans , who in 2016 similarly nominated a polarizing , populist , authoritarian-curious outsider who won just enough votes in an unusually crowded and competitive primary field despite broad opposition from the party establishment . Most knowledgable observers thought that nominee had little to no shot at winning the election . But Donald Trump is now our president . It is still early , but Sanders is following in Trump 's footsteps . With Sanders ' win in Nevada , he 's one step closer to the presidential nomination . And America is one step closer to a socialist in the White House .

Multiple news outlets are projecting that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has won today's Nevada caucus, making him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. NBC News has now projected Bernie Sanders the winner of the Nevada caucuses — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) February 23, 2020 Sanders hasn't locked up the race yet, but he's now in a position to do so. Democrats look very much like they're about to nominate a self-described democratic socialist for president. The basic takeaway here is that it's Bernie's nomination to lose. Exactly how big his margin is in Nevada, who finishes 2nd, etc., may tell us something about precisely how likely he is to lose it, and who is most likely to take it away from him. But it's his race to lose. — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 23, 2020 There are some hurdles Sanders will have to overcome first—namely the way the large primary field interacts with the complexities of the party's nominating rules. A total of 3,979 "pledged" delegates are up for grabs in state primaries and caucuses; to win the nomination outright, a candidate must win a majority, or 1,991, of those delegates. But the unusually large field has made it difficult for any candidate to win an outright majority. Currently, election odds site FiveThirtyEight projects that Sanders will win 1,676 of those delegates, with the projected second-place finisher, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, winning 922 of those delegates. If that happens, Sanders will have the most votes—but not a majority. And then the party's superdelegates will suddenly be a factor. Superdelegates are part of state delegations to the Democratic nominating convention. But they're unpledged, meaning they aren't won by voting. Instead, they get included in the vote if no candidate wins a clear majority of pledged delegates, which the election model at FiveThirtyEight currently says is (just barely) the most likely outcome. Currently, most superdelegates remain uncommitted. And as party insiders, it's at least possible that they will not support an independent who failed to win a majority in the primary and caucus votes. An organized movement by the superdelegates to nominate a lower-placed finisher, combined with a consolidation of votes for other non-Sanders candidates, could keep Sanders from the top of the ticket. Still, it's hard to imagine that if Sanders won the most votes and the most pledged delegates in the primary/caucus process, the party's superdelegates would vote to give the nomination to another candidate. After the 2016 election, the Democratic party changed the rules surrounding superdelegate votes in order to weaken their power, partly in response to frustrations and concerns from Sanders supporters, who viewed superdelegates as a mechanism used by the party establishment to thwart outsider candidates. For the superdelegates to step in and give someone else the nomination would be controversial at minimum, and could well spark something resembling a party-breaking revolt. (In addition, it would raise some eyebrows for the party that has spent the last several years complaining about subversions of democracy to give the nomination to a candidate who did not win the most primary/caucus votes.) So even if Sanders isn't on track to win a majority of pledged delegates, he is nevertheless on track to win the Democratic Party's nomination. At a minimum, he has a clearer shot than any other candidate right now, since no rival appears poised to consolidate non-Sanders voters. I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2020 Which means that as it faces off against Donald Trump in the 2020 election, the Democratic Party is probably going to be led by a cantankerous 78-year-old democratic socialist—not only someone who supports foolish and domestically unprecedented government programs such as single-payer health care and free tuition at public universities, but someone who honeymooned in the Soviet Union, proudly supported the brutal Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and who once spoke admiringly of the Cuban government. If they nominated Sanders, Democrats would own his entire radical agenda and history. Should this happen, it would represent a tremendous gamble for the Democratic Party, which would be betting its future on a deeply polarizing figure who is disliked by many in his own party. And in a matchup against Donald Trump, it would represent a no-win scenario for anyone who values individual liberty, free markets, or even just basic executive competence. Some Democrats appear to realize the predicament their party is in. But as former Jeb Bush adviser Tim Miller wrote for The Bulwark, with Super Tuesday, and its giant delegate haul, just days away, it may already be too late. Unless Democratic voters can consolidate around a non-Sanders candidate in a very short period of time, Sanders is set to win. From his heart attack to his honeymoon in the USSR, nothing has stuck to Bernie Sanders. Now, with a burgeoning anti-Sanders effort underway, his Teflon shield face its biggest test. https://t.co/LTnsaiIuQY via @NYTimes — Lisa Lerer (@llerer) February 22, 2020 It's possible, of course, that nominating Sanders could backfire on both the candidate and the party, and that Sanders could end up losing by a large margin in November. Some Republicans appear to believe that Sanders would be the easiest candidate to beat, and that he would have down-ticket effects on the rest of the party. That scenario does not strike me as out of the range of possibility. Yet I wouldn't be too sure. Because in many ways, the Democratic Party would be following in the footsteps of Republicans, who in 2016 similarly nominated a polarizing, populist, authoritarian-curious outsider who won just enough votes in an unusually crowded and competitive primary field despite broad opposition from the party establishment. Most knowledgable observers thought that nominee had little to no shot at winning the election. But Donald Trump is now our president. It is still early, but Sanders is following in Trump's footsteps. With Sanders' win in Nevada, he's one step closer to the presidential nomination. And America is one step closer to a socialist in the White House.

www.reason.com

right

9uAMaWpxiKriCOOV

test

wznVtVOSiSvYiGRf

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2016/november/surprise-picks-emerge-as-trumps-cabinet-takes-shape

Surprise Picks Emerge as Trump's Cabinet Takes Shape

2016-11-18

President-elect Donald Trump is working around the clock to lay the foundation for his administration . Trump announced Friday that he plans to nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions , R-Ala. , as attorney general and Rep. Mike Pompeo , R-Kan. , as CIA director , the first selections to his cabinet as his transition continues to build momentum . Former Massachusetts Gov . Mitt Romney , the 2012 GOP candidate for president , is also reportedly being considered for a cabinet position . Sources on the president-elect 's transition team say Romney is under consideration for a top cabinet position in the Trump administration . The past relationship between the two men has been less than diplomatic . `` Think of Donald Trump 's personal qualities : the bullying , the greed , the showing off , the misogyny , the absurd third grade theatrics , '' Romney said during the campaign . `` Mitt Romney 's made a total fool of himself , '' Trump responded . `` Did you ever see a guy like this ? He had his shot . He had his shot . He did n't like it when I said he choked like a dog . He choked like a dog . '' Trump is offering former military intelligence chief Michael Flynn the position of national security advisor . It 's unclear whether Flynn , a retired army general , has accepted the job . Flynn was a fierce critic of President Barack Obama 's military and foreign policy long before he began advising Trump on national security issues during the campaign . The American Center for Law and Justice ( ACLJ ) said today the selection of Sessions and Pompeo reveal that President-elect Trump is dedicated to elevating `` excellent leaders '' to key positions within his Administration . “ These choices are fantastic . Both are excellent leaders who will help set the tone for a Trump Administration that is serious about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law while elevating our intelligence capabilities at a time when our country is facing grave danger from terrorists , ” said Jay Sekulow , Chief Counsel of the ACLJ . “ As Attorney General , Sen . Sessions will bring stability and credibility back to a troubled Justice Department under the Obama Administration . Sen . Sessions has the knowledge , leadership , and capability to restore the institutional credibility at the Justice Department . '' Despite media criticism that the Trump transition team is in `` chaos '' and `` disarray , '' President Obama 's former senior advisor , David Axelrod , defended the incoming president from unfair press coverage as he transitions into the White House . `` Lots of reasons to be concerned about @ realdonaldtrump transition , but the pace of the announcements is n't one of them , '' Axelrod tweeted . `` That 's not a fair shot . '' He continued , `` We had n't made any major appointments at this point in 2008 . I do n't remember being criticized for it . '' Meanwhile , Vice President-elect Mike Pence asked for prayer Thursday while talking to congressional Republicans . As he ended his comments , Pence said , `` Pray for the president ; pray for his family ; pray for our conference and pray for the country , '' according to Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington . Newly elected Republican conference Vice Chairman Doug Collins of Georgia , a pastor , got up and led the prayer .

President-elect Donald Trump is working around the clock to lay the foundation for his administration. Trump announced Friday that he plans to nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as attorney general and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., as CIA director, the first selections to his cabinet as his transition continues to build momentum. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP candidate for president, is also reportedly being considered for a cabinet position. Sources on the president-elect's transition team say Romney is under consideration for a top cabinet position in the Trump administration. The past relationship between the two men has been less than diplomatic. "Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities: the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics," Romney said during the campaign. "Mitt Romney's made a total fool of himself," Trump responded. "Did you ever see a guy like this? He had his shot. He had his shot. He didn't like it when I said he choked like a dog. He choked like a dog." Trump is offering former military intelligence chief Michael Flynn the position of national security advisor. It's unclear whether Flynn, a retired army general, has accepted the job. Flynn was a fierce critic of President Barack Obama's military and foreign policy long before he began advising Trump on national security issues during the campaign. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) said today the selection of Sessions and Pompeo reveal that President-elect Trump is dedicated to elevating "excellent leaders" to key positions within his Administration. “These choices are fantastic. Both are excellent leaders who will help set the tone for a Trump Administration that is serious about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law while elevating our intelligence capabilities at a time when our country is facing grave danger from terrorists,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions will bring stability and credibility back to a troubled Justice Department under the Obama Administration. Sen. Sessions has the knowledge, leadership, and capability to restore the institutional credibility at the Justice Department." Despite media criticism that the Trump transition team is in "chaos" and "disarray," President Obama's former senior advisor, David Axelrod, defended the incoming president from unfair press coverage as he transitions into the White House. "Lots of reasons to be concerned about @realdonaldtrump transition, but the pace of the announcements isn't one of them," Axelrod tweeted. "That's not a fair shot." He continued, "We hadn't made any major appointments at this point in 2008. I don't remember being criticized for it." Meanwhile, Vice President-elect Mike Pence asked for prayer Thursday while talking to congressional Republicans. As he ended his comments, Pence said, "Pray for the president; pray for his family; pray for our conference and pray for the country," according to Rep. Dave Reichert of Washington. Newly elected Republican conference Vice Chairman Doug Collins of Georgia, a pastor, got up and led the prayer.

www1.cbn.com

right

wznVtVOSiSvYiGRf

test

dF8IVK24mYMSK2hH

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-giuliani-excl/exclusive-trump-lawyer-giuliani-was-paid-500000-to-consult-on-indicted-associates-firm-idUSKBN1WU07Z

Exclusive: Trump lawyer Giuliani was paid $500,000 to consult on indicted associate's firm

2019-10-16

Karen Freifeld

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump ’ s personal attorney , Rudy Giuliani , was paid $ 500,000 for work he did for a company co-founded by the Ukrainian-American businessman arrested last week on campaign finance charges , Giuliani told ███ on Monday . The businessman , Lev Parnas , is a close associate of Giuliani and was involved in his effort to investigate Trump ’ s political rival , former Vice President Joe Biden , who is a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination . Giuliani said Parnas ’ company , Boca Raton-based Fraud Guarantee , whose website says it aims to help clients “ reduce and mitigate fraud ” , engaged Giuliani Partners , a management and security consulting firm , around August 2018 . Giuliani said he was hired to consult on Fraud Guarantee ’ s technologies and provide legal advice on regulatory issues . Federal prosecutors are “ examining Giuliani ’ s interactions ” with Parnas and another Giuliani associate , Igor Fruman , who was also indicted on campaign finance charges , a law enforcement source told ███ on Sunday . The New York Times reported last week that Parnas had told associates he paid Giuliani hundreds of thousands of dollars for what Giuliani said was business and legal advice . Giuliani said for the first time on Monday that the total amount was $ 500,000 . Giuliani told ███ the money came in two payments made within weeks of each other . He said he could not recall the dates of the payments . He said most of the work he did for Fraud Guarantee was completed in 2018 but that he had been doing follow-up for over a year . Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles Airport outside Washington last week on charges they funneled foreign money to unnamed U.S. politicians in a bid to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations in violation of U.S. campaign finance laws . The men were preparing to board a plane to Europe . According to an indictment unsealed by U.S. prosecutors , an unidentified Russian businessman arranged for two $ 500,000 wires to be sent from foreign bank accounts to a U.S. account controlled by Fruman in September and October 2018 . The money was used , in part , by Fruman , Parnas and two other men charged in the indictment to gain influence with U.S. politicians and candidates , the indictment said . Foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions and other expenditures in connection with U.S. elections , and from making contributions in someone else ’ s name . Giuliani said he was confident that the money he received was from “ a domestic source , ” but he would not say where it came from . “ I know beyond any doubt the source of the money is not any questionable source , ” he told ███ in an interview . “ The money did not come from foreigners . I can rule that out 100 % , ” he said . He declined to say whether the money had been paid directly to him by Fraud Guarantee or from another source . John Dowd , a lawyer for Parnas and Fruman , also would not discuss the source of the funding that Giuliani said he received for his work for Fraud Guarantee . “ What I know is privileged , ” Dowd said .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, was paid $500,000 for work he did for a company co-founded by the Ukrainian-American businessman arrested last week on campaign finance charges, Giuliani told Reuters on Monday. The businessman, Lev Parnas, is a close associate of Giuliani and was involved in his effort to investigate Trump’s political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, who is a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic Party nomination. Giuliani said Parnas’ company, Boca Raton-based Fraud Guarantee, whose website says it aims to help clients “reduce and mitigate fraud”, engaged Giuliani Partners, a management and security consulting firm, around August 2018. Giuliani said he was hired to consult on Fraud Guarantee’s technologies and provide legal advice on regulatory issues. Federal prosecutors are “examining Giuliani’s interactions” with Parnas and another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, who was also indicted on campaign finance charges, a law enforcement source told Reuters on Sunday. The New York Times reported last week that Parnas had told associates he paid Giuliani hundreds of thousands of dollars for what Giuliani said was business and legal advice. Giuliani said for the first time on Monday that the total amount was $500,000. Giuliani told Reuters the money came in two payments made within weeks of each other. He said he could not recall the dates of the payments. He said most of the work he did for Fraud Guarantee was completed in 2018 but that he had been doing follow-up for over a year. Parnas and Fruman were arrested at Dulles Airport outside Washington last week on charges they funneled foreign money to unnamed U.S. politicians in a bid to influence U.S.-Ukraine relations in violation of U.S. campaign finance laws. The men were preparing to board a plane to Europe. According to an indictment unsealed by U.S. prosecutors, an unidentified Russian businessman arranged for two $500,000 wires to be sent from foreign bank accounts to a U.S. account controlled by Fruman in September and October 2018. The money was used, in part, by Fruman, Parnas and two other men charged in the indictment to gain influence with U.S. politicians and candidates, the indictment said. Foreign nationals are prohibited from making contributions and other expenditures in connection with U.S. elections, and from making contributions in someone else’s name. Giuliani said he was confident that the money he received was from “a domestic source,” but he would not say where it came from. Slideshow (2 Images) “I know beyond any doubt the source of the money is not any questionable source,” he told Reuters in an interview. “The money did not come from foreigners. I can rule that out 100%,” he said. He declined to say whether the money had been paid directly to him by Fraud Guarantee or from another source. John Dowd, a lawyer for Parnas and Fruman, also would not discuss the source of the funding that Giuliani said he received for his work for Fraud Guarantee. “What I know is privileged,” Dowd said.

www.reuters.com

center

dF8IVK24mYMSK2hH

test

WBDlbBfFvZrI7W2W

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/trump-ryan-and-the-american-character/

Trump, Ryan, and the American Character

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

After Paul Ryan announced he wouldn ’ t seek re-election this fall , I had an interesting conversation online with an old friend I hadn ’ t talked to in more than a decade . My prodigal partner in correspondence , an old politico who fought the good fight for many years before retiring to a sailboat and itinerantly plying the Gulf Coast , said something I both agreed with and disagreed with , and I ’ ve been chewing on his statement ever since . “ I can ’ t take any delight in Trump ’ s accomplishments , ” he said , “ though I don ’ t oppose most of what he ’ s doing policy-wise . ” My friend ’ s complaint was that while the President has already embarked on the most ambitious conservative agenda since Reagan despite not actually possessing much in the way of conservative bona fides — he said that ’ s a nice surprise he wouldn ’ t have counted on — Trump ’ s style is , he thinks , toxic for the country . He made sure to let me know he ’ s no NeverTrumper . He agreed that the Republicans had long needed to find a way to ditch their reputation as the Stupid Party . He just believes there will ultimately be a steep price to pay for the President ’ s bombast , and what he called the “ insufferable childishness ” Trump displays on his Twitter and elsewhere . As someone who looks at the President as a guy we hired to do a job , and is so far satisfied , on balance , at the quality of work he ’ s doing , my response was that what my friend was complaining about isn ’ t Trump . Trump is a symptom , not the disease . Which brings us to Paul Ryan , who my friend admires greatly . Ryan is many things , but above all he ’ s civil . He ’ s also a “ policy conservative ” whose vision for taxes , entitlement reform , and other big reform items would certainly move the country forward . What Ryan , whose short tenure as House speaker is likely to be judged as something of a failure when he gives up the gavel in December , is not is a salesman . And he ’ s definitely no political force of nature who can threaten and cajole his way to the legislative finish line . Ryan ’ s House led the way in passing that federal tax reform bill last year , and that is a signature achievement of which he can be proud . But some 140 House-passed bills languish in the Senate — standing as the mark of governmental gridlock which indicts the Speaker as a bit player on the national political stage . He ’ s leaving more or less in disgust , because he can ’ t lead the GOP ’ s legislative agenda to passage in the face of a dysfunctional Senate . And because Ryan and Trump are oil and water — as are so many of the Republican Establishment figures in Washington the President has alienated . I would concede that Trump is often much too crass for my liking , just as I would confess his relationships with the Roger Stones , Michael Cohens , and Paul Manaforts of the world make me nervous . But I would argue this — those Establishment types on the Right who hate Trump more for the damage they perceive he ’ s doing to the country ’ s political institutions than the achievements in policy he ’ s enjoying have lost sight of why we care about those institutions in the first place . And all of us on the Right would do well to remember that most of what Trump is rightly characterized as differs little from what the Left calls those far more pleasant GOP establishment figures . Mitt Romney was supposedly racist and sexist too , if you ’ ll remember . He tried to tell a story about filling his gubernatorial cabinet in Massachusetts with qualified females , and before he could finish a sentence “ Binders full of women ” became a rallying cry for Americans in a panic over the country descending into a Handmaid ’ s Tale-style dystopia . Remember during the 2008 campaign and its aftermath when conservatives became educated about Saul Alinsky and the Cloward-Piven Strategy ? Those topics were all the rage in the blogosphere between Obama ’ s nomination and the 2010 midterms , but seem less relevant now . I brought them back up in the conversation with my old-school correspondent as a possible explanation for why Trump may be a necessity . The Stupid Party conservatives , those who fight desperately to freeze our institutions and culture in the mid-to-late 20thcentury , never did come to grips with what the Alinskyite Left did to the country . They never understood the shift in American character the 1960s represented . Take welfare , for example . A Paul Ryan looks at entitlement programs and asks how they can be redesigned to be a hand up rather than a handout , as they were supposed to be when passed on a bipartisan basis as part of Johnson ’ s Great Society . But a Ryan , as were his predecessors , is no match for the left-wing organizations spreading the narrative in the inner cities that welfare programs represent reparations for slavery , and educating people how to cheat on them . Little surprise that Ryan is routinely denounced as a racist for wanting to reform the various government redistribution programs . Ryan , and the Jack Kemp-inspired conservative empowerment agenda he was politically raised on , is correct on the policy but hopeless on the politics . Why ? Because he ’ s trying to charm people who are trained to bite his hand . Along comes a Trump , who is willing to throw punches at the Left for creating the captive audience Ryan can ’ t reach — and who will attract more of that audience than Ryan ever will despite a far less friendly style . We should be a country which respects the civil statesmen like Paul Ryan . But we aren ’ t . Alinsky ’ s Rules for Radicals destroyed the effectiveness of the Paul Ryans of the world , just as the development of tanks and warplanes destroyed the effectiveness of static fortifications on the battlefield . That ’ s a damned shame , and it ’ s why Saul Alinsky is hopefully burning in hell at the hands of Lucifer , to whom he dedicated his book . But that means it takes a Trump , or something like him , to beat the Left . Would it be preferable to have someone in the White House there could be no credible accusation of Stormy Daniels-style tawdry sexual affairs against ? Of course . But when the other side is willing to make up such allegations from thin air and sell them as proof of the hypocrisy of upstanding men , it takes a Trump to explode the game . You can call Trump lots of things , but one which will not stick is to say he ’ s a hypocrite . Alinsky taught the Left that hypocrisy is worse than simple bad behavior , which is a lie — but it ’ s a useful lie to people engaged in destroying standards . Culture is downstream from politics , and our culture is coarser now than it ’ s been in a century or more . It wasn ’ t conservatives who created this decline — we don ’ t make the movies or TV shows , we ’ re not in control of the music business , we barely have a foot in the door on social media and we certainly don ’ t control the schools . In Trump , we have only just found a way to deal effectively with the mess the other side has made . Most of our side , and particularly those who had lost faith in traditional conservatism following Obama ’ s ascension to the White House , understands this . Those who don ’ t are clinging to a world that was lost decades ago .

After Paul Ryan announced he wouldn’t seek re-election this fall, I had an interesting conversation online with an old friend I hadn’t talked to in more than a decade. My prodigal partner in correspondence, an old politico who fought the good fight for many years before retiring to a sailboat and itinerantly plying the Gulf Coast, said something I both agreed with and disagreed with, and I’ve been chewing on his statement ever since. “I can’t take any delight in Trump’s accomplishments,” he said, “though I don’t oppose most of what he’s doing policy-wise.” My friend’s complaint was that while the President has already embarked on the most ambitious conservative agenda since Reagan despite not actually possessing much in the way of conservative bona fides — he said that’s a nice surprise he wouldn’t have counted on — Trump’s style is, he thinks, toxic for the country. He made sure to let me know he’s no NeverTrumper. He agreed that the Republicans had long needed to find a way to ditch their reputation as the Stupid Party. He just believes there will ultimately be a steep price to pay for the President’s bombast, and what he called the “insufferable childishness” Trump displays on his Twitter and elsewhere. As someone who looks at the President as a guy we hired to do a job, and is so far satisfied, on balance, at the quality of work he’s doing, my response was that what my friend was complaining about isn’t Trump. Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Which brings us to Paul Ryan, who my friend admires greatly. Ryan is many things, but above all he’s civil. He’s also a “policy conservative” whose vision for taxes, entitlement reform, and other big reform items would certainly move the country forward. What Ryan, whose short tenure as House speaker is likely to be judged as something of a failure when he gives up the gavel in December, is not is a salesman. And he’s definitely no political force of nature who can threaten and cajole his way to the legislative finish line. Ryan’s House led the way in passing that federal tax reform bill last year, and that is a signature achievement of which he can be proud. But some 140 House-passed bills languish in the Senate — standing as the mark of governmental gridlock which indicts the Speaker as a bit player on the national political stage. He’s leaving more or less in disgust, because he can’t lead the GOP’s legislative agenda to passage in the face of a dysfunctional Senate. And because Ryan and Trump are oil and water — as are so many of the Republican Establishment figures in Washington the President has alienated. I would concede that Trump is often much too crass for my liking, just as I would confess his relationships with the Roger Stones, Michael Cohens, and Paul Manaforts of the world make me nervous. But I would argue this — those Establishment types on the Right who hate Trump more for the damage they perceive he’s doing to the country’s political institutions than the achievements in policy he’s enjoying have lost sight of why we care about those institutions in the first place. And all of us on the Right would do well to remember that most of what Trump is rightly characterized as differs little from what the Left calls those far more pleasant GOP establishment figures. Mitt Romney was supposedly racist and sexist too, if you’ll remember. He tried to tell a story about filling his gubernatorial cabinet in Massachusetts with qualified females, and before he could finish a sentence “Binders full of women” became a rallying cry for Americans in a panic over the country descending into a Handmaid’s Tale-style dystopia. Remember during the 2008 campaign and its aftermath when conservatives became educated about Saul Alinsky and the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Those topics were all the rage in the blogosphere between Obama’s nomination and the 2010 midterms, but seem less relevant now. I brought them back up in the conversation with my old-school correspondent as a possible explanation for why Trump may be a necessity. The Stupid Party conservatives, those who fight desperately to freeze our institutions and culture in the mid-to-late 20thcentury, never did come to grips with what the Alinskyite Left did to the country. They never understood the shift in American character the 1960s represented. Take welfare, for example. A Paul Ryan looks at entitlement programs and asks how they can be redesigned to be a hand up rather than a handout, as they were supposed to be when passed on a bipartisan basis as part of Johnson’s Great Society. But a Ryan, as were his predecessors, is no match for the left-wing organizations spreading the narrative in the inner cities that welfare programs represent reparations for slavery, and educating people how to cheat on them. Little surprise that Ryan is routinely denounced as a racist for wanting to reform the various government redistribution programs. Ryan, and the Jack Kemp-inspired conservative empowerment agenda he was politically raised on, is correct on the policy but hopeless on the politics. Why? Because he’s trying to charm people who are trained to bite his hand. Along comes a Trump, who is willing to throw punches at the Left for creating the captive audience Ryan can’t reach — and who will attract more of that audience than Ryan ever will despite a far less friendly style. We should be a country which respects the civil statesmen like Paul Ryan. But we aren’t. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals destroyed the effectiveness of the Paul Ryans of the world, just as the development of tanks and warplanes destroyed the effectiveness of static fortifications on the battlefield. That’s a damned shame, and it’s why Saul Alinsky is hopefully burning in hell at the hands of Lucifer, to whom he dedicated his book. But that means it takes a Trump, or something like him, to beat the Left. Would it be preferable to have someone in the White House there could be no credible accusation of Stormy Daniels-style tawdry sexual affairs against? Of course. But when the other side is willing to make up such allegations from thin air and sell them as proof of the hypocrisy of upstanding men, it takes a Trump to explode the game. You can call Trump lots of things, but one which will not stick is to say he’s a hypocrite. Alinsky taught the Left that hypocrisy is worse than simple bad behavior, which is a lie — but it’s a useful lie to people engaged in destroying standards. Which the 1960s Left was famously successful in doing. Culture is downstream from politics, and our culture is coarser now than it’s been in a century or more. It wasn’t conservatives who created this decline — we don’t make the movies or TV shows, we’re not in control of the music business, we barely have a foot in the door on social media and we certainly don’t control the schools. In Trump, we have only just found a way to deal effectively with the mess the other side has made. Most of our side, and particularly those who had lost faith in traditional conservatism following Obama’s ascension to the White House, understands this. Those who don’t are clinging to a world that was lost decades ago.

www.spectator.org

right

WBDlbBfFvZrI7W2W

test

0V65h0kM7wyOG0R8

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/10/buzzfeed-just-published-unverified-claims-of-trump-and-russian-hookers/

BuzzFeed Just Published Unverified Claims About Trump And Russian Hookers

2017-01-10

BuzzFeed published documents Tuesday containing unverified information from an alleged former British intelligence agent on deep-ties between the Russian government and President-elect Donald Trump . The report contains multiple unverified claims of President-elect Trump soliciting prostitutes while visiting Russia . Before the BuzzFeed story , CNN reported that President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama had been told that U.S. officials are aware that Russia allegedly has compromising financial and personal information on Trump . An alleged former British intelligence agent turned private investigator — who was hired by anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats — compiled a dossier on ties between Trump and Russia . He reportedly gave the memos dated up to August 2016 to an FBI official in Rome . Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain reportedly gave memos from June through December to FBI Director James Comey on Dec. 9 . The only December memo BuzzFeed published was from Dec. 13 . BuzzFeed wrote that they are publishing the unverified claims “ so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government . ” One of the unverified memos states that Russia had exploited “ Trump ’ s personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable ‘ kompromat ’ ( compromising material ) on him . ” The memo claims that an unnamed source told the alleged former British spy that Trump had gotten the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow , “ where he knew President and Mrs Obama ( whom he hated ) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia , and defiling [ sic ] the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘ golden showers ’ ( urination ) show in front of him . ” The unverified memo states that , “ the hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to. ” The report says that another source , who was allegedly a staff member of that hotel , confirmed the incident to the former spook . This is not the only unverified mention of infidelity and prostitutes in the documents BuzzFeed published . The alleged former British spy said that a services industry source told him that when Trump visited St. Petersburg he “ participated in sex parties in the city too , but that all direct witnesses to this recently had been ‘ silenced ’ i.e . bribed or coerced to disappear . ” Much of the dossier details alleged Russian attempts to give Trump sweetheart deals that he didn ’ t end up taking . “ Trump ’ s previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end Trump had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success , ” the unverified memo states . While the claims are unverified and from an alleged former spy turned private investigator , one journalist called it an “ official intelligence report . ” BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith made public an email he sent to staff about publishing the dossier , in which he admitted that there is “ serious reason to doubt the allegations , ” as reporters had been chasing down claims and weren ’ t able to confirm them . He added , “ but publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017 . ”

BuzzFeed published documents Tuesday containing unverified information from an alleged former British intelligence agent on deep-ties between the Russian government and President-elect Donald Trump. The report contains multiple unverified claims of President-elect Trump soliciting prostitutes while visiting Russia. Before the BuzzFeed story, CNN reported that President-elect Trump and President Barack Obama had been told that U.S. officials are aware that Russia allegedly has compromising financial and personal information on Trump. An alleged former British intelligence agent turned private investigator — who was hired by anti-Trump Republicans and Democrats — compiled a dossier on ties between Trump and Russia. He reportedly gave the memos dated up to August 2016 to an FBI official in Rome. Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain reportedly gave memos from June through December to FBI Director James Comey on Dec. 9. The only December memo BuzzFeed published was from Dec. 13. BuzzFeed wrote that they are publishing the unverified claims “so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.” One of the unverified memos states that Russia had exploited “Trump’s personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable ‘kompromat’ (compromising material) on him.” The memo claims that an unnamed source told the alleged former British spy that Trump had gotten the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow, “where he knew President and Mrs Obama (whom he hated) had stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling [sic] the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a ‘golden showers’ (urination) show in front of him.” The unverified memo states that, “the hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to.” The report says that another source, who was allegedly a staff member of that hotel, confirmed the incident to the former spook. This is not the only unverified mention of infidelity and prostitutes in the documents BuzzFeed published. The alleged former British spy said that a services industry source told him that when Trump visited St. Petersburg he “participated in sex parties in the city too, but that all direct witnesses to this recently had been ‘silenced’ i.e. bribed or coerced to disappear.” Much of the dossier details alleged Russian attempts to give Trump sweetheart deals that he didn’t end up taking. “Trump’s previous efforts had included exploring the real estate sector in St. Petersburg as well as Moscow but in the end Trump had had to settle for the use of extensive sexual services there from local prostitutes rather than business success,” the unverified memo states. While the claims are unverified and from an alleged former spy turned private investigator, one journalist called it an “official intelligence report.” BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith made public an email he sent to staff about publishing the dossier, in which he admitted that there is “serious reason to doubt the allegations,” as reporters had been chasing down claims and weren’t able to confirm them. He added, “but publishing this dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

0V65h0kM7wyOG0R8

test

Jut0BtrZLOMKWsBo

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2017/09/15/yes-hillary-the-media-did-help-trump-win

Yes, Hillary, the Media Did Help Trump Win. So Did You

2017-09-15

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

Former Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is back doing what she does best : selling books . What Happened , her newest , does n't feature a question . It has answers . Clinton blames the FBI . She blames sexism and fake news . She blames the `` godforsaken '' Electoral College and the `` deep currents of anger and resentment '' running through society . She also blames Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) for out-promising her at every turn . She probably blames clandestine Russian mind-control laser beams for persuading tens of millions of Americans that she was nothing more than a calculating , deceptive and insipid career politician . And she blames the media . Political journalists , writes Clinton , `` ca n't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump . '' Now , hearing a Democrat argue that the institutional media was n't accommodating enough in helping her win an election is , I admit , a bit jarring . Support from journalists is so embedded in the Democratic Party 's strategy that any negative coverage—even something as unavoidable as writing about an unprecedented FBI investigation into a leading presidential candidate—must be quashed . Yet Clinton 's claim happens to contain a morsel of truth , if not in the way she intended . When supporting Trump seemed advantageous , the media—not only left-leaning outlets like CNN or the Washington Post but also rating chasers like NBC 's Joe Scarborough—did much to help lift the fortunes of the soon-to-be president . This was obvious to anyone observing coverage of the primaries . But for those who need confirmation , a study by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media , Politics and Public Policy found that during the year 2015 , major news outlets covered Trump `` in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump 's rise in the polls . '' A big chunk of this coverage , the report found , was positive in tone . Of course , that tone would drastically change as soon as Trump won . It was curious happenstance , but somehow , the preponderance of ugly stories regarding his past only began pouring forth after he captured the nomination . The man did n't change at all ; the coverage did . While all this is true , the problem is that Clinton and her advisers were part of the same effort . `` The variety of candidates is a positive here , and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right , '' read one Clinton campaign agenda item , according to WikiLeaks . `` In this scenario , we do n't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates , but make them more 'Pied Piper ' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party . '' Those candidates included Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) , Dr. Ben Carson and Trump . In fairness , some were worried that the strategy would backfire . `` Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump , '' Brent Budowsky emailed John Podesta . Most , however , liked the plan . Another agenda item involved how to prevent candidate Jeb Bush `` from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others ? '' Neera Tanden emailed Podesta : `` Bush sucked . I 'm glad Hillary is obsessed with the one candidate who would be easiest to beat . … Besides Trump , of course . '' Of course ! Although Bush was a concern , most Democrats seemed to fear Sen. Marco Rubio . Not that their takes would have swayed many conservative voters , but it 's worth remembering that left-wing pundits played the same cynical game , which makes their histrionics today unconvincing . `` Why I 'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump , '' read a Vox headline . `` Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican , '' wrote Slate . `` Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump '' read one headline by The New York Times ' Paul Krugman . `` Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination '' was New York 's contribution to this genre . The major media outlets , the Clinton campaign and the liberal punditry all got what they wanted : Trump . The problem was they also got Clinton . The media did cover the FBI investigation into Clinton 's emails and server . `` It was a dumb mistake , '' Clinton now says . `` I think it was a dumber scandal , but it hurt . '' This kind of attitude speaks to the entitlement she carried around with her . Attempting to bolster the chances of an opposing candidate who is perceived to be the weakest is n't a unique strategy . The problem is—and I understand that many people disagree with me—Clinton probably would have lost to virtually any Republican candidate , and probably by even larger margins . But the bigger question now is : Why did Clinton 's campaign prop up Trump , `` the most dangerous White House candidate in modern history '' ? It seems irresponsible and selfish to put Americans in such a precarious position for personal gain . Maybe someone with access will take a break from sitting shiva and ask her .

Former Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is back doing what she does best: selling books. What Happened, her newest, doesn't feature a question. It has answers. Clinton blames the FBI. She blames sexism and fake news. She blames the "godforsaken" Electoral College and the "deep currents of anger and resentment" running through society. She also blames Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for out-promising her at every turn. She probably blames clandestine Russian mind-control laser beams for persuading tens of millions of Americans that she was nothing more than a calculating, deceptive and insipid career politician. And she blames the media. Political journalists, writes Clinton, "can't bear to face their own role in helping elect Trump." Now, hearing a Democrat argue that the institutional media wasn't accommodating enough in helping her win an election is, I admit, a bit jarring. Support from journalists is so embedded in the Democratic Party's strategy that any negative coverage—even something as unavoidable as writing about an unprecedented FBI investigation into a leading presidential candidate—must be quashed. Yet Clinton's claim happens to contain a morsel of truth, if not in the way she intended. When supporting Trump seemed advantageous, the media—not only left-leaning outlets like CNN or the Washington Post but also rating chasers like NBC's Joe Scarborough—did much to help lift the fortunes of the soon-to-be president. This was obvious to anyone observing coverage of the primaries. But for those who need confirmation, a study by the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Trump "in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump's rise in the polls." A big chunk of this coverage, the report found, was positive in tone. Of course, that tone would drastically change as soon as Trump won. It was curious happenstance, but somehow, the preponderance of ugly stories regarding his past only began pouring forth after he captured the nomination. The man didn't change at all; the coverage did. While all this is true, the problem is that Clinton and her advisers were part of the same effort. "The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right," read one Clinton campaign agenda item, according to WikiLeaks. "In this scenario, we don't want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party." Those candidates included Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Dr. Ben Carson and Trump. In fairness, some were worried that the strategy would backfire. "Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump," Brent Budowsky emailed John Podesta. Most, however, liked the plan. Another agenda item involved how to prevent candidate Jeb Bush "from bettering himself/how do we maximize Trump and others?" Neera Tanden emailed Podesta: "Bush sucked. I'm glad Hillary is obsessed with the one candidate who would be easiest to beat. … Besides Trump, of course." Of course! Although Bush was a concern, most Democrats seemed to fear Sen. Marco Rubio. Not that their takes would have swayed many conservative voters, but it's worth remembering that left-wing pundits played the same cynical game, which makes their histrionics today unconvincing. "Why I'm More Worried About Marco Rubio Than Donald Trump," read a Vox headline. "Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican," wrote Slate. "Why Cruz Is Worse Than Trump" read one headline by The New York Times' Paul Krugman. "Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination" was New York's contribution to this genre. The major media outlets, the Clinton campaign and the liberal punditry all got what they wanted: Trump. The problem was they also got Clinton. The media did cover the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails and server. "It was a dumb mistake," Clinton now says. "I think it was a dumber scandal, but it hurt." This kind of attitude speaks to the entitlement she carried around with her. Attempting to bolster the chances of an opposing candidate who is perceived to be the weakest isn't a unique strategy. The problem is—and I understand that many people disagree with me—Clinton probably would have lost to virtually any Republican candidate, and probably by even larger margins. But the bigger question now is: Why did Clinton's campaign prop up Trump, "the most dangerous White House candidate in modern history"? It seems irresponsible and selfish to put Americans in such a precarious position for personal gain. Maybe someone with access will take a break from sitting shiva and ask her. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

www.reason.com

right

Jut0BtrZLOMKWsBo

test

hFlKACYmbETMpkT0

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/billionaire-clinton-donor-backs-10-million-campaign-to-oust-trump/

Billionaire Clinton-Donor Backs $10 Million Campaign To Oust Trump

2017-10-20

A liberal billionaire who bankrolls several Democratic causes spent more than $ 10 million to kick-start a media campaign calling on Congress to impeach President Donald Trump . Environmentalist Tom Steyer is spending the money on a national TV campaign to “ demand that elected officials take a stand ” on ousting the Republican president . Steyer was one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s chief financial backer during her presidential campaign . “ A Republican Congress once impeached a president for far less . And today , people in Congress and his own administration know that this President is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons , ” Steyer says in the ad , which runs primarily in New York and California , both of which supported Clinton during last year ’ s election . The ads were not paid through Steyer ’ s political arm , NextGen Climate . They point to a website called NeedToImpeach.com , which features an open letter targeting California Sen. Dianne Feinstein ’ s comment that Trump “ can be a good President . ” Steyer , who is considering running against Feinstein in next year ’ s election , criticizes Trump in the letter for “ actively sabotaging ” Obamacare and for “ repealing clean air protections and unleashing polluters . ” “ He has threatened to reduce aid for millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico who are struggling to survive without drinkable water or electricity — a move that would be a total dereliction of his duty , ” Steyer writes , adding that Trump ’ s Twitter activity is making people anxious about what the president could have in store for the country . Steyer used a poll earlier this year to test the political waters in California . He commissioned the poll to gauge how well a possible campaign would fare against fellow Democrats in the 2018 gubernatorial election . He personally spent more than $ 163 million in the last two election cycles supporting Democratic candidates , but the Democratic bundler has since moved “ beyond ” environmental issues . “ Under the new Trump administration , progressives can not consider causes in isolation , ” Steyer told reporters in February . He ’ s since attacked Trump nearly every day on social media , not limiting himself to global warming .

A liberal billionaire who bankrolls several Democratic causes spent more than $10 million to kick-start a media campaign calling on Congress to impeach President Donald Trump. Environmentalist Tom Steyer is spending the money on a national TV campaign to “demand that elected officials take a stand” on ousting the Republican president. Steyer was one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief financial backer during her presidential campaign. “A Republican Congress once impeached a president for far less. And today, people in Congress and his own administration know that this President is a clear and present danger who is mentally unstable and armed with nuclear weapons,” Steyer says in the ad, which runs primarily in New York and California, both of which supported Clinton during last year’s election. The ads were not paid through Steyer’s political arm, NextGen Climate. They point to a website called NeedToImpeach.com, which features an open letter targeting California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s comment that Trump “can be a good President.” Steyer, who is considering running against Feinstein in next year’s election, criticizes Trump in the letter for “actively sabotaging” Obamacare and for “repealing clean air protections and unleashing polluters.” “He has threatened to reduce aid for millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico who are struggling to survive without drinkable water or electricity — a move that would be a total dereliction of his duty,” Steyer writes, adding that Trump’s Twitter activity is making people anxious about what the president could have in store for the country. Steyer used a poll earlier this year to test the political waters in California. He commissioned the poll to gauge how well a possible campaign would fare against fellow Democrats in the 2018 gubernatorial election. He personally spent more than $163 million in the last two election cycles supporting Democratic candidates, but the Democratic bundler has since moved “beyond” environmental issues. “Under the new Trump administration, progressives cannot consider causes in isolation,” Steyer told reporters in February. He’s since attacked Trump nearly every day on social media, not limiting himself to global warming. Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

hFlKACYmbETMpkT0

test

tRiwakcSN4R49KGs

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/30/destroying_democracy_is_the_gops_goal_obstruction_dysfunction_and_the_sneaky_decades_long_plan_to_steal_your_vote/

Destroying democracy is the GOP's goal: Obstruction, dysfunction and the sneaky, decades-long plan to steal your vote

2015-03-30

Paul Rosenberg

In early March , Matt Yglesias wrote a Vox article warning “ American democracy is doomed , ” not right away , perhaps , but eventually . The main reason , he argued , was the essential instability of our presidential system , in which both the president and Congress—especially the House—can plausibly claim popular legitimacy while opposing one another—a theory advanced by the late Yale professor Juan Linz back in 1990 : Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people , they can both claim to speak for the people . When they have a serious disagreement , according to Linz , `` there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved . '' The constitution offers no help in these cases , he wrote : `` the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate . '' There 's obviously something to be said for this idea , starkly contrasting potentially brittle and conflictual presidential systems with more fluid parliamentary ones . But as a systemic explanation , it tends to absolve individuals and groups of bad actors of any blame , and there very clearly are some bad actors involved in our politics . Both sides are not just doing the same thing . There are pragmatic asymmetries as well : The kinds of policies advocated by each side are not equally suited to actual governing challenges . Denying the existence of climate change is not comparable to a preparing a response involving international emission-reduction agreements , domestic renewable energy policies and local planning . Finally , the presidential system explanation does n't tell us why this should become such a problem now . It 's not that America has n't faced serious systemic problems before—we had an extremely bloody Civil War , remember ? But the presidential system was n't the problem . For a clearer picture of the dangers facing our democracy , we need to consider two other factors . The first , which Yglesias also touched on , is what Harvard constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet ( then at Georgetown ) labeled `` constitutional hardball '' in a 2004 article . He defined it more succinctly in a 2014 blog post thus : “ Constitutional hardball consists of practices that are constitutionally permissible but that breach previously accepted norms of political behavior , adopted to ensure the smooth functioning of a government in a two-party world , engaged in precisely to disrupt that smooth functioning. ” He also wrote , originally , that the emergence of constitutional hardball “ signals that political actors understand that they are in a position to put in place a new set of deep institutional arrangements of a sort I call a constitutional order . ” Conservative Republicans have been trying to change our constitutional order for a very long time now—at least since FDR 's first term—using whatever tools they could get their hands on , often quite destructively . As Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin pointed out in 2007 ( more on this below ) , the Bush administration engaged in this practice quite extensively with three distinct periods . It started with the use of hardball strategies ( including illegal voter suppression ) to get into office . It reached full expression in a multi-pronged “ effort to expand executive power and limit Congressional and judicial oversight and executive accountability ” in the pursuit of an endless global war on terror . And it concluded ( after the post-2006 midterm losses ) with a defensive phase intended to keep secrets , run out the clock , and preclude being held responsible for its illegal and unconstitutional practices . Republicans have continued the practice since then , developing new strategies in congressional opposition . Tushnet developed the idea of constitutional orders in his 2003 book , `` The New Constitutional Order , '' which contrasts the older New Deal/Great Society constitutional order with its more minimalist neoliberal successor , which has been profoundly shaped by the extended period of divided government since 1968 , a period unlike any other in our history , with just over 13 years of unified government , compared to 33 of divided government . The second factor could be called the tendency toward apocalyptic conservatism , seen most clearly , nationally , in the repeated government shutdown threats , and threatened default on the national debt . While these threats essentially function as forms of constitutional hardball , they simultaneously express an attitude of profound alienation and animosity to the Lockean concept of the social contract . If the contract is destroyed as a result , so much the better , according to their logic . This tendency renders a significant faction of political actors essentially immune to persuasion in the national interest , which is obviously severely detrimental to the survival of a democracy . At least three different tendencies contribute to this apocalyptic turn of mind . First is conservatives ' heightened negativity bias , their greater sense that it 's a dangerous world , with an endless supply of things to be afraid of . This overall tendency is then fed by two other tendencies : One is that conservatives are much less willing to compromise—as repeated polls ( Gallup 2010/2011 , Pew 2014 ) have found—the other is that their `` solutions '' ( “ trickle-down ” economics , “ abstinence-only ” sex ed , “ just say no ” to drugs , etc . ) are much less likely to work . As a result , the more conservatives push and fail , the more likely they are to push even harder on even more ill-considered ideas , all against the backdrop of a threatening world , in which conspiratorial forces are at work—forces they can conveniently scapegoat as the real cause for their own failures . Breaking the system is a feature , not a bug , as both the militia movement of the 1990s and the Tea Party of today both believe . As we settle in for a protracted struggle for the remainder of the Obama presidency , we need to become familiar with what all three factors entail—but especially constitutional hardball . But let 's start with the problem of a presidential system , and divided government , for two reasons : first to acknowledge its reality , and second to situate its problematic emergence historically . As Yglesias explains , Linz observed that `` aside from the United States , only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government — but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s . '' He notes that various factors may be involved , but focuses specifically on “ the nature of the checks and balances system ” in a presidential system . All of which makes enough sense , but tells us nothing about the timing of crises . Nor does it explain what happened in Chile in 1973 . The problem then was n't the Congress versus the president , it was Chile versus the U.S. That 's hardly an internal constitutional problem for Chile . But it was part of a constitutional problem for America , overtly , the problem now shorthanded as “ Watergate , ” which actually involved a wide-ranging practice of lawlessness in the executive branch ( involving “ five successive and overlapping wars ” as Woodward and Bernstein wrote 40 years later ) . It 's a practice Nixon began even before being elected , when he reached out to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks as a means to ensure his election , which is where Watergate apparently had its roots , as the “ Plumbers ” formed to burglarize the Brookings Institution vainly searching for Walt Rostow 's X-files on Nixon 's sabotage . Nixon 's 1968 victory was also the beginning of the divided government era—an historical landmark we should never lose sight of . In a structural sense , this was the underlying constitutional problem , and it was rooted in the Democratic presidential coalition 's loss of the “ Solid South , ” first evident in the 1948 election . In their 40th anniversary retrospective , Woodward and Bernstein wrote , “ At its most virulent , Watergate was a brazen and daring assault , led by Nixon himself , against the heart of American democracy : the Constitution , our system of free elections , the rule of law. ” Such criminal intent goes well beyond “ practices that are constitutionally permissible , ” thus suggesting that Tushnet 's definition of constitutional hardball fails to penetrate the innermost motives , criminal and even pathological dynamics . Yet , if constitutional hardball is about anything , it 's about changing the framework of norms that give moral , legal and ethical meaning to everything in our national lives , and Nixon 's pathological criminality was hyper-aggressively focused on changing those norms . At the time , Nixon 's lawlessness was thought to be an aberration , but it now seems more like the establishment of a new , somewhat sociopathic norm ( “ madman theory , ” anyone ? ) , particularly given how young Nixon hands Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney operated in the Bush administration 30 years later . In the interim , Cheney vigorously defended and covered up Reagan-era lawlessness in the Iran-Contra affair as well . Even more specifically , Nixon 's peace talks sabotage was echoed in electoral criminal activity for both Reagan ( the alleged “ October Surprise ” ) and George W. Bush ( voter purges ) . The nitty-gritty political history of the past 40 years paints a much more lurid picture of what constitutional hardball looks like in the real world than Tushnet 's levelheaded definition might suggest . Tushnet 's book focuses on two contrasting “ constitutional orders , ” and makes it clear that the second one is significantly defined by divided government . They are the New Deal/Great Society constitutional order ( created by overwhelming Democratic majorities ) , which he defined by citing FDR 's 1944 State of the Union , which “ called for implementing a 'Second Bill of [ social and economic ] Rights ' ” and the minimalist neoliberal state implied by Clinton ’ s declaration that ‘ the era of big government is over . ” FDR ’ s elaboration of rights “ included 'the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ' and rights to 'adequate medical care , ' ' a decent home , ' and ' a good education , ' as well as 'the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age , sickness , accident , and unemployment . ' ” FDR ’ s 1944 State of the Union “ defined the guiding principles of the constitutional order that prevailed from the 1930s to the 1980s , ” Tushnet wrote . In contrast , “ Clinton ’ s claim that the age of big government had passed did not mean that the national government had nothing left to do . Rather , the initiatives of the new constitutional order would be small-scale , '' Tushnet explained , and went on to say : In the most general terms , the principles that guide the new constitutional order make it one in which the aspiration to achieving justice directly through law has been substantially chastened . Individual responsibility and market processes , not national legislation identifying and seeking to promote justice , have become the means by which that aspiration is to be achieved . Law , including constitutional law , does not disappear , but it plays a less direct role in achieving justice in the new constitutional order than it did in the New Deal–Great Society regime .... The new order ’ s vision of justice , that is , is one in which government provides the structure for individuals to advance their own visions of justice . In short , the neoliberal minimalism of Clinton ’ s policy vision is itself a product of the persistent condition of divided government , and that neoliberalism has substantially replaced New Deal liberalism—the Americanized form of social democracy—within the Democratic Party . Further underscoring the significance of the divided government constitutional order , Tushnet differentiates himself from views advanced by two other constitutional scholars , Jack Balkin and Sander Levinson , whose theory of `` partisan entrenchment '' revolves around the appointment of judges who establish a new constitutional order . In “ Understanding the Constitutional Revolution ” they write , “ According to our theory of partisan entrenchment , each party has the political 'right ' to entrench its vision of the Constitution in the judiciary if it wins a sufficient number of elections. ” In response , Balkin explains : Balkin and Levinson frame their essay with Bush v. Gore in the background , for they take that case , which installed George W. Bush in the presidency , as a step in the direction of partisan entrenchment . As they see the case , the Supreme Court ’ s conservative justices took steps to ensure that the next justices to be appointed would consolidate Republican control of the courts and thereby complete the partisan entrenchment that constitutes a constitutional revolution… . The emphasis Balkin and Levinson place on partisan entrenchment , however , means that they can not consider the possibility , developed in this book , that a constitutional regime can be characterized by persistent divided government , and that divided government produces policies with their own guiding principles . In my view , both Tushnet and Balkin/Levinson have a strong point . Indeed , part of what makes things much easier for Republicans in this era is that—with few exceptions—they ’ re not going up against FDR-style social democrats , with the full-bodied set of attitudes , assumptions , principles and expectations entailed in that constitutional order , but instead face neoliberal Democrats who desire compromise in a framework of diminished expectations . Thus , it ’ s both true that we 've experienced the transition in constitutional orders that Tushnet describes and that Republicans continue pushing for yet another transition in constitutional orders , to the end-point of the sort partisan entrenchment that Balkin/Levinson described . ( This helps explain why “ both sides ” are not the same in today 's politics . Democrats have internalized the values of a divided government constitutional order , and do n't even use strongly partisan proposals as bargaining chips . Republicans are still pushing for a radically different constitutional order in the future , and are willing to blow everything up if they do n't get their way , because psycho-politically , they do n't feel they have anything to lose . ) Balkin himself seems to have adopted such a more-inclusive view by July 2007 , when he wrote , “ Constitutional Hardball in the Bush Administration , ” at his influential Balkinization blog . Balkin explains his adoption of Tushnet ’ s idea , and its application to recent history as follows : We might divide the Bush Administration 's practices of constitutional hardball into three categories . The first are acts used to gain power . The second are acts used to attempt to transform the government into a new constitutional order . The third are acts designed to head off accountability following the failure of the attempt . The second set fit most closely Mark 's original model of constitutional hardball . But the first and third set are equally important for understanding the phenomenon . The first category includes voter purges that were illegal under the Voting Rights Act , in addition to the “ implausible arguments that maintained the outward forms of law ” supporting the Supreme Court 's Bush v. Gore decision . Once in office , Bush engaged in a second round of constitutional hardball . He pushed the legal envelope repeatedly following 9/11 in an effort to expand executive power and limit Congressional and judicial oversight and executive accountability . The list of examples is seemingly endless . The most obvious examples are , in no particular order , ( 1 ) the Administration 's fetish with secrecy , ( 2 ) its use of Presidential signing statements to signal to executive branch officials to disregard certain features of law outside of public view , ( 3 ) its claim that the President has the power to round up people ( including American citizens ) and detain them indefinitely without any of the protections of habeas corpus or the Bill of Rights , ( 4 ) its domestic spying operations , ( 5 ) its detention and interrogation practices , including its system of secret CIA prisons , ( 6 ) its theory that the President does not have to obey Congressional statutes when he acts as Commander-in-Chief , and ( 7 ) its alternative theory that the September 18th , 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives the President a blank check to do whatever he wants . Balkin argues that the combination of `` an expansive ( some would say limitless ) conception of Presidential power '' justified by a state of emergency , and the lack of any endpoint to the emergency “ was , in effect , the declaration of a permanent state of emergency. ” ( Although he does not mention it , this has , in fact , become part of the divided government constitutional order , since Obama has effectively just accepted it , despite the occasional tut-tutting . ) He argues : This set of acts of constitutional hardball is closest to Mark 's original model of why government actors engage in constitutional hardball -- they want to create a new constitutional regime that lasts for many years . Had the Iraq war not failed miserably due to the incompetence of President Bush and members of his Administration , he might well have succeeded . If he had succeeded , his actions would be blessed by history . People would make excuses for them , or , better still , these actions would become correct constitutional practice in the new regime . But , of course , the Iraq War did fail , and the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 2006 midterms . This led to the third round of constitutional hardball , the coverup phase , with Bush `` pushing the constitutional envelope by offering an expansive theory of executive privilege . He asserts , among other things , that he has the right to order individuals who no longer work for him to refuse to testify before Congress even though this violates the law . '' This third round only happened “ because Bush 's previous acts of constitutional hardball did not take , ” Balkin argues : He was not able to create a new constitutional regime that would maintain his party in a dominant position for the foreseeable future . He was not able to bootstrap actions of dubious legality into widespread acceptance and thus enjoy the benefits of winner 's history and winner 's constitutions . Instead , things are now crumbling about him and there is a very significant chance that his party will suffer for his miscalculations during the next few election cycles . Looking forward , then , Balkin cited three things that “ matter above all others ” : keeping secret what the administration has done relative to the above , running out the clock “ to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends , ” and ensuring there will be no future accountability . Look back at this observation some eight years later , one thing that 's particularly striking is how little effort there was to hold anyone accountable . And this is where we can take note of a profound asymmetry in how constitutional hardball has been played over the period of the past 25 years : just as the “ extra-legal ” activities of the Reagan/Bush administration were given a pass in the end , rationalized by tropes such as saying the nation could n't handle “ another Watergate , ” under Obama we were treated to the rhetoric of “ looking forward , not backward . '' However , even as Obama went out of his way to make nice with Republicans , they responded with an onslaught of constitutional hardball moves , mostly falling into three broad categories . First , most directly , congressional Republicans acted to obstruct the basic functioning of his presidency . They had little power to do anything along these lines in the House before winning the 2010 midterms , so the obstructionism began in the Senate , where the obstruction of Obama 's presidential nominees reached such unprecedented levels that it finally led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—a staunch institutionalist , deeply resistant to changing Senate rules—to push through a rule change in November 2013 . As Kevin Drum wrote at the time : [ I ] t was Republican filibusters of judicial and executive-branch nominees that finally drove Democrats to act on Thursday . Democrats had struck one deal after another with Republicans to try and rein in their abuse of the filibuster , but nothing worked . A few nominees would get through , and then another batch would promptly get filibustered .... The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama 's nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they did n't want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies . At that point , even moderate Democrats had finally had enough . For all practical purposes , Republicans had declared war on Obama 's very legitimacy as president , forbidding him from carrying out a core constitutional duty . Reid himself put out a graphic saying that 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama , 86 blocked under all other presidents , but when Politifact fact-checked him , it turned out to be even worse than Reid had said . Reid was counting individual cloture votes , which some nominees had more than one of . Politifact went on to say : By our calculation , there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 ( so far ) during Obama ’ s term , for a total of 147 . Reid ’ s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers . In short , Obama had more nominees blocked prior to the rule change than all other presidents before him combined . That 's the very definition of constitutional hardball in the Senate . Not to be outdone , House Republicans brought America right to the brink of its first debt default in history in July 2011 , and shut the government down for two weeks in October 2013 . The debt ceiling had never been the subject of such legislative blackmail before . The shutdown strategy ( as opposed to brief , partial lapses ) had been used just once previously—by Newt Gingrich , disastrously , in late 1995 and early 1996 . There have been repeated threats to engage in both tactics again . The overall aim of these legislative obstructions was to bring everything to a halt , to make Obama 's presidency a complete failure—rather like George W. Bush 's had been . In addition to the high-profile examples just cited , after the GOP won the 2010 House midterms , the of legislating fell far below that of the notorious “ do-nothing Congress ” that Harry Truman ran against in 1948 . The GOP 's second major front of constitutional hardball in the Obama era has been the attack on voting rights centered in state legislatures , as Republicans took actions to deprive Democratic voting blocks of fair representation . They both proposed and passed a massive outpouring of voter-suppression laws , which clearly have the power to shift electoral outcomes at all levels . As I wrote here in December , a Republican fantasy is to change how electoral votes are allocated in these states , and tie them to congressional districts rather than state popular votes . Under that plan , Mitt Romney would be president today , despite his solid defeat by Barack Obama in both the popular and electoral vote . Writing about the first wave of such activity in early 2013 , Jonathan Bernstein called it exactly what it was : `` Playing Constitutional Hardball With the Electoral College . '' There are desires afoot to play constitutional hardball in the age of Obama that go well beyond what 's been actually advanced . These range from sporadic enthusiasm for secession to a more sustained , though still marginal interest in using state legislatures to rewrite the Constitution . As I explained here in January 2014 , this plan , if successful , could give 12 percent of the population control of writing new constitutional law . Connecting these still-fringe ideas to the mainstream is the legitimating ethos that sustains them both , an ethos epitomized by birtherism , which now has a solid majority of GOP voters doubting Obama 's citizenship , and hence , the legitimacy of his presidency . The birther mythos is the ultimate justification for constitutional hardball in opposing Obama . Of course , it 's also palpably absurd , as Sen. Ted Cruz running for president now forcefully reminds all of his ardent supporters : being born abroad has absolutely no impact on the citizenship status of a baby born to a U.S. citizen . It 's true of Cruz , and of John McCain—both of whom were born abroad , and it 's true of Barack Obama , as well , even if he had been ... which , of course , he was n't . In short , the birther hysteria over Obama is perhaps the sharpest reminded of just how radical the GOP 's commitment to constitutional hardball really is . But it hardly stands in isolation . Even as the Clinton/Obama neoliberal Democrats of the past 25 years have generally taken Eisenhower-like positions , at most , their Republican opponents have viewed them in the most radical of terms—Obama as “ a socialist , ” Hillary Clinton as “ a radical feminist , ” etc . This is partly a matter of projection , and partly a reflection of the tendency toward apocalyptic conservatism mentioned above , which renders a significant faction of political actors essentially hostile to persuasion in the national interest—a significant threat to the survival of a democracy . The more conservatives push , fail , double down and repeat , the more intensely they feel set upon by dark forces they can scapegoat as the real cause for everything that 's gone wrong with America , their lives and their world . These tendencies combine to produce a powerful psycho-political dynamic , quite independent of anything in the real world . They have to be taken very seriously psycho-politically , because of the hold they have on sizable groups of people , but that should not lead us to take seriously any of the spurious factual claims they advance , up to and including the claim that Democrats are playing constitutional hardball with anything remotely approaching the intensity of Republicans . We recently were given a sharp reminder of the worldview these people inhabit , when former Sen. Rick Santorum got an earful from a woman who doubtless spoke for millions of others in the paranoid GOP base when she said the following , combining fragments of conspiracy theory with exhortations to constitutional hardball of the highest order : The American people put Republicans back in office in the House and the Senate , the two things we asked y'all to do was shut down Obama 's executive amnesty and shut down Obamacare , and you let us down on both issues . Why is the Congress rolling over and letting this communist dictator destroy my country ? Y'all know what he is , and I know what he is . I want him out of the White House . He 's not a citizen . He could have been removed a long time ago . Larry Klayman 's going to get the judge to say that the executive amnesty is illegal . Everything he does is illegal . He 's trying to destroy the United States . The Congress knows this . What kind of games is the Congress of the United States playing with the citizens of the United States ? Y'all need to work for us , not for the lobbyists that pay your salaries . Get on board , let 's stop all of this , let 's save America . What 's going on -- Senator Santorum , where do we go from here ? Ted told me I 've got to wait now until the next election . I do n't the country will be around for the next election . Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago , and the three admirals and generals – he has totally destroyed our military , he 's fired all the generals and all the admirals that said they would n't fire on the American people if you asked them to do so , if he wanted to take the guns away from them . This man is a communist dictator . We need him out of the White House now . Crazed rants like that do not exist in a vacuum , they are carefully nurtured over time . Fifty years ago , William F. Buckley thought it absolutely necessary to officially purge the conservative movement of fringier elements , personified by John Birch Society founder Robert Welch , in advance of Goldwater 's presidential run in 1964 . But in reality , Buckley was simply engaged in public theater . Those fringier elements never really went anywhere . Conspiracist tracts like Phyllis Schlafly 's `` A Choice , Not an Echo , '' John A. Stormer 's `` None Dare Call It Treason , '' and even David Noebel 's `` Communism , Hypnotism and the Beatles '' sold far more copies than Buckley did at the time . But at least Buckley created the illusory veneer of respectability . Fifty years ago , that crazy lady , and legions like her were Buckley 's problem . Now , they 're America 's problem . And there 's nothing remotely like them on the left . Matt Yglesias is right about the structural problems of America 's presidential system . But compared to the Nixonian problems of constitutional hardball , and the swelling ranks of take-no-prisoners apocalyptic conservatives , there 's something almost genteel about the civics problems that have him so worried . It 's only when all three problems are considered together that we get an accurate picture of the profound civic danger we find ourselves in .

In early March, Matt Yglesias wrote a Vox article warning “American democracy is doomed,” not right away, perhaps, but eventually. The main reason, he argued, was the essential instability of our presidential system, in which both the president and Congress—especially the House—can plausibly claim popular legitimacy while opposing one another—a theory advanced by the late Yale professor Juan Linz back in 1990: Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." There's obviously something to be said for this idea, starkly contrasting potentially brittle and conflictual presidential systems with more fluid parliamentary ones. But as a systemic explanation, it tends to absolve individuals and groups of bad actors of any blame, and there very clearly are some bad actors involved in our politics. Both sides are not just doing the same thing. Advertisement: There are pragmatic asymmetries as well: The kinds of policies advocated by each side are not equally suited to actual governing challenges. Denying the existence of climate change is not comparable to a preparing a response involving international emission-reduction agreements, domestic renewable energy policies and local planning. Finally, the presidential system explanation doesn't tell us why this should become such a problem now. It's not that America hasn't faced serious systemic problems before—we had an extremely bloody Civil War, remember? But the presidential system wasn't the problem. For a clearer picture of the dangers facing our democracy, we need to consider two other factors. The first, which Yglesias also touched on, is what Harvard constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet (then at Georgetown) labeled "constitutional hardball" in a 2004 article. He defined it more succinctly in a 2014 blog post thus: “Constitutional hardball consists of practices that are constitutionally permissible but that breach previously accepted norms of political behavior, adopted to ensure the smooth functioning of a government in a two-party world, engaged in precisely to disrupt that smooth functioning.” He also wrote, originally, that the emergence of constitutional hardball “signals that political actors understand that they are in a position to put in place a new set of deep institutional arrangements of a sort I call a constitutional order.” Conservative Republicans have been trying to change our constitutional order for a very long time now—at least since FDR's first term—using whatever tools they could get their hands on, often quite destructively. As Yale constitutional law professor Jack Balkin pointed out in 2007 (more on this below), the Bush administration engaged in this practice quite extensively with three distinct periods. Advertisement: It started with the use of hardball strategies (including illegal voter suppression) to get into office. It reached full expression in a multi-pronged “effort to expand executive power and limit Congressional and judicial oversight and executive accountability” in the pursuit of an endless global war on terror. And it concluded (after the post-2006 midterm losses) with a defensive phase intended to keep secrets, run out the clock, and preclude being held responsible for its illegal and unconstitutional practices. Republicans have continued the practice since then, developing new strategies in congressional opposition. Tushnet developed the idea of constitutional orders in his 2003 book, "The New Constitutional Order," which contrasts the older New Deal/Great Society constitutional order with its more minimalist neoliberal successor, which has been profoundly shaped by the extended period of divided government since 1968, a period unlike any other in our history, with just over 13 years of unified government, compared to 33 of divided government. The second factor could be called the tendency toward apocalyptic conservatism, seen most clearly, nationally, in the repeated government shutdown threats, and threatened default on the national debt. While these threats essentially function as forms of constitutional hardball, they simultaneously express an attitude of profound alienation and animosity to the Lockean concept of the social contract. If the contract is destroyed as a result, so much the better, according to their logic. This tendency renders a significant faction of political actors essentially immune to persuasion in the national interest, which is obviously severely detrimental to the survival of a democracy. Advertisement: At least three different tendencies contribute to this apocalyptic turn of mind. First is conservatives' heightened negativity bias, their greater sense that it's a dangerous world, with an endless supply of things to be afraid of. This overall tendency is then fed by two other tendencies: One is that conservatives are much less willing to compromise—as repeated polls (Gallup 2010/2011, Pew 2014) have found—the other is that their "solutions" (“trickle-down” economics, “abstinence-only” sex ed, “just say no” to drugs, etc.) are much less likely to work. As a result, the more conservatives push and fail, the more likely they are to push even harder on even more ill-considered ideas, all against the backdrop of a threatening world, in which conspiratorial forces are at work—forces they can conveniently scapegoat as the real cause for their own failures. Breaking the system is a feature, not a bug, as both the militia movement of the 1990s and the Tea Party of today both believe. Advertisement: As we settle in for a protracted struggle for the remainder of the Obama presidency, we need to become familiar with what all three factors entail—but especially constitutional hardball. But let's start with the problem of a presidential system, and divided government, for two reasons: first to acknowledge its reality, and second to situate its problematic emergence historically. As Yglesias explains, Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government — but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." He notes that various factors may be involved, but focuses specifically on “the nature of the checks and balances system” in a presidential system. All of which makes enough sense, but tells us nothing about the timing of crises. Nor does it explain what happened in Chile in 1973. The problem then wasn't the Congress versus the president, it was Chile versus the U.S. That's hardly an internal constitutional problem for Chile. But it was part of a constitutional problem for America, overtly, the problem now shorthanded as “Watergate,” which actually involved a wide-ranging practice of lawlessness in the executive branch (involving “five successive and overlapping wars” as Woodward and Bernstein wrote 40 years later). It's a practice Nixon began even before being elected, when he reached out to sabotage the Paris Peace Talks as a means to ensure his election, which is where Watergate apparently had its roots, as the “Plumbers” formed to burglarize the Brookings Institution vainly searching for Walt Rostow's X-files on Nixon's sabotage. Nixon's 1968 victory was also the beginning of the divided government era—an historical landmark we should never lose sight of. In a structural sense, this was the underlying constitutional problem, and it was rooted in the Democratic presidential coalition's loss of the “Solid South,” first evident in the 1948 election. Advertisement: In their 40th anniversary retrospective, Woodward and Bernstein wrote, “At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law.” Such criminal intent goes well beyond “practices that are constitutionally permissible,” thus suggesting that Tushnet's definition of constitutional hardball fails to penetrate the innermost motives, criminal and even pathological dynamics. Yet, if constitutional hardball is about anything, it's about changing the framework of norms that give moral, legal and ethical meaning to everything in our national lives, and Nixon's pathological criminality was hyper-aggressively focused on changing those norms. At the time, Nixon's lawlessness was thought to be an aberration, but it now seems more like the establishment of a new, somewhat sociopathic norm (“madman theory,” anyone?), particularly given how young Nixon hands Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney operated in the Bush administration 30 years later. In the interim, Cheney vigorously defended and covered up Reagan-era lawlessness in the Iran-Contra affair as well. Even more specifically, Nixon's peace talks sabotage was echoed in electoral criminal activity for both Reagan (the alleged “October Surprise”) and George W. Bush (voter purges). The nitty-gritty political history of the past 40 years paints a much more lurid picture of what constitutional hardball looks like in the real world than Tushnet's levelheaded definition might suggest. Tushnet's book focuses on two contrasting “constitutional orders,” and makes it clear that the second one is significantly defined by divided government. They are the New Deal/Great Society constitutional order (created by overwhelming Democratic majorities), which he defined by citing FDR's 1944 State of the Union, which “called for implementing a 'Second Bill of [social and economic] Rights'” and the minimalist neoliberal state implied by Clinton’s declaration that ‘the era of big government is over.” Advertisement: FDR’s elaboration of rights “included 'the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation' and rights to 'adequate medical care,' 'a decent home,' and 'a good education,' as well as 'the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.'” FDR’s 1944 State of the Union “defined the guiding principles of the constitutional order that prevailed from the 1930s to the 1980s,” Tushnet wrote. In contrast, “Clinton’s claim that the age of big government had passed did not mean that the national government had nothing left to do. Rather, the initiatives of the new constitutional order would be small-scale," Tushnet explained, and went on to say: In the most general terms, the principles that guide the new constitutional order make it one in which the aspiration to achieving justice directly through law has been substantially chastened. Individual responsibility and market processes, not national legislation identifying and seeking to promote justice, have become the means by which that aspiration is to be achieved. Law, including constitutional law, does not disappear, but it plays a less direct role in achieving justice in the new constitutional order than it did in the New Deal–Great Society regime.... The new order’s vision of justice, that is, is one in which government provides the structure for individuals to advance their own visions of justice. In short, the neoliberal minimalism of Clinton’s policy vision is itself a product of the persistent condition of divided government, and that neoliberalism has substantially replaced New Deal liberalism—the Americanized form of social democracy—within the Democratic Party. Further underscoring the significance of the divided government constitutional order, Tushnet differentiates himself from views advanced by two other constitutional scholars, Jack Balkin and Sander Levinson, whose theory of "partisan entrenchment" revolves around the appointment of judges who establish a new constitutional order. In “Understanding the Constitutional Revolution” they write, “According to our theory of partisan entrenchment, each party has the political 'right' to entrench its vision of the Constitution in the judiciary if it wins a sufficient number of elections.” In response, Balkin explains: Advertisement: Balkin and Levinson frame their essay with Bush v. Gore in the background, for they take that case, which installed George W. Bush in the presidency, as a step in the direction of partisan entrenchment. As they see the case, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices took steps to ensure that the next justices to be appointed would consolidate Republican control of the courts and thereby complete the partisan entrenchment that constitutes a constitutional revolution…. The emphasis Balkin and Levinson place on partisan entrenchment, however, means that they cannot consider the possibility, developed in this book, that a constitutional regime can be characterized by persistent divided government, and that divided government produces policies with their own guiding principles. In my view, both Tushnet and Balkin/Levinson have a strong point. Indeed, part of what makes things much easier for Republicans in this era is that—with few exceptions—they’re not going up against FDR-style social democrats, with the full-bodied set of attitudes, assumptions, principles and expectations entailed in that constitutional order, but instead face neoliberal Democrats who desire compromise in a framework of diminished expectations. Thus, it’s both true that we've experienced the transition in constitutional orders that Tushnet describes and that Republicans continue pushing for yet another transition in constitutional orders, to the end-point of the sort partisan entrenchment that Balkin/Levinson described. (This helps explain why “both sides” are not the same in today's politics. Democrats have internalized the values of a divided government constitutional order, and don't even use strongly partisan proposals as bargaining chips. Republicans are still pushing for a radically different constitutional order in the future, and are willing to blow everything up if they don't get their way, because psycho-politically, they don't feel they have anything to lose.) Balkin himself seems to have adopted such a more-inclusive view by July 2007, when he wrote, “Constitutional Hardball in the Bush Administration,” at his influential Balkinization blog. Balkin explains his adoption of Tushnet’s idea, and its application to recent history as follows: We might divide the Bush Administration's practices of constitutional hardball into three categories. The first are acts used to gain power. The second are acts used to attempt to transform the government into a new constitutional order. The third are acts designed to head off accountability following the failure of the attempt. The second set fit most closely Mark's original model of constitutional hardball. But the first and third set are equally important for understanding the phenomenon. The first category includes voter purges that were illegal under the Voting Rights Act, in addition to the “implausible arguments that maintained the outward forms of law” supporting the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision. As for the second category, Balkin writes: Advertisement: Once in office, Bush engaged in a second round of constitutional hardball. He pushed the legal envelope repeatedly following 9/11 in an effort to expand executive power and limit Congressional and judicial oversight and executive accountability. The list of examples is seemingly endless. The most obvious examples are, in no particular order, (1) the Administration's fetish with secrecy, (2) its use of Presidential signing statements to signal to executive branch officials to disregard certain features of law outside of public view, (3) its claim that the President has the power to round up people (including American citizens) and detain them indefinitely without any of the protections of habeas corpus or the Bill of Rights, (4) its domestic spying operations, (5) its detention and interrogation practices, including its system of secret CIA prisons, (6) its theory that the President does not have to obey Congressional statutes when he acts as Commander-in-Chief, and (7) its alternative theory that the September 18th, 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force gives the President a blank check to do whatever he wants. Balkin argues that the combination of "an expansive (some would say limitless) conception of Presidential power" justified by a state of emergency, and the lack of any endpoint to the emergency “was, in effect, the declaration of a permanent state of emergency.” (Although he does not mention it, this has, in fact, become part of the divided government constitutional order, since Obama has effectively just accepted it, despite the occasional tut-tutting.) He argues: This set of acts of constitutional hardball is closest to Mark's original model of why government actors engage in constitutional hardball-- they want to create a new constitutional regime that lasts for many years. Had the Iraq war not failed miserably due to the incompetence of President Bush and members of his Administration, he might well have succeeded. If he had succeeded, his actions would be blessed by history. People would make excuses for them, or, better still, these actions would become correct constitutional practice in the new regime. But, of course, the Iraq War did fail, and the Democrats regained control of Congress in the 2006 midterms. This led to the third round of constitutional hardball, the coverup phase, with Bush "pushing the constitutional envelope by offering an expansive theory of executive privilege. He asserts, among other things, that he has the right to order individuals who no longer work for him to refuse to testify before Congress even though this violates the law." This third round only happened “because Bush's previous acts of constitutional hardball did not take,” Balkin argues: He was not able to create a new constitutional regime that would maintain his party in a dominant position for the foreseeable future. He was not able to bootstrap actions of dubious legality into widespread acceptance and thus enjoy the benefits of winner's history and winner's constitutions. Instead, things are now crumbling about him and there is a very significant chance that his party will suffer for his miscalculations during the next few election cycles. Looking forward, then, Balkin cited three things that “matter above all others”: keeping secret what the administration has done relative to the above, running out the clock “to prevent any significant dismantling of his policies until his term ends,” and ensuring there will be no future accountability. Advertisement: Look back at this observation some eight years later, one thing that's particularly striking is how little effort there was to hold anyone accountable. And this is where we can take note of a profound asymmetry in how constitutional hardball has been played over the period of the past 25 years: just as the “extra-legal” activities of the Reagan/Bush administration were given a pass in the end, rationalized by tropes such as saying the nation couldn't handle “another Watergate,”under Obama we were treated to the rhetoric of “looking forward, not backward." However, even as Obama went out of his way to make nice with Republicans, they responded with an onslaught of constitutional hardball moves, mostly falling into three broad categories. First, most directly, congressional Republicans acted to obstruct the basic functioning of his presidency. They had little power to do anything along these lines in the House before winning the 2010 midterms, so the obstructionism began in the Senate, where the obstruction of Obama's presidential nominees reached such unprecedented levels that it finally led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—a staunch institutionalist, deeply resistant to changing Senate rules—to push through a rule change in November 2013. As Kevin Drum wrote at the time: [I]t was Republican filibusters of judicial and executive-branch nominees that finally drove Democrats to act on Thursday. Democrats had struck one deal after another with Republicans to try and rein in their abuse of the filibuster, but nothing worked. A few nominees would get through, and then another batch would promptly get filibustered.... The last straw came when Republicans announced their intention to filibuster all of Obama's nominees to the DC circuit court simply because they didn't want a Democratic president to be able to fill any more vacancies. At that point, even moderate Democrats had finally had enough. For all practical purposes, Republicans had declared war on Obama's very legitimacy as president, forbidding him from carrying out a core constitutional duty. Reid himself put out a graphic saying that 82 presidential nominees have been blocked under President Barack Obama, 86 blocked under all other presidents, but when Politifact fact-checked him, it turned out to be even worse than Reid had said. Reid was counting individual cloture votes, which some nominees had more than one of. Politifact went on to say: By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147. Reid’s point is actually a bit stronger using these these revised numbers. In short, Obama had more nominees blocked prior to the rule change than all other presidents before him combined. That's the very definition of constitutional hardball in the Senate. Not to be outdone, House Republicans brought America right to the brink of its first debt default in history in July 2011, and shut the government down for two weeks in October 2013. The debt ceiling had never been the subject of such legislative blackmail before. The shutdown strategy (as opposed to brief, partial lapses) had been used just once previously—by Newt Gingrich, disastrously, in late 1995 and early 1996. There have been repeated threats to engage in both tactics again. The overall aim of these legislative obstructions was to bring everything to a halt, to make Obama's presidency a complete failure—rather like George W. Bush's had been. In addition to the high-profile examples just cited, after the GOP won the 2010 House midterms, the of legislating fell far below that of the notorious “do-nothing Congress” that Harry Truman ran against in 1948. The GOP's second major front of constitutional hardball in the Obama era has been the attack on voting rights centered in state legislatures, as Republicans took actions to deprive Democratic voting blocks of fair representation. They both proposed and passed a massive outpouring of voter-suppression laws, which clearly have the power to shift electoral outcomes at all levels. As I wrote here in December, a Republican fantasy is to change how electoral votes are allocated in these states, and tie them to congressional districts rather than state popular votes. Under that plan, Mitt Romney would be president today, despite his solid defeat by Barack Obama in both the popular and electoral vote. Writing about the first wave of such activity in early 2013, Jonathan Bernstein called it exactly what it was: "Playing Constitutional Hardball With the Electoral College." There are desires afoot to play constitutional hardball in the age of Obama that go well beyond what's been actually advanced. These range from sporadic enthusiasm for secession to a more sustained, though still marginal interest in using state legislatures to rewrite the Constitution. As I explained here in January 2014, this plan, if successful, could give 12 percent of the population control of writing new constitutional law. Connecting these still-fringe ideas to the mainstream is the legitimating ethos that sustains them both, an ethos epitomized by birtherism, which now has a solid majority of GOP voters doubting Obama's citizenship, and hence, the legitimacy of his presidency. The birther mythos is the ultimate justification for constitutional hardball in opposing Obama. Of course, it's also palpably absurd, as Sen. Ted Cruz running for president now forcefully reminds all of his ardent supporters: being born abroad has absolutely no impact on the citizenship status of a baby born to a U.S. citizen. It's true of Cruz, and of John McCain—both of whom were born abroad, and it's true of Barack Obama, as well, even if he had been ... which, of course, he wasn't. In short, the birther hysteria over Obama is perhaps the sharpest reminded of just how radical the GOP's commitment to constitutional hardball really is. But it hardly stands in isolation. Even as the Clinton/Obama neoliberal Democrats of the past 25 years have generally taken Eisenhower-like positions, at most, their Republican opponents have viewed them in the most radical of terms—Obama as “a socialist,” Hillary Clinton as “a radical feminist,” etc. This is partly a matter of projection, and partly a reflection of the tendency toward apocalyptic conservatism mentioned above, which renders a significant faction of political actors essentially hostile to persuasion in the national interest—a significant threat to the survival of a democracy. The more conservatives push, fail, double down and repeat, the more intensely they feel set upon by dark forces they can scapegoat as the real cause for everything that's gone wrong with America, their lives and their world. These tendencies combine to produce a powerful psycho-political dynamic, quite independent of anything in the real world. They have to be taken very seriously psycho-politically, because of the hold they have on sizable groups of people, but that should not lead us to take seriously any of the spurious factual claims they advance, up to and including the claim that Democrats are playing constitutional hardball with anything remotely approaching the intensity of Republicans. We recently were given a sharp reminder of the worldview these people inhabit, when former Sen. Rick Santorum got an earful from a woman who doubtless spoke for millions of others in the paranoid GOP base when she said the following, combining fragments of conspiracy theory with exhortations to constitutional hardball of the highest order: The American people put Republicans back in office in the House and the Senate, the two things we asked y'all to do was shut down Obama's executive amnesty and shut down Obamacare, and you let us down on both issues. Why is the Congress rolling over and letting this communist dictator destroy my country? Y'all know what he is, and I know what he is. I want him out of the White House. He's not a citizen. He could have been removed a long time ago. Larry Klayman's going to get the judge to say that the executive amnesty is illegal. Everything he does is illegal. He's trying to destroy the United States. The Congress knows this. What kind of games is the Congress of the United States playing with the citizens of the United States? Y'all need to work for us, not for the lobbyists that pay your salaries. Get on board, let's stop all of this, let's save America. What's going on -- Senator Santorum, where do we go from here? Ted told me I've got to wait now until the next election. I don't the country will be around for the next election. Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago, and the three admirals and generals – he has totally destroyed our military, he's fired all the generals and all the admirals that said they wouldn't fire on the American people if you asked them to do so, if he wanted to take the guns away from them. This man is a communist dictator. We need him out of the White House now. Crazed rants like that do not exist in a vacuum, they are carefully nurtured over time. Fifty years ago, William F. Buckley thought it absolutely necessary to officially purge the conservative movement of fringier elements, personified by John Birch Society founder Robert Welch, in advance of Goldwater's presidential run in 1964. But in reality, Buckley was simply engaged in public theater. Those fringier elements never really went anywhere. Conspiracist tracts like Phyllis Schlafly's "A Choice, Not an Echo," John A. Stormer's "None Dare Call It Treason," and even David Noebel's "Communism, Hypnotism and the Beatles" sold far more copies than Buckley did at the time. But at least Buckley created the illusory veneer of respectability. Fifty years ago, that crazy lady, and legions like her were Buckley's problem. Now, they're America's problem. And there's nothing remotely like them on the left. Matt Yglesias is right about the structural problems of America's presidential system. But compared to the Nixonian problems of constitutional hardball, and the swelling ranks of take-no-prisoners apocalyptic conservatives, there's something almost genteel about the civics problems that have him so worried. It's only when all three problems are considered together that we get an accurate picture of the profound civic danger we find ourselves in.

www.salon.com

left

tRiwakcSN4R49KGs

test

PIyQ66aLnA7DUdEe

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-panel-hillary-investigator/2015/10/11/id/695667/

Ex-Benghazi Panel Investigator: Focus Shifted From Tragedy to Hillary

2015-10-11

Greg Richter

A former investigator for the Select Committee on Benghazi says the probe he alleges now is partisan did n't start out that way.House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy had a `` slip of the tongue '' when he told Fox News that the committee 's work is hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton in the presidential polls . `` His reasoning was wrong , '' Air Force Reserve Maj. Bradley Podliska , an intelligence officer , told CNN 's `` State of the Union '' in an interview aired Sunday . `` I honestly do not believe this investigation was set up to go after Hillary . I believe it shifted that way . `` Podliska says he was fired partially for not focusing his investigation heavily enough on Clinton , who was secretary of state during the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans , including Ambassador Chris Stevens.But on Sunday , the chairman of the House panel says he fired the staffer for mishandling classified information , among other causes . Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina released a statement on Sunday after CNN and The New York Times released their stories saying Podliska was improperly focused on Clinton , and that his panel is seeking a `` definitive accounting '' of the attacks . Podliska says he is a conservative Republican who once interned for the conservative Media Research Center , and his allegations are not partisan . `` I would just like to state that I am going to vote for the Republican nominee in 2016 . I do not support Hillary Clinton for president , '' he said . `` I 'm trying to be objective . … Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do , he said . `` We , however , did not need to shift resources to hyperfocus on Hillary Clinton . We did n't need to de-emphasize , and in some cases drop , the investigation on different agencies , different organizations and different individuals . '' The Benghazi committee , in a statement , said it `` vigorously denies all of his allegations . … The employee was terminated , in part , because he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work . '' Podliska , the statement said , `` … has continued to imagine a variety of new , outlandish , never previously mentioned allegations since his departure – including that his supervisors … somehow manifested an anti-military animus toward him . '' Podliska told CNN the victims ' families are not going to get the truth . `` I know this because the nine months of research I had done is not lost , '' he said . `` I have no idea where it is , and I know that I could give those victims ' families … a pretty thorough explanation ff why they were told that this attack was due to a video . ''

A former investigator for the Select Committee on Benghazi says the probe he alleges now is partisan didn't start out that way.House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy had a "slip of the tongue" when he told Fox News that the committee's work is hurting Democrat Hillary Clinton in the presidential polls."His reasoning was wrong," Air Force Reserve Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer, told CNN's "State of the Union" in an interview aired Sunday. "I honestly do not believe this investigation was set up to go after Hillary. I believe it shifted that way."Podliska says he was fired partially for not focusing his investigation heavily enough on Clinton, who was secretary of state during the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.But on Sunday, the chairman of the House panel says he fired the staffer for mishandling classified information, among other causes. Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina released a statement on Sunday after CNN and The New York Times released their stories saying Podliska was improperly focused on Clinton, and that his panel is seeking a "definitive accounting" of the attacks. Podliska says he is a conservative Republican who once interned for the conservative Media Research Center, and his allegations are not partisan. "I would just like to state that I am going to vote for the Republican nominee in 2016. I do not support Hillary Clinton for president," he said. He also believes Clinton has much to answer for. "I'm trying to be objective. … Hillary Clinton has a lot of explaining to do, he said. "We, however, did not need to shift resources to hyperfocus on Hillary Clinton. We didn't need to de-emphasize, and in some cases drop, the investigation on different agencies, different organizations and different individuals." The Benghazi committee, in a statement, said it "vigorously denies all of his allegations. … The employee was terminated, in part, because he himself manifested improper partiality and animus in his investigative work." Podliska, the statement said, "… has continued to imagine a variety of new, outlandish, never previously mentioned allegations since his departure – including that his supervisors … somehow manifested an anti-military animus toward him." Podliska told CNN the victims' families are not going to get the truth. "I know this because the nine months of research I had done is not lost," he said. "I have no idea where it is, and I know that I could give those victims' families … a pretty thorough explanation ff why they were told that this attack was due to a video."

www.newsmax.com

right

PIyQ66aLnA7DUdEe

test

3VP3nNM8ldUWxL6o

race_and_racism

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53146256

Ben & Jerry's joins Facebook ad boycott

Ben and Jerry 's has joined a growing list of firms pulling advertising from Facebook platforms throughout July . It 's part of the Stop Hate For Profit campaign , which calls on Facebook to have stricter measures against racist and hateful content . Ben and Jerry 's Tweeted that it `` will pause all paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram in the US '' . Facebook has said it is committed to `` advancing equity and racial justice '' . Earlier this week outdoor brands The North Face , Patagonia and REI joined the campaign . Ben and Jerry 's said it is standing with the campaign and `` all those calling for Facebook to take stronger action to stop its platforms from being used to divide our nation , suppress voters , foment and fan the flames of racism and violence , and undermine our democracy . '' Skip Twitter post by @ benandjerrys We will pause all paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram in the US in support of the # StopHateForProfit campaign . Facebook , Inc. must take the clear and unequivocal actions to stop its platform from being used to spread and amplify racism and hate . > > > https : //t.co/7OpxtcbDGg pic.twitter.com/I989Uk9V3h — Ben & Jerry 's ( @ benandjerrys ) June 23 , 2020 Report After George Floyd 's death in police custody , Ben and Jerry 's chief executive Matthew McCarthy said `` business should be held accountable '' as he set out plans to increase diversity . George Floyd died in Minneapolis in May as a white police officer held a knee on his neck for nearly nine minutes . The final moments were filmed on phones . Four police officers involved have been sacked and charged over his death . Earlier this week the freelance job listing platform Upwork and the open-source software developer Mozilla also joined the campaign . `` We 're taking steps to review our policies , ensure diversity and transparency when making decisions on how we apply our policies , and advance racial justice and voter engagement on our platform , '' Facebook said on Sunday . The statement also pointed to the company 's Community Standards , which include the recognition of the platform 's importance as a `` place where people feel empowered to communicate , and we take seriously our role in keeping abuse off our service '' . A European Commission report this month found Facebook removed 86 % of hate speech last year , up from 82.6 % . The social network , says almost all of the content which violates its policies is automatically detected by its systems and removed before it is reported . The Stop Hate for Profit campaign was launched last week by advocacy groups , including the Anti-Defamation League , the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People , and the Color Of Change . The movement has said it is a `` response to Facebook 's long history of allowing racist , violent and verifiably false content to run rampant on its platform '' . Stop Hate for Profit has called on advertisers to pressure the company to adopt stricter measures against racist and hateful content on its platforms by stopping all spending on advertising with it throughout July . Last year the social network attracted advertising revenue of almost $ 70bn ( £56bn ) . Facebook , and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg , have often been criticised for the handling of controversial subjects . This month the company 's staff spoke out against the tech giant 's decision not to remove or flag a post by US President Donald Trump . The same message was shared on Twitter , where it was hidden behind a warning label on the grounds that it `` glorified violence '' . Unilever , the parent company of Ben and Jerry 's , did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the BBC .

Image copyright Getty Images Ben and Jerry's has joined a growing list of firms pulling advertising from Facebook platforms throughout July. It's part of the Stop Hate For Profit campaign, which calls on Facebook to have stricter measures against racist and hateful content. Ben and Jerry's Tweeted that it "will pause all paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram in the US". Facebook has said it is committed to "advancing equity and racial justice". Earlier this week outdoor brands The North Face, Patagonia and REI joined the campaign. Ben and Jerry's said it is standing with the campaign and "all those calling for Facebook to take stronger action to stop its platforms from being used to divide our nation, suppress voters, foment and fan the flames of racism and violence, and undermine our democracy." Skip Twitter post by @benandjerrys We will pause all paid advertising on Facebook and Instagram in the US in support of the #StopHateForProfit campaign. Facebook, Inc. must take the clear and unequivocal actions to stop its platform from being used to spread and amplify racism and hate. >>>https://t.co/7OpxtcbDGg pic.twitter.com/I989Uk9V3h — Ben & Jerry's (@benandjerrys) June 23, 2020 Report After George Floyd's death in police custody, Ben and Jerry's chief executive Matthew McCarthy said "business should be held accountable" as he set out plans to increase diversity. George Floyd died in Minneapolis in May as a white police officer held a knee on his neck for nearly nine minutes. The final moments were filmed on phones. Four police officers involved have been sacked and charged over his death. Earlier this week the freelance job listing platform Upwork and the open-source software developer Mozilla also joined the campaign. "We're taking steps to review our policies, ensure diversity and transparency when making decisions on how we apply our policies, and advance racial justice and voter engagement on our platform," Facebook said on Sunday. The statement also pointed to the company's Community Standards, which include the recognition of the platform's importance as a "place where people feel empowered to communicate, and we take seriously our role in keeping abuse off our service". A European Commission report this month found Facebook removed 86% of hate speech last year, up from 82.6%. The social network, says almost all of the content which violates its policies is automatically detected by its systems and removed before it is reported. Stop Hate for Profit The Stop Hate for Profit campaign was launched last week by advocacy groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Color Of Change. The movement has said it is a "response to Facebook's long history of allowing racist, violent and verifiably false content to run rampant on its platform". Stop Hate for Profit has called on advertisers to pressure the company to adopt stricter measures against racist and hateful content on its platforms by stopping all spending on advertising with it throughout July. Last year the social network attracted advertising revenue of almost $70bn (£56bn). Facebook, and its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, have often been criticised for the handling of controversial subjects. This month the company's staff spoke out against the tech giant's decision not to remove or flag a post by US President Donald Trump. The same message was shared on Twitter, where it was hidden behind a warning label on the grounds that it "glorified violence". Unilever, the parent company of Ben and Jerry's, did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the BBC.

www.bbc.com

center

3VP3nNM8ldUWxL6o

test

0UCQbswwpKTkIOwi

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/january/shutdown-day-35-are-gop-cracks-forming-in-trumps-wall-nbsp

Shutdown Day 35: Are GOP Cracks Forming in Trump's Wall?

2019-01-25

Federal employees will miss a second paycheck today as the partial government shutdown enters day 35 . Lawmakers are still far apart on a budget deal , but at least they 're talking . And because Democrats still oppose giving him funds for a border wall , President Trump may be closer to declaring a state of emergency . After two government funding bills fell short of the votes needed in the Senate , President Trump said he might agree to reopen the government if Congress inches closer to his position . `` If Democrats pay sort of a pro-rated down payment for the wall , '' he said . But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected that idea just moments after the president announced it . `` That is not a reasonable agreement between the senators ... I do n't know if he knows what he 's talking about . '' A reporter asked Pelosi what she thinks about prorating the border wall funding . `` I do n't know what that means , '' Pelosi replied . The political impasse is now causing greater hardship for federal workers . Roughly 800,000 have not received a paycheck since the end of last year . Many of those affected – like air traffic controllers – are still working without pay as their mortgages and other unpaid bills pile up . Aviation safety specialist Tim Mach said he may be forced to look for another job . `` At what point do I resign from this agency ? I ca n't continue to afford to fund my family on my savings and continue to pay for myself to go to work , '' he explained . One positive sign ? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) is now talking with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) . Both are hoping to find a way to reopen the government . It comes as some Republicans begin to defect from party support of the president and the border wall . The Hill reports some frustrated Republicans told Vice President Mike Pence the president needs to end the shutdown as soon as possible . They reportedly told Pence the shutdown is not a smart political strategy . In the Roosevelt Cabinet Room , a reporter asked the president when he thinks the shutdown will end . `` That I ca n't tell you . That I ca n't tell you , but we have a lot of alternatives , but we need border security , '' Trump replied . That statement may indicate the president may be inching closer to declaring a state of emergency on the country 's southern border . That would allow him to bypass Congress and build a wall with $ 7-billion worth of funds already identified . CNN reports the White House has reportedly already prepared a draft of the emergency declaration . Other presidents have declared states of emergency as allowed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976 . But that does n't mean border wall construction would begin immediately . Democrats and landowners would likely challenge the action in court .

Federal employees will miss a second paycheck today as the partial government shutdown enters day 35. Lawmakers are still far apart on a budget deal, but at least they're talking. And because Democrats still oppose giving him funds for a border wall, President Trump may be closer to declaring a state of emergency. After two government funding bills fell short of the votes needed in the Senate, President Trump said he might agree to reopen the government if Congress inches closer to his position. "If Democrats pay sort of a pro-rated down payment for the wall," he said. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected that idea just moments after the president announced it. "That is not a reasonable agreement between the senators... I don't know if he knows what he's talking about." A reporter asked Pelosi what she thinks about prorating the border wall funding. "I don't know what that means," Pelosi replied. The political impasse is now causing greater hardship for federal workers. Roughly 800,000 have not received a paycheck since the end of last year. Many of those affected – like air traffic controllers – are still working without pay as their mortgages and other unpaid bills pile up. Aviation safety specialist Tim Mach said he may be forced to look for another job. "At what point do I resign from this agency? I can't continue to afford to fund my family on my savings and continue to pay for myself to go to work," he explained. One positive sign? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is now talking with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Both are hoping to find a way to reopen the government. It comes as some Republicans begin to defect from party support of the president and the border wall. The Hill reports some frustrated Republicans told Vice President Mike Pence the president needs to end the shutdown as soon as possible. They reportedly told Pence the shutdown is not a smart political strategy. In the Roosevelt Cabinet Room, a reporter asked the president when he thinks the shutdown will end. "That I can't tell you. That I can't tell you, but we have a lot of alternatives, but we need border security," Trump replied. That statement may indicate the president may be inching closer to declaring a state of emergency on the country's southern border. That would allow him to bypass Congress and build a wall with $7-billion worth of funds already identified. CNN reports the White House has reportedly already prepared a draft of the emergency declaration. Other presidents have declared states of emergency as allowed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976. But that doesn't mean border wall construction would begin immediately. Democrats and landowners would likely challenge the action in court.

www1.cbn.com

right

0UCQbswwpKTkIOwi

test

B75sv0pva1cIInBW

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/is-rice-fried/

Is Rice Fried?

Jeffrey Lord, Jed Babbin, Ralph Schoellhammer, Scott Mckay, George Parry

Over at Bloomberg , longtime national security reporter Eli Lake headlines this : Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign , according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter . The pattern of Rice ’ s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government ’ s policy on “ unmasking ” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping , but whose communications are collected incidentally . Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like ‘ U.S . Person One. ’ The National Security Council ’ s senior director for intelligence , Ezra Cohen-Watnick , was conducting the review , according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly . In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice ’ s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities . He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel ’ s office , who reviewed more of Rice ’ s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy . The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition , but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials . One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting , the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration . Also on this trail was Fox ’ s Adam Housley . The Housley headline : Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials , sources say Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice , former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama , requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance . The unmasked names , of people associated with Donald Trump , were then sent to all those at the National Security Council , some at the Defense Department , then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan — essentially , the officials at the top , including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes . The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him , including family members , for up to a year before he took office . Whatever else is learned in these two bombshell stories , it is that word is beginning to get out about who in the Obama administration not only had access to this classified information , but actually requested or “ consumed it. ” The fact is that people who do not have access to certain information are in no position to leak information they don ’ t have . NSC adviser Rice had this access , and according to multiples of sources here , she used it — over and over and over again . And she didn ’ t hesitate to spread it around , either . Who did Susan Rice share this info with ? According to Housley , the names include Rice ’ s deputy Ben Rhodes , then-CIA Director John Brennan , then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and — get this — “ all those at the National Security Council , ( and ) some at the Defense Department . ” Let ’ s go back to a column in this space on March 7 , titled “ Investigate ObamaGate. ” In that column I cited several stories first brought to light by Mark Levin . Several were from the New York Times , and one additional story from the Washington Post . Among other things these stories said the following : The New York Times on January 19 , 2017 : Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump… . The F.B.I . is leading the investigations , aided by the National Security Agency , the C.I.A . and the Treasury Department ’ s financial crimes unit . The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing , the officials said . One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House . Stop . Read that first sentence again , bold print supplied here : American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions… Question : Where did these people get the “ intercepted communications ” ? Was it from Dr. Rice ? The New York Times , January 12 , 2017 : N.S.A . Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications WASHINGTON — In its final days , the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government ’ s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections . The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A . may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations , which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws . These include collecting satellite transmissions , phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad , and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches . Stop . Read that first sentence again : “ In its final days , the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government ’ s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections . ” Question ? Who in the “ Obama administration ” did this ? Was it Dr. Rice ? The New York Times , March 1 , 2017 : Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration ’ s last days , some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government . Former American officials say they had two aims : to ensure that such meddling isn ’ t duplicated in future American or European elections , and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators . Question : Was Dr. Rice one of those “ White House officials ” ? Was her deputy , Ben Rhodes ? The New York Times , February 9 , 2017 : Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump ’ s inauguration , his national security adviser , Michael T. Flynn , discussed American sanctions against Russia , as well as areas of possible cooperation , with that country ’ s ambassador to the United States , according to current and former American officials.… But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump ’ s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call . And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State , along with other issues . Stop . Michael Flynn is , right here , “ unmasked. ” Note the story refers to “ current and former American officials… ” Question : Was one of those officials Dr. Rice ? Was she deliberately sabotaging her successor ? And in the Washington Post on February 9 was this story headlined : National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador , despite denials , officials say Buried deep in this story about Flynn and his contacts with Russian officials was this line , bold print supplied : Nine current and former officials , who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls , spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters . Question : Did these “ Nine current and former officials ” who spoke to the Post include Dr. Rice ? Or did they get their information from Dr. Rice ? And the last — and possibly the most important — question here ? That would be that gold standard question from Watergate posed by the late Tennessee Senator Howard Baker : “ What did the President know — and when did he know it ? ” There is a long way to go here . But the work by Eli Lake and Adam Housley has just moved this investigation a considerable way down the field .

The story is a blockbuster. Over at Bloomberg, longtime national security reporter Eli Lake headlines this: Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel Lake reports, in part, the following: White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like ‘U.S. Person One.’ The National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations — primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. Also on this trail was Fox’s Adam Housley. The Housley headline: Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say Housley’s story begins: Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance. The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan — essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes. The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office. In a word? Wow. Whatever else is learned in these two bombshell stories, it is that word is beginning to get out about who in the Obama administration not only had access to this classified information, but actually requested or “consumed it.” The fact is that people who do not have access to certain information are in no position to leak information they don’t have. NSC adviser Rice had this access, and according to multiples of sources here, she used it — over and over and over again. And she didn’t hesitate to spread it around, either. Now. Who did Susan Rice share this info with? According to Housley, the names include Rice’s deputy Ben Rhodes, then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and — get this — “all those at the National Security Council, (and) some at the Defense Department.” Let’s go back to a column in this space on March 7, titled “Investigate ObamaGate.” In that column I cited several stories first brought to light by Mark Levin. Several were from the New York Times, and one additional story from the Washington Post. Among other things these stories said the following: The New York Times on January 19, 2017: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump…. The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House. Stop. Read that first sentence again, bold print supplied here: American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions… Question: Where did these people get the “intercepted communications”? Was it from Dr. Rice? Then there was this from the Times: The New York Times, January 12, 2017: N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. Stop. Read that first sentence again: “In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” Question? Who in the “Obama administration” did this? Was it Dr. Rice? Then there was this: The New York Times, March 1, 2017: Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators. Stop. Note that phrase “some White House officials”? Question: Was Dr. Rice one of those “White House officials”? Was her deputy, Ben Rhodes? Then there was this: The New York Times, February 9, 2017: Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.… But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues. Stop. Michael Flynn is, right here, “unmasked.” Note the story refers to “current and former American officials…” Question: Was one of those officials Dr. Rice? Was she deliberately sabotaging her successor? And in the Washington Post on February 9 was this story headlined: National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say Buried deep in this story about Flynn and his contacts with Russian officials was this line, bold print supplied: Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. Question: Did these “Nine current and former officials” who spoke to the Post include Dr. Rice? Or did they get their information from Dr. Rice? And the last — and possibly the most important — question here? That would be that gold standard question from Watergate posed by the late Tennessee Senator Howard Baker: “What did the President know — and when did he know it?” There is a long way to go here. But the work by Eli Lake and Adam Housley has just moved this investigation a considerable way down the field. Is Rice fried? Stay tuned.

www.spectator.org

right

B75sv0pva1cIInBW

test

rcOiLZHgXKu6reEw

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46739444

Donald Trump shrugs off Mitt Romney's attack on his record

Donald Trump has shrugged off a stinging personal attack on his presidency from senior fellow Republican Mitt Romney . Mr Romney , who stood and lost for the Republicans against Barack Obama in 2012 , suggested in an article that Mr Trump was not fit to be president . Mr Trump had not `` risen to the mantle '' , he wrote in the Washington Post . At a White House cabinet meeting , the president said he hoped the incoming Utah Senator would be a team player . Mr Trump said he was `` surprised '' Mr Romney criticised him so quickly , adding that `` if he fought really hard against President Obama like he does against me , he would have won the election '' . Earlier , the winner of the 2016 presidential election hit back by tweeting , `` I won big and he did n't . '' Mr Trump drew a comparison with Jeff Flake , an outgoing Republican senator who also attacked him last year . But the president sounded conciliatory , calling for Mr Romney to be a `` team player '' . The timing of the article , just two days before Mr Romney is sworn in as senator for Utah , has prompted some to speculate he is positioning himself as a challenger to Mr Trump for the Republican presidential nomination . In the article , Mr Romney praised many of Mr Trump 's policies , such as his tax reforms and appointment of conservative judges , and his crackdown on `` China 's unfair trade practices '' - polices which he said `` mainstream Republicans '' had promoted for years . But he went on to say : `` With the nation so divided , resentful and angry , presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable . And it is in this province where the incumbent 's shortfall has been most glaring . '' Mr Romney said he would support the president in policies he thought were in the best interests of Utah or the US but speak out against actions `` that are divisive , racist , sexist , anti-immigrant , dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions '' . `` The appointment of senior persons of lesser experience , the abandonment of allies who fight beside us , and the president 's thoughtless claim that America has long been a 'sucker ' in world affairs all defined his presidency down , '' he wrote . `` Trump 's words and actions have caused dismay around the world . '' The world `` needs American leadership '' , he argued , and `` the alternative ... offered by China and Russia is autocratic , corrupt and brutal '' . The on-again , off-again feud between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump is back on , although the president - for the moment - is shying away from open warfare . That 's a bit of a surprise , given then-candidate Trump unloaded with both barrels in 2016 , when Mr Romney called him a fraud and a phony who should be opposed at every turn by Republican primary voters . Perhaps the president realises he needs all the support he can get in the Senate , where another outspoken Republican , Jeff Flake , recently turned disapproving rhetoric into actions that stymied administration priorities . Mr Trump would much prefer the new senator from Utah to follow the lead of other Republicans , who have paired the occasional criticism with lockstep support for the White House 's agenda . That may not be Mr Romney 's game , however . Whether he is positioning himself to pick up the pieces after a possible Trump tumble or , perhaps , simply serve as a check on what he sees as the president 's more dangerous impulses , the timing of this op-ed suggests this is an opening shot . The two men in many ways represent the past and the present of Republicanism . Now they could be about to fight for the party 's future . Ronna McDaniel , chairwoman of the Republic National Committee and a niece of Mr Romney , described her uncle 's article as `` disappointing and unproductive '' . Mr Trump 's manager for the 2020 presidential campaign went so far as to accuse Mr Romney of jealousy . Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was also `` disappointed '' in Mr Romney . Meanwhile , the New York Times , the liberal daily regularly attacked by Mr Trump , commented that much of the essay `` sounded like the makings of a primary challenge against Mr. Trump from Mr. Romney '' . A complicated one . During the 2016 campaign , Mr Romney said Mr Trump had neither `` the temperament nor the judgement to be president '' while Mr Trump called Mr Romney a `` choke artist '' and called his bid for the presidency in 2012 `` the worst ever '' . The same year though , the pair met for dinner amid reports Mr Trump was mulling appointing Mr Romney as his secretary of state . Mr Romney has also taken issue with Mr Trump labelling the press the `` enemy of the people '' as well as his response to a violent far-right rally in Charlottesville . When the US Congress reconvenes on Thursday , Mr Trump faces a new challenge on the domestic front - in November 's mid-terms the Republicans strengthened their hold of the Senate but lost the House of Representatives . More women than ever before won seats in Congress in the 2018 mid-terms .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump reacts to Romney's attack: "I wish Mitt could be more of a team player" Donald Trump has shrugged off a stinging personal attack on his presidency from senior fellow Republican Mitt Romney. Mr Romney, who stood and lost for the Republicans against Barack Obama in 2012, suggested in an article that Mr Trump was not fit to be president. Mr Trump had not "risen to the mantle", he wrote in the Washington Post. At a White House cabinet meeting, the president said he hoped the incoming Utah Senator would be a team player. Mr Trump said he was "surprised" Mr Romney criticised him so quickly, adding that "if he fought really hard against President Obama like he does against me, he would have won the election". Earlier, the winner of the 2016 presidential election hit back by tweeting, "I won big and he didn't." Mr Trump drew a comparison with Jeff Flake, an outgoing Republican senator who also attacked him last year. But the president sounded conciliatory, calling for Mr Romney to be a "team player". The timing of the article, just two days before Mr Romney is sworn in as senator for Utah, has prompted some to speculate he is positioning himself as a challenger to Mr Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. What did the opinion piece say? In the article, Mr Romney praised many of Mr Trump's policies, such as his tax reforms and appointment of conservative judges, and his crackdown on "China's unfair trade practices" - polices which he said "mainstream Republicans" had promoted for years. But he went on to say: "With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent's shortfall has been most glaring." Mr Romney said he would support the president in policies he thought were in the best interests of Utah or the US but speak out against actions "that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions". "The appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president's thoughtless claim that America has long been a 'sucker' in world affairs all defined his presidency down," he wrote. "Trump's words and actions have caused dismay around the world." The world "needs American leadership", he argued, and "the alternative... offered by China and Russia is autocratic, corrupt and brutal". A fight for the future of Republicanism? By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington The on-again, off-again feud between Mitt Romney and Donald Trump is back on, although the president - for the moment - is shying away from open warfare. That's a bit of a surprise, given then-candidate Trump unloaded with both barrels in 2016, when Mr Romney called him a fraud and a phony who should be opposed at every turn by Republican primary voters. Perhaps the president realises he needs all the support he can get in the Senate, where another outspoken Republican, Jeff Flake, recently turned disapproving rhetoric into actions that stymied administration priorities. Mr Trump would much prefer the new senator from Utah to follow the lead of other Republicans, who have paired the occasional criticism with lockstep support for the White House's agenda. That may not be Mr Romney's game, however. Whether he is positioning himself to pick up the pieces after a possible Trump tumble or, perhaps, simply serve as a check on what he sees as the president's more dangerous impulses, the timing of this op-ed suggests this is an opening shot. The two men in many ways represent the past and the present of Republicanism. Now they could be about to fight for the party's future. How have other Republicans reacted? Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republic National Committee and a niece of Mr Romney, described her uncle's article as "disappointing and unproductive". Mr Trump's manager for the 2020 presidential campaign went so far as to accuse Mr Romney of jealousy. Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was also "disappointed" in Mr Romney. Meanwhile, the New York Times, the liberal daily regularly attacked by Mr Trump, commented that much of the essay "sounded like the makings of a primary challenge against Mr. Trump from Mr. Romney". What kind of relationship do the two men have? A complicated one. During the 2016 campaign, Mr Romney said Mr Trump had neither "the temperament nor the judgement to be president" while Mr Trump called Mr Romney a "choke artist" and called his bid for the presidency in 2012 "the worst ever". The same year though, the pair met for dinner amid reports Mr Trump was mulling appointing Mr Romney as his secretary of state. Mr Romney has also taken issue with Mr Trump labelling the press the "enemy of the people" as well as his response to a violent far-right rally in Charlottesville. When the US Congress reconvenes on Thursday, Mr Trump faces a new challenge on the domestic front - in November's mid-terms the Republicans strengthened their hold of the Senate but lost the House of Representatives. More on this story: More women than ever before won seats in Congress in the 2018 mid-terms. What does it mean for Congress - and America?

www.bbc.com

center

rcOiLZHgXKu6reEw

test

NoDiCRU94iML7HOp

polarization

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-cnn-tweet-trump-violence/story?id=48411710&cid=clicksource_77_2_hero_headlines_bsq_hed

The Note: Trump on the ropes after CNN tweet

Veronica Stracqualursi

Interested in The Note ? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest A joke that should be taken seriously : After attacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough late last week , President Trump shared a video of himself body-slamming someone with a CNN logo superimposed on his face . CNN ’ s response : “ It ’ s a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters ... We will keep doing our jobs . He should start doing his . ” Full steam ahead , still . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is working on changes this week to the GOP health care bill instead of taking the president ’ s suggestion to repeal Obamacare first before passing a replacement . Trump returns to D.C. tonight to celebrate the Fourth of July . He and first lady Melania Trump host a picnic for military families at the White House Tuesday , followed by a viewing of fireworks . Calling it a strategy on the part of the president both overstates and understates the case of Donald J. Trump vs. the news media . Trump ’ s tweets , like so much of his conduct , are impulsive outbursts , driven by short-term tactical decisions for which the main purpose may well be simply making the president feel better . But the flip side is that this is where he goes when he can ’ t find another groove . You don ’ t have to issue a value judgment on the sentiments he ’ s sharing , or even the actions he ’ s seemingly condoning , to recognize that there ’ s a swath of his base that wants to be cheering for the president at a professional wrestling match . Everyone knows that ’ s not real life , calling to mind the infamous question about whether Trump should be taken seriously or literally . Of course , there are other things ( health care ? Russia ? ) that could be occupying the president ’ s time . And the jokes turn deadly serious should any actual violence take place . For now , though , the president ’ s actions mark not as escalation so much as a return to the norm . That ’ s not the same as calling it normal . `` He did not get any sun . He had a baseball hat on . '' -- New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie ’ s spokesperson when asked about Christie and his family 's spending Sunday on a closed beach after ordering a government shutdown . `` No one would perceive that as a threat , '' adviser says of Trump 's CNN tweet . President Trump 's homeland security adviser , Tom Bossert , defended the president 's CNN tweet Sunday , saying that “ no one would perceive that as a threat. ” Bossert said Trump is the most “ genuine president ... we ’ ve seen in [ his ] lifetime ” and that “ [ Trump is ] beaten up in a way on cable platforms that he has a right to respond to. ” http : //abcn.ws/2tyMGcD Senate health bill means choosing between `` children , seniors , the disabled , '' Kasich says . Republican Gov . John Kasich of Ohio says that the current version of the Senate Republican health care bill is “ not an acceptable choice ” and makes it harder for states to treat opioid addicts . “ If you cut $ 750 billion out of Medicaid , and in the out years you basically starve the program , we have to choose between children , seniors , the disabled , the addicted , the mentally ill , ” Kasich said Sunday . http : //abcn.ws/2teLE36 States push back against releasing voter data to fraud commission . At least 17 states are balking at the Trump administration ’ s request for voter registration data as part of the new election integrity commission , with six states outright declaring they will not provide the information . Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said he has “ serious doubts about the commission ’ s trustworthiness ” as the commission ’ s letter demands all states provide personal information of registrants . http : //abcn.ws/2sspz3N @ jaketapper : . @ BenSasse says President Trump is “ weaponizing distrust ” with his attacks on the media . # CNNsotu http : //cnn.it/2ugET0G @ luisalonsolugo : My @ AP_politics story with @ colvinj : @ realDonaldTrump 's @ WhiteHouse is all but ignoring # Spanish speakers http : //wapo.st/2uBk6o1 @ ClaudeBrodesser : . @ GovChristie : `` I didn ’ t get any sun today . '' http : //goo.gl/3NHhdL Gov . Christie spox : “ He did not get any sun . He had a baseball hat on . '' @ oliverdarcy : Worth remembering that once upon a time , @ FoxNews called out Trump for behavior `` beneath the dignity ” of Oval Office http : //www.mediaite.com/online/read-all-of-fox-news-statements-to-date-defending-megyn-kelly-from-donald-trump/ … The Note is a daily ███ feature that highlights the key political moments of the day ahead . Please check back Wednesday for the latest .

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY Interested in The Note? Add The Note as an interest to stay up to date on the latest The Note news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest A joke that should be taken seriously: After attacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough late last week, President Trump shared a video of himself body-slamming someone with a CNN logo superimposed on his face. CNN’s response: “It’s a sad day when the President of the United States encourages violence against reporters...We will keep doing our jobs. He should start doing his.” Full steam ahead, still. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is working on changes this week to the GOP health care bill instead of taking the president’s suggestion to repeal Obamacare first before passing a replacement. Trump returns to D.C. tonight to celebrate the Fourth of July. He and first lady Melania Trump host a picnic for military families at the White House Tuesday, followed by a viewing of fireworks. THE TAKE with ABC News’ Rick Klein Calling it a strategy on the part of the president both overstates and understates the case of Donald J. Trump vs. the news media. Trump’s tweets, like so much of his conduct, are impulsive outbursts, driven by short-term tactical decisions for which the main purpose may well be simply making the president feel better. But the flip side is that this is where he goes when he can’t find another groove. You don’t have to issue a value judgment on the sentiments he’s sharing, or even the actions he’s seemingly condoning, to recognize that there’s a swath of his base that wants to be cheering for the president at a professional wrestling match. Everyone knows that’s not real life, calling to mind the infamous question about whether Trump should be taken seriously or literally. Of course, there are other things (health care? Russia?) that could be occupying the president’s time. And the jokes turn deadly serious should any actual violence take place. For now, though, the president’s actions mark not as escalation so much as a return to the norm. That’s not the same as calling it normal. QUOTE OF THE DAY "He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on." -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s spokesperson when asked about Christie and his family's spending Sunday on a closed beach after ordering a government shutdown. NEED TO READ with ABC News’ Daksha Sthipam "No one would perceive that as a threat," adviser says of Trump's CNN tweet. President Trump's homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, defended the president's CNN tweet Sunday, saying that “no one would perceive that as a threat.” Bossert said Trump is the most “genuine president ... we’ve seen in [his] lifetime” and that “[Trump is] beaten up in a way on cable platforms that he has a right to respond to.” http://abcn.ws/2tyMGcD Senate health bill means choosing between "children, seniors, the disabled," Kasich says. Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio says that the current version of the Senate Republican health care bill is “not an acceptable choice” and makes it harder for states to treat opioid addicts. “If you cut $750 billion out of Medicaid, and in the out years you basically starve the program, we have to choose between children, seniors, the disabled, the addicted, the mentally ill,” Kasich said Sunday. http://abcn.ws/2teLE36 States push back against releasing voter data to fraud commission. At least 17 states are balking at the Trump administration’s request for voter registration data as part of the new election integrity commission, with six states outright declaring they will not provide the information. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said he has “serious doubts about the commission’s trustworthiness” as the commission’s letter demands all states provide personal information of registrants. http://abcn.ws/2sspz3N WHO’S TWEETING? @jaketapper: .@BenSasse says President Trump is “weaponizing distrust” with his attacks on the media. #CNNsotu http://cnn.it/2ugET0G @luisalonsolugo: My @AP_politics story with @colvinj: @realDonaldTrump 's @WhiteHouse is all but ignoring #Spanish speakers http://wapo.st/2uBk6o1 @ClaudeBrodesser: .@GovChristie: "I didn’t get any sun today." http://goo.gl/3NHhdL Gov. Christie spox: “He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on." @oliverdarcy: Worth remembering that once upon a time, @FoxNews called out Trump for behavior "beneath the dignity” of Oval Office http://www.mediaite.com/online/read-all-of-fox-news-statements-to-date-defending-megyn-kelly-from-donald-trump/ … @mollymhunter: WATCH: @IanPannell files from #Mosul last night, but looking ahead to #Raqqa - where the battle has just started. http://abcn.ws/2ufm2TP The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the key political moments of the day ahead. Please check back Wednesday for the latest.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

NoDiCRU94iML7HOp

test

jKRm4r5yE9RmRqEy

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump/sessions-hits-back-at-trump-over-criticism-idUSKCN1L81CZ

Sessions hits back at Trump over criticism

2018-08-24

Doina Chiacu

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired back at President Donald Trump on Thursday after Trump gave a scathing assessment of his leadership at the Justice Department . Sessions , a former U.S. senator from Alabama , was one of the first Republican lawmakers to back Trump ’ s presidential election bid and has implemented his hardline immigration policies in the role of attorney general . But Trump has repeatedly criticized Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing a probe into Russia ’ s alleged interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump ’ s campaign colluded with Moscow . Trump denies any collusion and calls the investigation a “ witch hunt . ” “ I put in an attorney general who never took control of the Justice Department , ” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired on Thursday . “ He took the job and then he said : ‘ I ’ m going to recuse myself. ’ ... I said , ‘ What kind of a man is this ? ’ ” In a rare rebuttal to Trump , Sessions quickly moved to defend himself . “ I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in , ” Sessions said in a statement . “ While I am attorney general , the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations . ” Related Coverage Cohen told Congress he did not know if Trump aware of Russia meeting beforehand : Axios The response sparked new speculation that Trump might fire Sessions , although some senior Republican lawmakers offered the attorney general support . “ I know this is a difficult position for him to be in , but I think it would be bad for the country , it would be bad for the president , it would be bad for the Department of Justice for him to be forced out under these circumstances , ” said Senator John Cornyn , the No . 2 Senate Republican . Senator Lindsey Graham , who is both close to Trump and a defender of Sessions , said he believed Trump would appoint a new attorney general but should wait until after Nov. 6 congressional elections , in which Republicans are seeking to maintain control of both the House of Representatives and Senate . The public spat between Sessions and the president came two days after Trump ’ s former election campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted on tax and bank fraud charges , and Trump ’ s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges . Cohen also said Trump directed him to pay off two women who said they had affairs with Trump , payments that prosecutors say were in violation of campaign finance laws . U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions takes part in a Federal Commission on School Safety meeting at the White House in Washington , D.C. , U.S. , August 16 , 2018 . ███/Leah Millis Under pressure over the Cohen and Manafort cases , Trump has renewed his criticism of Sessions and reprised his complaints about the Justice Department and the FBI , accusing them without providing evidence of treating him and his supporters unfairly . In the interview with Fox News , Trump also criticized the widely used tactic of prosecutors offering lighter charges in criminal cases in return for information and testimony against others . “ It is called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal , ” Trump said . The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Trump had discussed with his lawyers a possible pardon for Manafort but had been persuaded to wait until after the November elections . A new ███/Ipsos poll showed a slight drop in support among Republicans for Trump following the Manafort conviction and the Cohen plea . The poll , conducted from Tuesday evening to Thursday , found that 78 percent of Republicans approved of Trump , down from 81 percent in a seven-day poll that ended on Monday . Overall , 37 percent of adults said they approved of Trump ’ s performance in office - down from 43 percent in the earlier poll . Trump ’ s approval numbers have been relatively stable since he took office in January 2017 , when compared with his predecessors , and his popularity has not wavered much among Republicans . The ███/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States . It gathered responses from 1,688 American adults , including 704 Democrats and 587 Republicans . It had a credibility interval , a measure of the poll ’ s precision , of 3 percentage points for the entire sample , 4 points for the Democrats and 5 points for the Republicans .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired back at President Donald Trump on Thursday after Trump gave a scathing assessment of his leadership at the Justice Department. Sessions, a former U.S. senator from Alabama, was one of the first Republican lawmakers to back Trump’s presidential election bid and has implemented his hardline immigration policies in the role of attorney general. But Trump has repeatedly criticized Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing a probe into Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Moscow. Trump denies any collusion and calls the investigation a “witch hunt.” “I put in an attorney general who never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said in a Fox News interview that aired on Thursday. “He took the job and then he said: ‘I’m going to recuse myself.’ ... I said, ‘What kind of a man is this?’” In a rare rebuttal to Trump, Sessions quickly moved to defend himself. “I took control of the Department of Justice the day I was sworn in,” Sessions said in a statement. “While I am attorney general, the actions of the Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations.” Related Coverage Cohen told Congress he did not know if Trump aware of Russia meeting beforehand: Axios The response sparked new speculation that Trump might fire Sessions, although some senior Republican lawmakers offered the attorney general support. “I know this is a difficult position for him to be in, but I think it would be bad for the country, it would be bad for the president, it would be bad for the Department of Justice for him to be forced out under these circumstances,” said Senator John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican. Senator Lindsey Graham, who is both close to Trump and a defender of Sessions, said he believed Trump would appoint a new attorney general but should wait until after Nov. 6 congressional elections, in which Republicans are seeking to maintain control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. The public spat between Sessions and the president came two days after Trump’s former election campaign manager Paul Manafort was convicted on tax and bank fraud charges, and Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges. Cohen also said Trump directed him to pay off two women who said they had affairs with Trump, payments that prosecutors say were in violation of campaign finance laws. Indictments, convictions and pleas - tmsnrt.rs/2wcFMdx U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions takes part in a Federal Commission on School Safety meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 16, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis ‘ALMOST OUGHT TO BE ILLEGAL’ Under pressure over the Cohen and Manafort cases, Trump has renewed his criticism of Sessions and reprised his complaints about the Justice Department and the FBI, accusing them without providing evidence of treating him and his supporters unfairly. In the interview with Fox News, Trump also criticized the widely used tactic of prosecutors offering lighter charges in criminal cases in return for information and testimony against others. “It is called flipping and it almost ought to be illegal,” Trump said. The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Trump had discussed with his lawyers a possible pardon for Manafort but had been persuaded to wait until after the November elections. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll showed a slight drop in support among Republicans for Trump following the Manafort conviction and the Cohen plea. The poll, conducted from Tuesday evening to Thursday, found that 78 percent of Republicans approved of Trump, down from 81 percent in a seven-day poll that ended on Monday. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump departs after awarding a Medal of Honor posthumously to Air Force Technical Sergeant John A. Chapman in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., August 22, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo Overall, 37 percent of adults said they approved of Trump’s performance in office - down from 43 percent in the earlier poll. Trump’s approval numbers have been relatively stable since he took office in January 2017, when compared with his predecessors, and his popularity has not wavered much among Republicans. The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English throughout the United States. It gathered responses from 1,688 American adults, including 704 Democrats and 587 Republicans. It had a credibility interval, a measure of the poll’s precision, of 3 percentage points for the entire sample, 4 points for the Democrats and 5 points for the Republicans.

www.reuters.com

center

jKRm4r5yE9RmRqEy

test

zilYUk46tdZ9tylb

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/08/fbi-quietly-releases-300-pages-of-hillary-clinton-investigation-records/

FBI Quietly Releases 300 Pages Of Hillary Clinton Investigation Records

2017-01-08

The FBI quietly released nearly 300 pages of records from its investigation of Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server on Sunday night . This is the fifth release of Clinton investigation records from the FBI . The documents deal with the handling of computer hardware collected from Clinton ’ s lawyers for the investigation and also contain emails from FBI officials discussing the classification of Clinton ’ s emails . The FBI has previously released notes from interviews it conducted during its investigation of Clinton ’ s handling of classified information . FBI director James Comey declined to recommend that Clinton be charged in the case , and Attorney General Loretta Lynch accepted that advice . The emails included in the documents are from the months prior to the formal opening of the Clinton email probe , which occurred on July 10 , 2015 . The exchanges show disagreements between the FBI and State Department over whether some of Clinton ’ s personal emails should be classified . In one April 27 , 2015 email , an FBI official wrote to other officials that they were “ about to get drug into an issue on classification ” of Clinton ’ s emails . The official , whose name is redacted , said that the State Department was “ forum shopping , ” or seeking a favorable opinion on the classification issue by asking different officials to rate emails as unclassified . Other email traffic sheds light on a controversy involving State Department under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy and a request he made in 2015 that the FBI reduce its classification of a Clinton email related to the Sept. 11 , 2012 attacks in Benghazi . Clinton investigation notes released by the FBI in October showed that an FBI official said during an interview as part of the email probe that Kennedy asked him and others at the FBI to relax classifications on some emails . ( RELATED : State Dept . Official Wanted Clinton Email Reclassified Because It ‘ Caused Problems ’ ) The new FBI release contains a May 21 , 2015 email in which Michael Steinbach , the FBI ’ s assistant director of the counterterrorism division , detailed a conversation he had with Kennedy about the classification issue . Steinbach said that the FBI had determined that one of Clinton ’ s emails should be classified using b ( 1 ) and b ( 7 ) redactions , used to protect information in the interest of national defense and to prevent the disclosure of a confidential source , respectively . Kennedy asked Steinbach to classify the email using only the b ( 1 ) category . An email sent two days earlier from a separate FBI official provided more information about the dispute . The official , whose name is redacted , wrote that the Clinton email was redacted and classified on the rationale that it contained information that would cause “ interference with foreign relations . ” The FBI official wrote that the email could disclose sources and investigative methods used by the bureau . “ While the email does not name the particular official , this might be deduced and , given the threat of violence in the region , any surmise could be fatal for whoever cooperated with us , ” the official wrote . “ State will say no one will know if it is redacted , but that is not how classification works , ” they added . The official wrote that he informed Kennedy of that rationale and that Kennedy said he would be in contact with Steinbach . The FBI release also includes an email from the attorney of Bryan Pagliano , the Hillary Clinton State Department aide who set up and managed her secret email server . In the email , Mark MacDougall , Pagliano ’ s lawyer , informed the FBI that Pagliano would decline the bureau ’ s request for an investigation . Pagliano would eventually meet with the FBI in December , but only after receiving limited immunity from the Department of Justice . Check back for more updates as ███ digs through the documents . Hillary R. Clinton Part 05 by Chuck Ross on Scribd

The FBI quietly released nearly 300 pages of records from its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server on Sunday night. This is the fifth release of Clinton investigation records from the FBI. The documents deal with the handling of computer hardware collected from Clinton’s lawyers for the investigation and also contain emails from FBI officials discussing the classification of Clinton’s emails. The FBI has previously released notes from interviews it conducted during its investigation of Clinton’s handling of classified information. FBI director James Comey declined to recommend that Clinton be charged in the case, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch accepted that advice. The emails included in the documents are from the months prior to the formal opening of the Clinton email probe, which occurred on July 10, 2015. The exchanges show disagreements between the FBI and State Department over whether some of Clinton’s personal emails should be classified. In one April 27, 2015 email, an FBI official wrote to other officials that they were “about to get drug into an issue on classification” of Clinton’s emails. The official, whose name is redacted, said that the State Department was “forum shopping,” or seeking a favorable opinion on the classification issue by asking different officials to rate emails as unclassified. Other email traffic sheds light on a controversy involving State Department under secretary for management Patrick Kennedy and a request he made in 2015 that the FBI reduce its classification of a Clinton email related to the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Clinton investigation notes released by the FBI in October showed that an FBI official said during an interview as part of the email probe that Kennedy asked him and others at the FBI to relax classifications on some emails. (RELATED: State Dept. Official Wanted Clinton Email Reclassified Because It ‘Caused Problems’) The new FBI release contains a May 21, 2015 email in which Michael Steinbach, the FBI’s assistant director of the counterterrorism division, detailed a conversation he had with Kennedy about the classification issue. Steinbach said that the FBI had determined that one of Clinton’s emails should be classified using b(1) and b(7) redactions, used to protect information in the interest of national defense and to prevent the disclosure of a confidential source, respectively. Kennedy asked Steinbach to classify the email using only the b(1) category. An email sent two days earlier from a separate FBI official provided more information about the dispute. The official, whose name is redacted, wrote that the Clinton email was redacted and classified on the rationale that it contained information that would cause “interference with foreign relations.” The FBI official wrote that the email could disclose sources and investigative methods used by the bureau. “While the email does not name the particular official, this might be deduced and, given the threat of violence in the region, any surmise could be fatal for whoever cooperated with us,” the official wrote. “State will say no one will know if it is redacted, but that is not how classification works,” they added. The official wrote that he informed Kennedy of that rationale and that Kennedy said he would be in contact with Steinbach. The FBI release also includes an email from the attorney of Bryan Pagliano, the Hillary Clinton State Department aide who set up and managed her secret email server. In the email, Mark MacDougall, Pagliano’s lawyer, informed the FBI that Pagliano would decline the bureau’s request for an investigation. Pagliano would eventually meet with the FBI in December, but only after receiving limited immunity from the Department of Justice. Check back for more updates as The Daily Caller digs through the documents. Hillary R. Clinton Part 05 by Chuck Ross on Scribd Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

zilYUk46tdZ9tylb

test

VRGo6TPNyE5BBXJr

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-doubles-anti-gay-marriage-stance-amid-conservative/story?id=18942211#.UWiFHMrC2W8

RNC Doubles Down On Gay Marriage

Chris Good, Michael Falcone, Alisa Wiersema

With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans , Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee 's spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday . Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage `` as the union of one man and one woman . '' The resolution went further , asking the U.S. Supreme Court to `` uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act . '' An ███-Washington Post poll conducted in March found that 58 percent of Americans said it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry . And support for gay marriage has been increasing among Republicans : In the latest poll , 34 percent of them said they supported it -- an 18 point uptick from 2004 . Earlier today , RNC Chairman Reince Priebus joked in his remarks to the group that Lady Gaga wo n't be `` chairing our platform committee . '' Gaga is a noted gay rights activist . `` It 's absolutely not true that I asked Lady Gaga to perform at the Reagan Library dinner tonight , '' according to a text of Priebus 's prepared comments , a reference to reports that a separate GOP group offered to pay the entertainer to perform at an event during last summer 's Republican National Convention . `` For the record , she also wo n't be chairing our platform committee or serving as our new director of surrogate operations . '' Republican leaders have been meeting this week at a hotel less than a mile from West Hollywood , Calif. , a city with a large gay and lesbian population . The vote may appease social conservatives who have been threatening to withhold their support from the GOP over rifts about where the party is headed on social issues . After the Republican National Committee hinted at new outreach to gay voters , and possibly changing its stance or at least its tone on gay-rights issues , 11 influential social-conservative groups aired their grievances in a letter addressed to Priebus timed to coincide with the start of the RNC 's meeting . Led by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins , who told donors not to give national Republican leaders `` a dime of your hard-earned money '' until the party clarified its positions on social issues . `` We respectfully warn GOP leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support , '' the groups warned Priebus . `` We could not change that even if we wished to . '' The group of signers included a who 's who of prominent social conservative organizations : American Values President Gary Bauer ; Family-PAC Federal Director Paul Caprio and VP of Government Affairs Sandy Rios ; Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser ; Family Talk Action President and founder James Dobson ; Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty and founder Louis P. Sheldon ; CitizenLink President Tom Minnery ; Religious Freedom Coaliion William J. Murray ; Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute President Austin Ruse ; Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly ; and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon . Perkins trumpeted the letter on his blog on the Family Research Council website , writing that the coalition had `` made it quite clear what the RNC stood to lose by running left-of-center on issues like life and marriage , adding that `` until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles , do n't give them a dime of your hard-earned money . '' The letter hinted that Republicans may be softening on gay rights issues . In seeking to reboot the party after its 2012 election losses , Priebus and the RNC released a `` Growth and Opportunity Project '' report that suggested multiple changes to make the party more appealing to a broader swath of voters , including gays and lesbians . `` Already , there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters , these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be , '' the report 's authors wrote . While Perkins said that passing the anti-gay marriage resolution would be `` a gesture of good faith '' other Republicans balked . Two former RNC employees wrote an op-ed in the National Review on Thursday urging the committee members gathered in Los Angles to reject it . `` As former RNC operatives , we firmly believe that passage of the resolution would be a significant setback in terms of party unity and branding , and would move the RNC further into a function that is outside its primary purpose : winning elections , '' wrote former staffers Liz Mair and Marco Nuñez . The resolution , passed on Friday , was proposed by Dave Agema , an RNC committeeman from Michigan who recently posted an article on his Facebook page that refers to gays and lesbians as `` filthy . '' A prominent segment of the Republican base , social conservatives helped elect George W. Bush in 2004 , and social-conservative activists have exerted a powerful influence over the Iowa GOP caucuses , a key hurdle for Republican presidential contenders , which surprised many by handing victories to Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012 . One signature that was noticeably missing from the letter was that of leading social conservative Bob Vander Plaats . Vander Plaats led socially conservative initiatives in Iowa through his Family Leader organization and gives his full support to the views expressed in the letter . `` If I was asked to sign the letter , I definitely would have , '' Vander Plaats told ███ . `` A lot of people in the party are concerned that the party will sell out our values in order to win , and if you do that what do you really win ? '' he continued . Vander Plaats also agreed with the prediction that the GOP would lose support if it follows the recommendations of the `` Growth and Oppotunity Project '' to the letter . If Republcians `` abandon their values , people will abandon their party , '' he said . `` Republicans are motivated by issues , not by the Republican name ... and these issues are n't going to change regardless of what the poll numbers say . ''

With support for gay marriage at a record high among Americans, Republican party leaders from around the country doubled down to oppose it at the Republican National Committee's spring meeting in Los Angeles Friday. Members of the committee voted unanimously to reaffirm the language in the GOP platform defining marriage "as the union of one man and one woman." The resolution went further, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to "uphold the sanctity of marriage in its rulings on Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act." An ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted in March found that 58 percent of Americans said it should be legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry. And support for gay marriage has been increasing among Republicans: In the latest poll, 34 percent of them said they supported it -- an 18 point uptick from 2004. Earlier today, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus joked in his remarks to the group that Lady Gaga won't be "chairing our platform committee." Gaga is a noted gay rights activist. "It's absolutely not true that I asked Lady Gaga to perform at the Reagan Library dinner tonight," according to a text of Priebus's prepared comments, a reference to reports that a separate GOP group offered to pay the entertainer to perform at an event during last summer's Republican National Convention. "For the record, she also won't be chairing our platform committee or serving as our new director of surrogate operations." Republican leaders have been meeting this week at a hotel less than a mile from West Hollywood, Calif., a city with a large gay and lesbian population. The vote may appease social conservatives who have been threatening to withhold their support from the GOP over rifts about where the party is headed on social issues. After the Republican National Committee hinted at new outreach to gay voters, and possibly changing its stance or at least its tone on gay-rights issues, 11 influential social-conservative groups aired their grievances in a letter addressed to Priebus timed to coincide with the start of the RNC's meeting. Led by Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who told donors not to give national Republican leaders "a dime of your hard-earned money" until the party clarified its positions on social issues. "We respectfully warn GOP leadership that an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support," the groups warned Priebus. "We could not change that even if we wished to." The group of signers included a who's who of prominent social conservative organizations: American Values President Gary Bauer; Family-PAC Federal Director Paul Caprio and VP of Government Affairs Sandy Rios; Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser; Family Talk Action President and founder James Dobson; Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty and founder Louis P. Sheldon; CitizenLink President Tom Minnery; Religious Freedom Coaliion William J. Murray; Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute President Austin Ruse; Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly; and American Family Association President Tim Wildmon. Perkins trumpeted the letter on his blog on the Family Research Council website, writing that the coalition had "made it quite clear what the RNC stood to lose by running left-of-center on issues like life and marriage, adding that "until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don't give them a dime of your hard-earned money." The letter hinted that Republicans may be softening on gay rights issues. In seeking to reboot the party after its 2012 election losses, Priebus and the RNC released a "Growth and Opportunity Project" report that suggested multiple changes to make the party more appealing to a broader swath of voters, including gays and lesbians. "Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the party is a place they want to be," the report's authors wrote. While Perkins said that passing the anti-gay marriage resolution would be "a gesture of good faith" other Republicans balked. Two former RNC employees wrote an op-ed in the National Review on Thursday urging the committee members gathered in Los Angles to reject it. "As former RNC operatives, we firmly believe that passage of the resolution would be a significant setback in terms of party unity and branding, and would move the RNC further into a function that is outside its primary purpose: winning elections," wrote former staffers Liz Mair and Marco Nuñez. The resolution, passed on Friday, was proposed by Dave Agema, an RNC committeeman from Michigan who recently posted an article on his Facebook page that refers to gays and lesbians as "filthy." A prominent segment of the Republican base, social conservatives helped elect George W. Bush in 2004, and social-conservative activists have exerted a powerful influence over the Iowa GOP caucuses, a key hurdle for Republican presidential contenders, which surprised many by handing victories to Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012. One signature that was noticeably missing from the letter was that of leading social conservative Bob Vander Plaats. Vander Plaats led socially conservative initiatives in Iowa through his Family Leader organization and gives his full support to the views expressed in the letter. "If I was asked to sign the letter, I definitely would have," Vander Plaats told ABC News. "A lot of people in the party are concerned that the party will sell out our values in order to win, and if you do that what do you really win?" he continued. Vander Plaats also agreed with the prediction that the GOP would lose support if it follows the recommendations of the "Growth and Oppotunity Project" to the letter. If Republcians "abandon their values, people will abandon their party," he said. "Republicans are motivated by issues, not by the Republican name ... and these issues aren't going to change regardless of what the poll numbers say."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

VRGo6TPNyE5BBXJr

test

DUbhaQTVRCXXmIZ8

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/12/10/the-new-socialists-didnt-win

The New Socialists Didn't Win

2018-12-10

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

Socialists did not sweep the midterms . That is because it would have been mathematically impossible for socialists to sweep the midterms . For all the ink and pixels spilled , there were n't actually very many of them on the ballot . Forty-six Democratic Socialists of America ( DSA ) candidates won primaries in 2018 . Of those , 14 were backed by the national Democratic Party and only four were running for the U.S. House . Most prominent among them was New York 's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who endorsed a few more candidates on her own as well . Ocasio-Cortez won her congressional race in a landslide , as did Rashida Tlaib in Michigan . But DSA 's Sarah Smith was beaten out by Democrat Adam Smith in Washington 's unusual Smith vs. Smith congressional race , and James Thompson lost in Kansas to Republican budget hawk Rep. Ron Estes . Ocasio-Cortez fave Ayanna Pressley , a non-DSA progressive , did win in Massachusetts . In short , no red tide hiding inside a blue wave swept over Capitol Hill . There are n't even many socialists warming statehouse backbench seats this winter—at press time only six additional DSA candidates had been declared victorious , alongside a handful of hyperlocal wins , such as for neighborhood commissions and boards of education . Voters are hardly going socialist either . DSA membership has grown from 7,000 to 50,000 since President Donald Trump was elected . But despite the prevalence of the red rose emojis that so-called New Socialists use to signal their allegiances on Twitter , and despite the ubiquity of Ocasio-Cortez 's red lipstick on cable news , those numbers are quite small . For perspective , the Libertarian Party has more than half a million registered voters . Socialists have not seized control of the country , but they did manage to grab a nice juicy handful of the debate . What was once the province of white-haired dead-enders has now become the primary source of fresh new ideas in American politics . All of the major Democratic contenders for 2020 have floated at least one signature Sorta Socialist Policy Plank already . Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) has a plan to aggressively regulate all corporations at the board level , plus a big subsidy for homebuyers in previously redlined neighborhoods called the American Housing and Mobility Act . Sen. Kamala Harris ( D–Calif . ) is offering a $ 500 monthly refundable tax credit to poor families with her Livable Incomes for Families Today ( LIFT ) Act , which is essentially the Earned Income Tax Credit on meth . She is also part of a Californian crossover initiative called Housing for All , which would involve aggressive subsidies for renters . Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ( D–N.Y . ) wants to turn the U.S. Post Office into a bank , while Sen. Cory Booker ( D–N.J . ) is offering `` baby bonds '' that would be funded by the government annually and mature when the carrier turns 18 . None of these ideas is new—Hillary Clinton pushed a version of the baby bonds idea back in 2008—but they are newly appealing , thanks in large part to the surprising 2016 primary successes of Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I–Vt . ) , who has been singing his old refrain of debt-free college and Medicare for All for decades . Astute readers might note that none of these proposals is actually socialism as it has historically been understood—or as it is currently being practiced in Venezuela , for that matter . The workers do not own the means of production . The economy is not ( very ) centrally planned . These are not transitional moves toward communism . And yet you may have seen the headlines last August—right around the time of Ocasio-Cortez 's primary victory in New York 's 14th Congressional District—claiming that Democrats now prefer socialism to capitalism for the first time , according to a Gallup poll . While this is technically true , it 's worth noting that this is the result of a dramatic decline in the popularity of capitalism , not a surge in support for socialism . The latter remains essentially unchanged overall . Even among young people , there is no discernible upward trend . ( There is an even more marked drop in support for capitalism among the young , however , including a 12-point fall in the last two years . ) Gallup does not define either term in its question . The `` Kids These Days Say They Like Socialism , but They Do n't Even Know What That Word Really Means '' article has become a media staple . Full disclosure : ███ has even run one or two essays along those lines . But what we talk about when we talk about socialism is n't actually nationalizing the means of production or centrally planning the economy . Sure , for a few diehards , it means replacing identity politics with class consciousness . But for most people , cheering socialism is merely a means for expressing discontent with the current capitalist system and a desire for ambitious public works and entitlement programs . It 's totally fair to point out that Scandinavian-style redistribution of gains from a market economy is not , in fact , socialism . But that point is nonresponsive to what the country will really be talking about as we debate `` socialism '' for the next couple of years . Instead , we are going to be talking about larger welfare programs , higher taxes , and more regulation . We are going to be exploring more deeply the already established 20th century political technique of campaigning on massive new entitlement programs . But most of all , what many people mean when they say they like socialism is not so different from what many mean when they say they like libertarianism—or what they meant when they said they liked Donald Trump . They are fed up with the status quo . They see no appeal in the mushy center . They are , basically , sick of the system as it is and looking for ways to shake things up . And that matters even if Republicans hold the White House for the next two or even six years . Because Trump is not an ideologue , he will be more susceptible than his GOP predecessors to this change in the air . If his opponents ' big , debt-funded policy proposals prove popular with the public , there 's nothing left to stop the president from mirroring them with giveaways of his own . The few remaining limited-government GOPers in Congress will have their hands full , and with Democrats holding the House , compromise proposals where everyone gets to spend massive amounts of money will look even more attractive to an administration desperate for a major policy success heading into re-election season . Trump may simply decide that every week is now infrastructure week—he has been champing at the bit to put Americans to work digging ditches and paving roads since day one . But there are more ambitious proposals in the Republican pipeline as well . Despite the DSA 's election-night claim on Twitter that `` Everything 's Coming Up Roses , '' the democratic socialists were far from triumphant in 2018 . And it 's wildly unlikely that a socialist—or anyone even remotely resembling one—will capture the White House in 2020 . The United States is not on its way to becoming Venezuela or anything like it , and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous . But for the next couple of years , at least , the socialists may have seized the means of policy production .

Socialists did not sweep the midterms. That is because it would have been mathematically impossible for socialists to sweep the midterms. For all the ink and pixels spilled, there weren't actually very many of them on the ballot. Forty-six Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates won primaries in 2018. Of those, 14 were backed by the national Democratic Party and only four were running for the U.S. House. Most prominent among them was New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed a few more candidates on her own as well. Ocasio-Cortez won her congressional race in a landslide, as did Rashida Tlaib in Michigan. But DSA's Sarah Smith was beaten out by Democrat Adam Smith in Washington's unusual Smith vs. Smith congressional race, and James Thompson lost in Kansas to Republican budget hawk Rep. Ron Estes. Ocasio-Cortez fave Ayanna Pressley, a non-DSA progressive, did win in Massachusetts. In short, no red tide hiding inside a blue wave swept over Capitol Hill. There aren't even many socialists warming statehouse backbench seats this winter—at press time only six additional DSA candidates had been declared victorious, alongside a handful of hyperlocal wins, such as for neighborhood commissions and boards of education. Voters are hardly going socialist either. DSA membership has grown from 7,000 to 50,000 since President Donald Trump was elected. But despite the prevalence of the red rose emojis that so-called New Socialists use to signal their allegiances on Twitter, and despite the ubiquity of Ocasio-Cortez's red lipstick on cable news, those numbers are quite small. For perspective, the Libertarian Party has more than half a million registered voters. Socialists have not seized control of the country, but they did manage to grab a nice juicy handful of the debate. What was once the province of white-haired dead-enders has now become the primary source of fresh new ideas in American politics. All of the major Democratic contenders for 2020 have floated at least one signature Sorta Socialist Policy Plank already. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has a plan to aggressively regulate all corporations at the board level, plus a big subsidy for homebuyers in previously redlined neighborhoods called the American Housing and Mobility Act. Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) is offering a $500 monthly refundable tax credit to poor families with her Livable Incomes for Families Today (LIFT) Act, which is essentially the Earned Income Tax Credit on meth. She is also part of a Californian crossover initiative called Housing for All, which would involve aggressive subsidies for renters. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) wants to turn the U.S. Post Office into a bank, while Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) is offering "baby bonds" that would be funded by the government annually and mature when the carrier turns 18. None of these ideas is new—Hillary Clinton pushed a version of the baby bonds idea back in 2008—but they are newly appealing, thanks in large part to the surprising 2016 primary successes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), who has been singing his old refrain of debt-free college and Medicare for All for decades. Astute readers might note that none of these proposals is actually socialism as it has historically been understood—or as it is currently being practiced in Venezuela, for that matter. The workers do not own the means of production. The economy is not (very) centrally planned. These are not transitional moves toward communism. And yet you may have seen the headlines last August—right around the time of Ocasio-Cortez's primary victory in New York's 14th Congressional District—claiming that Democrats now prefer socialism to capitalism for the first time, according to a Gallup poll. While this is technically true, it's worth noting that this is the result of a dramatic decline in the popularity of capitalism, not a surge in support for socialism. The latter remains essentially unchanged overall. Even among young people, there is no discernible upward trend. (There is an even more marked drop in support for capitalism among the young, however, including a 12-point fall in the last two years.) Gallup does not define either term in its question. The "Kids These Days Say They Like Socialism, but They Don't Even Know What That Word Really Means" article has become a media staple. Full disclosure: Reason has even run one or two essays along those lines. But what we talk about when we talk about socialism isn't actually nationalizing the means of production or centrally planning the economy. Sure, for a few diehards, it means replacing identity politics with class consciousness. But for most people, cheering socialism is merely a means for expressing discontent with the current capitalist system and a desire for ambitious public works and entitlement programs. It's totally fair to point out that Scandinavian-style redistribution of gains from a market economy is not, in fact, socialism. But that point is nonresponsive to what the country will really be talking about as we debate "socialism" for the next couple of years. Instead, we are going to be talking about larger welfare programs, higher taxes, and more regulation. We are going to be exploring more deeply the already established 20th century political technique of campaigning on massive new entitlement programs. But most of all, what many people mean when they say they like socialism is not so different from what many mean when they say they like libertarianism—or what they meant when they said they liked Donald Trump. They are fed up with the status quo. They see no appeal in the mushy center. They are, basically, sick of the system as it is and looking for ways to shake things up. And that matters even if Republicans hold the White House for the next two or even six years. Because Trump is not an ideologue, he will be more susceptible than his GOP predecessors to this change in the air. If his opponents' big, debt-funded policy proposals prove popular with the public, there's nothing left to stop the president from mirroring them with giveaways of his own. The few remaining limited-government GOPers in Congress will have their hands full, and with Democrats holding the House, compromise proposals where everyone gets to spend massive amounts of money will look even more attractive to an administration desperate for a major policy success heading into re-election season. Trump may simply decide that every week is now infrastructure week—he has been champing at the bit to put Americans to work digging ditches and paving roads since day one. But there are more ambitious proposals in the Republican pipeline as well. Despite the DSA's election-night claim on Twitter that "Everything's Coming Up Roses," the democratic socialists were far from triumphant in 2018. And it's wildly unlikely that a socialist—or anyone even remotely resembling one—will capture the White House in 2020. The United States is not on its way to becoming Venezuela or anything like it, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. But for the next couple of years, at least, the socialists may have seized the means of policy production.

www.reason.com

right

DUbhaQTVRCXXmIZ8

test

6fuQ1NwDDIbop2Ht

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/02/cnn-poll-hillarys-numbers-plunge-in-wake-of-clinton-cash-revelations/

Hillary's Numbers Plunge in Wake of ‘Clinton Cash Revelations

2015-06-02

John Nolte

A CNN poll released Tuesday shows that Hillary Clinton ’ s favorability rating with the public is in a serious , measurable freefall . For the first time since CNN began polling the former Secretary of State ’ s favorable rating in 2006 , Clinton is underwater on this question , 46 % – 50 % . That 46 % represents an extraordinary 23 point plummet from September of 2011 ; a 21 point drop from November of 2012 ; an 11 point drop from one year ago ; and a seven point drop from just two months ago when she still sat at a healthy 53 % – 44 % . A full 54 % of Independents view Clinton as unfavorable . Only 41 % disagree . Much of course has happened since March — primarily the release of Clinton Cash . Authored by ███ senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer , Clinton Cash is a damning investigation into , among other things , all the shady financial dealings that entangle the Clinton Foundation and Hillary ’ s tenure as America ’ s Secretary of State . There is also the matter of Clinton ’ s email scandal , uncovered earlier this year by Congressman Trey Gowdy ’ s congressional inquiry into Benghazi . It was through that committee we learned Hillary violated State Department policy by using a private email address for official business — a private email that was also stored on her own private server . She has since deleted thousands of emails and refuses to turn the server over to a third party investigator . Although the mainstream media has in no way frenzied over these scandals in the same they would if Hillary were a Republican ( the media would aggressively seek to disqualify the Republican ) , there has been a lot of media coverage , and these revelations are obviously taking a toll , not just against Clinton ’ s overall favorable ratings . When asked if Hillary “ inspires confidence , ” she is upside down 49 % – 50 % . Two months ago , this number sat at a very healthy 58 % – 42 % . With Independents Clinton is upside down 11 points on this question , 44 % – 55 % . On the hugely important question of Hillary caring “ about people like you , ” only 47 % believe she does ; a majority of 52 % believe she doesn ’ t . In March the numbers were reversed at 53 % – 45 % . That ’ s a -13 point negative shift in just two months . With Independents the chasm on this question is a full 17 points , 57 % – 40 % . Hillary is upside down a full 15 % on the issue of trustworthiness , 42 % – 57 % . In March , she sat in positive territory on this question , 50 % -49 % . That ’ s a -16 point fall . With Independent voters , she is 24 points in the hole , 37 % – 61 % . When it comes to Benghazi , the news only gets worse for the presumptive Democrat nominee . By a 20 point margin , voters are dissatisfied with Clinton ’ s handling of Benghazi , 38 % – 58 % . This is a -8 point fall from March , when the numbers were a little better : 55 % dissatisfied , 43 % satisfied . Only 41 % of voters believe Republicans have gone too far in investigating Benghazi ( down from 44 % in March ) . A clear majority of 51 % believe Republicans have handled the inquiry appropriately . This means that the coordinated campaign between the Obama White House , the Clintons , and the mainstream media to demonize the Benghazi inquiries have failed miserably . Among Democrats , Clinton is still , by far , the top choice for the nomination . She sits at 60 % , Biden at 14 % , Sanders at 10 % , O ’ Malley ( who officially announced Saturday ) at 1 % . Even among Democrats , though , Clinton has slipped . Just last month she sat at 69 % against potential challengers in her own party . Since just last month , Republicans presidential candidates ( and potential candidates ) have gained considerable ground against Clinton , who looked unbeatable in April . The best news in this poll might be for Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio , who announced his presidential quest just last month . Rubio is well ahead of everyone on the question of whether the candidates represent the past or the future :

A CNN poll released Tuesday shows that Hillary Clinton’s favorability rating with the public is in a serious, measurable freefall. For the first time since CNN began polling the former Secretary of State’s favorable rating in 2006, Clinton is underwater on this question, 46% – 50%. That 46% represents an extraordinary 23 point plummet from September of 2011; a 21 point drop from November of 2012; an 11 point drop from one year ago; and a seven point drop from just two months ago when she still sat at a healthy 53% – 44%. A full 54% of Independents view Clinton as unfavorable. Only 41% disagree. Much of course has happened since March — primarily the release of Clinton Cash. Authored by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash is a damning investigation into, among other things, all the shady financial dealings that entangle the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s tenure as America’s Secretary of State. There is also the matter of Clinton’s email scandal, uncovered earlier this year by Congressman Trey Gowdy’s congressional inquiry into Benghazi. It was through that committee we learned Hillary violated State Department policy by using a private email address for official business — a private email that was also stored on her own private server. She has since deleted thousands of emails and refuses to turn the server over to a third party investigator. Although the mainstream media has in no way frenzied over these scandals in the same they would if Hillary were a Republican (the media would aggressively seek to disqualify the Republican), there has been a lot of media coverage, and these revelations are obviously taking a toll, not just against Clinton’s overall favorable ratings. When asked if Hillary “inspires confidence,” she is upside down 49% – 50%. Two months ago, this number sat at a very healthy 58% – 42%. With Independents Clinton is upside down 11 points on this question, 44% – 55%. On the hugely important question of Hillary caring “about people like you,” only 47% believe she does; a majority of 52% believe she doesn’t. In March the numbers were reversed at 53% – 45%. That’s a -13 point negative shift in just two months. With Independents the chasm on this question is a full 17 points, 57% – 40%. Hillary is upside down a full 15% on the issue of trustworthiness, 42% – 57%. In March, she sat in positive territory on this question, 50%-49%. That’s a -16 point fall. With Independent voters, she is 24 points in the hole, 37% – 61%. When it comes to Benghazi, the news only gets worse for the presumptive Democrat nominee. By a 20 point margin, voters are dissatisfied with Clinton’s handling of Benghazi, 38% – 58%. This is a -8 point fall from March, when the numbers were a little better: 55% dissatisfied, 43% satisfied. Only 41% of voters believe Republicans have gone too far in investigating Benghazi (down from 44% in March). A clear majority of 51% believe Republicans have handled the inquiry appropriately. This means that the coordinated campaign between the Obama White House, the Clintons, and the mainstream media to demonize the Benghazi inquiries have failed miserably. Among Democrats, Clinton is still, by far, the top choice for the nomination. She sits at 60%, Biden at 14%, Sanders at 10%, O’Malley (who officially announced Saturday) at 1%. Even among Democrats, though, Clinton has slipped. Just last month she sat at 69% against potential challengers in her own party. Since just last month, Republicans presidential candidates (and potential candidates) have gained considerable ground against Clinton, who looked unbeatable in April. In parentheses are the numbers from April’s poll. Clinton 51% – Bush 43% — (46% – 39%) Clinton 49% – Rubio 46% — (55% – 41%) Clinton 48% – Paul 47% — (58% – 39%) Clinton 49% – Walker 46% — (59% – 37%) Clinton 52% – Cruz 43% — (60% – 36%) The best news in this poll might be for Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who announced his presidential quest just last month. Rubio is well ahead of everyone on the question of whether the candidates represent the past or the future: Hillary 45-51 Christie 45-48 Rand 42-53 Walker 36-52 Rubio 32-58 Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

6fuQ1NwDDIbop2Ht

test

h0PBd83VqGiYpYBb

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/21/former-virginia-gov-robert-mcdonnell-faces-charges-over-gifts/?hpt=po_t1

Former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell indicted in gift scandal

2014-01-21

( CNN ) - Former Virginia Gov . Robert McDonnell , once a rising star in the Republican Party who was considered potential presidential material , was indicted along with his wife on Tuesday on federal charges of accepting illegal gifts . The 14-count indictment , culminating a lengthy investigation of their relationship with a Virginia business executive , alleges fraud by a public official , false statements , and obstruction . Gifts valued at a minimum of $ 140,000 in total included designer clothes , a Rolex watch , golf clubs , iPhones and a painting , according to a list of items included in the indictment . McDonnell , who in a statement denied any illegal conduct and called the charges federal government overreach , was elected in 2009 and left office earlier this month after serving one term . Virginia governors can not serve consecutive terms . `` I come before you this evening as someone who has been falsely and wrongfully accused and whose public service has been wrongfully attacked , '' he said in a televised statement . The federal probe involved the relationship between the governor and his wife , Maureen , with Jonnie Williams , the chief executive of a troubled nutritional supplement company , Star Scientific . Authorities allege that Williams gave gifts and loans to the first family of Virginia , and that they promoted his company . McDonnell admitted to poor judgment in an earlier written statement . `` I deeply regret accepting legal gifts and loans from Mr. Williams , all of which have been repaid with interest , and I have apologized for my poor judgment for which I take full responsibility , '' he said . `` However , I repeat emphatically that I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal generosity and friendship , '' he added . McDonnell 's Democratic successor , Terry McAuliffe , issued his own statement after the charges were filed . `` As this case progresses , it is my sincerest hope that justice will be served and that Virginians get the answers to which they are entitled , '' he said . `` As Governor , I will remain focused on leading this Commonwealth in a way that restores Virginians ' trust in government and honors their expectation of transparency and accountability . '' Within hours of the indictment , McDonnell 's legal team launched a forceful attack on the government 's case . The lawyers made two legal filings in federal court in Richmond , one of which invoked an ancient ruler whose tyrannical reign was reputedly marked by financial greed and misdeeds . `` It has been a long time since the Roman Emperor Caligula imprisoned people for violating laws written in tiny lettering on a pillar too high to see , '' the lawyers wrote in making a comparison to the federal government 's case against McDonnell . McDonnell 's lawyers argued his innocence and said the charges were built on a `` rickety legal foundation . '' `` To bring today 's indictment , the federal government has concocted a never-before-used legal theory manufactured for the sole purpose of prosecuting Governor McDonnell and his wife , '' McDonnell 's lawyers wrote . `` This new theory contravenes settled judicial precedent and disregards longstanding Virginia law and practice , seeking to punish the McDonnells for conduct that was legal before today , '' the lawyers said . The McDonnell legal filings said Williams is under federal investigation for some of the health claims his company made for its products . But the government has offered `` blanket immunity '' in exchange for cooperation in the McDonnell investigation . Appearing on CNN 's `` Crossfire , '' former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said the indictment was not a surprise considering the public attention the investigation received . He believes the charges will `` cause challenges '' for Virginia . `` We like to think of ourselves as a pretty smooth-running , clean state . Does n't mean everything goes the way we want it to all the time - this puts a dent in that and that 's not something we 're happy to see with the history we 've got , which has been pretty darn good , '' he said . Cuccinelli , a Republican who served under McConnell , lost the governor 's election in November to McAuliffe .

6 years ago Updated 7:17 p.m. ET, 1/21/2014 (CNN) - Former Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, once a rising star in the Republican Party who was considered potential presidential material, was indicted along with his wife on Tuesday on federal charges of accepting illegal gifts. The 14-count indictment, culminating a lengthy investigation of their relationship with a Virginia business executive, alleges fraud by a public official, false statements, and obstruction. Follow @politicalticker Read the indictment Gifts valued at a minimum of $140,000 in total included designer clothes, a Rolex watch, golf clubs, iPhones and a painting, according to a list of items included in the indictment. Read the list of gifts McDonnell, who in a statement denied any illegal conduct and called the charges federal government overreach, was elected in 2009 and left office earlier this month after serving one term. Virginia governors cannot serve consecutive terms. "I come before you this evening as someone who has been falsely and wrongfully accused and whose public service has been wrongfully attacked," he said in a televised statement. The federal probe involved the relationship between the governor and his wife, Maureen, with Jonnie Williams, the chief executive of a troubled nutritional supplement company, Star Scientific. Authorities allege that Williams gave gifts and loans to the first family of Virginia, and that they promoted his company. McDonnell admitted to poor judgment in an earlier written statement. "I deeply regret accepting legal gifts and loans from Mr. Williams, all of which have been repaid with interest, and I have apologized for my poor judgment for which I take full responsibility," he said. "However, I repeat emphatically that I did nothing illegal for Mr. Williams in exchange for what I believed was his personal generosity and friendship," he added. McDonnell's Democratic successor, Terry McAuliffe, issued his own statement after the charges were filed. "As this case progresses, it is my sincerest hope that justice will be served and that Virginians get the answers to which they are entitled," he said. "As Governor, I will remain focused on leading this Commonwealth in a way that restores Virginians' trust in government and honors their expectation of transparency and accountability." Within hours of the indictment, McDonnell's legal team launched a forceful attack on the government's case. The lawyers made two legal filings in federal court in Richmond, one of which invoked an ancient ruler whose tyrannical reign was reputedly marked by financial greed and misdeeds. "It has been a long time since the Roman Emperor Caligula imprisoned people for violating laws written in tiny lettering on a pillar too high to see," the lawyers wrote in making a comparison to the federal government's case against McDonnell. McDonnell's lawyers argued his innocence and said the charges were built on a "rickety legal foundation." "To bring today's indictment, the federal government has concocted a never-before-used legal theory manufactured for the sole purpose of prosecuting Governor McDonnell and his wife," McDonnell's lawyers wrote. "This new theory contravenes settled judicial precedent and disregards longstanding Virginia law and practice, seeking to punish the McDonnells for conduct that was legal before today," the lawyers said. The McDonnell legal filings said Williams is under federal investigation for some of the health claims his company made for its products. But the government has offered "blanket immunity" in exchange for cooperation in the McDonnell investigation. Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire," former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said the indictment was not a surprise considering the public attention the investigation received. He believes the charges will "cause challenges" for Virginia. "We like to think of ourselves as a pretty smooth-running, clean state. Doesn't mean everything goes the way we want it to all the time - this puts a dent in that and that's not something we're happy to see with the history we've got, which has been pretty darn good," he said. Cuccinelli, a Republican who served under McConnell, lost the governor's election in November to McAuliffe.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

h0PBd83VqGiYpYBb

test

VIJRjXCEpmg1sAy0

cybersecurity

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/05aa58325be0a85d44c637bd891e668f

US says Chinese military stole masses of Americans’ data

2020-02-10

Eric Tucker, Michael Balsamo

Attorney General William Barr speaks during a news conference , Monday , Feb. 10 , 2020 , at the Justice Department in Washington , as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Seth Ducharm looks on . Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans , the Justice Department said Monday , blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history . ( AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin ) Attorney General William Barr speaks during a news conference , Monday , Feb. 10 , 2020 , at the Justice Department in Washington , as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Seth Ducharm looks on . Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans , the Justice Department said Monday , blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history . ( AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the computer networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans , the Justice Department said Monday , blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history to target consumer data . The hackers in the 2017 breach stole the personal information of roughly 145 million Americans , collecting names , addresses , Social Security and driver ’ s license numbers and other data stored in the company ’ s databases . The intrusion damaged the company ’ s reputation and underscored China ’ s increasingly aggressive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering methods . “ The scale of the theft was staggering , ” Attorney General William Barr said Monday in announcing the indictment . “ This theft not only caused significant financial damage to Equifax , but invaded the privacy of many millions of Americans , and imposed substantial costs and burdens on them as they have had to take measures to protect against identity theft . ” The case is the latest U.S. accusation against Chinese hackers suspected of breaching networks of American corporations , including steel manufacturers , a hotel chain and a health insurer . It comes as the Trump administration has warned against what it sees as the growing political and economic influence of China , and efforts by Beijing to collect data for financial and intelligence purposes and to steal research and innovation . The indictment arrives at a delicate time in relations between Washington and Beijing . Even as President Donald Trump points to a preliminary trade pact with China as evidence of his ability to work with the Communist government , other members of his administration have been warning against cybersecurity and surveillance risks posed by China , especially as the tech giant Huawei seeks to become part of new , high-speed 5G wireless networks across the globe . Experts and U.S. officials say the Equifax theft is consistent with the Chinese government ’ s interest in accumulating as much information about Americans as possible . The data can be used by China to target U.S. government officials and ordinary citizens , including possible spies , and to find weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can be exploited — such as for purposes of blackmail . The FBI has not seen that happen yet in this case , said Deputy Director David Bowdich , though he said it “ doesn ’ t mean it will or will not happen in the future . ” “ We have to be able to recognize that as a counterintelligence issue , not a cyber issue , ” Bill Evanina , the U.S. government ’ s top counterintelligence official , said of the Equifax case . The four accused hackers are suspected members of the People ’ s Liberation Army , an arm of the Chinese military that was blamed in 2014 for a series of intrusions into American corporations . Prosecutors say they exploited a software vulnerability to gain access to Equifax ’ s computers , obtaining log-in credentials that they used to navigate databases and review records . They also took steps to cover their tracks , the indictment says , wiping log files on a daily basis and routing traffic through about three dozen servers in nearly 20 countries . Besides stealing personal information , the hackers also made off with some of the company ’ s sensitive trade secrets , including database designs , law enforcement officials said . Equifax , headquartered in Atlanta , maintains a massive repository of consumer information that it sells to businesses looking to verify identities or assess creditworthiness . All told , the indictment says , the company holds information on hundreds of millions of people in America and abroad . None of the accused hackers is in U.S. custody . But officials nonetheless hope criminal charges can be a deterrent to foreign hackers and a warning to other countries that American law enforcement has the capability to pinpoint individual culprits . Even so , while China and the U.S. committed in 2015 to halt acts of cyber espionage against each other , the Equifax intrusion and others like it make clear that Beijing has continued its operations . A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not return an email seeking comment Monday . The case resembles a 2014 indictment that accused five members of the PLA of hacking into American corporations to steal trade secrets . U.S. authorities also suspect China in the 2015 breach of the federal Office of Personnel Management and of intrusions into the Marriott hotel chain and health insurer Anthem . Such hacks “ seem to deliberately cast a wide net ” so that Chinese intelligence analysts can get deep insight into the lives of Americans , said Ben Buchanan , a Georgetown University scholar and author of the upcoming book “ The Hacker and the State . ” “ This could be especially useful for counterintelligence purposes , like tracking American spies posted to Beijing , ” Buchanan said . Barr , who at an event last week warned of Beijing ’ s aspirations of economic dominance , said Monday the U.S. has long “ witnessed China ’ s voracious appetite for the personal data of Americans . ” “ This kind of attack on American industry is of a piece with other Chinese illegal acquisitions of sensitive personal data , ” Barr said . The criminal charges , which include conspiracy to commit computer fraud and conspiracy to commit economic espionage , were filed in federal court in Atlanta . Equifax last year reached a $ 700 million settlement over the data breach , with the bulk of the funds intended for consumers affected by it . Equifax officials told the Government Accountability Office the company made many mistakes , including having an outdated list of computer systems administrators . The company didn ’ t notice the intruders targeting its databases for more than six weeks . Hackers exploited a known security vulnerability that Equifax hadn ’ t fixed . While company stock has recovered , Equifax ’ s reputation has not fully . The company was dragged in front of Congress no less than four times to explain what happened . The company is about to start paying out claims on its $ 700 million settlement , of which more claimants have opted in to getting a cash settlement than accept credit counseling . So many claims have been made for the cash that the lawyers suing Equifax and the Federal Trade Commission have warned claimants that the chance of getting the full cash value of the settlement was unlikely .

Attorney General William Barr speaks during a news conference, Monday, Feb. 10, 2020, at the Justice Department in Washington, as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Seth Ducharm looks on. Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans, the Justice Department said Monday, blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) Attorney General William Barr speaks during a news conference, Monday, Feb. 10, 2020, at the Justice Department in Washington, as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Seth Ducharm looks on. Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans, the Justice Department said Monday, blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) WASHINGTON (AP) — Four members of the Chinese military have been charged with breaking into the computer networks of the Equifax credit reporting agency and stealing the personal information of tens of millions of Americans, the Justice Department said Monday, blaming Beijing for one of the largest hacks in history to target consumer data. The hackers in the 2017 breach stole the personal information of roughly 145 million Americans, collecting names, addresses, Social Security and driver’s license numbers and other data stored in the company’s databases. The intrusion damaged the company’s reputation and underscored China’s increasingly aggressive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering methods. “The scale of the theft was staggering,” Attorney General William Barr said Monday in announcing the indictment. “This theft not only caused significant financial damage to Equifax, but invaded the privacy of many millions of Americans, and imposed substantial costs and burdens on them as they have had to take measures to protect against identity theft.” The case is the latest U.S. accusation against Chinese hackers suspected of breaching networks of American corporations, including steel manufacturers, a hotel chain and a health insurer. It comes as the Trump administration has warned against what it sees as the growing political and economic influence of China, and efforts by Beijing to collect data for financial and intelligence purposes and to steal research and innovation. The indictment arrives at a delicate time in relations between Washington and Beijing. Even as President Donald Trump points to a preliminary trade pact with China as evidence of his ability to work with the Communist government, other members of his administration have been warning against cybersecurity and surveillance risks posed by China, especially as the tech giant Huawei seeks to become part of new, high-speed 5G wireless networks across the globe. Experts and U.S. officials say the Equifax theft is consistent with the Chinese government’s interest in accumulating as much information about Americans as possible. The data can be used by China to target U.S. government officials and ordinary citizens, including possible spies, and to find weaknesses and vulnerabilities that can be exploited — such as for purposes of blackmail. The FBI has not seen that happen yet in this case, said Deputy Director David Bowdich, though he said it “doesn’t mean it will or will not happen in the future.” “We have to be able to recognize that as a counterintelligence issue, not a cyber issue,” Bill Evanina, the U.S. government’s top counterintelligence official, said of the Equifax case. The four accused hackers are suspected members of the People’s Liberation Army, an arm of the Chinese military that was blamed in 2014 for a series of intrusions into American corporations. Prosecutors say they exploited a software vulnerability to gain access to Equifax’s computers, obtaining log-in credentials that they used to navigate databases and review records. They also took steps to cover their tracks, the indictment says, wiping log files on a daily basis and routing traffic through about three dozen servers in nearly 20 countries. Besides stealing personal information, the hackers also made off with some of the company’s sensitive trade secrets, including database designs, law enforcement officials said. Equifax, headquartered in Atlanta, maintains a massive repository of consumer information that it sells to businesses looking to verify identities or assess creditworthiness. All told, the indictment says, the company holds information on hundreds of millions of people in America and abroad. None of the accused hackers is in U.S. custody. But officials nonetheless hope criminal charges can be a deterrent to foreign hackers and a warning to other countries that American law enforcement has the capability to pinpoint individual culprits. Even so, while China and the U.S. committed in 2015 to halt acts of cyber espionage against each other, the Equifax intrusion and others like it make clear that Beijing has continued its operations. A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not return an email seeking comment Monday. The case resembles a 2014 indictment that accused five members of the PLA of hacking into American corporations to steal trade secrets. U.S. authorities also suspect China in the 2015 breach of the federal Office of Personnel Management and of intrusions into the Marriott hotel chain and health insurer Anthem. Such hacks “seem to deliberately cast a wide net” so that Chinese intelligence analysts can get deep insight into the lives of Americans, said Ben Buchanan, a Georgetown University scholar and author of the upcoming book “The Hacker and the State.” “This could be especially useful for counterintelligence purposes, like tracking American spies posted to Beijing,” Buchanan said. Barr, who at an event last week warned of Beijing’s aspirations of economic dominance, said Monday the U.S. has long “witnessed China’s voracious appetite for the personal data of Americans.” “This kind of attack on American industry is of a piece with other Chinese illegal acquisitions of sensitive personal data,” Barr said. The criminal charges, which include conspiracy to commit computer fraud and conspiracy to commit economic espionage, were filed in federal court in Atlanta. Equifax last year reached a $700 million settlement over the data breach, with the bulk of the funds intended for consumers affected by it. Full Coverage: Technology Equifax officials told the Government Accountability Office the company made many mistakes, including having an outdated list of computer systems administrators. The company didn’t notice the intruders targeting its databases for more than six weeks. Hackers exploited a known security vulnerability that Equifax hadn’t fixed. While company stock has recovered, Equifax’s reputation has not fully. The company was dragged in front of Congress no less than four times to explain what happened. The company is about to start paying out claims on its $700 million settlement, of which more claimants have opted in to getting a cash settlement than accept credit counseling. So many claims have been made for the cash that the lawyers suing Equifax and the Federal Trade Commission have warned claimants that the chance of getting the full cash value of the settlement was unlikely. ______ Associated Press writers Nick Jesdanun and Ken Sweet in New York and Frank Bajak in Boston contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

VIJRjXCEpmg1sAy0

test

3OjmgTFBTfd7k79K

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/15/donald-trump-congresswomen-republicans-ocasio-cortez-tlaib-pressley-omar

Republicans silent as Trump renews racist attack on congresswomen

2019-07-15

Martin Pengelly, Jamiles Lartey

In the face of international condemnation – and a trickle of disapproval from his own party – Donald Trump has returned to the offensive against four Democrats he targeted with racial invective on Sunday . 'Go back home ' : Trump aims racist attack at Ocasio-Cortez and other congresswomen Read more Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday , Trump said : “ If you ’ re not happy here , then you can leave . ” Earlier , the president accused the congresswomen of “ spewing ” “ racist hatred ” – precisely the offence of which he has been widely accused . Trump wrote : “ When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country , the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President , for the foul language they have used , and the terrible things they have said . So many people are angry at them [ and ] their horrible [ and ] disgusting actions ! ” He added : “ If Democrats want to unite around the foul language [ and ] racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular [ and ] unrepresentative Congresswomen , it will be interesting to see how it plays out . ” The tweets reflected others Trump sent on Sunday amid the storm created by his initial demand that the unnamed congresswomen should “ go back and help fix the totally broken and crime [ - ] infested places from which they came ” . The targets of Trump ’ s ire were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , of New York ; Rashida Tlaib , of Michigan ; Ayanna Pressley , of Massachusetts ; and Ilhan Omar , of Minnesota . None are white , all are critics of Trump and progressives ranged against the House speaker , Nancy Pelosi , over the direction of their party . It doesn ’ t concern me because many people agree with me Donald Trump Before Trump spoke on Monday , a few elected Republicans criticized his comments . Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said Trump was “ wrong ” and the congresswomen ’ s ideas should be defeated “ on the merits , not on the basis of their ancestry ” . Susan Collins , a senator from Maine , said the tweets were “ way over the line ” and should be taken down . Tim Scott of South Carolina , the only black Republican senator , criticised Trump ’ s “ unacceptable personal attacks and racially offensive language ” . Will Hurd , a Texas congressman , said the tweets were “ racist , and xenophobic ” and “ unbecoming of the leader of the free world ” . The former Ohio governor and candidate for the presidential nomination John Kasich tweeted that Trump ’ s remarks were “ deplorable ” . Jeff Flake , who retired as a senator from Arizona at the last election , said the comments were “ so vile and offensive it is incumbent on Republicans to respond and condemn ” . At the White House , Trump was asked if he thought his tweets were racist . “ Not at all , ” he said , adding : “ If somebody has a problem with our country , if someone doesn ’ t want to be in our country , they should leave . ” Asked if it concerned him that many thought his tweets racist , he said : “ It doesn ’ t concern me because many people agree with me . ” Trump ’ s first tweets on the matter , sent perhaps to distract from controversy over squalid conditions at the southern border and certainly in an attempt to drive a wedge into a fissure in the opposition party , were factually inaccurate . Only Omar was born abroad , in Somalia , coming to America at the age of 12 . Ocasio-Cortez is of Puerto Rican heritage and was born in New York . Tlaib ’ s parents were Palestinian immigrants who settled in Detroit . Pressley is African American and was born in Cincinnati . Omar and Tlaib were the first Muslim women elected to Congress . Ocasio-Cortez is a prominent advocate of policies such as the Green New Deal which have made her a hate figure among Trump ’ s base . Pressley has been prominent in criticism over the border crisis . Condemnation was widespread on Sunday , from the four Democrats , senior party figures and press outlets . On Monday , Ocasio-Cortez said Trump was “ leading the GOP into outright racism , and that should concern all Americans ” . Tlaib was among those to call for impeachment . Pelosi ’ s reluctance to move on the issue is another point of difference between “ the Squad ” , as the congresswomen are known , and party leaders . Trump claims migrant detention center visited by Pence was ‘ clean but crowded ’ Read more Condemnation rippled across the Atlantic – a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said Trump ’ s tweets were “ completely unacceptable ” . Boris Johnson , May ’ s heir apparent who is seen to be close to Trump , was under pressure to comment . But in the immediate aftermath of Trump ’ s first tweets , few Republicans spoke up . Justin Amash , a Michigan congressman who has left the party in protest of the Trump presidency , called the tweets “ racist and disgusting ” . His parents are Palestinian and Syrian . Mia Love , who lost her seat in Utah last year and is African American , told CNN : “ I always feel like I ’ m not part of the ‘ America First ’ he talks about all the time . ” Republican Never-Trumpers did condemn the president . Charlie Sykes , an editor at the Bulwark website , wrote : “ There was a time when GOPers like Paul Ryan , Lindsey Graham , Nikki Haley , Jeff Flake , even Reince [ Priebus ] would have denounced this kind of racism . Who will speak out now ? Will any elected Republican push back ? ” American Carnage : a masterful must-read on Trump 's Republican takeover Read more On Monday , powerful party figures remained silent . Graham , of South Carolina , appeared on Fox & Friends . Trump duly quoted him , pointing to the motivation for his own attack on the congresswomen by tweeting : “ Make them the face of the future of the Democrat Party , you will destroy the Democrat [ sic ] Party . Their policies will destroy our Country ! ” Trump ’ s mentions of Israel were in reference to controversy over remarks made by Omar about foreign policy . References to “ foul language ” were to Tlaib ’ s famous promise to “ impeach the motherfucker ” , delivered to supporters after she was sworn into Congress in January . Trump sent his original tweets on a Sunday morning , an unsupervised time that according to a new book , American Carnage , White House staffers came to know as “ the devil ’ s play shop ” . Trump sent his Sunday tweets before and after playing golf . On Monday he was back at the centre of American power .

This article is more than 3 months old This article is more than 3 months old In the face of international condemnation – and a trickle of disapproval from his own party – Donald Trump has returned to the offensive against four Democrats he targeted with racial invective on Sunday. 'Go back home': Trump aims racist attack at Ocasio-Cortez and other congresswomen Read more Speaking to reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump said: “If you’re not happy here, then you can leave.” Earlier, the president accused the congresswomen of “spewing” “racist hatred” – precisely the offence of which he has been widely accused. Trump wrote: “When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them [and] their horrible [and] disgusting actions!” He added: “If Democrats want to unite around the foul language [and] racist hatred spewed from the mouths and actions of these very unpopular [and] unrepresentative Congresswomen, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.” The tweets reflected others Trump sent on Sunday amid the storm created by his initial demand that the unnamed congresswomen should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime[-]infested places from which they came”. The targets of Trump’s ire were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York; Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan; Ayanna Pressley, of Massachusetts; and Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota. None are white, all are critics of Trump and progressives ranged against the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, over the direction of their party. It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me Donald Trump Before Trump spoke on Monday, a few elected Republicans criticized his comments. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said Trump was “wrong” and the congresswomen’s ideas should be defeated “on the merits, not on the basis of their ancestry”. Susan Collins, a senator from Maine, said the tweets were “way over the line” and should be taken down. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only black Republican senator, criticised Trump’s “unacceptable personal attacks and racially offensive language”. Will Hurd, a Texas congressman, said the tweets were “racist, and xenophobic” and “unbecoming of the leader of the free world”. The former Ohio governor and candidate for the presidential nomination John Kasich tweeted that Trump’s remarks were “deplorable”. Jeff Flake, who retired as a senator from Arizona at the last election, said the comments were “so vile and offensive it is incumbent on Republicans to respond and condemn”. At the White House, Trump was asked if he thought his tweets were racist. “Not at all,” he said, adding: “If somebody has a problem with our country, if someone doesn’t want to be in our country, they should leave.” Asked if it concerned him that many thought his tweets racist, he said: “It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me.” Trump’s first tweets on the matter, sent perhaps to distract from controversy over squalid conditions at the southern border and certainly in an attempt to drive a wedge into a fissure in the opposition party, were factually inaccurate. Only Omar was born abroad, in Somalia, coming to America at the age of 12. Ocasio-Cortez is of Puerto Rican heritage and was born in New York. Tlaib’s parents were Palestinian immigrants who settled in Detroit. Pressley is African American and was born in Cincinnati. Omar and Tlaib were the first Muslim women elected to Congress. Ocasio-Cortez is a prominent advocate of policies such as the Green New Deal which have made her a hate figure among Trump’s base. Pressley has been prominent in criticism over the border crisis. Condemnation was widespread on Sunday, from the four Democrats, senior party figures and press outlets. On Monday, Ocasio-Cortez said Trump was “leading the GOP into outright racism, and that should concern all Americans”. Tlaib was among those to call for impeachment. Pelosi’s reluctance to move on the issue is another point of difference between “the Squad”, as the congresswomen are known, and party leaders. Trump claims migrant detention center visited by Pence was ‘clean but crowded’ Read more Condemnation rippled across the Atlantic – a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said Trump’s tweets were “completely unacceptable”. Boris Johnson, May’s heir apparent who is seen to be close to Trump, was under pressure to comment. But in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s first tweets, few Republicans spoke up. Justin Amash, a Michigan congressman who has left the party in protest of the Trump presidency, called the tweets “racist and disgusting”. His parents are Palestinian and Syrian. Mia Love, who lost her seat in Utah last year and is African American, told CNN: “I always feel like I’m not part of the ‘America First’ he talks about all the time.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump, in golf attire, departs the White House for the drive to his Trump National Gold Club in Sterling, Virginia, on Sunday. Photograph: Mike Theiler/Reuters Republican Never-Trumpers did condemn the president. Charlie Sykes, an editor at the Bulwark website, wrote: “There was a time when GOPers like Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Jeff Flake, even Reince [Priebus] would have denounced this kind of racism. Who will speak out now? Will any elected Republican push back?” American Carnage: a masterful must-read on Trump's Republican takeover Read more On Monday, powerful party figures remained silent. Graham, of South Carolina, appeared on Fox & Friends. Trump duly quoted him, pointing to the motivation for his own attack on the congresswomen by tweeting: “Make them the face of the future of the Democrat Party, you will destroy the Democrat [sic] Party. Their policies will destroy our Country!” Trump’s mentions of Israel were in reference to controversy over remarks made by Omar about foreign policy. References to “foul language” were to Tlaib’s famous promise to “impeach the motherfucker”, delivered to supporters after she was sworn into Congress in January. Trump sent his original tweets on a Sunday morning, an unsupervised time that according to a new book, American Carnage, White House staffers came to know as “the devil’s play shop”. Trump sent his Sunday tweets before and after playing golf. On Monday he was back at the centre of American power.

www.theguardian.com

left

3OjmgTFBTfd7k79K

test

U1Qb93nzPHWZbI5H

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/sarah-palin-values-voters-summit/2014/09/26/id/597225/

Sarah Palin Mocks Liberals, Obama at Values Voter Summit

2014-09-26

Cathy Burke

Former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin broadsided liberals at an annual summit of social conservatives in the nation 's capital Friday , saying they consider the activists `` their threat '' because their philosophy `` scares the bejesus out of them . `` The former 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee also chided President Barack Obama for saluting a Marine on Tuesday– a videotaped flub that triggered a flood of criticism from Republicans – by sarcastically returning the gesture to the president using her own styrofoam cup.Video of the speech was posted '' You are their threat , '' Palin told conservatives gathered at the annual Values Voter Summit , which also drew fellow Republicans Texas Sen. Ted Cruz , Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former presidential candidate Rick Santorum , '' You value equal opportunity , and that scares the bejesus out of them because they know that you ca n't argue against those things , '' adding it was `` time to end the politics of division of theirs . It is time for the politics of values. ” '' I don ’ t want anybody to be afraid or ashamed of the core values that we are here celebrating , '' she said , accusing liberals of trying to censor ideas . `` They scream 'racism ' our way just to end debate . Well , do n't retreat . You reload the truth , '' she urged.Palin tripped up , however , on the White House address when she declared : `` Truth is an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue . '' The correct address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.Cruz and Paul competed for the hearts and minds of the crowd as well.Clad in blue jeans and quoting the Founding Fathers and modern authors from a teleprompter , Paul portrayed himself as a non-conformist during his approximately 17-minute speech , He also criticized both parties for abandoning a strong faith in God and adherence to the Constitution . `` What America needs is not just another politician or promises , '' Paul said , Time reports . `` What America really needs is a revival . `` Paul also called for a change in America 's foreign policy , saying even secular dictatorships in the Middle East were better than the chaos that followed their toppling , and declared : '' It 's time to put a stop to this madness – and take a good heard look at what our foreign policy has done , '' Time reports.In contrast , Cruz walked around the stage , dressed in a business suit , quoting passages from the Bible in calling for spiritual rebirth , Time reports.In his nearly hour-long address , Cruz asked – and answered : '' How do we turn this country around ? We offer a choice not an echo , '' he told the receptive crowd . `` We defend the values that are American values . We stand for life . We stand for marriage . We stand for Israel . `` His address also was postedFamily Research Council Presidentthat Cruz got people excited because of his tell-it-like-it-is style. “ At the heart what they are looking for is leaders who will say what they mean and mean what they say , '' he told The Hill . `` They ’ re not looking for nuanced speeches . I think that ’ s why Ted Cruz gets such a strong reception — he just says it like it is . He doesn ’ t kind of shuck and jive , he says what he means , . `` For his part , Santorum urged the crowd to fight harder on the issues most important to them . `` If you look at the current conservative movement , the Republican Party , there are issues we have n't even lost yet , and we 're talking about giving up , '' he said , according to '' Do something , '' he added . `` Quit being scared and start being activists and making things happen in America . ''

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin broadsided liberals at an annual summit of social conservatives in the nation's capital Friday, saying they consider the activists "their threat" because their philosophy "scares the bejesus out of them."The former 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee also chided President Barack Obama for saluting a Marine on Tuesday– a videotaped flub that triggered a flood of criticism from Republicans – by sarcastically returning the gesture to the president using her own styrofoam cup.Video of the speech was posted"You are their threat," Palin told conservatives gathered at the annual Values Voter Summit, which also drew fellow Republicans Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former presidential candidate Rick Santorum,"You value equal opportunity, and that scares the bejesus out of them because they know that you can't argue against those things," adding it was "time to end the politics of division of theirs. It is time for the politics of values.”"I don’t want anybody to be afraid or ashamed of the core values that we are here celebrating," she said, accusing liberals of trying to censor ideas."They scream 'racism' our way just to end debate. Well, don't retreat. You reload the truth," she urged.Palin tripped up, however, on the White House address when she declared: "Truth is an endangered species at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue." The correct address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.Cruz and Paul competed for the hearts and minds of the crowd as well.Clad in blue jeans and quoting the Founding Fathers and modern authors from a teleprompter, Paul portrayed himself as a non-conformist during his approximately 17-minute speech,He also criticized both parties for abandoning a strong faith in God and adherence to the Constitution."What America needs is not just another politician or promises," Paul said, Time reports."What America really needs is a revival."Paul also called for a change in America's foreign policy, saying even secular dictatorships in the Middle East were better than the chaos that followed their toppling, and declared:"It's time to put a stop to this madness – and take a good heard look at what our foreign policy has done," Time reports.In contrast, Cruz walked around the stage, dressed in a business suit, quoting passages from the Bible in calling for spiritual rebirth, Time reports.In his nearly hour-long address, Cruz asked – and answered:"How do we turn this country around? We offer a choice not an echo," he told the receptive crowd. "We defend the values that are American values. We stand for life. We stand for marriage. We stand for Israel."His address also was postedFamily Research Council Presidentthat Cruz got people excited because of his tell-it-like-it-is style.“At the heart what they are looking for is leaders who will say what they mean and mean what they say," he told The Hill. "They’re not looking for nuanced speeches. I think that’s why Ted Cruz gets such a strong reception — he just says it like it is. He doesn’t kind of shuck and jive, he says what he means,."For his part, Santorum urged the crowd to fight harder on the issues most important to them."If you look at the current conservative movement, the Republican Party, there are issues we haven't even lost yet, and we're talking about giving up," he said, according to"Do something," he added. "Quit being scared and start being activists and making things happen in America."

www.newsmax.com

right

U1Qb93nzPHWZbI5H

test

Q6PX9P9zJSDU9rYF

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47430996

Donald Trump launches furious attack on Robert Mueller

US President Donald Trump has launched a furious attack on Special Counsel Robert Mueller and on his critics at a conservative summit . In the longest speech of his presidency , Mr Trump railed against the inquiry into alleged collusion between his campaign and Russia . `` We 're waiting for a report by people who were n't elected , '' he told a crowd of cheering conservatives . Mr Mueller is expected to hand in his report to the attorney general shortly . `` Unfortunately , you put the wrong people in a couple of positions and they leave people for a long time that should n't be there and all of a sudden they are trying to take you out with bullshit , okay ? '' the president said . Mr Trump has frequently called the special counsel 's investigation a `` witch hunt '' . The speech - clocking in at more than two hours - also included sharp attacks on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions , former FBI head James Comey , the Democratic Party and those critical of his approach to North Korea . Mr Trump 's second summit with Kim Jong-un in Vietnam ended abruptly without a deal this week . Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland , Mr Trump lashed out at his detractors in a wide-ranging speech . `` This is how I got elected , by being off script . . . and if we do n't go off script , our country is in big trouble , folks , '' he began . The president repeatedly said that Mr Mueller had `` never received a vote '' , nor had Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , who appointed Mr Mueller to his position . Mr Rosenstein plans to step down by March after frequent presidential attacks . The president alleged Mr Mueller was `` best friends '' with former FBI head James Comey , and mocked the accent of former attorney general Mr Sessions , whom he fired in November . He said Mr Sessions was `` weak and ineffective and he does n't do what he should have done '' . He called the Green New Deal proposal - pitched by some Democrats as a radical bid to combat climate change - `` the craziest plan '' , saying `` when the wind stops blowing , that 's the end of your electric '' . After a series of remarks on immigrants who , he said , must `` love our country '' , Mr Trump said , `` We have people in Congress that hate our country . '' `` And you know that , and we can name every one of them if you want , '' he said . He also defended his summit with North Korea leader Mr Kim , telling the crowd they had made `` a lot of progress '' and saying the country had `` an incredible , brilliant future '' . Mr Trump also pledged to protect free speech on US university campuses with an executive order . The speech came at the end of a difficult week for the president . Mr Trump 's former lawyer Michael Cohen called him a `` racist '' , `` conman '' and a `` cheat '' in a congressional hearing .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump attacks his opponents in Maryland speech US President Donald Trump has launched a furious attack on Special Counsel Robert Mueller and on his critics at a conservative summit. In the longest speech of his presidency, Mr Trump railed against the inquiry into alleged collusion between his campaign and Russia. "We're waiting for a report by people who weren't elected," he told a crowd of cheering conservatives. Mr Mueller is expected to hand in his report to the attorney general shortly. Warning: this report contains strong language "Unfortunately, you put the wrong people in a couple of positions and they leave people for a long time that shouldn't be there and all of a sudden they are trying to take you out with bullshit, okay?" the president said. Mr Trump has frequently called the special counsel's investigation a "witch hunt". The speech - clocking in at more than two hours - also included sharp attacks on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former FBI head James Comey, the Democratic Party and those critical of his approach to North Korea. Mr Trump's second summit with Kim Jong-un in Vietnam ended abruptly without a deal this week. Whom did the president attack? Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, Mr Trump lashed out at his detractors in a wide-ranging speech. "This is how I got elected, by being off script . . . and if we don't go off script, our country is in big trouble, folks," he began. Image copyright Reuters Image caption There were chants of "We love you" and "Trump is our man" during the speech The president repeatedly said that Mr Mueller had "never received a vote", nor had Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr Mueller to his position. Mr Rosenstein plans to step down by March after frequent presidential attacks. The president alleged Mr Mueller was "best friends" with former FBI head James Comey, and mocked the accent of former attorney general Mr Sessions, whom he fired in November. He said Mr Sessions was "weak and ineffective and he doesn't do what he should have done". What else did he say? The president's attacks ranged widely. He called the Green New Deal proposal - pitched by some Democrats as a radical bid to combat climate change - "the craziest plan", saying "when the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric". After a series of remarks on immigrants who, he said, must "love our country", Mr Trump said, "We have people in Congress that hate our country." "And you know that, and we can name every one of them if you want," he said. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The 116th Congress is considered the most diverse in history He also defended his summit with North Korea leader Mr Kim, telling the crowd they had made "a lot of progress" and saying the country had "an incredible, brilliant future". Mr Trump also pledged to protect free speech on US university campuses with an executive order. Conservatives have said some US universities stifle right-wing opinions. The speech came at the end of a difficult week for the president. Mr Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen called him a "racist", "conman" and a "cheat" in a congressional hearing.

www.bbc.com

center

Q6PX9P9zJSDU9rYF

test

5QIFTeU4K7lpRYOX

cybersecurity

Reason

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/lets-say-russia-did-hack-the-dems-what-w

Let’s Say Russia Did Hack the Dems. What Would Be a Responsible Reaction?

2016-12-12

Scott Shackford, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, Christian Britschgi, Ronald Bailey, Noah Shepardson, Joe Setyon, Jacob Sullum

From the perspective of a Gary Johnson voter who regularly feels disenfranchised from the American electoral process and probably would stop voting entirely were it not for third parties and ballot initiatives , here 's what the responses to the latest allegations that the Russian government hacked and leaked information from the Democratic Party to the press looks like : Democratic partisans : `` Having embarrassing emails and data about our inner workings released to the public is the equivalent of Watergate and Pearl Harbor combined . Why are n't more people outraged ? '' Republican partisans : `` If the Russians actually were involved , this is proof how weak a President Barack Obama was on the international stage . If only he had started a few more wars and droned a few more weddings ! '' Nick Gillespie blogged this morning about how we needed more transparency from our own government and more proof that the Russian government was actually involved before we were to simply accept anonymous sources with unknown agendas . But , as a thought exercise , let 's accept it as truth . Let 's say that the Russian government , under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin , hacked and released this inside info with the intent of influencing our election . What is the `` right '' way to examine what happened ? Perhaps those of us with no political dogs in this hunt can give some advice . 1 . Separate the Cybersecurity Issues from Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters ' Public Humiliation It 's utterly impossible to discuss what sort of policy measures or responses America should consider when a good chunk of partisans are still resisting the reality that Clinton lost the election . To be clear , to the extent we 're certain there was `` meddling '' with the election , the interference was all about providing private messages and information to the public that cast the Democratic Party establishment in a bad light . Thinking that this seriously altered with the election outcome suggests a lack of belief in the agency of the average voter . Or to put it a different way : If you have such a low opinion of the American voter , your problem is not with the Russians or hacking but with the concept of voting itself . It may be comforting in some really twisted way to think that this is proof that America is under attack instead of considering the possibility that millions of Americans simply did n't like your candidate , but that 's not a path to actually addressing the matter at hand . Before selling this hacking as a massive violation of American government , keep in mind not just how many Americans voted for Donald Trump but how many Americans were forced to replace their ATM or credit cards over the past 12 months due to breaches in their security . Folks are going to have a hard time selling this hack is something particularly special or nasty to the vast swaths of Americans who did n't support Clinton . So do n't do that . It creates a weird sense that `` the beltway establishment '' is completely unfamiliar with a cybersecurity reality faced by ordinary Americans every day . 2 . Making it About Donald Trump Is Dumb and Ignores the Actual Problem Again , if we accept the premise that Russia wanted Trump to win and directly engaged in the hacking , it does n't necessarily mean that using it to put Trump on defensive is an appropriate or effective response . While there is some possibility electors may surprise us all , it 's best at this point to accept that Trump is going to become president and approach any potential solutions with that reality in mind . That said : We know that Trump is thin-skinned and defensive when he believes he is under attack . And the political response to this has , perhaps even deliberately , created an environment that rolls these incidents into the massive ball of outrage about Trump winning . So , of course , we 're going to get defensive tweets from Trump about all of this . And just like in the previous section , it diminishes the voters who supported Trump in the first place ( again , probably deliberately ) . But making this a fight about politics threatens to push it all away from a debate about policy-based solutions or what exactly the government should genuinely do about Russia 's behavior . Making it so that Trump feels that the coverage of the hacking is deliberately attacking him personally could have the side effect of making him stubbornly resist solutions . Though , that might not always be a bad thing given that some people seem to think the solution is that we need a new cold war ( or to say we 're in one regardless of whether we want it or not ) . 3 . Let 's Maybe Not Desire Another Cold War with Russia Yes , the Russian government probably wants to influence other large governments to install leaders and policies that are beneficial to its aims . This makes them different from other countries—how exactly ? That a chunk of people are treating Russia 's participation in our presidential election as particularly shocking or a sudden , stark development invites a master class in `` whataboutism . '' It would not be a surprise if some people ( particularly in other countries ) saw this story as America getting what it 's got coming , not as some remarkably shocking breach of election norms . This does n't mean that America in any way should simply shrug at other governments ' involvement in our electoral process , particularly when it involves breaches of technological security . The point is , it 's absurd to act as though Russia has pulled out a new game of international political intrigue where America is totally unfamiliar with the dice , the board , the cards , and the rules . To the extent that this election is a challenge to the way the American government operates , the challenge is truly from within . Again , as with the previous two considerations , when responding to the problem of foreign interests fiddling in our elections is to not to pretend that millions of Americans were tricked somehow into voting for somebody they did n't want . Russia did n't cause this election outcome , regardless of what they leaked , and the idea that response is to go after them in kind puts in a state of cybersurveillance gamesmanship that fails to make Americans safer but certainly gives our national intelligence agencies more work to do . 4 . The Best Defense Is … a Good Defense , Actually . The absolute worst possible policy response to this hack would be for America to prioritize counterattacks and an absurd tit-for-tat `` cyberwar '' with Russia and other possibly hostile administrations ' over the cybersecurity of its own institutions and citizen privacy . Are we supposed to ignore how much hacking of government information is a direct result of poor security practices by our government agencies or , you know , secretaries of state ? And yet , our allies in the United Kingdom looked at all of this and still put into place a law that would allow the government to secretly demand tech companies and telecoms to insert encryption back doors that would allow officials to bypass communications security . If the United Kingdom does require a communication company or service or application to insert a secret back door , guess who else will try to figure out how to take advantage of it ? The Russian government . Or the Chinese government . Or the North Korean government . Or United Arab Emirate . Or some ring of identity thieves . This is what the average citizen should be taking away from this incident and should be worried about . The way Western governments approach the use of technology in espionage and terrorism actively makes security weaker for all of us . Recall that when Apple resisted the call to help weaken its security to help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists , Trump 's knee-jerk response was to call for a boycott the company . Trump does not have much interest or knowledge in cybersecurity , and the real danger of his administration is the possibility of following in the United Kingdom 's footsteps , a government that prioritizes secret access over defense . And if that happens , then America could indeed face cybersecurity breaches that cause harms to our infrastructure ( both political and actual ) that are much greater than having embarrassing info released .

From the perspective of a Gary Johnson voter who regularly feels disenfranchised from the American electoral process and probably would stop voting entirely were it not for third parties and ballot initiatives, here's what the responses to the latest allegations that the Russian government hacked and leaked information from the Democratic Party to the press looks like: Democratic partisans: "Having embarrassing emails and data about our inner workings released to the public is the equivalent of Watergate and Pearl Harbor combined. Why aren't more people outraged?" Republican partisans: "If the Russians actually were involved, this is proof how weak a President Barack Obama was on the international stage. If only he had started a few more wars and droned a few more weddings!" Nick Gillespie blogged this morning about how we needed more transparency from our own government and more proof that the Russian government was actually involved before we were to simply accept anonymous sources with unknown agendas. But, as a thought exercise, let's accept it as truth. Let's say that the Russian government, under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hacked and released this inside info with the intent of influencing our election. What is the "right" way to examine what happened? Perhaps those of us with no political dogs in this hunt can give some advice. 1. Separate the Cybersecurity Issues from Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters' Public Humiliation It's utterly impossible to discuss what sort of policy measures or responses America should consider when a good chunk of partisans are still resisting the reality that Clinton lost the election. To be clear, to the extent we're certain there was "meddling" with the election, the interference was all about providing private messages and information to the public that cast the Democratic Party establishment in a bad light. Thinking that this seriously altered with the election outcome suggests a lack of belief in the agency of the average voter. Or to put it a different way: If you have such a low opinion of the American voter, your problem is not with the Russians or hacking but with the concept of voting itself. It may be comforting in some really twisted way to think that this is proof that America is under attack instead of considering the possibility that millions of Americans simply didn't like your candidate, but that's not a path to actually addressing the matter at hand. Before selling this hacking as a massive violation of American government, keep in mind not just how many Americans voted for Donald Trump but how many Americans were forced to replace their ATM or credit cards over the past 12 months due to breaches in their security. Folks are going to have a hard time selling this hack is something particularly special or nasty to the vast swaths of Americans who didn't support Clinton. So don't do that. It creates a weird sense that "the beltway establishment" is completely unfamiliar with a cybersecurity reality faced by ordinary Americans every day. 2. Making it About Donald Trump Is Dumb and Ignores the Actual Problem Again, if we accept the premise that Russia wanted Trump to win and directly engaged in the hacking, it doesn't necessarily mean that using it to put Trump on defensive is an appropriate or effective response. While there is some possibility electors may surprise us all, it's best at this point to accept that Trump is going to become president and approach any potential solutions with that reality in mind. That said: We know that Trump is thin-skinned and defensive when he believes he is under attack. And the political response to this has, perhaps even deliberately, created an environment that rolls these incidents into the massive ball of outrage about Trump winning. So, of course, we're going to get defensive tweets from Trump about all of this. And just like in the previous section, it diminishes the voters who supported Trump in the first place (again, probably deliberately). But making this a fight about politics threatens to push it all away from a debate about policy-based solutions or what exactly the government should genuinely do about Russia's behavior. Making it so that Trump feels that the coverage of the hacking is deliberately attacking him personally could have the side effect of making him stubbornly resist solutions. Though, that might not always be a bad thing given that some people seem to think the solution is that we need a new cold war (or to say we're in one regardless of whether we want it or not). 3. Let's Maybe Not Desire Another Cold War with Russia Yes, the Russian government probably wants to influence other large governments to install leaders and policies that are beneficial to its aims. This makes them different from other countries—how exactly? That a chunk of people are treating Russia's participation in our presidential election as particularly shocking or a sudden, stark development invites a master class in "whataboutism." It would not be a surprise if some people (particularly in other countries) saw this story as America getting what it's got coming, not as some remarkably shocking breach of election norms. This doesn't mean that America in any way should simply shrug at other governments' involvement in our electoral process, particularly when it involves breaches of technological security. The point is, it's absurd to act as though Russia has pulled out a new game of international political intrigue where America is totally unfamiliar with the dice, the board, the cards, and the rules. To the extent that this election is a challenge to the way the American government operates, the challenge is truly from within. Again, as with the previous two considerations, when responding to the problem of foreign interests fiddling in our elections is to not to pretend that millions of Americans were tricked somehow into voting for somebody they didn't want. Russia didn't cause this election outcome, regardless of what they leaked, and the idea that response is to go after them in kind puts in a state of cybersurveillance gamesmanship that fails to make Americans safer but certainly gives our national intelligence agencies more work to do. 4. The Best Defense Is … a Good Defense, Actually. The absolute worst possible policy response to this hack would be for America to prioritize counterattacks and an absurd tit-for-tat "cyberwar" with Russia and other possibly hostile administrations' over the cybersecurity of its own institutions and citizen privacy. Are we supposed to ignore how much hacking of government information is a direct result of poor security practices by our government agencies or, you know, secretaries of state? And yet, our allies in the United Kingdom looked at all of this and still put into place a law that would allow the government to secretly demand tech companies and telecoms to insert encryption back doors that would allow officials to bypass communications security. If the United Kingdom does require a communication company or service or application to insert a secret back door, guess who else will try to figure out how to take advantage of it? The Russian government. Or the Chinese government. Or the North Korean government. Or United Arab Emirate. Or some ring of identity thieves. This is what the average citizen should be taking away from this incident and should be worried about. The way Western governments approach the use of technology in espionage and terrorism actively makes security weaker for all of us. Recall that when Apple resisted the call to help weaken its security to help the FBI break into the phone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Trump's knee-jerk response was to call for a boycott the company. Trump does not have much interest or knowledge in cybersecurity, and the real danger of his administration is the possibility of following in the United Kingdom's footsteps, a government that prioritizes secret access over defense. And if that happens, then America could indeed face cybersecurity breaches that cause harms to our infrastructure (both political and actual) that are much greater than having embarrassing info released.

www.reason.com

right

5QIFTeU4K7lpRYOX

test

C5CKR5L1zVmRttA9

politics

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/09/schumer-calls-comey-firing-big-mistake-wants-special-prosecutor/

Schumer Calls Comey Firing ‘Big Mistake,’ Wants Special Prosecutor

2017-05-09

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday that when President Donald Trump informed him that Jamey Comey would be dismissed as FBI director , Schumer replied it was a “ big mistake ” to do so and called on the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor . “ Earlier this afternoon President Trump called me and informed me he was firing director Comey . I told the president , ‘ Mr . President with all due respect you are making a big mistake. ’ The first question the administration has to answer is , why now ? If the administration had objections to the way director Comey handled the Clinton investigation they had those objections the minute the president got into office , but they didn ’ t fire him then . Why did it happen today ? ” Schumer said . Schumer went on to say , “ We know the house is investigating Russian interference in our elections that benefited the Trump campaign . We know the Senate is investigating . We know the FBI has been looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians . A very serious offense . Were these investigations getting too close to home for the president ? It is troubling that Attorney General Sessions who had recused himself from the Russian investigation played a role in firing the man leading it . So what happens now ? ” “ If Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein does not appoint an independent special prosecutor , every American will rightly suspect that the decision to fire Director Comey was part of a cover up , ” Schumer added . The New York Democrat called Trump ’ s firing of Comey a “ troubling pattern ” referencing his previous dismissals of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara . “ This does not seem to be a coincidence . This investigation must be run as far away as possible from this White House . ” The minority leader called on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “ to appoint a special prosecutor… right now . ”

WASHINGTON — Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters Tuesday that when President Donald Trump informed him that Jamey Comey would be dismissed as FBI director, Schumer replied it was a “big mistake” to do so and called on the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor. “Earlier this afternoon President Trump called me and informed me he was firing director Comey. I told the president, ‘Mr. President with all due respect you are making a big mistake.’ The first question the administration has to answer is, why now? If the administration had objections to the way director Comey handled the Clinton investigation they had those objections the minute the president got into office, but they didn’t fire him then. Why did it happen today?” Schumer said. Schumer went on to say, “We know the house is investigating Russian interference in our elections that benefited the Trump campaign. We know the Senate is investigating. We know the FBI has been looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. A very serious offense. Were these investigations getting too close to home for the president? It is troubling that Attorney General Sessions who had recused himself from the Russian investigation played a role in firing the man leading it. So what happens now?” “If Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein does not appoint an independent special prosecutor, every American will rightly suspect that the decision to fire Director Comey was part of a cover up,” Schumer added. The New York Democrat called Trump’s firing of Comey a “troubling pattern” referencing his previous dismissals of former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. “This does not seem to be a coincidence. This investigation must be run as far away as possible from this White House.” The minority leader called on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “to appoint a special prosecutor… right now.” Follow Kerry on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

C5CKR5L1zVmRttA9

test

E5mzED7NNSgB73tj

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/july/trump-jr-s-russia-meeting-revelations-overshadow-gop-health-care-agenda

Trump Jr.'s Russia Meeting Revelations Overshadow GOP Health Care Agenda

2017-07-10

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is back in the United States from the G20 summit and hitting the ground running on two key issues : tax reform and repealing and replacing Obamacare . Taking to Twitter the president said , `` For years , even as a 'civilian , ' I listened as Republicans pushed the repeal and replace of Obamacare . Now they finally have their chance ! '' With Congress back from their July recess , GOP senators like Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell , R-Ky. , are looking for ways to revise and adapt the original Senate health care plan to get enough votes to pass . But others , like Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , have a different answer . `` You the consumer should be able to choose what health care you want to buy . If you want to buy a plan with all of the bells a whistles , with all of the mandates under title one you can buy that plan , '' Cruz told ABC 's `` This Week . '' Cruz 's Consumer Freedom Amendment would allow insurers to offer lower-cost plans that do n't offer all of the benefits required by Obamacare , as long as they also offer other plans that do . However , he says if all else fails , repeal Obamacare now and come up with a plan to replace later . But not all Republican senators are on board with that idea either . Meanwhile , the Trump White House also says it 's still working on its other key agenda item : having some sort of tax reform passed by the end of the year . `` The president 's focus is a middle income tax cut , reforming the business tax system to make it competitive , and creating a tax simplification that will grow this economy , '' said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin . While the president may be focused on health care and tax reform , the lurking topic of Russia was given new life after Donald Trump Jr. confirmed a New York Times report that he , Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer during the presidential campaign last year . That lawyer claimed to have pertinent information about Hillary Clinton 's ties to Russia . Trump Jr. said in a statement , `` No details or supporting information was provided or even offered . It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information . '' Trump Jr. says he left after he realized that . Meanwhile , a spokesman says President Trump was n't aware of and did n't attend the meeting . The president has also taken some criticism for his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Hamburg , after he asked Putin about Russian interference in the U.S. election . Putin denied it , but White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus says Trump did n't believe him . But even though Russia stories will likely be around for months to come , the White House remains focused on its priorities - replacing the collapsing Obamacare system and passing a tax plan to get the weak economy growing at much stronger pace .

WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is back in the United States from the G20 summit and hitting the ground running on two key issues: tax reform and repealing and replacing Obamacare. Taking to Twitter the president said, " For years, even as a 'civilian,' I listened as Republicans pushed the repeal and replace of Obamacare. Now they finally have their chance!" With Congress back from their July recess, GOP senators like Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell, R-Ky., are looking for ways to revise and adapt the original Senate health care plan to get enough votes to pass. But others, like Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have a different answer. "You the consumer should be able to choose what health care you want to buy. If you want to buy a plan with all of the bells a whistles, with all of the mandates under title one you can buy that plan," Cruz told ABC's "This Week." Cruz's Consumer Freedom Amendment would allow insurers to offer lower-cost plans that don't offer all of the benefits required by Obamacare, as long as they also offer other plans that do. However, he says if all else fails, repeal Obamacare now and come up with a plan to replace later. But not all Republican senators are on board with that idea either. Meanwhile, the Trump White House also says it's still working on its other key agenda item: having some sort of tax reform passed by the end of the year. "The president's focus is a middle income tax cut, reforming the business tax system to make it competitive, and creating a tax simplification that will grow this economy," said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Trump Jr. Met with Russia Lawyer While the president may be focused on health care and tax reform, the lurking topic of Russia was given new life after Donald Trump Jr. confirmed a New York Times report that he, Jared Kushner and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer during the presidential campaign last year. That lawyer claimed to have pertinent information about Hillary Clinton's ties to Russia. Trump Jr. said in a statement, "No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information." Trump Jr. says he left after he realized that. Meanwhile, a spokesman says President Trump wasn't aware of and didn't attend the meeting. The president has also taken some criticism for his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Hamburg, after he asked Putin about Russian interference in the U.S. election. Putin denied it, but White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus says Trump didn't believe him. But even though Russia stories will likely be around for months to come, the White House remains focused on its priorities - replacing the collapsing Obamacare system and passing a tax plan to get the weak economy growing at much stronger pace.

www1.cbn.com

right

E5mzED7NNSgB73tj

test

CZOFcGC77N5749CL

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/24/clinton-ignores-questions-on-ferguson/?hpt=po_t1

Clinton ignores questions on Ferguson

2014-08-24

Westhampton Beach , New York ( CNN ) - Hillary Clinton , who has yet to comment about the protests over the death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson , Missouri , ignored questions about the incident on Sunday . After signing more than 700 books at Books & Books in Westhampton Beach , Clinton was asked by two reporters for her reaction to the controversy . Liberal activists and civil rights leaders have asked Clinton for her response , saying she is the presumed front-runner for her party 's presidential nomination in 2016 and that she has commented on major news stories in the past . Michael Brown was shot dead earlier this month by a Missouri police officer . The shooting sparked large protests in the St. Louis suburb , which were highlighted by looting and a sizable police presence . Attorney General Eric Holder visited Ferguson last week to check in on the federal civil rights investigation into the shooting , and President Barack Obama 's White House has begun to look into the equipment the federal government provides to police forces . At a rally earlier this month about the killing , Rev . Al Sharpton , a civil rights leader and host on MSNBC , said , `` Jeb Bush , Hillary Clinton , don ’ t get laryngitis on this issue . '' He then added , `` Nobody can go to the White House unless they stop by our house and talk about policing . '' Clinton was well received in the tony New York beach town . Countless attendees urged her to run for president and some even demanded that she do so . `` You 've got ta run , '' said one woman . `` I want to vote for you . '' Another tried guilt , telling Clinton that voting for her was on her bucket list . `` You ca n't deny me of that , right , '' she added . Clinton also slightly tipped her hand on running a few times . When one man said his brother was her youngest canvasser during her failed 2008 bid , Clinton respond with a smile , `` Keep up your strength . '' Another man asked Clinton for her campaign contact , to which the former first lady replied , `` Oh , I do n't have a campaign yet . '' Two attendees offered mild protest to the former secretary of state . One asked a question about the United States ' role in Iran and another said he disapproved of the way Clinton handled the Arab Spring . In the latter case , Clinton urged the man to read her book .

5 years ago Westhampton Beach, New York (CNN) - Hillary Clinton, who has yet to comment about the protests over the death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, ignored questions about the incident on Sunday. After signing more than 700 books at Books & Books in Westhampton Beach, Clinton was asked by two reporters for her reaction to the controversy. Follow @politicaltickerFollow @danmericacnn Clinton ignored both questions and left the bookstore. Liberal activists and civil rights leaders have asked Clinton for her response, saying she is the presumed front-runner for her party's presidential nomination in 2016 and that she has commented on major news stories in the past. Michael Brown was shot dead earlier this month by a Missouri police officer. The shooting sparked large protests in the St. Louis suburb, which were highlighted by looting and a sizable police presence. Attorney General Eric Holder visited Ferguson last week to check in on the federal civil rights investigation into the shooting, and President Barack Obama's White House has begun to look into the equipment the federal government provides to police forces. At a rally earlier this month about the killing, Rev. Al Sharpton, a civil rights leader and host on MSNBC, said, "Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, don’t get laryngitis on this issue." He then added, "Nobody can go to the White House unless they stop by our house and talk about policing." Clinton was well received in the tony New York beach town. Countless attendees urged her to run for president and some even demanded that she do so. "You've gotta run," said one woman. "I want to vote for you." Another tried guilt, telling Clinton that voting for her was on her bucket list. "You can't deny me of that, right," she added. Clinton also slightly tipped her hand on running a few times. When one man said his brother was her youngest canvasser during her failed 2008 bid, Clinton respond with a smile, "Keep up your strength." Another man asked Clinton for her campaign contact, to which the former first lady replied, "Oh, I don't have a campaign yet." Two attendees offered mild protest to the former secretary of state. One asked a question about the United States' role in Iran and another said he disapproved of the way Clinton handled the Arab Spring. In the latter case, Clinton urged the man to read her book.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

CZOFcGC77N5749CL

test

0Ihlc0A18hTrzkoR

labor

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2020/05/28/weekly-jobless-claims-fall-to-2-1-million/

Weekly Jobless Claims Fall to 2.1 Million

2020-05-28

John Carney

New claims for unemployment benefits fell to 2.123 million last week , data from the Department of Labor showed Thursday . That brings new unemployment claims , a proxy for layoffs , since the coronavirus pandemic began to claim jobs ten weeks ago to nearly 40 million . Economists had been expecting around 2.1 million for weekly claims . The prior week was revised up by 8,000 to 2,438,000 . Claims hit a record 6.87 million for the week of March 27 . Each subsequent week has seen claims decline . Continuing claims , those made after an initial application , fell for the week ended May 16 to just over 21 million , down from nearly 25 million . Those are reported with a one-week lag . The decline suggests that some who lost their jobs have been rehired or found new work . The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending May 16 were in California , Washington , and New York . The largest decrease in claims was in Georgia , New Jersey , Kentucky , Louisiana , and Pennsylvania . The federal government has been shipping in an extra $ 600 a week to state unemployment benefits , making the program much more generous . Many workers can now earn more on unemployment than they did when they had a job . These super-sized benefits , however , are set to run out in July . The government said the U.S. unemployment rate soared to 14.7 percent in April , the highest since the Great Depression . That figure is likely to rise when May ’ s data is reported next week . In addition to claims for regular unemployment benefits , the government now offers Pandeemic Unemployment Assistance to business owners , self-employed , gig-workers , and independent contractors who would not ordinarily qualify for unemployment benefits . The government said that an additional 7,793,066 workers received these benefits in the week ended May 9 . The total number of workers receiving any form of jobless benefits , including federal workers and newly discharged members of the military , was 30.957 million for the week ended May 9 .

New claims for unemployment benefits fell to 2.123 million last week, data from the Department of Labor showed Thursday. That brings new unemployment claims, a proxy for layoffs, since the coronavirus pandemic began to claim jobs ten weeks ago to nearly 40 million. Economists had been expecting around 2.1 million for weekly claims. The prior week was revised up by 8,000 to 2,438,000. Claims hit a record 6.87 million for the week of March 27. Each subsequent week has seen claims decline. Continuing claims, those made after an initial application, fell for the week ended May 16 to just over 21 million, down from nearly 25 million. Those are reported with a one-week lag. The decline suggests that some who lost their jobs have been rehired or found new work. The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending May 16 were in California, Washington, and New York. The largest decrease in claims was in Georgia, New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. The federal government has been shipping in an extra $600 a week to state unemployment benefits, making the program much more generous. Many workers can now earn more on unemployment than they did when they had a job. These super-sized benefits, however, are set to run out in July. The government said the U.S. unemployment rate soared to 14.7 percent in April, the highest since the Great Depression. That figure is likely to rise when May’s data is reported next week. In addition to claims for regular unemployment benefits, the government now offers Pandeemic Unemployment Assistance to business owners, self-employed, gig-workers, and independent contractors who would not ordinarily qualify for unemployment benefits. The government said that an additional 7,793,066 workers received these benefits in the week ended May 9. The total number of workers receiving any form of jobless benefits, including federal workers and newly discharged members of the military, was 30.957 million for the week ended May 9.

www.breitbart.com

right

0Ihlc0A18hTrzkoR

test

aK2xV9r0BDzRsGzu

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2017/05/03/fbis-james-comey-calls-wikileaks-intelli

FBI's James Comey Calls Wikileaks "Intelligence Porn," Dares To Define Journalism

2017-05-03

Nick Gillespie, Jim Lindgren, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Eric Boehm, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis, Cosmo Wenman

FBI Director James Comey is talking with the Senate Judiciary Committee about his bureau 's investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia . Among the highlights ? Comey 's indignant attacks on Edward Snowden and Wikileaks : Comey differentiated between WikiLeaks , an `` important focus '' of investigations , and legitimate news sources . `` It crosses a line when it moves from being about educating a public intelligence porn , just pushing out information…just to damage the United States , '' later adding , `` There 's nothing that even smells journalist about some of this content . '' Comey said the focus of investigations would almost always fall on leakers during legitimate investigations . Comey 's comments on Wikileaks call to mind CIA head Mike Pompeo 's attacks on the organization just a couple of weeks ago . `` We can no longer allow [ Julian ] Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us , '' Pompeo declared in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies . `` To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for . It ends now . '' Let 's be clear : No official should be in the business of defining journalism ( and thus implicitly sanctioning government action against whistleblowers and other leakers ) . But it 's especially hilarious when the head of the FBI , an agency that has a long history of patently illegal and typically ineffective subterfuge , gets on his high horse about what 's legit media and what 's not . In a four-year stretch , for instance , the FBI authorized criminal activity by confidential informants over 22,000 times . It 's especially dark , too , when the FBI director is serving a president who has gone above and beyond in singling out specific individuals ( such as Amazon 's Jeff Bezos , who owns The Washington Post ) , calling for the `` loosening '' of libel laws regarding public figures and elected officials , and generally declaring war on the press . That Donald Trump is publicly at odds with Comey over the latter 's refusal to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton only makes the spectacle even more bizarre . Obviously , it 's too much to ask U.S. officials to embrace Wikileaks and other sources that reveal the inner workings of the government , but there 's no question that Wikileaks has forced transparency in ways that have greatly benefited the public .

FBI Director James Comey is talking with the Senate Judiciary Committee about his bureau's investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Among the highlights? Comey's indignant attacks on Edward Snowden and Wikileaks: Comey differentiated between WikiLeaks, an "important focus" of investigations, and legitimate news sources. "It crosses a line when it moves from being about educating a public intelligence porn, just pushing out information…just to damage the United States," later adding, "There's nothing that even smells journalist about some of this content." Comey said the focus of investigations would almost always fall on leakers during legitimate investigations. Comey's comments on Wikileaks call to mind CIA head Mike Pompeo's attacks on the organization just a couple of weeks ago. "We can no longer allow [Julian] Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us," Pompeo declared in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now." Let's be clear: No official should be in the business of defining journalism (and thus implicitly sanctioning government action against whistleblowers and other leakers). But it's especially hilarious when the head of the FBI, an agency that has a long history of patently illegal and typically ineffective subterfuge, gets on his high horse about what's legit media and what's not. In a four-year stretch, for instance, the FBI authorized criminal activity by confidential informants over 22,000 times. It's especially dark, too, when the FBI director is serving a president who has gone above and beyond in singling out specific individuals (such as Amazon's Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post), calling for the "loosening" of libel laws regarding public figures and elected officials, and generally declaring war on the press. That Donald Trump is publicly at odds with Comey over the latter's refusal to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton only makes the spectacle even more bizarre. Obviously, it's too much to ask U.S. officials to embrace Wikileaks and other sources that reveal the inner workings of the government, but there's no question that Wikileaks has forced transparency in ways that have greatly benefited the public. Here's the livestream of the Senate's questioning of Comey:

www.reason.com

right

aK2xV9r0BDzRsGzu

test

uYtwoUeopcW13SIM

race_and_racism

The American Spectator

https://spectator.org/rule-of-law-george-floyd-riots-george-floyd-protests-confederate-statues-statue-removal/

Confederate Statues Defaced, America Disgraced

William Burns, George Neumayr, Wesley J. Smith, Scott Mckay, James Delmont, Jeffrey Lord, David Catron, George Parry, Ben Stein

On Sunday evening , demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd defaced and toppled a statue of Confederate officer Charles Linn , which had stood in a public park in Birmingham , Alabama , since being installed in 2013 by a charity . The destruction of this Confederate monument is but one in a sequence of such vandalisms that have swept the nation ’ s southern states in the past week . The Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Birmingham was defaced before authorities disassembled and relocated it . A Confederate monument on the University of Mississippi campus was vandalized Saturday evening by protesters . A statue of General Robert E. Lee in Richmond , Virginia , has likewise been a target of vandalism , along with Confederate statues in North and South Carolina . A 131-year-old statue of a Confederate soldier in Alexandria , Virginia , was removed before any harm could come to it . In addition , a statue of Thomas Jefferson in Birmingham was set on fire , and a statue of Mayor Frank Rizzo of Philadelphia was graffitied . These latter figures , although not associated with the Confederacy , were vandalized for the same reason — their perceived racist attitudes and actions , called to attention in light of George Floyd ’ s death . Those who would have memorials of the Confederacy removed argue that their presence causes civil unrest , while advocates of their staying put argue that they are symbols of state heritage . Protesters adamantly claim that the statues ’ removal will alleviate some racial tensions ; others are skeptical that the mere relocation of marble and bronze will solve any underlying social problems . But what should be quite uncontroversial is that the deliberate destruction of public property is not an appropriate mode of protest , besides being illegal . It isn ’ t said nearly enough , but by defacing and toppling Confederate statues , these protesters are doing a far worse injustice than the states may have done by erecting them . This country was built upon the Lockean idea that property , both private and public , is sacred , and nothing — not anger , not resentment , not unrest — can justify its violation . To vandalize property is to scorn a sacred principle of the American system and to reject one of the premises upon which our nation was founded , and one of the reasons why it has become so prosperous . In a republic , if citizens disagree with their government ’ s actions , they are free to use their vote to change the way government makes its decisions . But one of the things that enables a civil society to function is that its citizens agree to submit to the state ’ s judgment , even when they believe said judgment to be in error . It is this general agreement that keeps our civilization , even to this day , from descending once again into a Hobbesian nightmare . But by vandalizing these statues , some protesters have shown that they will not abide by the government ’ s decisions and are willing to break the law to prove it . This spurning of the rule of law is toxic to the health of any republic and , if it carries on unpunished or is even encouraged by officials , will continue to grow until bronze statues are not the only things getting hurt . History is rife with examples of revolutions that have disregarded basic rights to life and property . Such chaos has been commonplace since the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror . The events then and in many revolutions since serve as grim reminders that no matter how righteous one ’ s cause may be , going beyond the law to address one ’ s grievances can easily upset a nation ’ s social and political order and lead to devastating and deadly unforeseen consequences . Whether in Birmingham or anywhere else , property , public and private , must be protected . If these Confederate statues truly are stirring up the discord accredited to them , then they should be removed in a manner to be determined by law — the citizens of any of these states are free to change their laws and their representatives . And , if this is what citizens decide to do , then , regardless of whatever social value is lost or gained , there is nothing criminal in it . But the wanton defacement and destruction of public property witnessed this week is as inexcusable as it is unlawful and unethical , and such vandalism must not be permitted to continue .

On Sunday evening, demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd defaced and toppled a statue of Confederate officer Charles Linn, which had stood in a public park in Birmingham, Alabama, since being installed in 2013 by a charity. The destruction of this Confederate monument is but one in a sequence of such vandalisms that have swept the nation’s southern states in the past week. The Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Birmingham was defaced before authorities disassembled and relocated it. A Confederate monument on the University of Mississippi campus was vandalized Saturday evening by protesters. A statue of General Robert E. Lee in Richmond, Virginia, has likewise been a target of vandalism, along with Confederate statues in North and South Carolina. A 131-year-old statue of a Confederate soldier in Alexandria, Virginia, was removed before any harm could come to it. In addition, a statue of Thomas Jefferson in Birmingham was set on fire, and a statue of Mayor Frank Rizzo of Philadelphia was graffitied. These latter figures, although not associated with the Confederacy, were vandalized for the same reason — their perceived racist attitudes and actions, called to attention in light of George Floyd’s death. Those who would have memorials of the Confederacy removed argue that their presence causes civil unrest, while advocates of their staying put argue that they are symbols of state heritage. Protesters adamantly claim that the statues’ removal will alleviate some racial tensions; others are skeptical that the mere relocation of marble and bronze will solve any underlying social problems. But what should be quite uncontroversial is that the deliberate destruction of public property is not an appropriate mode of protest, besides being illegal. It isn’t said nearly enough, but by defacing and toppling Confederate statues, these protesters are doing a far worse injustice than the states may have done by erecting them. This country was built upon the Lockean idea that property, both private and public, is sacred, and nothing — not anger, not resentment, not unrest — can justify its violation. To vandalize property is to scorn a sacred principle of the American system and to reject one of the premises upon which our nation was founded, and one of the reasons why it has become so prosperous. In a republic, if citizens disagree with their government’s actions, they are free to use their vote to change the way government makes its decisions. But one of the things that enables a civil society to function is that its citizens agree to submit to the state’s judgment, even when they believe said judgment to be in error. It is this general agreement that keeps our civilization, even to this day, from descending once again into a Hobbesian nightmare. But by vandalizing these statues, some protesters have shown that they will not abide by the government’s decisions and are willing to break the law to prove it. This spurning of the rule of law is toxic to the health of any republic and, if it carries on unpunished or is even encouraged by officials, will continue to grow until bronze statues are not the only things getting hurt. History is rife with examples of revolutions that have disregarded basic rights to life and property. Such chaos has been commonplace since the French Revolution and the subsequent Reign of Terror. The events then and in many revolutions since serve as grim reminders that no matter how righteous one’s cause may be, going beyond the law to address one’s grievances can easily upset a nation’s social and political order and lead to devastating and deadly unforeseen consequences. Whether in Birmingham or anywhere else, property, public and private, must be protected. If these Confederate statues truly are stirring up the discord accredited to them, then they should be removed in a manner to be determined by law — the citizens of any of these states are free to change their laws and their representatives. And, if this is what citizens decide to do, then, regardless of whatever social value is lost or gained, there is nothing criminal in it. But the wanton defacement and destruction of public property witnessed this week is as inexcusable as it is unlawful and unethical, and such vandalism must not be permitted to continue.

www.spectator.org

right

uYtwoUeopcW13SIM

test

GmErNpNYwO8YZUya

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-pruitt/under-fire-for-ethics-scandals-epa-chief-pruitt-resigns-idUSKBN1JV2UH

Under fire for ethics scandals, EPA chief Pruitt resigns

2018-07-06

John Whitesides

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt , who had been lauded by President Donald Trump for his aggressive efforts to roll back environmental regulations , resigned on Thursday under heavy fire for a series of ethics-related controversies . Pruitt was one of Trump ’ s most polarizing Cabinet members , slashing regulations on the energy and manufacturing industries , including a move to repeal President Barack Obama ’ s signature program to cut carbon emissions from power plants , dubbed the Clean Power Plan . He was also instrumental last year in lobbying Trump to withdraw the United States from the global 2015 Paris climate accord to combat global warming . But Pruitt lost favor with Trump ’ s inner circle after a string of controversies including first-class travel at taxpayer expense , lavish spending on security , the installation of a $ 43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office and accusations that he used his position to receive favors , such as a discounted rental on a high-end condo from an energy lobbyist ’ s wife . “ The unrelenting attacks on me personally , my family , are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us , ” Pruitt said in his resignation letter . Trump announced the resignation on Twitter and said EPA Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler , a former mining industry lobbyist , will become the regulatory agency ’ s acting chief on Monday . Wheeler is widely expected to continue Pruitt ’ s efforts to roll back and streamline regulation , something that Trump had promised in his presidential campaign . “ Scott has done an outstanding job , and I will always be thankful to him for this , ” Trump wrote . Trump told reporters later that Pruitt had approached him and offered to resign as opposed to being pushed out . Wheeler said in a message to EPA employees that he was “ both humbled and honored ” to lead the agency . “ I look forward to working hard alongside all of you to continue our collective goal of protecting public health and the environment on behalf of the American people , ” he said . Democrats and environmental advocacy groups cheered the departure of Pruitt , a close ally of the fossil fuel industry who has often questioned mainstream climate change science . “ Scott Pruitt ’ s reign of venality is finally over . He made swamp creatures blush with his shameless excesses . All tolerated because Trump liked his zealotry . Shame , ” Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly said . The Environmental Working Group , a public health and environment watchdog , called Pruitt “ unquestionably the worst head of the agency in its 48-year history . ” Pruitt , as Oklahoma ’ s attorney general before heading up the EPA , had sued the federal agency more than a dozen times on behalf of his oil-drilling state . Pruitt also rankled some Republican lawmakers , including in Midwest corn-producing states , with his efforts to overhaul a U.S. policy requiring biofuels like corn-based ethanol in gasoline . Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said Trump made the “ right decision . ” Other Republicans , as well as coal and oil industry groups , said in statements on Thursday that Pruitt had been a good friend to industry . “ Scott Pruitt did great work to reduce the regulatory burdens facing our nation while leading the Environmental Protection Agency , ” said Republican Senator Jim Inhofe , from Pruitt ’ s home state of Oklahoma . Pruitt ’ s interim replacement , Wheeler , was formerly a lobbyist for Murray Energy [ MUYEY.UL ] , the country ’ s largest underground coal mining company , and also worked for Inhofe – a self-described climate skeptic - on efforts to combat climate legislation . Matt Dempsey , an energy lobbyist at consultancy FTI , said Wheeler will be less controversial than Pruitt but without altering the agenda . “ He will be less political and more straightforward in his approach to the job , which is better for the Trump administration agenda in the long run . The politics will pass but the policy will remain , ” Dempsey said . Pruitt was facing around a dozen investigations into his tenure , including his frequent use of first-class flights and his spending on security – which the agency has defended as necessary to defend him against unprecedented threats . Travel records showed the U.S. government spent $ 17,000 in taxpayer money on a December trip to Morocco to promote U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas , which is not part of the EPA ’ s jurisdiction . The Washington Post reported that a longtime Pruitt friend and lobbyist helped arrange the trip and later registered as a foreign agent representing Morocco . In one of the investigations , the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the EPA violated two laws by installing the $ 43,000 phone booth for Pruitt ’ s office without telling lawmakers first . Pruitt said his staff never told him the cost . Some of the ethics accusations against Pruitt also involved jobs for his wife . Emails obtained by the Sierra Club environmental group showed Pruitt had an aide contact the chief executive of a fast-food chain about his wife becoming a franchise owner . The Washington Post reported Pruitt had aides also try to get his wife a job at the Republican Attorneys General Association with a salary topping $ 200,000 . Pruitt also had an employee carry out his personal errands , including researching the purchase of an old mattress from the Trump International Hotel , according to an interview transcript released by congressional Democrats last month . A source close to Trump said the controversy over the search for a used Trump International Hotel mattress was the last straw for Trump with Pruitt because it involved the Trump Organization . During congressional testimony in April , Pruitt was unapologetic for the controversies , often blaming his staff for any agency missteps .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, who had been lauded by President Donald Trump for his aggressive efforts to roll back environmental regulations, resigned on Thursday under heavy fire for a series of ethics-related controversies. Pruitt was one of Trump’s most polarizing Cabinet members, slashing regulations on the energy and manufacturing industries, including a move to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature program to cut carbon emissions from power plants, dubbed the Clean Power Plan. He was also instrumental last year in lobbying Trump to withdraw the United States from the global 2015 Paris climate accord to combat global warming. But Pruitt lost favor with Trump’s inner circle after a string of controversies including first-class travel at taxpayer expense, lavish spending on security, the installation of a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office and accusations that he used his position to receive favors, such as a discounted rental on a high-end condo from an energy lobbyist’s wife. “The unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us,” Pruitt said in his resignation letter. Trump announced the resignation on Twitter and said EPA Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former mining industry lobbyist, will become the regulatory agency’s acting chief on Monday. Wheeler is widely expected to continue Pruitt’s efforts to roll back and streamline regulation, something that Trump had promised in his presidential campaign. “Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this,” Trump wrote. Trump told reporters later that Pruitt had approached him and offered to resign as opposed to being pushed out. Wheeler said in a message to EPA employees that he was “both humbled and honored” to lead the agency. “I look forward to working hard alongside all of you to continue our collective goal of protecting public health and the environment on behalf of the American people,” he said. Democrats and environmental advocacy groups cheered the departure of Pruitt, a close ally of the fossil fuel industry who has often questioned mainstream climate change science. “Scott Pruitt’s reign of venality is finally over. He made swamp creatures blush with his shameless excesses. All tolerated because Trump liked his zealotry. Shame,” Democratic Representative Gerry Connolly said. The Environmental Working Group, a public health and environment watchdog, called Pruitt “unquestionably the worst head of the agency in its 48-year history.” Pruitt, as Oklahoma’s attorney general before heading up the EPA, had sued the federal agency more than a dozen times on behalf of his oil-drilling state. Pruitt also rankled some Republican lawmakers, including in Midwest corn-producing states, with his efforts to overhaul a U.S. policy requiring biofuels like corn-based ethanol in gasoline. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said Trump made the “right decision.” Other Republicans, as well as coal and oil industry groups, said in statements on Thursday that Pruitt had been a good friend to industry. “Scott Pruitt did great work to reduce the regulatory burdens facing our nation while leading the Environmental Protection Agency,” said Republican Senator Jim Inhofe, from Pruitt’s home state of Oklahoma. FILE PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt takes questions about the Trump administration's withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate accords during the daily briefing at the White House in Washington, U.S. June 2, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo “POLICY WILL REMAIN” Pruitt’s interim replacement, Wheeler, was formerly a lobbyist for Murray Energy [MUYEY.UL], the country’s largest underground coal mining company, and also worked for Inhofe – a self-described climate skeptic - on efforts to combat climate legislation. Matt Dempsey, an energy lobbyist at consultancy FTI, said Wheeler will be less controversial than Pruitt but without altering the agenda. “He will be less political and more straightforward in his approach to the job, which is better for the Trump administration agenda in the long run. The politics will pass but the policy will remain,” Dempsey said. Pruitt was facing around a dozen investigations into his tenure, including his frequent use of first-class flights and his spending on security – which the agency has defended as necessary to defend him against unprecedented threats. Travel records showed the U.S. government spent $17,000 in taxpayer money on a December trip to Morocco to promote U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas, which is not part of the EPA’s jurisdiction. The Washington Post reported that a longtime Pruitt friend and lobbyist helped arrange the trip and later registered as a foreign agent representing Morocco. In one of the investigations, the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the EPA violated two laws by installing the $43,000 phone booth for Pruitt’s office without telling lawmakers first. Pruitt said his staff never told him the cost. Some of the ethics accusations against Pruitt also involved jobs for his wife. Emails obtained by the Sierra Club environmental group showed Pruitt had an aide contact the chief executive of a fast-food chain about his wife becoming a franchise owner. The Washington Post reported Pruitt had aides also try to get his wife a job at the Republican Attorneys General Association with a salary topping $200,000. Slideshow (7 Images) Pruitt also had an employee carry out his personal errands, including researching the purchase of an old mattress from the Trump International Hotel, according to an interview transcript released by congressional Democrats last month. A source close to Trump said the controversy over the search for a used Trump International Hotel mattress was the last straw for Trump with Pruitt because it involved the Trump Organization. During congressional testimony in April, Pruitt was unapologetic for the controversies, often blaming his staff for any agency missteps.

www.reuters.com

center

GmErNpNYwO8YZUya

test

EytGYCPqYNwQIPgI

national_defense

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48671319

Gulf crisis: US sends more troops amid tanker tension with Iran

The US military will send an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East as tensions build with Iran . Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan said the deployment was in response to `` hostile behaviour '' by Iranian forces . The US Navy also shared new images it says link Iran to attacks last week on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman . Washington has accused Iran of blowing holes in the vessels with mines . Iran has denied the allegations . Tensions were further fuelled on Monday when Iran said its stockpile of low-enriched uranium would next week exceed levels set under the 2015 nuclear agreement . It recently stepped up production in response to the US tightening sanctions . The 2015 deal , from which the US has withdrawn , curbed Iran 's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions . Iran 's President Hassan Rouhani said his country did not seek to wage war with any nation and had remained `` loyal '' to its international obligations . Overnight three rockets hit a military base housing US troops north of Baghdad , the Iraqi military said . The US said it was `` indirect fire '' and did not cause injuries . No group said it had carried out the attack , though it followed US warnings of an increased threat to US interests in Iraq by Iranian-backed militias . Announcing the deployment , Mr Shanahan said the US did `` not seek conflict with Iran '' but the action had been taken to `` ensure the safety and welfare of our military personnel working throughout the region to protect our national interests '' . He said the military would continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments to troop levels accordingly . The 1,000 additional troops being despatched to the Middle East is presented as a prudent defensive measure by the Pentagon ; the recent attacks on the two oil tankers being taken as a clear sign of Iran 's hostile intent . They join some 1,500 additional troops sent last month . Taken together , these deployments inevitably raise tensions but they are clearly not in any sense an assault force . If direct conflict does break out between Washington and Tehran , it will most likely be a sporadic air and maritime battle , not a land campaign . But what worries Washington is attacks by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Iran 's proxies against US troops or facilities in the wider region - hence this latest deployment . The US defence secretary is again insisting that Washington does not want conflict with Tehran , but tensions remain high and any miscalculation could lead to a serious escalation . Shortly before the announcement , the Pentagon released new images including some purporting to show the remnants of an unexploded mine on the Japanese-owned oil tanker damaged in the attacks . The photos appear to show it being removed by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps . The Pentagon has already released grainy video said to show the same episode . Also seen in the latest images is apparent damage - a hole - above the waterline on the hull of the Kokuka Courageous . Another image is said to show the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps vessel shortly after it was involved in removing the limpet mine . The other tanker damaged in the attacks was the Norwegian-owned Front Altair . The US has implicated Iran in the latest attacks and four others outside the Strait of Hormuz in May , allegations denied by Iran . China urged the US to lower the pressure and for Iran to stick to the nuclear deal , warning of a `` Pandora 's box '' in the region . Russia - another party to the nuclear accord - also called for restraint , calling US actions `` truly provocative '' . Saudi Arabia also blames Iran for the attacks on the two oil tankers , while the UK said it was `` almost certain '' Iran was behind the blasts . But EU foreign ministers meeting on Monday warned against jumping to conclusions and backed UN calls for an independent investigation . In 2015 , Iran agreed to a landmark deal with world powers to curb its nuclear development . It agreed to limit the enrichment of uranium , which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons , and other measures in return for relief from sanctions . Mr Trump abandoned the nuclear accord last year and started to re-impose sanctions . The move has crippled Iran 's economy , which relies on oil , and Iran has responded by scaling back its nuclear commitments . Speaking on Iranian TV , President Rouhani said the international community could see that it was the US , not Iran , that was acting badly . `` Iran has been loyal to its signature , '' he said . `` Iran has been loyal to international agreements , and the one standing against us today [ the US ] is the one that has trampled all pacts , agreements and international accords . '' Iran 's Atomic Energy Organisation said earlier it was on course to exceed agreed limits on its low-enriched uranium stockpiles by 27 June . But Iran said there was `` still time '' for European countries to act by protecting Iran from reinstated US sanctions .

Image copyright US Department of Defense Image caption The US released new images on Monday it says provide more evidence Iran was behind recent Gulf of Oman attacks The US military will send an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East as tensions build with Iran. Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan said the deployment was in response to "hostile behaviour" by Iranian forces. The US Navy also shared new images it says link Iran to attacks last week on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. Washington has accused Iran of blowing holes in the vessels with mines. Iran has denied the allegations. Tensions were further fuelled on Monday when Iran said its stockpile of low-enriched uranium would next week exceed levels set under the 2015 nuclear agreement. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Mike Pompeo: US pressure on Iran has been "very effective" It recently stepped up production in response to the US tightening sanctions. The 2015 deal, from which the US has withdrawn, curbed Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said his country did not seek to wage war with any nation and had remained "loyal" to its international obligations. Overnight three rockets hit a military base housing US troops north of Baghdad, the Iraqi military said. The US said it was "indirect fire" and did not cause injuries. No group said it had carried out the attack, though it followed US warnings of an increased threat to US interests in Iraq by Iranian-backed militias. What do we know about the extra troops? Announcing the deployment, Mr Shanahan said the US did "not seek conflict with Iran" but the action had been taken to "ensure the safety and welfare of our military personnel working throughout the region to protect our national interests". He said the military would continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments to troop levels accordingly. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Security correspondent Frank Gardner looks at the evidence which the US says proves Iran's involvement in Thursday's attacks The 1,000 additional troops being despatched to the Middle East is presented as a prudent defensive measure by the Pentagon; the recent attacks on the two oil tankers being taken as a clear sign of Iran's hostile intent. They join some 1,500 additional troops sent last month. Taken together, these deployments inevitably raise tensions but they are clearly not in any sense an assault force. If direct conflict does break out between Washington and Tehran, it will most likely be a sporadic air and maritime battle, not a land campaign. But what worries Washington is attacks by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps or Iran's proxies against US troops or facilities in the wider region - hence this latest deployment. The US defence secretary is again insisting that Washington does not want conflict with Tehran, but tensions remain high and any miscalculation could lead to a serious escalation. What do the latest images show? Shortly before the announcement, the Pentagon released new images including some purporting to show the remnants of an unexploded mine on the Japanese-owned oil tanker damaged in the attacks. The photos appear to show it being removed by members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Pentagon has already released grainy video said to show the same episode. Also seen in the latest images is apparent damage - a hole - above the waterline on the hull of the Kokuka Courageous. Another image is said to show the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps vessel shortly after it was involved in removing the limpet mine. Image copyright EPA The other tanker damaged in the attacks was the Norwegian-owned Front Altair. The US has implicated Iran in the latest attacks and four others outside the Strait of Hormuz in May, allegations denied by Iran. How do other powers see the situation? China urged the US to lower the pressure and for Iran to stick to the nuclear deal, warning of a "Pandora's box" in the region. Russia - another party to the nuclear accord - also called for restraint, calling US actions "truly provocative". Saudi Arabia also blames Iran for the attacks on the two oil tankers, while the UK said it was "almost certain" Iran was behind the blasts. But EU foreign ministers meeting on Monday warned against jumping to conclusions and backed UN calls for an independent investigation. Why are there new tensions? In 2015, Iran agreed to a landmark deal with world powers to curb its nuclear development. It agreed to limit the enrichment of uranium, which is used to make reactor fuel but also nuclear weapons, and other measures in return for relief from sanctions. Mr Trump abandoned the nuclear accord last year and started to re-impose sanctions. The move has crippled Iran's economy, which relies on oil, and Iran has responded by scaling back its nuclear commitments. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi says the enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June. Speaking on Iranian TV, President Rouhani said the international community could see that it was the US, not Iran, that was acting badly. "Iran has been loyal to its signature," he said. "Iran has been loyal to international agreements, and the one standing against us today [the US] is the one that has trampled all pacts, agreements and international accords." Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation said earlier it was on course to exceed agreed limits on its low-enriched uranium stockpiles by 27 June. But Iran said there was "still time" for European countries to act by protecting Iran from reinstated US sanctions.

www.bbc.com

center

EytGYCPqYNwQIPgI

test

03MzG5A1p9xyfcNh

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/06/report-nancy-reagan-dead-at-94/

Report: Nancy Reagan Dead at 94

2016-03-06

Jarrett Stepman

Nancy Reagan has died at the age of 94 , according to TMZ . Mrs. Ronald Reagan , as she wished to be known even when her husband died , was the 40th president ’ s closest confidant and a played a major role in his career and presidency . When Ronald Reagan died , an ABC News report said that “ their love story has always been a part of the presidential story . ” The New York Times wrote , “ Mrs . Reagan was a fierce guardian of her husband ’ s image , sometimes at the expense of her own , and during Mr. Reagan ’ s improbable climb from a Hollywood acting career to the governorship of California and ultimately the White House , she was a trusted adviser . ” Reagan biographer Craig Shirley wrote in his book Last Act : The Final Years and Enduring Legacy of Ronald Reagan , “ They were best friends and soul mates , and his letters over the years left no doubt as to the depth of their mutual love . ” “ Mrs . Reagan was a balm to him and he hated being on the road without her , ” Shirley once said in an interview . “ His diaries recount on several occasions how much he missed her when she was traveling . She also was better as judging who was there to help Reagan versus helping themselves than he was.They were the consummate team , madly in love with each other and content to be alone with no one else around . ” The world may have never had the man who won the Cold War if it was not for the driving force of Nancy in his life . Ronald Reagan aide Michael Deaver once said that , “ Without Nancy , there would have been no Governor Reagan , no President Reagan . ” Ronald and Nancy Reagan met in 1949 when Ronald was the head of the Screen Actors Guild and they married three years later . Their bond was deep and a driving force behind Ronald Reagan ’ s relentless and successful political career . When Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer ’ s in 1994 , Nancy become his primary caretaker until his death in 2004 . Throughout that time she remained a guardian of his legacy . Today our nation mourns the loss of Nancy Reagan , a true example of integrity and grace . My prayers are with the entire Reagan family . — Marco Rubio ( @ marcorubio ) March 6 , 2016 The official statement on Nancy Reagan 's passing https : //t.co/EAV3wkZmPP — Mark R. Levin ( @ marklevinshow ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan was an example to us all of graciousness , loyalty & dignity . RIP . https : //t.co/SHXZWi50l8 pic.twitter.com/ExDKJwNZV2 — John McCain ( @ SenJohnMcCain ) March 6 , 2016 Thank you Nancy Reagan for your service & amazing contributions during an era of bold reforms and political courage . pic.twitter.com/31ssVvfa1k — Rep David Schweikert ( @ RepDavid ) March 6 , 2016 Tonette & I send our prayers to the Reagan family . Nancy Reagan had such a positive impact on so many Americans : https : //t.co/UHYkUOIk0T — Governor Walker ( @ GovWalker ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan , RIP . Statement on the Passing of Mrs. # Reaganhttps : //t.co/YKmvrDpZCX — Craig Shirley ( @ CraigSBPA ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan will be remembered for her deep passion for this nation and love for her husband , Ronald . The Reagan family is in our prayers . — Ted Cruz ( @ tedcruz ) March 6 , 2016 With the passing of Nancy Reagan , God and Ronnie have finally welcomed a choice soul home . https : //t.co/NjiOBT9xoQ — Mitt Romney ( @ MittRomney ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan , the wife of a truly great President , was an amazing woman . She will be missed ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 6 , 2016 RIP Nancy Reagan and Pat Conroy . Many fond memories with the Gipper & the Great Santini . — Jim Webb ( @ JimWebbUSA ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan inspired us with strength & grace & we can all take comfort that she is with her sweet Ronnie again . pic.twitter.com/oWGal9c9wK — Nikki Haley ( @ nikkihaley ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan embodied what it means to represent America as First Lady and her dignified and warm demeanor inspired America — Reince Priebus ( @ Reince ) March 6 , 2016 My statement on the passing of Nancy Reagan . pic.twitter.com/5ZHXpKGzZB — Lindsey Graham ( @ LindseyGrahamSC ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan , who was admired by the nation , will be sorely missed . Condolences to the entire Reagan family . — Senator John Thune ( @ SenJohnThune ) March 6 , 2016 `` Open your eyes to life to see it in the vivid colors that God gave us . '' – Nancy Reagan , rest in peace pic.twitter.com/eafIyVvxmE — Heritage Foundation ( @ Heritage ) March 6 , 2016 Was honored to work closely w/ Nancy Reagan on the Reagan Library . pic.twitter.com/6n4NlbRbH5 — Steve Forbes ( @ SteveForbesCEO ) March 6 , 2016 Nancy Reagan passing , while sad for all Americans , serves as a timely reminder of how toxic our politics have become . We must return . — Jon Huntsman ( @ JonHuntsman ) March 6 , 2016 RIP Nancy Reagan . A rock for her husband and a wonderful representative of American grace and style . — Hugh Hewitt ( @ hughhewitt ) March 6 , 2016

Nancy Reagan has died at the age of 94, according to TMZ . Mrs. Ronald Reagan, as she wished to be known even when her husband died, was the 40th president’s closest confidant and a played a major role in his career and presidency. When Ronald Reagan died, an ABC News report said that “their love story has always been a part of the presidential story.” The New York Times wrote, “Mrs. Reagan was a fierce guardian of her husband’s image, sometimes at the expense of her own, and during Mr. Reagan’s improbable climb from a Hollywood acting career to the governorship of California and ultimately the White House, she was a trusted adviser.” Reagan biographer Craig Shirley wrote in his book Last Act: The Final Years and Enduring Legacy of Ronald Reagan, “They were best friends and soul mates, and his letters over the years left no doubt as to the depth of their mutual love.” “Mrs. Reagan was a balm to him and he hated being on the road without her,” Shirley once said in an interview. “His diaries recount on several occasions how much he missed her when she was traveling. She also was better as judging who was there to help Reagan versus helping themselves than he was.They were the consummate team, madly in love with each other and content to be alone with no one else around.” The world may have never had the man who won the Cold War if it was not for the driving force of Nancy in his life. Ronald Reagan aide Michael Deaver once said that, “Without Nancy, there would have been no Governor Reagan, no President Reagan.” Ronald and Nancy Reagan met in 1949 when Ronald was the head of the Screen Actors Guild and they married three years later. Their bond was deep and a driving force behind Ronald Reagan’s relentless and successful political career. When Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 1994, Nancy become his primary caretaker until his death in 2004. Throughout that time she remained a guardian of his legacy. Tributes have poured in from across the country: Today our nation mourns the loss of Nancy Reagan, a true example of integrity and grace. My prayers are with the entire Reagan family. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 6, 2016 The official statement on Nancy Reagan's passing https://t.co/EAV3wkZmPP — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan was an example to us all of graciousness, loyalty & dignity. RIP. https://t.co/SHXZWi50l8 pic.twitter.com/ExDKJwNZV2 — John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) March 6, 2016 Thank you Nancy Reagan for your service & amazing contributions during an era of bold reforms and political courage. pic.twitter.com/31ssVvfa1k — Rep David Schweikert (@RepDavid) March 6, 2016 Tonette & I send our prayers to the Reagan family. Nancy Reagan had such a positive impact on so many Americans: https://t.co/UHYkUOIk0T — Governor Walker (@GovWalker) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan, RIP. Statement on the Passing of Mrs. #Reaganhttps://t.co/YKmvrDpZCX — Craig Shirley (@CraigSBPA) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan will be remembered for her deep passion for this nation and love for her husband, Ronald. The Reagan family is in our prayers. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 6, 2016 With the passing of Nancy Reagan, God and Ronnie have finally welcomed a choice soul home. https://t.co/NjiOBT9xoQ — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan, the wife of a truly great President, was an amazing woman. She will be missed! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 6, 2016 RIP Nancy Reagan and Pat Conroy. Many fond memories with the Gipper & the Great Santini. — Jim Webb (@JimWebbUSA) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan inspired us with strength & grace & we can all take comfort that she is with her sweet Ronnie again. pic.twitter.com/oWGal9c9wK — Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan embodied what it means to represent America as First Lady and her dignified and warm demeanor inspired America — Reince Priebus (@Reince) March 6, 2016 My statement on the passing of Nancy Reagan. pic.twitter.com/5ZHXpKGzZB — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan, who was admired by the nation, will be sorely missed. Condolences to the entire Reagan family. — Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) March 6, 2016 "Open your eyes to life to see it in the vivid colors that God gave us." – Nancy Reagan, rest in peace pic.twitter.com/eafIyVvxmE — Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) March 6, 2016 Was honored to work closely w/ Nancy Reagan on the Reagan Library. pic.twitter.com/6n4NlbRbH5 — Steve Forbes (@SteveForbesCEO) March 6, 2016 Nancy Reagan passing, while sad for all Americans, serves as a timely reminder of how toxic our politics have become. We must return. — Jon Huntsman (@JonHuntsman) March 6, 2016 RIP Nancy Reagan. A rock for her husband and a wonderful representative of American grace and style. — Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) March 6, 2016

www.breitbart.com

right

03MzG5A1p9xyfcNh

test

pKRsDY9k7KArSLnN

politics

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/e7a4480d33ce4040b59bd48d4b832c05

NOAA scientist: agency likely broke science integrity rules

2019-09-09

Jay Reeves, Seth Borenstein

National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini addresses a meeting of the National Weather Association in Huntsville , Ala. , Monday , Sept. 9 , 2019 . Uccellini defended forecasters who contradicted President Donald Trump 's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a threat to Alabama as it approached the United States . ( AP Photo/Jay Reeves ) National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini addresses a meeting of the National Weather Association in Huntsville , Ala. , Monday , Sept. 9 , 2019 . Uccellini defended forecasters who contradicted President Donald Trump 's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a threat to Alabama as it approached the United States . ( AP Photo/Jay Reeves ) HUNTSVILLE , Ala. ( AP ) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump ’ s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama . Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe . The agency ’ s top scientist called Friday ’ s release “ political ” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “ did what any office would do to protect the public . ” “ My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance , or simply put , political , ” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night . In the email , first reported by The Washington Post , McLean said he is “ pursuing the potential violations ” of the agency ’ s science integrity policy . NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said Monday , “ NOAA ’ s policies on scientific integrity and communications are among the strongest in the federal government , and get high marks from third party observers . The agency ’ s senior career leaders are free to express their opinions about matters of agency operations and science . The agency will not be providing further official comment , and will not speculate on internal reviews . ” Meanwhile , another career civil servant , National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini said forecasters in Birmingham did the right thing Sept. 1 when they tried to combat public panic and rumors that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama . “ They did that with one thing in mind : public safety , ” said Uccellini , who prompted a standing ovation at a meeting of the National Weather Association by asking members of the Birmingham weather staff to stand . “ Only later , when the retweets and politically based comments started coming to their office , did they learn the sources of this information , ” he said . Kevin Laws , science and operations officer for the weather service in Birmingham , declined comment on Uccellini ’ s remarks . McLean in his letter said the Birmingham staff “ corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way as they should . There followed , last Friday , an unsigned press release from ‘ NOAA ’ that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster . ” McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “ approach all scientific activities with honesty , objectively , and completely , without allegiance to individuals , organizations , or ideology . ” He said the Friday NOAA press release “ compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information ” and “ violated NOAA ’ s policies of scientific integrity . ” The policy said employees should not “ intimidate or coerce employees , contractors , recipients of financial assistance awards , or others to alter or censor scientific findings . ” The scientific integrity policy is not criminal and has no punishments , said former NOAA general counsel and deputy administrator Monica Medina , who served in the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton administrations . She praised McLean and Uccellini “ for looking into the matter and holding their current leadership accountable . ” At the National Weather Association ’ s annual meeting , members including its president , signed two posters supporting the hurricane center and Birmingham office . “ We make forecasts , we don ’ t deal with politics , ” said association president Paul Schlatter , who works for the weather service in Boulder , Colorado . “ Our job is to protect the American public with the weather information we pass around . Of course , it ’ s frustrating when things get politicized and we are the scientists and the communicators that are delivering the message for weather safety . ” Trump has defended his Sept. 1 tweet that said Hurricane Dorian would threaten Alabama . Last week Trump displayed an altered hurricane forecast map in the Oval Office that included a crudely drawn addition in black ink to include parts of Alabama , in an attempt to make his point . Alabama had never been included in hurricane forecast advisories . Trump cited older and less authoritative information , which was based on outdated computer models and older graphics on wind speed . An earlier version of this report had an incorrect spelling of National Weather Association President Paul Schlatter ’ s name .

National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini addresses a meeting of the National Weather Association in Huntsville, Ala., Monday, Sept. 9, 2019. Uccellini defended forecasters who contradicted President Donald Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a threat to Alabama as it approached the United States. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves) National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini addresses a meeting of the National Weather Association in Huntsville, Ala., Monday, Sept. 9, 2019. Uccellini defended forecasters who contradicted President Donald Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a threat to Alabama as it approached the United States. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves) HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — The acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said his agency likely violated its scientific integrity rules last week when it publicly chastised a weather office that contradicted President Donald Trump’s claim that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama. Two top NOAA civil servants not so quietly revolted against an unsigned agency press release issued late Friday rebuking the Birmingham weather office for saying Alabama was safe. The agency’s top scientist called Friday’s release “political” and the head of the National Weather Service said the Alabama office “did what any office would do to protect the public.” “My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,” acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig McLean wrote to staffers Sunday night. In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, McLean said he is “pursuing the potential violations” of the agency’s science integrity policy. NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said Monday, “NOAA’s policies on scientific integrity and communications are among the strongest in the federal government, and get high marks from third party observers. The agency’s senior career leaders are free to express their opinions about matters of agency operations and science. The agency will not be providing further official comment, and will not speculate on internal reviews.” Meanwhile, another career civil servant, National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini said forecasters in Birmingham did the right thing Sept. 1 when they tried to combat public panic and rumors that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama. “They did that with one thing in mind: public safety,” said Uccellini, who prompted a standing ovation at a meeting of the National Weather Association by asking members of the Birmingham weather staff to stand. “Only later, when the retweets and politically based comments started coming to their office, did they learn the sources of this information,” he said. Kevin Laws, science and operations officer for the weather service in Birmingham, declined comment on Uccellini’s remarks. “I think the speech speaks for itself,” Laws said. McLean in his letter said the Birmingham staff “corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way as they should. There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from ‘NOAA’ that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster.” McLean said that the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy tells all agency employees to “approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology.” He said the Friday NOAA press release “compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information” and “violated NOAA’s policies of scientific integrity.” The policy said employees should not “intimidate or coerce employees, contractors, recipients of financial assistance awards, or others to alter or censor scientific findings.” The scientific integrity policy is not criminal and has no punishments, said former NOAA general counsel and deputy administrator Monica Medina, who served in the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton administrations. She praised McLean and Uccellini “for looking into the matter and holding their current leadership accountable.” At the National Weather Association’s annual meeting, members including its president, signed two posters supporting the hurricane center and Birmingham office. “We make forecasts, we don’t deal with politics,” said association president Paul Schlatter, who works for the weather service in Boulder, Colorado. “Our job is to protect the American public with the weather information we pass around. Of course, it’s frustrating when things get politicized and we are the scientists and the communicators that are delivering the message for weather safety.” Trump has defended his Sept. 1 tweet that said Hurricane Dorian would threaten Alabama. Last week Trump displayed an altered hurricane forecast map in the Oval Office that included a crudely drawn addition in black ink to include parts of Alabama, in an attempt to make his point. Alabama had never been included in hurricane forecast advisories. Trump cited older and less authoritative information, which was based on outdated computer models and older graphics on wind speed. ___ Borenstein reported from Washington. ___ An earlier version of this report had an incorrect spelling of National Weather Association President Paul Schlatter’s name.

www.apnews.com

center

pKRsDY9k7KArSLnN

test

8mp2RyhPJfEwSNfq

fbi

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/oregon_militiamen_fell_right_into_the_feds_trap_sorry_liberals_the_government_was_right_to_wait_before_taking_them_out/

Oregon militiamen fell right into the feds’ trap: Sorry, liberals, the government was right to wait before taking them out

2016-01-27

Amanda Marcotte

The minute that self-appointed militiamen stepped onto the property of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge , liberals started worrying that these folks would not be held accountable for their criminal behavior . The group , led by the two sons of right wing radical Cliven Bundy , took over the refuge , demanding that the taxpayers turn over federal lands so that folks like the Bundys and other farmers , miners and other private interests could profit handsomely off the land without having to pay for it . It 's clear that the militiamen expected the feds to rush the compound , causing a firefight in which they could be martyrs for the right wing cause of giving white conservatives a lot of free money while leaving the rest of us out to dry . But that did n't happen . Instead , the federal government seemingly did n't do anything for many weeks , letting these guys get comfortable at the refuge and even go back and forth from it for grocery-shopping , media events , and whatever else their hearts desired . Only one occupier was arrested , for using a stolen vehicle to drive to the store . This lack of interest in having a big ol ' shootout right away on government property did n't just disappoint the militiamen . A number of liberal commentators were miffed that the feds seemed to be twiddling their thumbs , often arguing that if the occupiers were people of color , the shootout would have happened already . The criticism had some merit , of course , but the solution for such a double standard is n't to have more shootouts , so much as it 's an argument against the quick-to-violence reactions law enforcement regrettably has when dealing with non-white suspects . The occupation was expensive and disruptive , of course , leading the Democratic governor of Oregon to ask for the feds to step in . This only reinforced liberal suspicions that the feds were blowing this off and were not going to hold these yahoos accountable for their actions . Well , those fears were proven most dramatically wrong Tuesday afternoon , when law enforcement confronted the militiamen on the open highway . A shootout did ensue , which was expected since these folks all have ridiculous martyr fantasies , and one person was killed . So far , there have been eight arrests , and the leaders of this fiasco are in custody . Now the feds have closed in on the refuge , closing roads and access . Without leadership or access to the outside , it wo n't be surprising if the rest of the people inside just give up soon enough . The worrywarts were getting all worked up over nothing . Despite all the hand-wringing over whether the feds were taking this seriously enough , in the end , it turns out that the feds were right and the worrywarts were wrong . Waiting this out a bit , while unfortunately disruptive to the area , ended up being a far more sensible way of dealing with this than trying to raid the wildlife refuge . Raiding the refuge was always a bad idea . For one thing it would give these wannabe martyrs exactly what they want , an opportunity to get hurt or die at government hands and become fuel for radical right wing propaganda . They even brought children onto the property to raise the stakes . In the past , federal raids under similar circumstances involving children -- -most notably in Waco -- -not only resulted in innocent lives being lost , but in providing right wing radicals even more justification to demonize federal authorities . And while the occupation was disruptive and expensive , it would have been far more costly to give the militia the shootout at the refuge they wanted . These guys bragged about how they anticipated violence . They openly threatened that this would become another Waco . Rushing them at the compound would have caused expensive damage to the building , and possibly a fire if the militiamen made good on these threats . Repairing that would have cost a fortune and kept the refuge employees on leave even longer . Instead , the feds let the militia get complacent and bored . They let the media attention drift away , forcing the militia to have to take more risks and leave the refuge more to get attention . What looked like federal inattention now looks a whole lot more like it was a trap being set to draw the militia members out . If so , it worked perfectly . The militia members felt emboldened enough to travel 100 miles away from the refuge , and it was out there , without the shelter of the refuge , the presence of cameras , or the ability to use children or neighbors as human shields , that they were finally nabbed by law enforcement . No expensive destruction of property , no dead kids , no officers killed . Only one would-be martyr lost his life . But this was n't just a success from a damage control perspective , either . The federal strategy also kneecapped the propaganda value of this occupation . As I wrote earlier this month , the lengthy occupation gave the militiamen near-daily opportunities to show the world their true colors , proving that they are n't manly warriors taking a stand so much as a bunch of clowns playing dress-up . The arrest is more of the same . Instead of staging some Alamo-inspired last stand in the refuge , they apprehended in the middle of nowhere because they were stupid enough to go on a road trip . The only way this could have been more demoralizing for their cause is if they were wearing adult diapers when they got caught . The entire debacle is n't quite over yet . There are still some militia members holed up in the refuge . But their leaders have all been apprehended . Considering what idiots the leaders were , it 's not unreasonable to think the people who were left to hold down the fort are even less capable of managing this situation . The federal strategy of being patient and waiting for an opportunity will most likely continue to pay off . Instead of being angry that the feds did n't rush this compound , liberals should use this story to push for smarter , less aggressive policing generally . We 're in the midst , prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement , of a nationwide discussion about the dangers of the `` shoot first '' philosophy of policing . This story if a perfect example of why it 's better for police to be patient and focused on minimizing damage rather than trying to strong-arm the suspects in every situation . It 's not just the right thing to do , but it 's often the most effective way to get the bad guys without hurting innocent people in the process .

The minute that self-appointed militiamen stepped onto the property of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, liberals started worrying that these folks would not be held accountable for their criminal behavior. The group, led by the two sons of right wing radical Cliven Bundy, took over the refuge, demanding that the taxpayers turn over federal lands so that folks like the Bundys and other farmers, miners and other private interests could profit handsomely off the land without having to pay for it. It's clear that the militiamen expected the feds to rush the compound, causing a firefight in which they could be martyrs for the right wing cause of giving white conservatives a lot of free money while leaving the rest of us out to dry. But that didn't happen. Instead, the federal government seemingly didn't do anything for many weeks, letting these guys get comfortable at the refuge and even go back and forth from it for grocery-shopping, media events, and whatever else their hearts desired. Only one occupier was arrested, for using a stolen vehicle to drive to the store. Advertisement: This lack of interest in having a big ol' shootout right away on government property didn't just disappoint the militiamen. A number of liberal commentators were miffed that the feds seemed to be twiddling their thumbs, often arguing that if the occupiers were people of color, the shootout would have happened already. The criticism had some merit, of course, but the solution for such a double standard isn't to have more shootouts, so much as it's an argument against the quick-to-violence reactions law enforcement regrettably has when dealing with non-white suspects. The occupation was expensive and disruptive, of course, leading the Democratic governor of Oregon to ask for the feds to step in. This only reinforced liberal suspicions that the feds were blowing this off and were not going to hold these yahoos accountable for their actions. Well, those fears were proven most dramatically wrong Tuesday afternoon, when law enforcement confronted the militiamen on the open highway. A shootout did ensue, which was expected since these folks all have ridiculous martyr fantasies, and one person was killed. So far, there have been eight arrests, and the leaders of this fiasco are in custody. Now the feds have closed in on the refuge, closing roads and access. Without leadership or access to the outside, it won't be surprising if the rest of the people inside just give up soon enough. Advertisement: The worrywarts were getting all worked up over nothing. Despite all the hand-wringing over whether the feds were taking this seriously enough, in the end, it turns out that the feds were right and the worrywarts were wrong. Waiting this out a bit, while unfortunately disruptive to the area, ended up being a far more sensible way of dealing with this than trying to raid the wildlife refuge. Raiding the refuge was always a bad idea. For one thing it would give these wannabe martyrs exactly what they want, an opportunity to get hurt or die at government hands and become fuel for radical right wing propaganda. They even brought children onto the property to raise the stakes. In the past, federal raids under similar circumstances involving children---most notably in Waco---not only resulted in innocent lives being lost, but in providing right wing radicals even more justification to demonize federal authorities. And while the occupation was disruptive and expensive, it would have been far more costly to give the militia the shootout at the refuge they wanted. These guys bragged about how they anticipated violence. They openly threatened that this would become another Waco. Rushing them at the compound would have caused expensive damage to the building, and possibly a fire if the militiamen made good on these threats. Repairing that would have cost a fortune and kept the refuge employees on leave even longer. Advertisement: Instead, the feds let the militia get complacent and bored. They let the media attention drift away, forcing the militia to have to take more risks and leave the refuge more to get attention. What looked like federal inattention now looks a whole lot more like it was a trap being set to draw the militia members out. If so, it worked perfectly. The militia members felt emboldened enough to travel 100 miles away from the refuge, and it was out there, without the shelter of the refuge, the presence of cameras, or the ability to use children or neighbors as human shields, that they were finally nabbed by law enforcement. No expensive destruction of property, no dead kids, no officers killed. Only one would-be martyr lost his life. Advertisement: But this wasn't just a success from a damage control perspective, either. The federal strategy also kneecapped the propaganda value of this occupation. As I wrote earlier this month, the lengthy occupation gave the militiamen near-daily opportunities to show the world their true colors, proving that they aren't manly warriors taking a stand so much as a bunch of clowns playing dress-up. The arrest is more of the same. Instead of staging some Alamo-inspired last stand in the refuge, they apprehended in the middle of nowhere because they were stupid enough to go on a road trip. The only way this could have been more demoralizing for their cause is if they were wearing adult diapers when they got caught. The entire debacle isn't quite over yet. There are still some militia members holed up in the refuge. But their leaders have all been apprehended. Considering what idiots the leaders were, it's not unreasonable to think the people who were left to hold down the fort are even less capable of managing this situation. The federal strategy of being patient and waiting for an opportunity will most likely continue to pay off. Advertisement: Instead of being angry that the feds didn't rush this compound, liberals should use this story to push for smarter, less aggressive policing generally. We're in the midst, prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement, of a nationwide discussion about the dangers of the "shoot first" philosophy of policing. This story if a perfect example of why it's better for police to be patient and focused on minimizing damage rather than trying to strong-arm the suspects in every situation. It's not just the right thing to do, but it's often the most effective way to get the bad guys without hurting innocent people in the process.

www.salon.com

left

8mp2RyhPJfEwSNfq

test

k3oSRfhoCzEbVArD

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-madness-of-the-never-trumpers/

The Madness of the Never-Trumpers

Conrad Black, Jeffrey Lord, E. Donald Elliott, Debra J. Saunders, Geoff Shepard, J.T. Young

The shield of denial and rejection that has insulated most of the Never-Trump coalition since election day is starting to disintegrate , as its lunacy becomes more apparent . Kathy Griffin is only the most recent example . Not since the last days of Richard Nixon have we seen such a tasteless and vicious abuse of a president as her display of a blood-soaked effigy of Donald Trump . What this showed , which until now had been unclear , is that there is a limit to the depravity of the abuse Never-Trumpers could approvingly inflict on the president . Ms. Griffin has apologized and her apology should be accepted . There is no reason why she should be banned from her prior engagements . Her lapse of taste was only marginally more outrageous than that of the many other Never-Trumpers in the unremitting political vacuity of the American entertainment industry . The most interesting part of this episode is the unscripted performance of Ms. Griffin at her press conference , where she oscillated between profuse apology , belligerent statements that Trump “ is picking on the wrong redhead , ” complaints that “ all my life older white guys had been trying to put me down , ” and sobbing that “ he ( Trump and his family ) broke me . ” It was easy to forget for a moment that she was shedding tears of pity for herself because Melania Trump had questioned her mental health and the president and his family had stated , with greater moderation than most of the left , that incitements to his assassination and revelry in the thought of the president ’ s death by decapitation were unacceptable reflections by a normally respectable , if very edgy , comedian . She tried to float the theory that she was under threat of arrest and prosecution , introducing an element of paranoia into this piercing glimpse of her unstable personality . This was from the Trump-as-Fascist book which is furtively cited by the objective leftist media whenever it is thought to be remotely plausible . Immediately after the firing of James Comey , a few CNN and MSNBC tribunes of verity used the phrase , “ they came for Comey this time… , ” as if the FBI director had been the subject of a totalitarian knock on the door in the dead of night and dragged away for interrogation like Rubashov in Koestler ’ s Darkness at Noon ; and as if this fascistic process was apt to recur with increasing frequency , at the whim of the president , until he had disposed of all his critics or insubordinates . Sociologically minded historians of the future will be puzzled by several aspects of the psychological maladjustment of much of the militant opposition to Trump . Of course , the shock or fear of dispossession in the American power structure explains a good part of it , coupled to routine partisanship torqued up by the perceived opportunity to put any defamations , no matter how extreme , across in the national media , almost all of it shivering in the rage and terror of their own political impotence . But it is more than inconvenience , distaste , or even simple defeat that causes Michael Bloomberg to follow his bilious remarks at the Democratic convention with his advocacy of state and municipal adherence to the Paris Accord , a specious form of ecological sanctuary city . This is a leaf from the same book of jurisprudence that has purported to remove immigration from the jurisdiction of the president and reallocate it to district and circuit judges . All of it , including the sanctuary antics of the mayors of New York and Chicago , are more offensive than the doctrines of interposition and nullification that caused President Jackson to threaten to hang the legislators of South Carolina . From the limousine liberals and demented entertainers to the national media , a madness has descended that shows little sign of lifting . The general avoidance of this malaise by Charles Krauthammer , a frequent but rational Trump critic , is distinguishing . More representative and important than the Griffin incident was the gradually unrolling unconfessional confession by Hillary Clinton of the reasons for her defeat . She “ takes responsibility , ” apart from the fact that the Democratic Party was insolvent and incompetent , the rabidly pro-Clinton media would not let her get her program out , the Republicans didn ’ t fight fairly and took advantage of the notorious self-confinement to the highest levels of honest conduct of the Clinton Democrats , the country is fundamentally hostile to the idea of a woman president , and there are too many ignorant reactionaries who vote . Obviously , Kathy Griffin and Hillary Clinton are unique individuals and not too much can be projected from them onto the Never-Trumpers as a group , but there are common elements of exaggerated horror at the thought and fact of Trump as president , an impulse that practically any act of protest and rejection is permissible , and that the reason for Trump ’ s success could not have any legitimate element to it . Somebody is responsible for this unspeakable outrage and while the Griffinites muse about ( but assumedly do not directly incite ) assassination , Mrs. Clinton and her followers lament the shortcomings of a population and Democratic Party that would allow the election of this mountebank to occur . There have been a lot of fatuous comparisons between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon . There is no evidence of a crime in the Trump administration , despite fervent efforts to find one . And Nixon accepted his defeat in 1960 stoically , though he may well have been cheated of election , resisting President Eisenhower ’ s urging to contest the election . He would not put the country to that , as he would not put it through an impeachment trial , although there was no conclusive evidence against him personally . The Clintons are wired differently , and this is a post-electoral hangover unlike any other in U.S. history .

The shield of denial and rejection that has insulated most of the Never-Trump coalition since election day is starting to disintegrate, as its lunacy becomes more apparent. Kathy Griffin is only the most recent example. Not since the last days of Richard Nixon have we seen such a tasteless and vicious abuse of a president as her display of a blood-soaked effigy of Donald Trump. What this showed, which until now had been unclear, is that there is a limit to the depravity of the abuse Never-Trumpers could approvingly inflict on the president. Ms. Griffin has apologized and her apology should be accepted. There is no reason why she should be banned from her prior engagements. Her lapse of taste was only marginally more outrageous than that of the many other Never-Trumpers in the unremitting political vacuity of the American entertainment industry. The most interesting part of this episode is the unscripted performance of Ms. Griffin at her press conference, where she oscillated between profuse apology, belligerent statements that Trump “is picking on the wrong redhead,” complaints that “all my life older white guys had been trying to put me down,” and sobbing that “he (Trump and his family) broke me.” It was easy to forget for a moment that she was shedding tears of pity for herself because Melania Trump had questioned her mental health and the president and his family had stated, with greater moderation than most of the left, that incitements to his assassination and revelry in the thought of the president’s death by decapitation were unacceptable reflections by a normally respectable, if very edgy, comedian. She tried to float the theory that she was under threat of arrest and prosecution, introducing an element of paranoia into this piercing glimpse of her unstable personality. This was from the Trump-as-Fascist book which is furtively cited by the objective leftist media whenever it is thought to be remotely plausible. Immediately after the firing of James Comey, a few CNN and MSNBC tribunes of verity used the phrase, “they came for Comey this time…,” as if the FBI director had been the subject of a totalitarian knock on the door in the dead of night and dragged away for interrogation like Rubashov in Koestler’s Darkness at Noon; and as if this fascistic process was apt to recur with increasing frequency, at the whim of the president, until he had disposed of all his critics or insubordinates. Sociologically minded historians of the future will be puzzled by several aspects of the psychological maladjustment of much of the militant opposition to Trump. Of course, the shock or fear of dispossession in the American power structure explains a good part of it, coupled to routine partisanship torqued up by the perceived opportunity to put any defamations, no matter how extreme, across in the national media, almost all of it shivering in the rage and terror of their own political impotence. But it is more than inconvenience, distaste, or even simple defeat that causes Michael Bloomberg to follow his bilious remarks at the Democratic convention with his advocacy of state and municipal adherence to the Paris Accord, a specious form of ecological sanctuary city. This is a leaf from the same book of jurisprudence that has purported to remove immigration from the jurisdiction of the president and reallocate it to district and circuit judges. All of it, including the sanctuary antics of the mayors of New York and Chicago, are more offensive than the doctrines of interposition and nullification that caused President Jackson to threaten to hang the legislators of South Carolina. From the limousine liberals and demented entertainers to the national media, a madness has descended that shows little sign of lifting. The general avoidance of this malaise by Charles Krauthammer, a frequent but rational Trump critic, is distinguishing. More representative and important than the Griffin incident was the gradually unrolling unconfessional confession by Hillary Clinton of the reasons for her defeat. She “takes responsibility,” apart from the fact that the Democratic Party was insolvent and incompetent, the rabidly pro-Clinton media would not let her get her program out, the Republicans didn’t fight fairly and took advantage of the notorious self-confinement to the highest levels of honest conduct of the Clinton Democrats, the country is fundamentally hostile to the idea of a woman president, and there are too many ignorant reactionaries who vote. Obviously, Kathy Griffin and Hillary Clinton are unique individuals and not too much can be projected from them onto the Never-Trumpers as a group, but there are common elements of exaggerated horror at the thought and fact of Trump as president, an impulse that practically any act of protest and rejection is permissible, and that the reason for Trump’s success could not have any legitimate element to it. Somebody is responsible for this unspeakable outrage and while the Griffinites muse about (but assumedly do not directly incite) assassination, Mrs. Clinton and her followers lament the shortcomings of a population and Democratic Party that would allow the election of this mountebank to occur. There have been a lot of fatuous comparisons between Donald Trump and Richard Nixon. There is no evidence of a crime in the Trump administration, despite fervent efforts to find one. And Nixon accepted his defeat in 1960 stoically, though he may well have been cheated of election, resisting President Eisenhower’s urging to contest the election. He would not put the country to that, as he would not put it through an impeachment trial, although there was no conclusive evidence against him personally. The Clintons are wired differently, and this is a post-electoral hangover unlike any other in U.S. history.

www.spectator.org

right

k3oSRfhoCzEbVArD

test

Uwxq2YRpGELsL9Nm

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2020/january/franklin-graham-event-canceled-because-he-views-gay-marriage-a-sin

Franklin Graham Event Canceled Because He Views Gay Marriage a 'Sin'

2020-01-27

The Rev . Franklin Graham , an evangelist and the son of the late preacher Billy Graham , was slated to speak this summer at a venue in Liverpool . That stop , though , will no longer take place . Graham ’ s event , to be held at ACC Liverpool , was part of a larger tour through the United Kingdom . Officials at the venue , however , announced Friday the event would be scrubbed from the schedule because Graham ’ s views — particularly his biblical interpretation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman — are “ incompatible with our values . ” The Graham Tour UK event which was originally planned to take place at ACC Liverpool in June 2020 will no longer be going ahead . Please find full statement here : https : //t.co/pwXwzf6S6c — ACC Liverpool ( @ ACCLiverpool ) January 26 , 2020 The decision to cancel Graham ’ s stop in Liverpool isn ’ t surprising . Protesters have been rebuking the leaders of the venue for allowing Graham to share the Gospel in the space . One group critical of Graham ’ s slated appearance at ACC Liverpool was the Liverpool Labour LGBT Network , which referred to the evangelist as “ a homophobic hate preacher . ” Petition by our Liverpool Branch members who are asking for support from their locally elected council representatives in response to the platforming of homophobic hate preacher Franklin Graham at the M & S Arena on the 12th of June 2020https : //t.co/Xo1VXB80sK — Labour Party LGBT+ Network ( @ LPLGBTNetwork ) January 24 , 2020 On Monday afternoon , Graham replied to the decision by ACC Liverpool . He penned an open letter to the LGBTQ community in the U.K. , informing them he is coming to Great Britain not to condemn them . Rather , he is coming to present the Gospel . Graham did , though , admit he does see homosexuality as a sin . “ The rub , I think , comes in whether God defines homosexuality as sin , ” he wrote . “ The answer is yes . But God goes even further than that , to say that we are all sinners — myself included . The Bible says that every human being is guilty of sin and in need of forgiveness and cleansing . The penalty of sin is spiritual death — separation from God for eternity . ” Graham also defended the right to free speech and religious liberty . He wrote he is not coming to the U.K. “ to speak against anybody ” because the Gospel “ is inclusive . ” “ I ’ m coming to speak for everybody , ” he added . “ The Gospel is inclusive . I ’ m not coming out of hate , I ’ m coming out of love . ” The 67-year-old preacher ended his letter by saying those in the LGBTQ community are “ absolutely welcome ” to attend one of his events in the U.K .

The Rev. Franklin Graham, an evangelist and the son of the late preacher Billy Graham, was slated to speak this summer at a venue in Liverpool. That stop, though, will no longer take place. Graham’s event, to be held at ACC Liverpool, was part of a larger tour through the United Kingdom. Officials at the venue, however, announced Friday the event would be scrubbed from the schedule because Graham’s views — particularly his biblical interpretation of marriage as a union between one man and one woman — are “incompatible with our values.” The Graham Tour UK event which was originally planned to take place at ACC Liverpool in June 2020 will no longer be going ahead. Please find full statement here:https://t.co/pwXwzf6S6c — ACC Liverpool (@ACCLiverpool) January 26, 2020 The decision to cancel Graham’s stop in Liverpool isn’t surprising. Protesters have been rebuking the leaders of the venue for allowing Graham to share the Gospel in the space. One group critical of Graham’s slated appearance at ACC Liverpool was the Liverpool Labour LGBT Network, which referred to the evangelist as “a homophobic hate preacher.” Petition by our Liverpool Branch members who are asking for support from their locally elected council representatives in response to the platforming of homophobic hate preacher Franklin Graham at the M&S Arena on the 12th of June 2020https://t.co/Xo1VXB80sK — Labour Party LGBT+ Network (@LPLGBTNetwork) January 24, 2020 How has Graham replied? On Monday afternoon, Graham replied to the decision by ACC Liverpool. He penned an open letter to the LGBTQ community in the U.K., informing them he is coming to Great Britain not to condemn them. Rather, he is coming to present the Gospel. Graham did, though, admit he does see homosexuality as a sin. “The rub, I think, comes in whether God defines homosexuality as sin,” he wrote. “The answer is yes. But God goes even further than that, to say that we are all sinners — myself included. The Bible says that every human being is guilty of sin and in need of forgiveness and cleansing. The penalty of sin is spiritual death — separation from God for eternity.” Graham also defended the right to free speech and religious liberty. He wrote he is not coming to the U.K. “to speak against anybody” because the Gospel “is inclusive.” “I’m coming to speak for everybody,” he added. “The Gospel is inclusive. I’m not coming out of hate, I’m coming out of love.” The 67-year-old preacher ended his letter by saying those in the LGBTQ community are “absolutely welcome” to attend one of his events in the U.K.

www1.cbn.com

right

Uwxq2YRpGELsL9Nm

test

8YE92okOFi4CWmHL

politics

Salon

https://www.salon.com/2020/05/15/wtf-is-obamagate-thats-easy-its-donald-trumps-reboot-of-but-her-emails/

WTF is "Obamagate"? That's easy: It's Donald Trump's reboot of "but her emails"

2020-05-15

Even Donald Trump ca n't tell us what `` Obamagate '' is — other than his newest obsession , designed to distract from his total failure to handle the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic catastrophe . But with a news media still and always eager to prove it 's equally tough on `` both sides , '' it 's conceivable that Trump can make Obamagate a thing . Eager to pretend that the rising death tolls and skyrocketing unemployment rates do n't exist , Trump has pivoted back to what he always planned on doing in the 2020 campaign : Pump out a bunch of conspiracy theories about former Vice President Joe Biden and other leading Democrats . His plan has always been to get the mainstream media to elevate these baseless smears until they dominate the 2020 election cycle , sucking attention away from Trump 's extensive history of failures , scandals , lies and outright crimes . And why not ? With the help of WikiLeaks and the Russian government — along with the the spinelessness of FBI Director James Comey — Trump was able to trick the media into turning a total non-scandal about Hillary Clinton using a private email account to do government business ( something that Trump 's people have done on a much larger scale ) into a five-alarm fire that lost her the election . Even though diligent journalists discovered that Trump had been accused of numerous sexual assaults , had defrauded countless people , and had run multiple businesses into the ground , voters in exit polls still thought `` but her emails '' was the bigger scandal . Trump is trying to do it again , repeating the word `` Obamagate '' like a wind-up toy monkey , in hopes that the media will take the hint and start to populate this empty word with details that make it sound like a real scandal . But there 's no scandal there , as Trump himself proved on Monday during an amazing exchange with the Washington Post 's Philip Rucker outside the White House . Rucker noted that Trump kept saying `` Obamagate '' was `` the biggest political crime in American history , '' and asked Trump directly : `` What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing ? '' Trump , shocked that the press was n't doing his dirty work for him ( for once ) , was flabbergasted . `` Uh , Obamagate . It 's been going on for a long time , '' Trump said , rambling on without answering the question before concluding , `` Some terrible things happened , and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again , '' without saying what those `` terrible things '' were . Trump replied , `` You know what the crime is . The crime is very obvious to everybody . '' This was hilarious but telling . Trump did n't think he needed to come up with an actual accusation , which is understandable . He 'd never had to before ! Insinuation and a pretense of outrage had worked well enough to send the press on a wild goose chase to generate fake scandals in the past . Consider the 2016 campaign , with story after story about Clinton 's `` emails , '' which were always seen as `` damaging , '' even though no one could say what damage her emails had done to whom , or even what alleged crime had been committed . ( The FBI declined to prosecute her , since there was literally nothing to prosecute . ) In 2011 , when Trump 's multi-month project of `` just asking questions '' about Barack Obama 's birth certificate generated enough of a media frenzy that Obama was forced to release his long-form Hawaii birth certificate , something no white president has ever felt compelled to do . Trump 's assumption that he does n't have to say what `` Obamagate '' is , exactly , for the media to run with it is sadly proving correct . As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post detailed Thursday , journalists , with help from Republican senators , are starting to color in the boxes of `` Obamagate '' with enough detail to make it seem substantive . But even the most cursory of glances makes clear there 's no there there . Some in the mainstream press are struggling to circle in on a notion that the Obama administration acted improperly by investigating incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn 's shady conduct toward Russia during the presidential transition . But Obama did n't do anything wrong . Trump did . What actually happened is simple : Obama issued sanctions against Russian leaders in 2016 for interfering with the election . After that , Flynn , before taking office with the Trump administration , had a private conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak , in which he assured Kislyak not to worry about the sanctions because Trump would get rid of them . Intelligence officials recorded this conversation , since they had Kislyak under surveillance . Obama officials were understandably concerned about what American was making such assurances to Kislyak and wanted to know who it was . That was their legal right and , more importantly , their patriotic duty . Republicans , with great fanfare , have announced their `` discovery '' that Flynn 's identity was shared with a number of top Obama officials , including Biden . This is not a scandal of any kind . Obama 's White House was in charge of maintaining the integrity of American elections . The fact that a prominent figure in the incoming administration was secretly assuring Russian leaders that their interference in 2016 was A-OK was important information . The real scandal would have been if the Obama administration had ignored the fact that Flynn was behaving in a potentially treasonous manner . This story is complicated , and I imagine readers ' eyes are starting to cross right about now , with simply trying to figure out what the hell is going on . That 's what Trump is counting on — the details are confusing , so voters simply back away with a vague sense that maybe the Obama team did something nefarious , without exactly knowing what that was . That 's precisely what happened with `` her emails . '' Unfortunately , as Sargent notes , it 's working . Headlines declaring that the Republicans have released a list of who heard what about Flynn 's underhanded behavior are seen as somehow `` boosting '' Trump 's narrative or helping to `` discredit '' the Russia investigation . `` The new information actually does not 'boost ' Trump 's claims about the Russia investigation or 'discredit ' it , '' Sargent writes . `` And if there is 'no evidence of wrongdoing , ' then it can not legitimately be 'turned into an election issue . ' '' Remember , this is story where a high-ranking Trump official — Flynn — delivered a backstage high-five to the Russians for interfering with our election , and then lied to the FBI about it . Now the Trump administration , in a blatantly corrupt move , has tried to force the Department of Justice to drop the charges against Flynn , even though he pled guilty to the original charges . ( A federal judge has temporarily put that effort on hold . ) What Trump is currently doing is far worse than anything Richard Nixon ever did with Watergate . Yet a gullible media is working overtime to inflate the narrative that somehow it was Obama who did something wrong , because his administration followed the law and tried to stop Michael Flynn from rewarding a foreign government for interfering with our presidential election . Why is this happening ? There are a few journalists out there who are in the tank for Trump and ready to sell whatever nutty conspiracy theory he throws out . But mostly it 's because so much of the mainstream media , terrified of being accused of having a `` liberal bias , '' will go out of its way to minimize real Republican scandals while blowing up often-imaginary Democratic scandals , all in a bid to appear `` balanced . '' There is no balance here . Obama was a lawful and diligent president who was trying to protect our country 's democratic institutions . Trump is a grifting , cheating sleazeball who is weaponizing the DOJ to try to steal an election and who openly invites foreign interference . Any story that does n't offer clarity on this contrast is misleading the public and can not be considered legitimate journalism . This kind of distorted coverage and journalistic water-carrying can work all too well , unfortunately . In 2016 , I had dinner with a friend who is n't in politics or journalism , but is generally plugged in and follows the news far more closely than most people . Somehow the topic of Clinton 's emails came up and I asked my friend what she thought was in them . She replied that Clinton had accidentally mentioned important state secrets in unsecured emails . She was shocked to hear , from me , apparently for the first time , that that was n't true . As Fred Kaplan of Slate , and apparently no one else , carefully laid out at the time , there was nothing in Clinton 's emails that even slightly resembled a threat to national security . Out of 30,000 emails , exactly eight contained information that was legally classified as `` top secret . '' Seven of those eight discussed information that had already been covered extensively in the press , even if the U.S. government still considered it classified . The other email discussed an inconsequential conversation with the president of Malawi , a nation no Republican could identify on a world map with 25 guesses . If any foreign spy had gotten to it — and none did , remember ? — they would have walked away empty-handed . My friend is smart . She reads the news voraciously . She understand politics better than half of political journalists , probably more . She did n't know that Clinton 's emails had nothing of interest in them . If she did n't know , who could ? This was a massive failure on the part of the news media . So the sad truth is that Donald Trump is n't wrong to believe that he can keep saying `` Obamagate '' over and over and the news media will do the dirty work of creating a scandal where none exists . It 's always worked before . It is starting to work again . The only hope of saving our democracy is that the press finally stops letting its bizarre theology of `` balance '' lead once again to the promotion of conspiracy theories over facts . As Sargent 's article shows , the Washington Post is doing a good job . But will the rest of the media choose to pursue the facts over Trump 's invented scandals , or are we doomed to repeat 2016 all over again ?

Even Donald Trump can't tell us what "Obamagate" is — other than his newest obsession, designed to distract from his total failure to handle the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting economic catastrophe. But with a news media still and always eager to prove it's equally tough on "both sides," it's conceivable that Trump can make Obamagate a thing. Eager to pretend that the rising death tolls and skyrocketing unemployment rates don't exist, Trump has pivoted back to what he always planned on doing in the 2020 campaign: Pump out a bunch of conspiracy theories about former Vice President Joe Biden and other leading Democrats. His plan has always been to get the mainstream media to elevate these baseless smears until they dominate the 2020 election cycle, sucking attention away from Trump's extensive history of failures, scandals, lies and outright crimes. Advertisement: And why not? With the help of WikiLeaks and the Russian government — along with the the spinelessness of FBI Director James Comey — Trump was able to trick the media into turning a total non-scandal about Hillary Clinton using a private email account to do government business (something that Trump's people have done on a much larger scale) into a five-alarm fire that lost her the election. Even though diligent journalists discovered that Trump had been accused of numerous sexual assaults, had defrauded countless people, and had run multiple businesses into the ground, voters in exit polls still thought "but her emails" was the bigger scandal. Trump is trying to do it again, repeating the word "Obamagate" like a wind-up toy monkey, in hopes that the media will take the hint and start to populate this empty word with details that make it sound like a real scandal. But there's no scandal there, as Trump himself proved on Monday during an amazing exchange with the Washington Post's Philip Rucker outside the White House. Rucker noted that Trump kept saying "Obamagate" was "the biggest political crime in American history," and asked Trump directly: "What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing?" Advertisement: Trump, shocked that the press wasn't doing his dirty work for him (for once), was flabbergasted. "Uh, Obamagate. It's been going on for a long time," Trump said, rambling on without answering the question before concluding, "Some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again," without saying what those "terrible things" were. Rucker pressed him: "What is the crime?" Advertisement: Trump replied, "You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody." This was hilarious but telling. Trump didn't think he needed to come up with an actual accusation, which is understandable. He'd never had to before! Insinuation and a pretense of outrage had worked well enough to send the press on a wild goose chase to generate fake scandals in the past. Consider the 2016 campaign, with story after story about Clinton's "emails," which were always seen as "damaging," even though no one could say what damage her emails had done to whom, or even what alleged crime had been committed. (The FBI declined to prosecute her, since there was literally nothing to prosecute.) Advertisement: In 2011, when Trump's multi-month project of "just asking questions" about Barack Obama's birth certificate generated enough of a media frenzy that Obama was forced to release his long-form Hawaii birth certificate, something no white president has ever felt compelled to do. Trump's assumption that he doesn't have to say what "Obamagate" is, exactly, for the media to run with it is sadly proving correct. As Greg Sargent of the Washington Post detailed Thursday, journalists, with help from Republican senators, are starting to color in the boxes of "Obamagate" with enough detail to make it seem substantive. But even the most cursory of glances makes clear there's no there there. Some in the mainstream press are struggling to circle in on a notion that the Obama administration acted improperly by investigating incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn's shady conduct toward Russia during the presidential transition. But Obama didn't do anything wrong. Trump did. Advertisement: What actually happened is simple: Obama issued sanctions against Russian leaders in 2016 for interfering with the election. After that, Flynn, before taking office with the Trump administration, had a private conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which he assured Kislyak not to worry about the sanctions because Trump would get rid of them. Intelligence officials recorded this conversation, since they had Kislyak under surveillance. Obama officials were understandably concerned about what American was making such assurances to Kislyak and wanted to know who it was. That was their legal right and, more importantly, their patriotic duty. Republicans, with great fanfare, have announced their "discovery" that Flynn's identity was shared with a number of top Obama officials, including Biden. This is not a scandal of any kind. Obama's White House was in charge of maintaining the integrity of American elections. The fact that a prominent figure in the incoming administration was secretly assuring Russian leaders that their interference in 2016 was A-OK was important information. The real scandal would have been if the Obama administration had ignored the fact that Flynn was behaving in a potentially treasonous manner. Advertisement: This story is complicated, and I imagine readers' eyes are starting to cross right about now, with simply trying to figure out what the hell is going on. That's what Trump is counting on — the details are confusing, so voters simply back away with a vague sense that maybe the Obama team did something nefarious, without exactly knowing what that was. That's precisely what happened with "her emails." Unfortunately, as Sargent notes, it's working. Headlines declaring that the Republicans have released a list of who heard what about Flynn's underhanded behavior are seen as somehow "boosting" Trump's narrative or helping to "discredit" the Russia investigation. "The new information actually does not 'boost' Trump's claims about the Russia investigation or 'discredit' it," Sargent writes. "And if there is 'no evidence of wrongdoing,' then it cannot legitimately be 'turned into an election issue.'" Remember, this is story where a high-ranking Trump official — Flynn — delivered a backstage high-five to the Russians for interfering with our election, and then lied to the FBI about it. Now the Trump administration, in a blatantly corrupt move, has tried to force the Department of Justice to drop the charges against Flynn, even though he pled guilty to the original charges. (A federal judge has temporarily put that effort on hold.) Advertisement: What Trump is currently doing is far worse than anything Richard Nixon ever did with Watergate. Yet a gullible media is working overtime to inflate the narrative that somehow it was Obama who did something wrong, because his administration followed the law and tried to stop Michael Flynn from rewarding a foreign government for interfering with our presidential election. Why is this happening? There are a few journalists out there who are in the tank for Trump and ready to sell whatever nutty conspiracy theory he throws out. But mostly it's because so much of the mainstream media, terrified of being accused of having a "liberal bias," will go out of its way to minimize real Republican scandals while blowing up often-imaginary Democratic scandals, all in a bid to appear "balanced." There is no balance here. Obama was a lawful and diligent president who was trying to protect our country's democratic institutions. Trump is a grifting, cheating sleazeball who is weaponizing the DOJ to try to steal an election and who openly invites foreign interference. Any story that doesn't offer clarity on this contrast is misleading the public and cannot be considered legitimate journalism. This kind of distorted coverage and journalistic water-carrying can work all too well, unfortunately. In 2016, I had dinner with a friend who isn't in politics or journalism, but is generally plugged in and follows the news far more closely than most people. Somehow the topic of Clinton's emails came up and I asked my friend what she thought was in them. She replied that Clinton had accidentally mentioned important state secrets in unsecured emails. Advertisement: She was shocked to hear, from me, apparently for the first time, that that wasn't true. As Fred Kaplan of Slate, and apparently no one else, carefully laid out at the time, there was nothing in Clinton's emails that even slightly resembled a threat to national security. Out of 30,000 emails, exactly eight contained information that was legally classified as "top secret." Seven of those eight discussed information that had already been covered extensively in the press, even if the U.S. government still considered it classified. The other email discussed an inconsequential conversation with the president of Malawi, a nation no Republican could identify on a world map with 25 guesses. If any foreign spy had gotten to it — and none did, remember? — they would have walked away empty-handed. My friend is smart. She reads the news voraciously. She understand politics better than half of political journalists, probably more. She didn't know that Clinton's emails had nothing of interest in them. If she didn't know, who could? This was a massive failure on the part of the news media. So the sad truth is that Donald Trump isn't wrong to believe that he can keep saying "Obamagate" over and over and the news media will do the dirty work of creating a scandal where none exists. It's always worked before. It is starting to work again. The only hope of saving our democracy is that the press finally stops letting its bizarre theology of "balance" lead once again to the promotion of conspiracy theories over facts. As Sargent's article shows, the Washington Post is doing a good job. But will the rest of the media choose to pursue the facts over Trump's invented scandals, or are we doomed to repeat 2016 all over again?

www.salon.com

left

8YE92okOFi4CWmHL

test

ijW1QQGd7yv1ITOZ

federal_budget

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/house-gop-no-ones-blinking/?hpt=po_c2

House GOP: No one's blinking

2013-01-14

Washington ( CNN ) - In a high-stakes game of chicken , House Republican leaders appear more willing than before to allow the country to default on its loans and shut the government down , in order to force the president and Democrats to agree to spending cuts . In conversations with House GOP leadership aides , it was clear they want to try to reclaim the upper hand in this debate over slashing government spending . `` If the White House continues to pretend that hoping is a strategy then I do n't see how we make progress , '' said one House GOP leadership aide . One member of the leadership , Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers , R-Washington , told Politico that its `` possible that we would shut the government to make sure president Obama understands we 're serious . '' That quote – and the story it was in – appears to be a deliberate attempt to raise the stakes and send the president a message . `` If that story sparks the White House to abandon their strategy of sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping real hard we pass a debt limit increase without real spending cuts –that 's a good thing . That 's not a realistic strategy , '' said the House Republican leadership aide . House GOP leaders argue their position has n't changed from the last time the country hit the debt ceiling in 2011 – they want a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar the debt limit is increased . The same senior Republican aide says that with the White House ruling out other options – minting a trillion coin or using the authority under 14th Amendment – the only option is for Congress to pass legislation and it is possible that unless the President changes his position , Congress wo n't agree to raise the debt limit . One option , if they can not agree to a bigger package , is that Congress could just raise the debt limit for short period of time instead of a full year . `` The White House knows our position - we need spending cuts or reforms equal to the debt limit increase – if they can only find a month or two , then that 's what they get . '' Despite this bravado , other House GOP leadership aides tell CNN they do not think the Speaker is willing make good on these threats – and put the credit of the United States on the line with the debt ceiling . Shutting down the government may have fewer long term consequences with regard to the health of the economy , but some House Republican leadership aides say even that is too politically risky . The issue , however , is that there are a number of rank and file House Republicans who bit their tongues in and around the fiscal cliff debate , believing the debt ceiling and potential government shut down is where their leverage is . How far House Republicans are willing to go will no doubt be a big topic at this week 's House GOP retreat in Williamsburg , Virginia .

7 years ago Washington (CNN) - In a high-stakes game of chicken, House Republican leaders appear more willing than before to allow the country to default on its loans and shut the government down, in order to force the president and Democrats to agree to spending cuts. In conversations with House GOP leadership aides, it was clear they want to try to reclaim the upper hand in this debate over slashing government spending. "If the White House continues to pretend that hoping is a strategy then I don't see how we make progress," said one House GOP leadership aide. One member of the leadership, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, told Politico that its "possible that we would shut the government to make sure president Obama understands we're serious." That quote – and the story it was in – appears to be a deliberate attempt to raise the stakes and send the president a message. "If that story sparks the White House to abandon their strategy of sticking their fingers in their ears and hoping real hard we pass a debt limit increase without real spending cuts –that's a good thing. That's not a realistic strategy," said the House Republican leadership aide. House GOP leaders argue their position hasn't changed from the last time the country hit the debt ceiling in 2011 – they want a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar the debt limit is increased. The same senior Republican aide says that with the White House ruling out other options – minting a trillion coin or using the authority under 14th Amendment – the only option is for Congress to pass legislation and it is possible that unless the President changes his position, Congress won't agree to raise the debt limit. One option, if they cannot agree to a bigger package, is that Congress could just raise the debt limit for short period of time instead of a full year. "The White House knows our position - we need spending cuts or reforms equal to the debt limit increase – if they can only find a month or two, then that's what they get." Despite this bravado, other House GOP leadership aides tell CNN they do not think the Speaker is willing make good on these threats – and put the credit of the United States on the line with the debt ceiling. Shutting down the government may have fewer long term consequences with regard to the health of the economy, but some House Republican leadership aides say even that is too politically risky. The issue, however, is that there are a number of rank and file House Republicans who bit their tongues in and around the fiscal cliff debate, believing the debt ceiling and potential government shut down is where their leverage is. How far House Republicans are willing to go will no doubt be a big topic at this week's House GOP retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia. READ MORE: President Obama's news conference

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

ijW1QQGd7yv1ITOZ

test

rKsQG6tMqfI1nZu8

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/05/bob_mcdonnells_shocking_stupidity_how_could_a_politician_have_been_this_dumb/

Bob McDonnell’s shocking stupidity: How could a politician have been this dumb?

2014-09-05

Jim Newell

On a level of basic human sympathy , it 's painful to see anyone , including former Virginia Gov . Bob McDonnell and first lady Maureen McDonnell , sob through the jury 's reading of 11 and nine guilty counts , respectively . They have children and grandchildren and , barring an appeal , are likely headed to jail for a significant chunk of time . And that 's after , in a desperate , quirky and ultimately unsuccessful defense , they laid bare the daily troubles with their marriage for the world to absorb . It felt dirty to watch the trial , and I , at least , did n't feel it was necessary to write daily updates about the tabloid trash revealed in court on any particular day . But what must be most painful for the McDonnells right now is the knowledge of how completely avoidable this was . There 's nothing even approaching honor or pride in these transgressions . There 's no crime here that you can convince yourself was the right call as a statesman ; you ca n't even say , in some sort of Nixonian way , all I had in mind , the whole time , was the good of the people of Virginia . There 's nothing like that here , unless you think that Virginians really needed the dietary supplement Anatabloc in order to live long and prosper . Bob and Maureen McDonnell will go down as the first Virginia first couple to go down on criminal charges ... because they took a bunch of cash and golf trips and Rolexes . Cash , golf trips , Rolexes , vacations , checks , vacations , Ferrari rides : The components of the $ 100,000+ in gifts and loans that they received from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams Sr. , in exchange for using the powers of the governorship to promote his dumb diet pill thing , could n't have been a shinier bundle of objects for the prosecution to present to the jury . In modern politics , corruption charges are usually more tediously complex : Money was wired here and then laundered via a pass-through , which made its way through another pass-through and was distributed through a foundation before ending up at a nonprofit designed to help such and such 's interests with a client trying to change regulations in foreign markets , or whatever . Not in this case . The prosecution just had to show the jury images of the idiot governor showing off his flashy watch that was given to him by the rich businessman for whom he did favors in return . How much simpler could this get ? It 's only a degree of reality or two away from an old-timey political cartoon of a tuxedoed plutocrat , smoking a cigar , handing over a big bag marked `` $ $ $ , '' to a crooked politician slapping his back and cackling . Even when the McDonnells realized they 'd been caught , and indicted , for cartoonish quid pro quo corruption , they inexplicably continued to roll the dice . You 'd think they 'd realize , Oh god , they caught us taking lots of money from this guy , better strike a deal ! And yet they did n't . Bob McDonnell rejected a plea deal that would have charged him with one felony and let Maureen McDonnell off free . Whoops ! The McDonnells -- or each McDonnell , given the state of their marriage -- must have decided that they had a fantastic chance of defeating this in court . Umm . Did they talk to their lawyers before rejecting that deal ? Because the defense -- the now infamous defense -- that they took in court reeked of desperation all the way through . If you 're willing to testify for days about the stunning levels of dysfunction in your marriage , as the best hope for your exoneration , does n't that suggest that you may not have the strongest case ? Does n't that suggest that perhaps you would 've been better taking a plea deal ? It did n't even cohere . The idea that Bob and Maureen McDonnell were on such bad terms that there was no way they could have had a discussion or two about taking this guy 's money just does n't make sense . The obvious explanation for Bob McDonnell 's tears is that he 's going to jail for a while . It would make me cry , too ! But you also get the feeling that Bob McDonnell had n't come to terms with the hubris , and all of the missteps along the way , until this was read . These were crimes of such classic simplicity that a defendant could , at least for a while , convince himself of the unreality of it all . That there 's no way he could have gotten caught up in such a self-parody of a scheme , or that a jury would actually send him to jail over these things . Did this really happen ? Yeah , it really did . It 's hard to believe for us , too .

On a level of basic human sympathy, it's painful to see anyone, including former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and first lady Maureen McDonnell, sob through the jury's reading of 11 and nine guilty counts, respectively. They have children and grandchildren and, barring an appeal, are likely headed to jail for a significant chunk of time. And that's after, in a desperate, quirky and ultimately unsuccessful defense, they laid bare the daily troubles with their marriage for the world to absorb. It felt dirty to watch the trial, and I, at least, didn't feel it was necessary to write daily updates about the tabloid trash revealed in court on any particular day. But what must be most painful for the McDonnells right now is the knowledge of how completely avoidable this was. There's nothing even approaching honor or pride in these transgressions. There's no crime here that you can convince yourself was the right call as a statesman; you can't even say, in some sort of Nixonian way, all I had in mind, the whole time, was the good of the people of Virginia. There's nothing like that here, unless you think that Virginians really needed the dietary supplement Anatabloc in order to live long and prosper. Bob and Maureen McDonnell will go down as the first Virginia first couple to go down on criminal charges ... because they took a bunch of cash and golf trips and Rolexes. Advertisement: Cash, golf trips, Rolexes, vacations, checks, vacations, Ferrari rides: The components of the $100,000+ in gifts and loans that they received from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams Sr., in exchange for using the powers of the governorship to promote his dumb diet pill thing, couldn't have been a shinier bundle of objects for the prosecution to present to the jury. In modern politics, corruption charges are usually more tediously complex: Money was wired here and then laundered via a pass-through, which made its way through another pass-through and was distributed through a foundation before ending up at a nonprofit designed to help such and such's interests with a client trying to change regulations in foreign markets, or whatever. Not in this case. The prosecution just had to show the jury images of the idiot governor showing off his flashy watch that was given to him by the rich businessman for whom he did favors in return. How much simpler could this get? It's only a degree of reality or two away from an old-timey political cartoon of a tuxedoed plutocrat, smoking a cigar, handing over a big bag marked "$$$," to a crooked politician slapping his back and cackling. God, the stupidity. Even when the McDonnells realized they'd been caught, and indicted, for cartoonish quid pro quo corruption, they inexplicably continued to roll the dice. You'd think they'd realize, Oh god, they caught us taking lots of money from this guy, better strike a deal! And yet they didn't. Bob McDonnell rejected a plea deal that would have charged him with one felony and let Maureen McDonnell off free. Whoops! Advertisement: The McDonnells -- or each McDonnell, given the state of their marriage -- must have decided that they had a fantastic chance of defeating this in court. Umm. Did they talk to their lawyers before rejecting that deal? Because the defense -- the now infamous defense -- that they took in court reeked of desperation all the way through. If you're willing to testify for days about the stunning levels of dysfunction in your marriage, as the best hope for your exoneration, doesn't that suggest that you may not have the strongest case? Doesn't that suggest that perhaps you would've been better taking a plea deal? It didn't even cohere. The idea that Bob and Maureen McDonnell were on such bad terms that there was no way they could have had a discussion or two about taking this guy's money just doesn't make sense. The obvious explanation for Bob McDonnell's tears is that he's going to jail for a while. It would make me cry, too! But you also get the feeling that Bob McDonnell hadn't come to terms with the hubris, and all of the missteps along the way, until this was read. These were crimes of such classic simplicity that a defendant could, at least for a while, convince himself of the unreality of it all. That there's no way he could have gotten caught up in such a self-parody of a scheme, or that a jury would actually send him to jail over these things. Did this really happen? Yeah, it really did. It's hard to believe for us, too.

www.salon.com

left

rKsQG6tMqfI1nZu8

test

hAwATXgOwsEr2six

lgbt_rights

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45939524

#WeWontBeErased: Outcry over memo proposing US transgender change

There has been an outpouring of anger in the US from politicians , celebrities and human rights groups over a report alleging the US policy on gender recognition could be changed . A report in the New York Times on Sunday said a government memo proposed officially defining gender as biological and fixed . The change would rescind previous policy which eased trans recognition . Instead , it would define gender solely on the genitalia people are born with . The administration of former President Barack Obama adopted a definition of gender in federal policy which made it easier to allow individual choice and self-determination . The change sparked a number of complex and long-running legal challenges in conservative states , in areas like the use of toilets . The Trump administration has previously tried to roll back transgender recognition in areas such as the military and in schools - but it has not commented on the latest report . Activists fear the changes allegedly being proposed could in effect `` define out of existence '' Americans who currently identify as transgender - a community who are said to number at least 1.4 million people . Transgender and gender non-confirming people have been sharing their personal stories and response to the report using the hashtag # WeWontBeErased . The news report published by the New York Times on Sunday said a memo the newspaper had seen from the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) proposed establishing a legal and fixed definition of sex under Title IX - a federal civil rights law that outlaws gender discrimination . The report alleges that the department argues the current lack of clarity allowed civil rights protections to be wrongfully extended to some individuals during the Obama administration . The proposed change would instead mean people 's sex would be legally fixed as either male or female by their genitalia . `` Sex means a person 's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth , '' the department proposed in the memo , according to the Times . `` The sex listed on a person 's birth certificate , as originally issued , shall constitute definitive proof of a person 's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence , '' the memo allegedly says . The Department of Health and Human Services told US media it will not comment on alleged document leaks . The Wall Street Journal has also reported on the issue - saying HHS officials hope to release a rule change , but says internal disputes mean it is not clear how extensive it will be . No-one from the Trump administration has so far commented on the reports . The report has generated an angry response from some people in and outside of the US , including swathes of the LGBTQ community . Advocacy groups organised a demonstration on Sunday evening in New York and another protest is planned outside the White House in Washington DC on Monday Morning . In a series of Tweets on Sunday , the National Centre for Transgender Equality described the changes as an `` abomination '' and `` a reckless attack '' on transgender lives . Human Rights Campaign , one of the country 's leading LGBTQ rights groups , said the change would set a `` destructive precedent '' . Chairman Chad Griffin described the alleged proposal as `` the latest effort in a consistent , multi-pronged campaign by the Trump-Pence White House ... to undermine the rights and welfare of LGBTQ people . '' `` Defining 'sex ' in this narrow language tailored to the talking points of anti-equality extremists is part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate federal protections for LGBTQ people , '' he went on . Members of the transgender community took to social media to protest against the proposal - sharing personal stories and selfies of themselves and family members using # WontBeErased . Transgender actress and activist Laverne Cox shared the Times story on Twitter , rebutting what she described as the `` affront on my existence '' insisting `` we exist and always have '' . Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon and Queer Eye star Jonathan Van Ness were among those who tweeted `` trans rights are human rights '' in support , while Juno-star Ellen Page described the proposal as `` horrible '' in an Instagram post . Political figures including Bernie Sanders and Chelsea Clinton also joined in , condemning the report into the alleged proposed changes .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Demonstrators in New York protested against the report on Sunday evening There has been an outpouring of anger in the US from politicians, celebrities and human rights groups over a report alleging the US policy on gender recognition could be changed. A report in the New York Times on Sunday said a government memo proposed officially defining gender as biological and fixed. The change would rescind previous policy which eased trans recognition. Instead, it would define gender solely on the genitalia people are born with. The administration of former President Barack Obama adopted a definition of gender in federal policy which made it easier to allow individual choice and self-determination. The change sparked a number of complex and long-running legal challenges in conservative states, in areas like the use of toilets. The Trump administration has previously tried to roll back transgender recognition in areas such as the military and in schools - but it has not commented on the latest report. Activists fear the changes allegedly being proposed could in effect "define out of existence" Americans who currently identify as transgender - a community who are said to number at least 1.4 million people. Transgender and gender non-confirming people have been sharing their personal stories and response to the report using the hashtag #WeWontBeErased. What do media reports say? The news report published by the New York Times on Sunday said a memo the newspaper had seen from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed establishing a legal and fixed definition of sex under Title IX - a federal civil rights law that outlaws gender discrimination. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Protesters in Washington State Park hold up a flag for the transgender and gender non-conforming community The report alleges that the department argues the current lack of clarity allowed civil rights protections to be wrongfully extended to some individuals during the Obama administration. The proposed change would instead mean people's sex would be legally fixed as either male or female by their genitalia. "Sex means a person's status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth," the department proposed in the memo, according to the Times. "The sex listed on a person's birth certificate, as originally issued, shall constitute definitive proof of a person's sex unless rebutted by reliable genetic evidence," the memo allegedly says. The Department of Health and Human Services told US media it will not comment on alleged document leaks. The Wall Street Journal has also reported on the issue - saying HHS officials hope to release a rule change, but says internal disputes mean it is not clear how extensive it will be. No-one from the Trump administration has so far commented on the reports. What has the reaction been? The report has generated an angry response from some people in and outside of the US, including swathes of the LGBTQ community. Advocacy groups organised a demonstration on Sunday evening in New York and another protest is planned outside the White House in Washington DC on Monday Morning. In a series of Tweets on Sunday, the National Centre for Transgender Equality described the changes as an "abomination" and "a reckless attack" on transgender lives. Human Rights Campaign, one of the country's leading LGBTQ rights groups, said the change would set a "destructive precedent". Chairman Chad Griffin described the alleged proposal as "the latest effort in a consistent, multi-pronged campaign by the Trump-Pence White House... to undermine the rights and welfare of LGBTQ people." "Defining 'sex' in this narrow language tailored to the talking points of anti-equality extremists is part of a deliberate strategy to eliminate federal protections for LGBTQ people," he went on. Members of the transgender community took to social media to protest against the proposal - sharing personal stories and selfies of themselves and family members using #WontBeErased. Transgender actress and activist Laverne Cox shared the Times story on Twitter, rebutting what she described as the "affront on my existence" insisting "we exist and always have". Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon and Queer Eye star Jonathan Van Ness were among those who tweeted "trans rights are human rights" in support, while Juno-star Ellen Page described the proposal as "horrible" in an Instagram post. Political figures including Bernie Sanders and Chelsea Clinton also joined in, condemning the report into the alleged proposed changes.

www.bbc.com

center

hAwATXgOwsEr2six

test

DqW5AA7Ibei60QRt

race_and_racism

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-south-carolina-shooting-roof/dylann-roof-appeals-death-sentence-for-massacre-at-south-carolina-black-church-idUSKBN1ZS1RL

Dylann Roof appeals death sentence for massacre at South Carolina black church

2020-01-29

Daniel Trotta

( ███ ) - Dylann Roof , the white supremacist who killed nine black people at a South Carolina church in 2015 , has appealed his conviction and death sentence , with lawyers arguing he was too mentally ill to stand trial or represent himself at sentencing . “ Roof ’ s crime was tragic , but this Court can have no confidence in the jury ’ s verdict , ” says his appeal , filed with the 4th U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday . A jury found Roof guilty of 33 federal charges , including hate crimes resulting in death , for the shocking mass shooting at the landmark Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015 . Roof dismissed his defense attorneys just before trial and represented himself during jury selection . At the last minute he reinstated his lawyers for the guilt phase but represented himself again for the penalty phase . The same jury that found him guilty also gave him the death penalty in January 2017 after deliberating for less than three hours . Federal public defenders representing Roof said in a 321-page brief that when Roof represented himself he was a “ 22-year-old , ninth-grade dropout diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder , autism , anxiety , and depression , who believed his sentence didn ’ t matter because white nationalists would free him from prison after an impending race war . ” Roof had been cooperating with his trial lawyers for 16 months , but suddenly objected when he learned they planned to present him as “ developmentally disabled or mentally ill . ” In a competency hearing , five experts testified that he showed a wide range of mental health symptoms , but when Roof addressed the hearing he told the judge he instructed his lawyers to stop suggesting he had any mental problems , the brief said . U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel nonetheless found him competent , saying he was “ cogent and articulate ” when he addressed the court and “ this defendant has an extremely high IQ . ” In allowing him to represent himself , Gergel said , “ I continue to believe it is strategically unwise , but it is a decision you have the right to make . ” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a defendant ’ s Sixth Amendment right to act as his own lawyer in the 1975 decision Faretta v. California . But Roof ’ s lawyers say that decision and subsequent ones set limits on self-representation . The 2008 decision Indiana v. Edwards allows judges to force a lawyer on defendants who lack mental capacity , they said . “ The choice is not all or nothing , ” the lawyers said , citing the 2018 ruling in McCoy v. Louisiana .

(Reuters) - Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who killed nine black people at a South Carolina church in 2015, has appealed his conviction and death sentence, with lawyers arguing he was too mentally ill to stand trial or represent himself at sentencing. FILE PHOTO: Dylann Roof is escorted into the court room at the Charleston County Judicial Center to enter his guilty plea on murder charges in state court for the 2015 shooting massacre at a historic black church, in Charleston, South Carolina, April 10, 2017. REUTERS/Grace Beahm/Pool “Roof’s crime was tragic, but this Court can have no confidence in the jury’s verdict,” says his appeal, filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday. A jury found Roof guilty of 33 federal charges, including hate crimes resulting in death, for the shocking mass shooting at the landmark Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in June 2015. Roof dismissed his defense attorneys just before trial and represented himself during jury selection. At the last minute he reinstated his lawyers for the guilt phase but represented himself again for the penalty phase. The same jury that found him guilty also gave him the death penalty in January 2017 after deliberating for less than three hours. Federal public defenders representing Roof said in a 321-page brief that when Roof represented himself he was a “22-year-old, ninth-grade dropout diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, autism, anxiety, and depression, who believed his sentence didn’t matter because white nationalists would free him from prison after an impending race war.” Roof had been cooperating with his trial lawyers for 16 months, but suddenly objected when he learned they planned to present him as “developmentally disabled or mentally ill.” In a competency hearing, five experts testified that he showed a wide range of mental health symptoms, but when Roof addressed the hearing he told the judge he instructed his lawyers to stop suggesting he had any mental problems, the brief said. U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel nonetheless found him competent, saying he was “cogent and articulate” when he addressed the court and “this defendant has an extremely high IQ.” In allowing him to represent himself, Gergel said, “I continue to believe it is strategically unwise, but it is a decision you have the right to make.” The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to act as his own lawyer in the 1975 decision Faretta v. California. But Roof’s lawyers say that decision and subsequent ones set limits on self-representation. The 2008 decision Indiana v. Edwards allows judges to force a lawyer on defendants who lack mental capacity, they said. “The choice is not all or nothing,” the lawyers said, citing the 2018 ruling in McCoy v. Louisiana. (This story corrects stages at which Roof represented himself)

www.reuters.com

center

DqW5AA7Ibei60QRt

test

cRZ4biDR2PwZUaFQ

media_bias

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/14/trump-and-the-medias-alleged-failure

Trump and the Media’s Alleged 'Failure'

2016-11-14

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

Terry Brown is a 55-year-old plumber in Stanley , North Carolina , a small town that is 90 percent white and whose motto is `` Jesus Saves . '' He is the sort of person media elites and coastal liberals allegedly overlooked or scorned before Donald Trump 's surprise victory . These arrogant sophisticates , we are told , live in a world of people just like themselves , making them incapable of understanding the real America . So Trump 's victory hit them like a lightning bolt out of a clear blue sky . Brown , however , was not surprised . `` I do n't know anyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton , '' he told Los Angeles Times reporter Jenny Jarvie the day after the election . He does n't know anyone who would vote for Clinton ? That 's quite a feat , because 60.5 million of his fellow Americans did . Apparently , there are Trump voters who live in their own bubbles—distant from and deaf to ordinary people who think differently . On Tuesday , analysts reported , the outcome was determined largely by a surge of support from whites who did n't go to college and live in rural counties , particularly in New Hampshire , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Michigan and Wisconsin . The media and Democrats were blamed for not expecting as much . The ensuing condemnations implied that Jake Tapper knew less about Toledo than he does about Tanzania . Rod Dreher of The American Conservative accused the news media of `` forgetting that ( they ) ever knew people like the white working-class and rural people of the Rust Belt . '' Piers Morgan congratulated himself in the Daily Mail for writing last year , `` Trump has a big popular appeal away from the snobby halls of Washington and New York 's media elite . Regular Americans love the guy . '' If the media assumed Clinton would win , it was not because reporters forgot that there were people who favored Trump . There was an endless supply of stories featuring interviews with them . Each of his rallies drew throngs of journalists—who might have done a better job of learning the views of Trump supporters if the campaign had not confined the press to areas separate from the rest of the audience . When Morgan says `` regular Americans '' love Trump , he 's using the term in an odd way . It 's worth noting that Trump did n't even get more votes than Clinton , who beat him by nearly 400,000 votes nationally . You ca n't get as many votes as she did without attracting at least a few ordinary folks . Nor did Trump capture the working class . Among voters with incomes between $ 30,000 and $ 50,000 a year , Clinton beat him by 9 points . But when Morgan refers to `` regular Americans , '' he obviously means `` white Americans . '' Working-class blacks and small-town Hispanics are irregular and thus irrelevant . It never occurs to the media-bashers that rural white blue-collar guys may be insulated from real Americans , a lot of whom live in big cities . Metropolitan New York alone has 18 million people—more than Wisconsin , Michigan and New Hampshire combined . Marathon County , an industrial area in north central Wisconsin that Trump won easily , is 0.8 percent African-American and 2.7 percent Hispanic . Manhattan is 18 percent black and 26 percent Latino . New York and other urban areas have just as much claim to be the home of real Americans as any Midwestern town . If the media failed to foresee the election outcome , it 's not because they were n't paying attention . It was partly because they relied on the most comprehensive information available—national and state polls . Public opinion surveys had shown Trump leading his Republican rivals during the primaries , and they proved accurate . In the general election campaign , polls consistently showed Clinton leading the race both nationally and in most battleground states . Most Republican politicians and consultants expected Trump to lose . Had the polls shown Trump ahead , week after week , journalists would have expected him to win . Their failure was the product of data , not ideology . If the media made a mistake , it was assuming that voters would judge Trump by the same standards applied to past candidates . He repeatedly found himself generating unwanted attention and pointless controversy , of the sort normal politicians would never risk . It was surprising to see him do it , and it was surprising to see him get away with it . With polls in hand , the media concluded that the electorate , including working-class white men in small towns , had seen through Trump . That was the ultimate media failure : not expecting too little of these voters but expecting too much .

Terry Brown is a 55-year-old plumber in Stanley, North Carolina, a small town that is 90 percent white and whose motto is "Jesus Saves." He is the sort of person media elites and coastal liberals allegedly overlooked or scorned before Donald Trump's surprise victory. These arrogant sophisticates, we are told, live in a world of people just like themselves, making them incapable of understanding the real America. So Trump's victory hit them like a lightning bolt out of a clear blue sky. Brown, however, was not surprised. "I don't know anyone who would vote for Hillary Clinton," he told Los Angeles Times reporter Jenny Jarvie the day after the election. He doesn't know anyone who would vote for Clinton? That's quite a feat, because 60.5 million of his fellow Americans did. Apparently, there are Trump voters who live in their own bubbles—distant from and deaf to ordinary people who think differently. On Tuesday, analysts reported, the outcome was determined largely by a surge of support from whites who didn't go to college and live in rural counties, particularly in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. The media and Democrats were blamed for not expecting as much. The ensuing condemnations implied that Jake Tapper knew less about Toledo than he does about Tanzania. Rod Dreher of The American Conservative accused the news media of "forgetting that (they) ever knew people like the white working-class and rural people of the Rust Belt." Piers Morgan congratulated himself in the Daily Mail for writing last year, "Trump has a big popular appeal away from the snobby halls of Washington and New York's media elite. Regular Americans love the guy." If the media assumed Clinton would win, it was not because reporters forgot that there were people who favored Trump. There was an endless supply of stories featuring interviews with them. Each of his rallies drew throngs of journalists—who might have done a better job of learning the views of Trump supporters if the campaign had not confined the press to areas separate from the rest of the audience. When Morgan says "regular Americans" love Trump, he's using the term in an odd way. It's worth noting that Trump didn't even get more votes than Clinton, who beat him by nearly 400,000 votes nationally. You can't get as many votes as she did without attracting at least a few ordinary folks. Nor did Trump capture the working class. Among voters with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, Clinton beat him by 9 points. But when Morgan refers to "regular Americans," he obviously means "white Americans." Working-class blacks and small-town Hispanics are irregular and thus irrelevant. It never occurs to the media-bashers that rural white blue-collar guys may be insulated from real Americans, a lot of whom live in big cities. Metropolitan New York alone has 18 million people—more than Wisconsin, Michigan and New Hampshire combined. Marathon County, an industrial area in north central Wisconsin that Trump won easily, is 0.8 percent African-American and 2.7 percent Hispanic. Manhattan is 18 percent black and 26 percent Latino. New York and other urban areas have just as much claim to be the home of real Americans as any Midwestern town. If the media failed to foresee the election outcome, it's not because they weren't paying attention. It was partly because they relied on the most comprehensive information available—national and state polls. Public opinion surveys had shown Trump leading his Republican rivals during the primaries, and they proved accurate. In the general election campaign, polls consistently showed Clinton leading the race both nationally and in most battleground states. Most Republican politicians and consultants expected Trump to lose. Had the polls shown Trump ahead, week after week, journalists would have expected him to win. Their failure was the product of data, not ideology. If the media made a mistake, it was assuming that voters would judge Trump by the same standards applied to past candidates. He repeatedly found himself generating unwanted attention and pointless controversy, of the sort normal politicians would never risk. It was surprising to see him do it, and it was surprising to see him get away with it. With polls in hand, the media concluded that the electorate, including working-class white men in small towns, had seen through Trump. That was the ultimate media failure: not expecting too little of these voters but expecting too much. © Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.reason.com

right

cRZ4biDR2PwZUaFQ

test

HdX7B5BjckzDPCAm

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/30/west-virginia-religion-coal-trump-voters-doubt

God and coal: Trump won on both issues in West Virginia but inspires doubt

2017-03-30

Chris Mcgreal

Pastor Jerry Morrell was not playing to his audience . “ I was asked if Donald Trump is a man of God , ” the evangelical preacher told the congregation of The Way of Holiness church on the outskirts of Buckhannon , West Virginia . “ I said : ‘ No , I don ’ t see him as a man of God . Or , at this point , a godly man . I think he ’ s a man whose heart can be touched by God . I think he may be open to that ’ . ” A silence fell . The cries of acclamation greeting much of the Pentecostal pastor ’ s sermon drained away . “ Y ’ all got real quiet when I said that but I have to tell it like it is , ” Morrell pressed on . “ I ’ m praying for our president . Let him have the wisdom not to say some things and not to put some things out on Twitter , ” he said . “ We ask you to set a guard over Mr Trump ’ s mouth and Twitter ” . Cleveland 's dividing lines over race issues come to light under Trump Read more On that , there was agreement . Eighty percent of white evangelicals backed Trump for president , but worshippers at The Way of Holiness church were not without their doubts . “ To be honest with you , I voted for Trump but if I ’ d had another choice I probably would not have , ” said Thrayron Morgan , a grandmother from a military family attending church that day . I pointed out there was another choice : Hillary Clinton . “ No ! That ’ s not my other choice . We ’ ve had enough of that , ” she said with a laugh . “ It was very difficult for me . Very difficult . In fact it was a toss-up between not voting at all and voting for him . I really had to pray about that . ” Morgan had lots of problems with Trump but a big one was the way he spoke about women and immigrants . “ I don ’ t think he should talk about people like that . Even the homosexuals , you hate the sin not the sinner . As a Christian , I don ’ t believe in treating people the way he treated some people , ” she said . Morgan ’ s mind was made up by the supreme court . She wants to see a court “ following Godly principles ” and she had little doubt that Clinton would have nominated the wrong kind of justices . “ That ’ s important to me . On abortion number one . Same-sex marriage . Anything to do with either one of those . And I have a feeling there may be some issues come up even later that may touch on Christian principles too . I have no clue what , but you never know when something might come up that ’ s against my beliefs , ” she said . In parts of West Virginia , it is said there are two reasons to vote : God and coal . Both have been in retreat for years . In a state where families still pray at the restaurant dinner table , and mines were once the engine of prosperity , Trump won with the promise of revival . But there ’ s a paradox . Evangelicals may doubt Trump ’ s commitment to God , but they calculate he will be good for their push to inject more religion into American life . On the other hand , those who voted for Trump because he promised to bring back coalmines often admire his business skills – but they do have doubts about whether he can deliver . So far , conservative Christians have not had reason to be disappointed . Trump ’ s appointment of evangelicals to his cabinet – including an attorney general who advocates an end to the wall between church and state , and an education secretary who wants to “ advance God ’ s kingdom ” through public funding of religious schools – has sent the right signals . And just in case Trump veers off course , evangelicals are counting on Mike Pence , an advocate of teaching creationism alongside Darwinism , to steer the president straight . “ We are very much right-to-life people and Trump seems to be more favorable toward that point of view than former administrations , ” said Morrell . “ We love people of all beliefs and backgrounds , and yet we also want to have the liberty of believing marriage is between a man and a woman , and to hold to that conviction without being sued for discrimination . Sometimes that ’ s painted in such a negative way when it used to be everyone ’ s view . Sometimes on the right we ’ re painted as racists and bigots and haters . We ’ re not , but we want to be allowed to hold to traditional values . ” The pastor acknowledges that Trump does not live by those same values . Of the president ’ s boasting about touching women ’ s genitals , he said that “ it bothered me tremendously . I ’ m a father of four daughters and I have a lovely wife I want to be respected . But I attribute that to being in his past , ” he said . “ I do wish he would do a better job of reaching out to his opposition and not lashing out . I do believe we need to work together as a nation regardless of our beliefs . I really am concerned about the racial strife that has gotten worse over the last eight years . ” For that , Morrell blames Barack Obama . “ The former administration , in continually emphasizing our differences instead of what we have in common , created an us and them atmosphere , and it has happened not only racially but among political parties and on the lines of wealth and poor . It ’ s been us and them when it needs to be us as Americans , ” the pastor said . Obama gets blamed for a lot more : his remarks about working-class people clinging to religion and guns during his first run for the White House festered right through his presidency . And , more than anything , he became known as the man who killed the mines . It ’ s an article of faith in West Virginia that Obama ’ s “ war on coal ” put mines out of business . The industry helped push the claim by resisting Environmental Protection Agency regulations , which are widely viewed as a plot to make coalmining unviable . Trump , on the other hand , promised to revive the mines that once provided a good living for much of this part of Appalachia . On 28 March , he signed orders rolling back measures to combat global warming , including pollution restrictions on coal-fired power plants and lifting a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands in an effort to boost the mining industry . The move came days after he told a rally in Kentucky that he was rolling back regulations : “ We are going to put our coalminers back to work . ” In the southern part of the state , people are already talking about how more coal trucks are on the move . But a good number of Trump supporters doubt the mines will ever be revived : they just don ’ t see the economics working . Still , they back Trump because he talked about their problems when they feel virtually invisible to the national political class . More than a few supported Bernie Sanders for the same reason . Robin Jeran , who ran the kind of small-scale mines that once dotted West Virginia , voted for Trump but he doubts coal is making a comeback . “ We were very fortunate through the years to be able to work steady , but as time went on I could see it coming . The little guy ’ s going to get squeezed out . You don ’ t have the money behind you to stay in business when they keep passing more stringent laws , ” he said . Jeran ’ s family ran 10 mines over nearly three decades . Mostly they dug several hundred feet into a hillside , employing a few dozen miners at a time . When one mine ’ s coal was exhausted , usually within three or four years , they moved on to another . Back then , coal provided a decent wage . “ Decent income . Health benefits , ” said Jeran . “ At one time we used to say that for every guy that you employed there was another eight or 10 people out there in service industries that supplied you that you fed . ” Jeran went out of business in 2009 , the year Obama moved into the White House . He said his mines were killed by a confluence of low coal prices , falling demand , competition from natural gas and increased regulation , particularly after two local mine disasters . In 2006 , 12 miners were killed in an explosion at the deep Sago mine just outside Buckhannon – an operation owned by Wilbur Ross , a billionaire banker who is now Trump ’ s commerce secretary . Four years later , 29 men died in a coal dust explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine . The tragedies prompted new state safety regulations after it was revealed that both mines were repeatedly cited for violations . The new measures included the building of underground emergency shelters . Jeran said it was one cost too many for small mines like his . “ At the time I never thought we needed any of that stuff . Still don ’ t . They made us spend hoards of money on shelters underground . Communication devices . Tracking devices . They can ’ t prove it ’ s saved any lives , any of this stuff . But it really added tremendous costs to a small coalmine because everybody had to have the same stuff no matter how small you were , ” he said . He calculates that regulation added several dollars to a ton of coal at a time when prices were rock bottom , driving his and other mines out of business . Then came Obama . The president did not begin coal ’ s troubles , but the former mine owner reckons he put the final nail in the coffin of small-scale operations with environmental regulations . “ He definitely destroyed the coal business . He made up his mind to do it , ” he said . But Jeran doubts that Trump , for all his promises , can reverse the long-term decline . “ To me there ’ ll always be some work for coal but I don ’ t ever see it coming back the way it did , ” he said . “ Most of the good easy coal to mine in West Virginia is long gone so everything is more difficult , deeper , lot more rock in the coal seams . As they keep changing the power plants from coal to gas , and the gas has gotten so cheap , I think the gas is going to work the coalminers out now . ” The loss of the mines is keenly felt . Jeran ’ s workers typically earned more than $ 80,000 a year . In the 1970s , pay in West Virginia was above the national average . By the turn of the millennium , with mining collapsing , wages had fallen far behind most of America and low-paying Walmart was the state ’ s biggest employer . The numbers of people dependent on welfare , including food stamps , rose . Nearly 15 % of West Virginia residents receive disability payments , the highest of any state . The mine at Sago closed , leaving behind the hoists and headgear as markers of what once was , and a black granite memorial in the town to the dead . Other small towns just a few miles outside of Buckhannon are grappling with the consequences of lost mines as mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies drove people from their homes and businesses . Jeran readily admits that he does not know what the solution is , but he likes the idea of the government in the hands of a businessman with a focus on what ’ s good for Americans . “ The government wastes so much money it ’ s unbelievable . It just drives you crazy . We ’ re out trying to save the world all the time and we don ’ t take care of our own . We shouldn ’ t have people starving , homeless . Let ’ s shrink it back in and take care of us . My golly , this idea that we ’ re the know it all , good all hasn ’ t proved out . All we do is get our foot in the door , get a whole bunch of people killed , defending what ? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan or any of these places ? ” ‘ Fuck the United States . They ’ re the most cruelest country there is ’ The belief that America ’ s leaders have been more interested in foreign adventures than looking after those at the bottom of the pile back home runs through many West Virginia communities . Ricky Farnsworth flies a Confederate battle flag from an improvised steel rod flagpole outside his trailer home . When I ask why he ’ s hoisted such a divisive symbol in a state mostly carved out of Virginia to join the Union cause , he smiles . “ I will not fly an American flag other than that one . I would rather have a Chinese flag , a Japanese flag , a Russian flag . Fuck the United States . They ’ re the most cruelest country there is . Letting your own people starve and sending aid overseas . Going over and killing people in other countries and then building them back up . What business did we have in Vietnam ? What business did we have in Iraq ? ” he said . Farnsworth used to work on oil rigs but the toll of injuries , including a lost finger , and the general wearing down of his body forced him out of a job . Now , at 59 , he lives on a little more than a $ 1,000 a month in disability payments . Farnsworth is an unflinching if maverick Trump supporter . He denounces the rich but believes the billionaire president will Make America Great Again . He speaks of Obama as “ the black guy ” and said he knows for sure the former president is not American . Yet he supports Obamacare and doesn ’ t understand why the US can ’ t replicate Canada ’ s health system . “ Money don ’ t excite me . I don ’ t worry about it even though I don ’ t have it . I don ’ t hardly buy food because it ’ s too damn expensive , ” he said . “ I go to the diner and eat a little bit . Two beets , a half spoonful of bacon bits , a half spoonful of shredded cheese . I ’ ll put a little bit of coleslaw , a little bit of cottage cheese . Four peaches . I ’ ll eat that . I ate that yesterday . I ain ’ t eaten nothing since that . I won ’ t eat nothing today . That ’ s what I live on. ” That and a steady supply of chewing tobacco . Farnsworth sees Trump ’ s wealth as evidence that he is looking out for ordinary Americans . “ Why would he downgrade himself if he didn ’ t want to help the United States ? His home was more valuable than the White House , ” he said . The retired oil worker regards taxes with the same scorn as much of conservative America , although his objection comes with a twist not so often heard among Republicans . Why , he asks , should the poor pay taxes when the rich don ’ t contribute their fair share ? Yet Farnsworth doesn ’ t blame Trump for avoiding taxes with his business manoeuverings . “ He didn ’ t pay taxes but he went by the law . He did not steal off the government . He went by the law because he was a smart man , ” he said . Still , Farnsworth isn ’ t keen to let the point go . He doesn ’ t see why the Internal Revenue Service is making demands of a man like himself getting by hand to mouth . “ Why don ’ t they go and get their money from the billions they spent in Iraq ? ” ‘ I did not join the army to act as a mercenary for oil ’ Like evangelicals , a clear majority of military veterans voted for Trump . Sergeant Ron Frye wasn ’ t one of them . The 48-year-old army veteran stepped on a booby trap in Iraq in 2003 . He spent eight months in a coma , lost the use of his legs and is now in a wheelchair . It has left him in unending pain . “ I understood Afghanistan . Iraq , I never understood why we were there . I know why the president claimed we went to Iraq but there were so many shady background issues involved in it that I ’ ve just come to believe that the only reason we went to Iraq was all about money and oil . I joined the army to protect America and preserve freedom for those around the world who asked for our assistance . I did not join the army to act as a mercenary for oil , ” he said . “ When I came back from Iraq after I got blown up , I swore I would never vote for another Republican because they ’ d already stolen my legs . So I supported Barack Obama . I thought he was the second coming of JFK . Well into his first term , I realised I was sadly mistaken so I said I would never support the Democratic party again , ” he said . Then came the 2016 election . “ I looked at it and said you can vote for the Wicked Witch of the West or you can vote for the King of the Oompa-Loompas . I finally decided on Clinton because I thought in a politically savvy sense she was far more qualified than Donald Trump . I saw how the country voted and I thought , oh my God . At first I was inclined to think we ’ ve elected the second Adolf Hitler . ” Frye lives in a small house on a street populated by veterans who served as far back as the second world war . His views are not widely shared either among his neighbours or many others in Buckhannon . “ I ’ m a loud , egotistical , self-centred cripple and I can say anything I want and nobody can do a damn thing about it because then they would be seen as being the guy who picks on the wounded vet , ” he said . “ It ’ s the only liberating thing about being in a wheelchair , being able to state whatever I want , however I want , without anybody trying to shout me down . ” Frye said he will give Trump six months to see if the new president is as bad as he fears , but he ’ s not getting his hopes up . “ He ’ s stirred up so much animosity that unless you came over on the Mayflower you can not be sure you ’ re not going to get targeted by him , ” he said . “ To have fought for freedom , equality , democracy – all these things held so dear – and then to have somebody being elected who seems to support the exact opposite of that – hatred , inequality , the segregation … It ’ s as if we ’ re taking a step back to the 1950s . ” Frye fears that might also apply to policies toward working conditions and the environment . He lost family in the Sago mine disaster . One of his wife ’ s cousins , Fred Ware , was asphyxiated and another , Randal McCloy , was the sole survivor and permanently injured . “ I ’ m not out to save the whales and I ’ m not out to hug a bunch of trees . But I certainly don ’ t want my children to live the way I had to live , growing up in an Irish family in West Virginia , working in the coalmines . I don ’ t want to see any more of my relatives die of black lung , ” he said . “ I would love to see economic growth for West Virginia . I just don ’ t want to see economic growth for West Virginia at the cost of West Virginia itself . There has to be a middle ground and in America finding a middle ground is probably far more difficult than any other country . ” ‘ Now those with the most fear those with the least ’ West Virginia was once solidly Democratic . Although Trump won every county , the state has not entirely turned its back on the party . A Democrat , Jim Justice , was elected governor in the same ballot , although it helped that he is a conservative billionaire mine owner . Democrats also hold five of the six directly elected offices including secretary of state . But the GOP tide is pushing in . A Republican was elected to one of the seats in the US Senate in 2015 for the first time in 60 years and all three of the state ’ s seats in Congress have flipped to the party since the turn of the millennium . “ There ’ s always been a class and caste system . America ’ s supposed to be the class-free country . The only thing is the classes here have to be far more subtle , ” said Frye , the veteran . “ Now those with the most fear those with the least . And while saying that we need to equalize the system they spend all their time and resources secretly distancing themselves more to protect themselves from the hatred of the faceless majority . ” Jeran , the former mine owner , reckons West Virginia should naturally lean to the Democrats . He blames Obama ’ s policies for the party ’ s fall , although he said the former president ’ s race contributed to the hostility towards him . In central California , it 's neighbour versus neighbour on Trump Read more Still , there ’ s one Obama legacy a lot of West Virginians are not keen to see erased . Farnsworth , the Trump supporter , liked Obama ’ s healthcare reform although he would like to have seen it go further . “ The US can afford for everyone to have insurance . Canada does and these other smaller countries that ain ’ t as rich , they can do that . Why can ’ t the US ? Because it ’ s too mean . Highfalutin motherfuckers in the government wants to send all this aid and stuff overseas , ” he said . Jeran broadly backed Obamacare . He said it ’ s flawed but he doesn ’ t want to see it swept away without an alternative . “ It was a good thing for people that wanted to get insurance and get it at a reasonable price . I had Obamacare when I quit for a couple of years but these insurance companies they just change stuff and they jack it up . Same with pharmacy . The drug prices in this country , it just drives you crazy , ” he said . “ To me , you got ta do something . This idea that we ’ re just going to get rid of Obamacare and we don ’ t have anything in place , I don ’ t like that . ” As for Making America Great Again , Sgt Frye is doubtful . “ America never stopped being great . America stopped believing in itself and caring about itself , ” he said . “ We became so disgruntled and bitter and concentrated on the fact that our politicians were a bunch of lying , conniving scum that we ceased having pride in our country ’ s achievements and became focused on our failures . Until we learn to start being proud of the positive things we achieve , we will never be great again in our own eyes . And if you can not love yourself , how can anyone else love you ? ” That ’ s a sentiment Morgan , the evangelical and conservative grandmother , agrees with – although she sees it through a different prism . “ We ’ ve really turned away from God as a nation and when a nation does that , God has a hard time blessing a nation that is turning its back on him , ” she said . “ I want to bring God back into our government . I know church and state to a point needs to be separated but I think it needs to come together too in order for God to bless the nation . I want to see prayer in school . Bring back those things that have been removed so that the next generation are taught godly principles . ” Morgan realises that ’ s a big ask , but she thinks Trump may be the man to make it happen . For all that , she can ’ t decide if he ’ s a religious man or just an opportunist . “ That ’ s up in the air , in my opinion . I don ’ t know depending on what day you ask me , ” she said .

Pastor Jerry Morrell was not playing to his audience. “I was asked if Donald Trump is a man of God,” the evangelical preacher told the congregation of The Way of Holiness church on the outskirts of Buckhannon, West Virginia. “I said: ‘No, I don’t see him as a man of God. Or, at this point, a godly man. I think he’s a man whose heart can be touched by God. I think he may be open to that’.” A silence fell. The cries of acclamation greeting much of the Pentecostal pastor’s sermon drained away. “Y’all got real quiet when I said that but I have to tell it like it is,” Morrell pressed on. “I’m praying for our president. Let him have the wisdom not to say some things and not to put some things out on Twitter,” he said. “We ask you to set a guard over Mr Trump’s mouth and Twitter”. Cleveland's dividing lines over race issues come to light under Trump Read more On that, there was agreement. Eighty percent of white evangelicals backed Trump for president, but worshippers at The Way of Holiness church were not without their doubts. “To be honest with you, I voted for Trump but if I’d had another choice I probably would not have,” said Thrayron Morgan, a grandmother from a military family attending church that day. I pointed out there was another choice: Hillary Clinton. “No! That’s not my other choice. We’ve had enough of that,” she said with a laugh. “It was very difficult for me. Very difficult. In fact it was a toss-up between not voting at all and voting for him. I really had to pray about that.” Morgan had lots of problems with Trump but a big one was the way he spoke about women and immigrants. “I don’t think he should talk about people like that. Even the homosexuals, you hate the sin not the sinner. As a Christian, I don’t believe in treating people the way he treated some people,” she said. Morgan’s mind was made up by the supreme court. She wants to see a court “following Godly principles” and she had little doubt that Clinton would have nominated the wrong kind of justices. “That’s important to me. On abortion number one. Same-sex marriage. Anything to do with either one of those. And I have a feeling there may be some issues come up even later that may touch on Christian principles too. I have no clue what, but you never know when something might come up that’s against my beliefs,” she said. Facebook Twitter Pinterest People enter the Way of Holiness church for a Friday evening service in Buckhannon. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian In parts of West Virginia, it is said there are two reasons to vote: God and coal. Both have been in retreat for years. In a state where families still pray at the restaurant dinner table, and mines were once the engine of prosperity, Trump won with the promise of revival. But there’s a paradox. Evangelicals may doubt Trump’s commitment to God, but they calculate he will be good for their push to inject more religion into American life. On the other hand, those who voted for Trump because he promised to bring back coalmines often admire his business skills – but they do have doubts about whether he can deliver. So far, conservative Christians have not had reason to be disappointed. Trump’s appointment of evangelicals to his cabinet – including an attorney general who advocates an end to the wall between church and state, and an education secretary who wants to “advance God’s kingdom” through public funding of religious schools – has sent the right signals. And just in case Trump veers off course, evangelicals are counting on Mike Pence, an advocate of teaching creationism alongside Darwinism, to steer the president straight. “We are very much right-to-life people and Trump seems to be more favorable toward that point of view than former administrations,” said Morrell. “We love people of all beliefs and backgrounds, and yet we also want to have the liberty of believing marriage is between a man and a woman, and to hold to that conviction without being sued for discrimination. Sometimes that’s painted in such a negative way when it used to be everyone’s view. Sometimes on the right we’re painted as racists and bigots and haters. We’re not, but we want to be allowed to hold to traditional values.” The pastor acknowledges that Trump does not live by those same values. Of the president’s boasting about touching women’s genitals, he said that “it bothered me tremendously. I’m a father of four daughters and I have a lovely wife I want to be respected. But I attribute that to being in his past,” he said. “I do wish he would do a better job of reaching out to his opposition and not lashing out. I do believe we need to work together as a nation regardless of our beliefs. I really am concerned about the racial strife that has gotten worse over the last eight years.” For that, Morrell blames Barack Obama. “The former administration, in continually emphasizing our differences instead of what we have in common, created an us and them atmosphere, and it has happened not only racially but among political parties and on the lines of wealth and poor. It’s been us and them when it needs to be us as Americans,” the pastor said. Obama, ‘the man who killed the mines’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest A coal conveyor belt runs through the hillside of what was once the Sago coalmine. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian Obama gets blamed for a lot more: his remarks about working-class people clinging to religion and guns during his first run for the White House festered right through his presidency. And, more than anything, he became known as the man who killed the mines. It’s an article of faith in West Virginia that Obama’s “war on coal” put mines out of business. The industry helped push the claim by resisting Environmental Protection Agency regulations, which are widely viewed as a plot to make coalmining unviable. Trump, on the other hand, promised to revive the mines that once provided a good living for much of this part of Appalachia. On 28 March, he signed orders rolling back measures to combat global warming, including pollution restrictions on coal-fired power plants and lifting a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands in an effort to boost the mining industry. The move came days after he told a rally in Kentucky that he was rolling back regulations: “We are going to put our coalminers back to work.” In the southern part of the state, people are already talking about how more coal trucks are on the move. But a good number of Trump supporters doubt the mines will ever be revived: they just don’t see the economics working. Still, they back Trump because he talked about their problems when they feel virtually invisible to the national political class. More than a few supported Bernie Sanders for the same reason. Robin Jeran, who ran the kind of small-scale mines that once dotted West Virginia, voted for Trump but he doubts coal is making a comeback. “We were very fortunate through the years to be able to work steady, but as time went on I could see it coming. The little guy’s going to get squeezed out. You don’t have the money behind you to stay in business when they keep passing more stringent laws,” he said. Jeran’s family ran 10 mines over nearly three decades. Mostly they dug several hundred feet into a hillside, employing a few dozen miners at a time. When one mine’s coal was exhausted, usually within three or four years, they moved on to another. Back then, coal provided a decent wage. “Decent income. Health benefits,” said Jeran. “At one time we used to say that for every guy that you employed there was another eight or 10 people out there in service industries that supplied you that you fed.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Trucks move along S Kanawha Street in Buckhannon. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian Jeran went out of business in 2009, the year Obama moved into the White House. He said his mines were killed by a confluence of low coal prices, falling demand, competition from natural gas and increased regulation, particularly after two local mine disasters. In 2006, 12 miners were killed in an explosion at the deep Sago mine just outside Buckhannon – an operation owned by Wilbur Ross, a billionaire banker who is now Trump’s commerce secretary. Four years later, 29 men died in a coal dust explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine. The tragedies prompted new state safety regulations after it was revealed that both mines were repeatedly cited for violations. The new measures included the building of underground emergency shelters. Jeran said it was one cost too many for small mines like his. “At the time I never thought we needed any of that stuff. Still don’t. They made us spend hoards of money on shelters underground. Communication devices. Tracking devices. They can’t prove it’s saved any lives, any of this stuff. But it really added tremendous costs to a small coalmine because everybody had to have the same stuff no matter how small you were,” he said. He calculates that regulation added several dollars to a ton of coal at a time when prices were rock bottom, driving his and other mines out of business. Then came Obama. The president did not begin coal’s troubles, but the former mine owner reckons he put the final nail in the coffin of small-scale operations with environmental regulations. “He definitely destroyed the coal business. He made up his mind to do it,” he said. But Jeran doubts that Trump, for all his promises, can reverse the long-term decline. “To me there’ll always be some work for coal but I don’t ever see it coming back the way it did,” he said. “Most of the good easy coal to mine in West Virginia is long gone so everything is more difficult, deeper, lot more rock in the coal seams. As they keep changing the power plants from coal to gas, and the gas has gotten so cheap, I think the gas is going to work the coalminers out now.” The loss of the mines is keenly felt. Jeran’s workers typically earned more than $80,000 a year. In the 1970s, pay in West Virginia was above the national average. By the turn of the millennium, with mining collapsing, wages had fallen far behind most of America and low-paying Walmart was the state’s biggest employer. The numbers of people dependent on welfare, including food stamps, rose. Nearly 15% of West Virginia residents receive disability payments, the highest of any state. The mine at Sago closed, leaving behind the hoists and headgear as markers of what once was, and a black granite memorial in the town to the dead. Other small towns just a few miles outside of Buckhannon are grappling with the consequences of lost mines as mortgage foreclosures and bankruptcies drove people from their homes and businesses. Jeran readily admits that he does not know what the solution is, but he likes the idea of the government in the hands of a businessman with a focus on what’s good for Americans. “The government wastes so much money it’s unbelievable. It just drives you crazy. We’re out trying to save the world all the time and we don’t take care of our own. We shouldn’t have people starving, homeless. Let’s shrink it back in and take care of us. My golly, this idea that we’re the know it all, good all hasn’t proved out. All we do is get our foot in the door, get a whole bunch of people killed, defending what? What have we accomplished in Afghanistan or any of these places?” ‘Fuck the United States. They’re the most cruelest country there is’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest Donald Trump supporter Ricky Farnsworth stands for a portrait outside of his trailer in Buckhannon. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian The belief that America’s leaders have been more interested in foreign adventures than looking after those at the bottom of the pile back home runs through many West Virginia communities. Ricky Farnsworth flies a Confederate battle flag from an improvised steel rod flagpole outside his trailer home. When I ask why he’s hoisted such a divisive symbol in a state mostly carved out of Virginia to join the Union cause, he smiles. “I will not fly an American flag other than that one. I would rather have a Chinese flag, a Japanese flag, a Russian flag. Fuck the United States. They’re the most cruelest country there is. Letting your own people starve and sending aid overseas. Going over and killing people in other countries and then building them back up. What business did we have in Vietnam? What business did we have in Iraq?” he said. Farnsworth used to work on oil rigs but the toll of injuries, including a lost finger, and the general wearing down of his body forced him out of a job. Now, at 59, he lives on a little more than a $1,000 a month in disability payments. Farnsworth is an unflinching if maverick Trump supporter. He denounces the rich but believes the billionaire president will Make America Great Again. He speaks of Obama as “the black guy” and said he knows for sure the former president is not American. Yet he supports Obamacare and doesn’t understand why the US can’t replicate Canada’s health system. “Money don’t excite me. I don’t worry about it even though I don’t have it. I don’t hardly buy food because it’s too damn expensive,” he said. “I go to the diner and eat a little bit. Two beets, a half spoonful of bacon bits, a half spoonful of shredded cheese. I’ll put a little bit of coleslaw, a little bit of cottage cheese. Four peaches. I’ll eat that. I ate that yesterday. I ain’t eaten nothing since that. I won’t eat nothing today. That’s what I live on.” That and a steady supply of chewing tobacco. Farnsworth sees Trump’s wealth as evidence that he is looking out for ordinary Americans. “Why would he downgrade himself if he didn’t want to help the United States? His home was more valuable than the White House,” he said. The retired oil worker regards taxes with the same scorn as much of conservative America, although his objection comes with a twist not so often heard among Republicans. Why, he asks, should the poor pay taxes when the rich don’t contribute their fair share? Yet Farnsworth doesn’t blame Trump for avoiding taxes with his business manoeuverings. “He didn’t pay taxes but he went by the law. He did not steal off the government. He went by the law because he was a smart man,” he said. Still, Farnsworth isn’t keen to let the point go. He doesn’t see why the Internal Revenue Service is making demands of a man like himself getting by hand to mouth. “Why don’t they go and get their money from the billions they spent in Iraq?” ‘I did not join the army to act as a mercenary for oil’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest Sgt Ron Frye with his dog at his home in Buckhannon. Frye is a veteran who now uses a wheelchair after being hit by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian Like evangelicals, a clear majority of military veterans voted for Trump. Sergeant Ron Frye wasn’t one of them. The 48-year-old army veteran stepped on a booby trap in Iraq in 2003. He spent eight months in a coma, lost the use of his legs and is now in a wheelchair. It has left him in unending pain. “I understood Afghanistan. Iraq, I never understood why we were there. I know why the president claimed we went to Iraq but there were so many shady background issues involved in it that I’ve just come to believe that the only reason we went to Iraq was all about money and oil. I joined the army to protect America and preserve freedom for those around the world who asked for our assistance. I did not join the army to act as a mercenary for oil,” he said. “When I came back from Iraq after I got blown up, I swore I would never vote for another Republican because they’d already stolen my legs. So I supported Barack Obama. I thought he was the second coming of JFK. Well into his first term, I realised I was sadly mistaken so I said I would never support the Democratic party again,” he said. Then came the 2016 election. “I looked at it and said you can vote for the Wicked Witch of the West or you can vote for the King of the Oompa-Loompas. I finally decided on Clinton because I thought in a politically savvy sense she was far more qualified than Donald Trump. I saw how the country voted and I thought, oh my God. At first I was inclined to think we’ve elected the second Adolf Hitler.” Frye lives in a small house on a street populated by veterans who served as far back as the second world war. His views are not widely shared either among his neighbours or many others in Buckhannon. “I’m a loud, egotistical, self-centred cripple and I can say anything I want and nobody can do a damn thing about it because then they would be seen as being the guy who picks on the wounded vet,” he said. “It’s the only liberating thing about being in a wheelchair, being able to state whatever I want, however I want, without anybody trying to shout me down.” Frye said he will give Trump six months to see if the new president is as bad as he fears, but he’s not getting his hopes up. “He’s stirred up so much animosity that unless you came over on the Mayflower you cannot be sure you’re not going to get targeted by him,” he said. “To have fought for freedom, equality, democracy – all these things held so dear – and then to have somebody being elected who seems to support the exact opposite of that – hatred, inequality, the segregation … It’s as if we’re taking a step back to the 1950s.” Frye fears that might also apply to policies toward working conditions and the environment. He lost family in the Sago mine disaster. One of his wife’s cousins, Fred Ware, was asphyxiated and another, Randal McCloy, was the sole survivor and permanently injured. “I’m not out to save the whales and I’m not out to hug a bunch of trees. But I certainly don’t want my children to live the way I had to live, growing up in an Irish family in West Virginia, working in the coalmines. I don’t want to see any more of my relatives die of black lung,” he said. “I would love to see economic growth for West Virginia. I just don’t want to see economic growth for West Virginia at the cost of West Virginia itself. There has to be a middle ground and in America finding a middle ground is probably far more difficult than any other country.” ‘Now those with the most fear those with the least’ Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Are you Saved?’ ask signs on the way out of Buckhannon. Photograph: Stephanie Strasburg/The Guardian West Virginia was once solidly Democratic. Although Trump won every county, the state has not entirely turned its back on the party. A Democrat, Jim Justice, was elected governor in the same ballot, although it helped that he is a conservative billionaire mine owner. Democrats also hold five of the six directly elected offices including secretary of state. But the GOP tide is pushing in. A Republican was elected to one of the seats in the US Senate in 2015 for the first time in 60 years and all three of the state’s seats in Congress have flipped to the party since the turn of the millennium. “There’s always been a class and caste system. America’s supposed to be the class-free country. The only thing is the classes here have to be far more subtle,” said Frye, the veteran. “Now those with the most fear those with the least. And while saying that we need to equalize the system they spend all their time and resources secretly distancing themselves more to protect themselves from the hatred of the faceless majority.” Jeran, the former mine owner, reckons West Virginia should naturally lean to the Democrats. He blames Obama’s policies for the party’s fall, although he said the former president’s race contributed to the hostility towards him. In central California, it's neighbour versus neighbour on Trump Read more Still, there’s one Obama legacy a lot of West Virginians are not keen to see erased. Farnsworth, the Trump supporter, liked Obama’s healthcare reform although he would like to have seen it go further. “The US can afford for everyone to have insurance. Canada does and these other smaller countries that ain’t as rich, they can do that. Why can’t the US? Because it’s too mean. Highfalutin motherfuckers in the government wants to send all this aid and stuff overseas,” he said. Jeran broadly backed Obamacare. He said it’s flawed but he doesn’t want to see it swept away without an alternative. “It was a good thing for people that wanted to get insurance and get it at a reasonable price. I had Obamacare when I quit for a couple of years but these insurance companies they just change stuff and they jack it up. Same with pharmacy. The drug prices in this country, it just drives you crazy,” he said. “To me, you gotta do something. This idea that we’re just going to get rid of Obamacare and we don’t have anything in place, I don’t like that.” As for Making America Great Again, Sgt Frye is doubtful. “America never stopped being great. America stopped believing in itself and caring about itself,” he said. “We became so disgruntled and bitter and concentrated on the fact that our politicians were a bunch of lying, conniving scum that we ceased having pride in our country’s achievements and became focused on our failures. Until we learn to start being proud of the positive things we achieve, we will never be great again in our own eyes. And if you cannot love yourself, how can anyone else love you?” That’s a sentiment Morgan, the evangelical and conservative grandmother, agrees with – although she sees it through a different prism. “We’ve really turned away from God as a nation and when a nation does that, God has a hard time blessing a nation that is turning its back on him,” she said. “I want to bring God back into our government. I know church and state to a point needs to be separated but I think it needs to come together too in order for God to bless the nation. I want to see prayer in school. Bring back those things that have been removed so that the next generation are taught godly principles.” Morgan realises that’s a big ask, but she thinks Trump may be the man to make it happen. For all that, she can’t decide if he’s a religious man or just an opportunist. “That’s up in the air, in my opinion. I don’t know depending on what day you ask me,” she said.

www.theguardian.com

left

HdX7B5BjckzDPCAm

test

Z4SQfDY7aqKQqJR6

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/10/01/in-todays-america-everybody-who-disagrees-with-you-is-a-traitor/

In Today's America, Everybody Who Disagrees with You is a Traitor

2019-10-01

J.D. Tuccille, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis

With a little over a year to go before the next presidential election , politicians , pundits , and political players have grown comfortable yelling `` treason '' in each other 's faces . That 's a problem . Except in those rare circumstances when the charge is accurate , tagging your enemies as traitors lazily bypasses debating their ideas and actions and goes straight for accusations of betraying the nation on behalf of its enemies to such a heinous degree that it warrants punishment with a bullet or a noose . It 'll be interesting to see whether , after the votes are counted , the side that comes up short will be comfortable conceding to `` traitors '' —or if the victors will overlook the `` treason '' of the vanquished . One of the sillier examples comes from Paul Krugman , former economist and current stroker of Manhattanite prejudices . `` Big Finance , given the choice between treason and a wealth tax , chooses treason , '' huffed Krugman . Were these big financiers defecting to North Korea or diverting support to ISIS ? Nope ! Krugman , a high-profile New York Times columnist , saw treason in the disinterest many Wall Street Democratic donors have in his preferred presidential candidate , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . ) . If failing to support the `` right '' candidate constitutes treason , then it 's no surprise that politicians feel so free to level the same charge when referring to each other . `` Donald Trump is a traitor , '' hissed super-wealthy Democratic presidential hopeful Tom Steyer , linking to recent news about President Trump 's abusive arm-twisting of Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky . Trump wanted his counterpart 's guarantee of an investigation into potentially corrupt dealings with the Ukrainian natural gas company , Burisma , involving leading Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son , Hunter . `` It 's treason , '' agreed Rep. Peter DeFazio ( D-Ore. ) . Long-shot Republican presidential challenger Bill Weld concurred that Trump had committed `` treason , pure and simple . '' Not that Trump ca n't give as good as he gets . `` Spies and treason '' is how he referred to whistleblower leaks about his dealings with Ukraine 's president . Trump also suggested that Rep. Adam Schiff 's ( D-Calif. ) comments about presidential conduct could be grounds for arresting the congressman for treason . Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement , pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President , and read it aloud to Congress and the American people . It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call . Arrest for Treason ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 30 , 2019 It was n't the first time he lobbed the treason insult , having unleashed it against former FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe for allegedly abusing their power to aid his political opponents . He also slammed Democrats who refused to applaud his State of the Union address for `` treasonous '' behavior . '' All of this would be little more than stupid and unseemly if `` traitor '' was just the new pronunciation of `` jerk , '' but it 's not . Treason is a specifically defined crime named in the Constitution , and one that potentially carries the death penalty . `` Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them , or in adhering to their enemies , giving them aid and comfort , '' the Constitution specifies . Referring to that definition , Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law warned last year ( even before accusations of treason had reached current levels of popularity ) that `` treason is not defined by the gravity of the offense ; it 's a crime indicating the clear support our enemies during wartime , period . '' He called for a `` long overdue moratorium '' on calling people traitors . Conspiring with another country may break all sorts of laws , but it 's not treason unless the United States is actually at war with that country , agrees Professor Carlton F.W . Larson of the University of California . Likewise , `` leaks might violate other provisions of federal law , but they are not treason . '' That means that dirty political shenanigans do n't rise to the level of `` treason . '' Neither does failing to clap for a politician 's speech . Nor does—and this deserves emphasis—declining to open your checkbook for political candidates favored by excitable pundits . Treason is so narrowly defined cautions Vladeck , because `` for much of the pre-revolutionary period in England , the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents . '' To accuse somebody of treason was to put them beyond the pale and delegitimize anything they might do or say . Unfortunately , that 's exactly where we are in America 's political life . Over 40 percent Americans now say the political opposition is `` downright evil '' and many think the country would be better off if opponents `` just died , '' according to a paper published this year by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason , political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland . To deal with such evil opponents , `` violence would be justified '' if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans . Anticipating an election win increased support for violence among strong partisans in the study . So , throwing the word `` treason '' around , unmoored from its actual meaning , is a weapon for delegitimizing political opposition and dissent . It 's a way of rallying the troops and telling them they do n't need to respect the enemy—they just need to destroy them . This is not a new tactic ; it 's too common , and very destructive of political systems . `` Perceptions of the out-party as a threat to the nation or way of life if they were to come to power or stay in power lead to violation of democratic norms , '' write Jennifer McCoy and Tahmina Rahman of Georgia State University and Murat Somer of Turkey 's Koç University in `` Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy , '' published last year in American Behavioral Scientist . `` Government supporters grow increasingly tolerant of illiberal actions to tamp down dissent and of extra-constitutional ( or at times anti-constitutional ) measures to extend an incumbent 's term in power . Oppositionists contemplate extra-constitutional ( or at times anti-constitutional ) measures to remove the incumbent group from power… '' The United States has n't gone that far , yet , and hopefully never will . But calling somebody a traitor certainly paints him or her as `` a threat to the nation or way of life . '' They do n't just have different ideas—they 're existential dangers . And once you 've acquired the habit of tagging your opponents as traitors and their political conduct as illegitimate , how do you gracefully concede a lost election to them ? Or , should you be the winner once the votes are counted , how do you sit back and let your enemies continue their allegedly treasonous behavior in preparation for someday taking office ? Republicans and Democrats , politicians and pundits , are gleefully backing each other into a corner in their scramble for victory in next year 's elections and their grab for the sort of total victory that healthy democracies just do n't offer . Having smeared each other as traitors and done their best to delegitimize disagreement , they 're going to have a hell of a time extracting themselves from that tight spot . Unfortunately , the rest of us are stuck in that corner with them .

With a little over a year to go before the next presidential election, politicians, pundits, and political players have grown comfortable yelling "treason" in each other's faces. That's a problem. Except in those rare circumstances when the charge is accurate, tagging your enemies as traitors lazily bypasses debating their ideas and actions and goes straight for accusations of betraying the nation on behalf of its enemies to such a heinous degree that it warrants punishment with a bullet or a noose. It'll be interesting to see whether, after the votes are counted, the side that comes up short will be comfortable conceding to "traitors"—or if the victors will overlook the "treason" of the vanquished. One of the sillier examples comes from Paul Krugman, former economist and current stroker of Manhattanite prejudices. "Big Finance, given the choice between treason and a wealth tax, chooses treason," huffed Krugman. Were these big financiers defecting to North Korea or diverting support to ISIS? Nope! Krugman, a high-profile New York Times columnist, saw treason in the disinterest many Wall Street Democratic donors have in his preferred presidential candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). If failing to support the "right" candidate constitutes treason, then it's no surprise that politicians feel so free to level the same charge when referring to each other. "Donald Trump is a traitor," hissed super-wealthy Democratic presidential hopeful Tom Steyer, linking to recent news about President Trump's abusive arm-twisting of Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky. Trump wanted his counterpart's guarantee of an investigation into potentially corrupt dealings with the Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, involving leading Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. "It's treason," agreed Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). Long-shot Republican presidential challenger Bill Weld concurred that Trump had committed "treason, pure and simple." Not that Trump can't give as good as he gets. "Spies and treason" is how he referred to whistleblower leaks about his dealings with Ukraine's president. Trump also suggested that Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-Calif.) comments about presidential conduct could be grounds for arresting the congressman for treason. Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019 It wasn't the first time he lobbed the treason insult, having unleashed it against former FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe for allegedly abusing their power to aid his political opponents. He also slammed Democrats who refused to applaud his State of the Union address for "treasonous" behavior." All of this would be little more than stupid and unseemly if "traitor" was just the new pronunciation of "jerk," but it's not. Treason is a specifically defined crime named in the Constitution, and one that potentially carries the death penalty. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," the Constitution specifies. Referring to that definition, Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law warned last year (even before accusations of treason had reached current levels of popularity) that "treason is not defined by the gravity of the offense; it's a crime indicating the clear support our enemies during wartime, period." He called for a "long overdue moratorium" on calling people traitors. Conspiring with another country may break all sorts of laws, but it's not treason unless the United States is actually at war with that country, agrees Professor Carlton F.W. Larson of the University of California. Likewise, "leaks might violate other provisions of federal law, but they are not treason." That means that dirty political shenanigans don't rise to the level of "treason." Neither does failing to clap for a politician's speech. Nor does—and this deserves emphasis—declining to open your checkbook for political candidates favored by excitable pundits. Treason is so narrowly defined cautions Vladeck, because "for much of the pre-revolutionary period in England, the accusation was a means of suppressing political dissent and punishing political opponents." To accuse somebody of treason was to put them beyond the pale and delegitimize anything they might do or say. Unfortunately, that's exactly where we are in America's political life. Over 40 percent Americans now say the political opposition is "downright evil" and many think the country would be better off if opponents "just died," according to a paper published this year by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland. To deal with such evil opponents, "violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans. Anticipating an election win increased support for violence among strong partisans in the study. So, throwing the word "treason" around, unmoored from its actual meaning, is a weapon for delegitimizing political opposition and dissent. It's a way of rallying the troops and telling them they don't need to respect the enemy—they just need to destroy them. This is not a new tactic; it's too common, and very destructive of political systems. "Perceptions of the out-party as a threat to the nation or way of life if they were to come to power or stay in power lead to violation of democratic norms," write Jennifer McCoy and Tahmina Rahman of Georgia State University and Murat Somer of Turkey's Koç University in "Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy," published last year in American Behavioral Scientist. "Government supporters grow increasingly tolerant of illiberal actions to tamp down dissent and of extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to extend an incumbent's term in power. Oppositionists contemplate extra-constitutional (or at times anti-constitutional) measures to remove the incumbent group from power…" The United States hasn't gone that far, yet, and hopefully never will. But calling somebody a traitor certainly paints him or her as "a threat to the nation or way of life." They don't just have different ideas—they're existential dangers. And once you've acquired the habit of tagging your opponents as traitors and their political conduct as illegitimate, how do you gracefully concede a lost election to them? Or, should you be the winner once the votes are counted, how do you sit back and let your enemies continue their allegedly treasonous behavior in preparation for someday taking office? Republicans and Democrats, politicians and pundits, are gleefully backing each other into a corner in their scramble for victory in next year's elections and their grab for the sort of total victory that healthy democracies just don't offer. Having smeared each other as traitors and done their best to delegitimize disagreement, they're going to have a hell of a time extracting themselves from that tight spot. Unfortunately, the rest of us are stuck in that corner with them.

www.reason.com

right

Z4SQfDY7aqKQqJR6

test

Lz1tl305jZrbjIxi

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/21/breaking-fbi-treating-attempted-gop-assassinations-as-assault/

FBI Claims Attempted GOP Assassinations Are ‘Assault’ — NOT Terrorism

2017-06-21

The FBI is treating the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers as “ assault ” and not terrorism , FBI Assistant Director in Charge Andrew Vale announced at a press conference Tuesday morning . “ At this time the FBI has assessed that the deceased shooter , James T. Hodgkinson , acted alone . We also assess that there was no nexus to terrorism . The FBI is investigating the shooting as an assault of a member of Congress and assault on a law enforcement officer , ” Vale said . The FBI has long-defined terrorism as “ the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government , the civilian population , or any segment thereof , in furtherance of political or social objectives . ” A press release sent out by the agency before the press conference offered no speculation about the would-be assassin ’ s motive . The FBI confirmed that the shooter , James T. Hodgkinson , had a list of names of six Republican lawmakers in his pocket at the time that he opened fire on Republican congressmen and staffers last Wednesday . Hodgkinson performed “ cursory ” searches online for two of those lawmakers , Vale said . The FBI confirmed ███ ’ s reporting that Hodgkinson ’ s list was found on his person , and not on his van as had been reported by other news agencies . Hodgkinson researched the Republican National Convention online the night before he attempted the mass political assassination , law enforcement officials said in a joint press release Wednesday morning . Hodgkinson also researched directions for driving from Alexandria back to his home of Belleville , Illinois . The FBI also found “ more than 200 rounds of ammunition , a receipt for a November 2016 gun purchase and additional SKS rifle components ” in a storage facility Hodgkinson rented in Alexandria , Virginia , the agency said in a joint press release . Hodgkinson took photos of various monuments and government buildings , including the Supreme Court and “ inside the visitor ’ s entrance of the Dirksen Senate Office Building . ” “ At this point in the investigation , the FBI does not believe that these photographs represented surveillance of intended targets , however , we continue to learn more about Hodgkinson ’ s recent activities , ” the press release stated . The 66-year-old Hodgkinson , a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter , frequently espoused angry rhetoric on social media and belonged to anti-Republican groups on Facebook , including one called “ Terminate The Republican Party. ” The members of that group celebrated Hodgkinson ’ s attempt at murdering Republican congressmen that left four people wounded including Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise , who was on the verge of death . “ Hodgkinson made numerous posts on all of his social media accounts espousing anti-Republican views , although all of the posts reviewed thus far appear to be First Amendment-protected speech , ” the press release stated .

The FBI is treating the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers as “assault” and not terrorism, FBI Assistant Director in Charge Andrew Vale announced at a press conference Tuesday morning. “At this time the FBI has assessed that the deceased shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, acted alone. We also assess that there was no nexus to terrorism. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an assault of a member of Congress and assault on a law enforcement officer,” Vale said. The FBI has long-defined terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” A press release sent out by the agency before the press conference offered no speculation about the would-be assassin’s motive. The FBI confirmed that the shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, had a list of names of six Republican lawmakers in his pocket at the time that he opened fire on Republican congressmen and staffers last Wednesday. Hodgkinson performed “cursory” searches online for two of those lawmakers, Vale said. The FBI confirmed The Daily Caller’s reporting that Hodgkinson’s list was found on his person, and not on his van as had been reported by other news agencies. Hodgkinson researched the Republican National Convention online the night before he attempted the mass political assassination, law enforcement officials said in a joint press release Wednesday morning. Hodgkinson also researched directions for driving from Alexandria back to his home of Belleville, Illinois. The FBI also found “more than 200 rounds of ammunition, a receipt for a November 2016 gun purchase and additional SKS rifle components” in a storage facility Hodgkinson rented in Alexandria, Virginia, the agency said in a joint press release. Hodgkinson took photos of various monuments and government buildings, including the Supreme Court and “inside the visitor’s entrance of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.” “At this point in the investigation, the FBI does not believe that these photographs represented surveillance of intended targets, however, we continue to learn more about Hodgkinson’s recent activities,” the press release stated. The 66-year-old Hodgkinson, a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter, frequently espoused angry rhetoric on social media and belonged to anti-Republican groups on Facebook, including one called “Terminate The Republican Party.” The members of that group celebrated Hodgkinson’s attempt at murdering Republican congressmen that left four people wounded including Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, who was on the verge of death. “Hodgkinson made numerous posts on all of his social media accounts espousing anti-Republican views, although all of the posts reviewed thus far appear to be First Amendment-protected speech,” the press release stated.

www.dailycaller.com

right

Lz1tl305jZrbjIxi

test