Datasets:

cjziems

/

Article-Bias-Prediction

like 2

G5aBygS0nnxNN30F

media_bias

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/14/fox-news-motion-dismiss-lawsuit-washlite-coronavirus-coverage/

Fox News Files Motion To Dismiss ‘Frivolous’ Lawsuit Over Its Coronavirus Coverage

2020-04-14

Fox News filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a Washington nonprofit organization over the network ’ s coverage of the novel coronavirus . The Washington League for Transparency and Ethics ( WASHLITE ) filed a consumer protection and emotional distress lawsuit against Fox News April 2 . ( RELATED : Nonprofit Suing Fox News Over Its Coronavirus Reporting Requests Judge Be Removed ) The lawsuit requests an injunction to prohibit Fox from “ interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content ” and accuses the network of having “ knowingly disseminated false , erroneous , and incomplete information . ” “ It ’ s Constitutional Law 101 : the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern , ” Lily Fu Claffee , general counsel for Fox News , said in a press release Tuesday . “ If WASHLITE doesn ’ t like what we said , it can criticize us , but it can ’ t silence us with a lawsuit . ” Fox News ’ s motion requests the court to dismiss WASHLITE ’ s claims , calling the lawsuit a “ frontal assault on the freedom of speech. ” Tuesday ’ s motion adds that WASHLITE ’ s lawsuit also “ flagrantly violates the First Amendment and fails to state a claim . ” “ Fox ’ s statements are core political speech on a matter of public concern—how dangerous the Coronavirus is , and how society should respond to it , ” Fox News ’ s motion , reviewed by ███ , reads . “ Under the First Amendment and state law , the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas—not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem ‘ false ’ or ‘ outrageous . ’ ” Fox News ’ s argument is that “ the First Amendment protects ” the network ’ s speech . It also notes that WASHLITE “ fails to state a claim under Washington law ” and “ fails to state a claim for the tort of outrage . ” The network explains that the Consumer Protection Act ( CPA ) , cited by WASHLITE in its lawsuit , “ does not apply to political commentary . ” “ But the only deception here is in the Complaint [ WASHLITE ] , ” the network ’ s motion to dismiss reads . “ Fox ’ s opinion hosts have never described the Coronavirus as a ‘ hoax ’ or a ‘ conspiracy , ’ but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points . ” “ Regardless , the claims here are frivolous because the statements at issue are core political speech on matters of public concern . ”

Fox News filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a Washington nonprofit organization over the network’s coverage of the novel coronavirus. The Washington League for Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) filed a consumer protection and emotional distress lawsuit against Fox News April 2. (RELATED: Nonprofit Suing Fox News Over Its Coronavirus Reporting Requests Judge Be Removed) The lawsuit requests an injunction to prohibit Fox from “interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content” and accuses the network of having “knowingly disseminated false, erroneous, and incomplete information.” “It’s Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern,” Lily Fu Claffee, general counsel for Fox News, said in a press release Tuesday. “If WASHLITE doesn’t like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can’t silence us with a lawsuit.” Fox News’s motion requests the court to dismiss WASHLITE’s claims, calling the lawsuit a “frontal assault on the freedom of speech.” Tuesday’s motion adds that WASHLITE’s lawsuit also “flagrantly violates the First Amendment and fails to state a claim.” “Fox’s statements are core political speech on a matter of public concern—how dangerous the Coronavirus is, and how society should respond to it,” Fox News’s motion, reviewed by the Daily Caller, reads. “Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas—not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem ‘false’ or ‘outrageous.’” Fox News’s argument is that “the First Amendment protects” the network’s speech. It also notes that WASHLITE “fails to state a claim under Washington law” and “fails to state a claim for the tort of outrage.” The network explains that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), cited by WASHLITE in its lawsuit, “does not apply to political commentary.” “But the only deception here is in the Complaint [WASHLITE],” the network’s motion to dismiss reads. “Fox’s opinion hosts have never described the Coronavirus as a ‘hoax’ or a ‘conspiracy,’ but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points.” “Regardless, the claims here are frivolous because the statements at issue are core political speech on matters of public concern.”

www.dailycaller.com

right

G5aBygS0nnxNN30F

test

wWxQkgijdoISEr2q

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/gun-filibuster-appears-to-misfire-for-conservative-backers/?hpt=po_c2

Gun filibuster appears to misfire for conservative backers

2013-04-10

Washington ( CNN ) - A filibuster of major gun legislation by a vocal band of conservative Republican senators may have misfired , as a growing number of their GOP colleagues appear ready to help break it when it comes up for a vote on Thursday . The public split is a rarity for Senate Republicans , who over the past few years have kept divisions to a minimum . At issue is whether to begin debate on the contentious legislation that would , among other things , expand background checks , restrict straw-purchases , and toughen laws on gun trafficking . Fourteen Republicans have publicly vowed to block debate from happening , forcing Democratic leaders to get 60 votes in order to take up the bill . Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – under pressure from his right flank as he readies a re-election run -signed onto the filibuster even as other senators pushed for an open debate . “ The senate is a place to debate , ” said Sen. Lamar Alexander , R-Tennessee , who will vote to break the filibuster . “ As far as I ’ m concerned , for me not to be willing to defend the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans on the Senate floor is like joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being willing to sing . ” Sen. John Cornyn , who as the Senate Republican Whip is second in the GOP chain of command , said he expected the filibuster would be broken because many GOP senators are “ eager ” to amend the bill , which was written largely by Democrats . “ I think there will be a fulsome debate , ” he said . “ Notwithstanding the signals from some quarters , we welcome a fulsome debate on this . There are some people with some very good ideas , like Sen. ( Lindsey ) Graham ( R-South Carolina ) on the mental health issues that should be a sweet spot that could actually pull people together to do something that would be meaningful in preventing a repetition ” of mass violence . Sen. John McCain , R-Arizona , over the weekend was the first to criticize GOP colleagues calling for a filibuster . Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page chastised the filibustering Republicans for not wanting to take up the bill . “ If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides , the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor . They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to , but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they ’ re voting on , ” the paper said . Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , one of the leaders of the filibuster , told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham Wednesday that the criticism of it has been “ silly . ” “ The critics have said we have to have a debate , we need to have a vote . We are having a debate and we ’ re going to have a vote , ” he said . “ The only question is what should the vote threshold be for legislation that would violate potentially the bill of rights . I think it should be a minimum of 60 votes . ” Cruz accused fellow Republicans of rushing to debate a bill without knowing much about it . “ I ’ ll point out that a lot of the Republicans who say they are happy to shut off the debate and move to the bill , they don ’ t even know what the bill contains , ” Cruz said . “ It ’ s reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi talking about Obamacare saying we have to pass it to find what it ’ s in it . The bill that Republicans are going on television and saying we got ta move to and vote on , they still don ’ t know the details because the Democrats haven ’ t released the details of the bill they ’ re moving to proceed to . ” Another senator backing the filibuster , Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to defend his cause . He argued the filibuster was helpful because the delay gives senators more time to consider the measure . “ Contrary to the statements made by the president and my friends across the aisle , and even a few in my own caucus , we have no intention of preventing debate or votes . Quite the opposite . By objecting to the motion to proceed , we guarantee that the Senate and the American people have at least three additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether it will have any significant impact on crime . ” Alexander , who hasn ’ t indicated how he will vote on a final bill , said open debate on the issue will be good for the country . “ That ’ s what senators are supposed to do . Instead of having deals made and agreements made in back rooms and never having bills and never having amendments , open it up and let the Senate work . I think the American people would prefer that I think we ’ ll have better government if we do . ”

6 years ago Washington (CNN) - A filibuster of major gun legislation by a vocal band of conservative Republican senators may have misfired, as a growing number of their GOP colleagues appear ready to help break it when it comes up for a vote on Thursday. The public split is a rarity for Senate Republicans, who over the past few years have kept divisions to a minimum. At issue is whether to begin debate on the contentious legislation that would, among other things, expand background checks, restrict straw-purchases, and toughen laws on gun trafficking. Fourteen Republicans have publicly vowed to block debate from happening, forcing Democratic leaders to get 60 votes in order to take up the bill. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – under pressure from his right flank as he readies a re-election run -signed onto the filibuster even as other senators pushed for an open debate. “The senate is a place to debate,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, who will vote to break the filibuster. “As far as I’m concerned, for me not to be willing to defend the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans on the Senate floor is like joining the Grand Ole Opry and not being willing to sing.” Sen. John Cornyn, who as the Senate Republican Whip is second in the GOP chain of command, said he expected the filibuster would be broken because many GOP senators are “eager” to amend the bill, which was written largely by Democrats. “I think there will be a fulsome debate,” he said. “Notwithstanding the signals from some quarters, we welcome a fulsome debate on this. There are some people with some very good ideas, like Sen. (Lindsey) Graham (R-South Carolina) on the mental health issues that should be a sweet spot that could actually pull people together to do something that would be meaningful in preventing a repetition” of mass violence. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, over the weekend was the first to criticize GOP colleagues calling for a filibuster. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page chastised the filibustering Republicans for not wanting to take up the bill. “If conservatives want to prove their gun-control bona fides, the way to do it is to debate the merits and vote on the floor. They can always filibuster the final bill if they want to, but it makes no sense to paint themselves into a political box canyon before even knowing what they’re voting on,” the paper said. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of the leaders of the filibuster, told conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham Wednesday that the criticism of it has been “silly.” “The critics have said we have to have a debate, we need to have a vote. We are having a debate and we’re going to have a vote,” he said. “The only question is what should the vote threshold be for legislation that would violate potentially the bill of rights. I think it should be a minimum of 60 votes.” Cruz accused fellow Republicans of rushing to debate a bill without knowing much about it. “I’ll point out that a lot of the Republicans who say they are happy to shut off the debate and move to the bill, they don’t even know what the bill contains,” Cruz said. “It’s reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi talking about Obamacare saying we have to pass it to find what it’s in it. The bill that Republicans are going on television and saying we gotta move to and vote on, they still don’t know the details because the Democrats haven’t released the details of the bill they’re moving to proceed to.” Another senator backing the filibuster, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, went to the Senate floor on Wednesday to defend his cause. He argued the filibuster was helpful because the delay gives senators more time to consider the measure. “Contrary to the statements made by the president and my friends across the aisle, and even a few in my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. Quite the opposite. By objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the Senate and the American people have at least three additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill will affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether it will have any significant impact on crime.” Alexander, who hasn’t indicated how he will vote on a final bill, said open debate on the issue will be good for the country. “That’s what senators are supposed to do. Instead of having deals made and agreements made in back rooms and never having bills and never having amendments, open it up and let the Senate work. I think the American people would prefer that I think we’ll have better government if we do.”

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

wWxQkgijdoISEr2q

test

f9jNIvMT2UTIZPXO

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Barack-Obama-anti-Christian-rhetoric-easter-prayer/2015/04/09/id/637432/

Critics: Obama Shows Anti-Christian Bias

2015-04-09

Melanie Batley

President Barack Obama 's comment at this week 's Easter Prayer Breakfast that some Christians are acting `` less-than-loving '' is the latest in a string of remarks and actions that some say suggest he has an anti-Christian bias . `` On Easter , I do reflect on the fact that , as a Christian , I am supposed to love , and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians , I get concerned , but that 's a topic for another day , '' Obama said in his address on Tuesday.In February he got himself in hot water at the National Prayer Breakfast after comparing Islamic terrorism to the Crusades . `` Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place , remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition , people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ , '' Obama had said.And critics have said the president has failed to bring attention to Christian persecution around the world , most recently in Iraq where Christians have been beheaded at the hands of the Islamic State.The president 's words and actions have not gone unnoticed.Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said that it appeared the president was more critical of Christians than Muslims . `` The fact is that all human beings fall short . We are all sinners , '' O'Reilly said on Wednesday 's `` The O'Reilly Factor . '' `` But in the political arena , it seems like President Obama is more skeptical of Christians than he is of Muslims . That may not be true , but that 's what it feels like . `` On Tuesday , Fox News host Megyn Kelly said the president 's most recent comments could have a chilling effect on those who want to speak out against ongoing persecution of Christians . `` I mean , the question is whether those comments do real damage not just to morale among Christians about what their own president thinks of them , but… that they feel he wo n't stand up for Christians who are under threat , '' Kelly said on `` The Kelly File . '' Richard Land , president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary , said that the president 's comments at the Easter breakfast showed that `` he has a very strange definition of freedom of religion . `` `` He believes in freedom of religion as long as you agree with him , but if you disagree with him on gay marriage , for instance , then he wants to weaponize the government against you , '' Land told J.D . Hayworth on ███ TV 's `` America 's Forum . '' Persecution of Christians in the Middle East will get worse and spread within America because the president is `` very sympathetic to Islam , '' said evangelical pastor Franklin Graham . `` The storm of Islam '' is coming , he said , according to CNS News He attributed the president 's views to having spent time in Indonesia growing up under the influence of his father and stepfather , both of whom were Muslim . `` So , growing up , his frame of reference and his influence as a young man was Islam , '' Graham said . `` It was n't Christianity , it was Islam . `` Others have also cast doubt on the nature of Obama 's Christian faith.Bill Donohue , president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights , says Obama has no religious faith — and believes in absolutely nothing . `` I know the secular-minded people . He 's certainly one of them , '' Donohue told `` The Steve Malzberg Show '' on ███ TV following the president 's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast . `` I do n't believe he 's a Christian and I do n't believe he 's a Muslim … He believes in nothing , stands for nothing and he 's good for nothing . `` `` God knows Christians have done some ugly things in history and so has every group . Why is it that every time the Muslims are being discussed about savagery , somehow it always gets back to Catholics ? '' Donohue said .

President Barack Obama's comment at this week's Easter Prayer Breakfast that some Christians are acting "less-than-loving" is the latest in a string of remarks and actions that some say suggest he has an anti-Christian bias."On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I am supposed to love, and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned, but that's a topic for another day," Obama said in his address on Tuesday.In February he got himself in hot water at the National Prayer Breakfast after comparing Islamic terrorism to the Crusades."Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ," Obama had said.And critics have said the president has failed to bring attention to Christian persecution around the world, most recently in Iraq where Christians have been beheaded at the hands of the Islamic State.The president's words and actions have not gone unnoticed.Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said that it appeared the president was more critical of Christians than Muslims."The fact is that all human beings fall short. We are all sinners," O'Reilly said on Wednesday's "The O'Reilly Factor." "But in the political arena, it seems like President Obama is more skeptical of Christians than he is of Muslims. That may not be true, but that's what it feels like."On Tuesday, Fox News host Megyn Kelly said the president's most recent comments could have a chilling effect on those who want to speak out against ongoing persecution of Christians."I mean, the question is whether those comments do real damage not just to morale among Christians about what their own president thinks of them, but… that they feel he won't stand up for Christians who are under threat," Kelly said on "The Kelly File." Richard Land, president of the Southern Evangelical Seminary, said that the president's comments at the Easter breakfast showed that "he has a very strange definition of freedom of religion.""He believes in freedom of religion as long as you agree with him, but if you disagree with him on gay marriage, for instance, then he wants to weaponize the government against you," Land told J.D. Hayworth on Newsmax TV's "America's Forum." Persecution of Christians in the Middle East will get worse and spread within America because the president is "very sympathetic to Islam," said evangelical pastor Franklin Graham."The storm of Islam" is coming, he said, according to CNS News He attributed the president's views to having spent time in Indonesia growing up under the influence of his father and stepfather, both of whom were Muslim."So, growing up, his frame of reference and his influence as a young man was Islam," Graham said. "It wasn't Christianity, it was Islam."Others have also cast doubt on the nature of Obama's Christian faith.Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, says Obama has no religious faith — and believes in absolutely nothing."I know the secular-minded people. He's certainly one of them," Donohue told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV following the president's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast."I don't believe he's a Christian and I don't believe he's a Muslim … He believes in nothing, stands for nothing and he's good for nothing.""God knows Christians have done some ugly things in history and so has every group. Why is it that every time the Muslims are being discussed about savagery, somehow it always gets back to Catholics?" Donohue said.

www.newsmax.com

right

f9jNIvMT2UTIZPXO

test

6Rd7MEpIJBFpppuS

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47389621

Michael Cohen: Ex-lawyer tells Congress Trump directed lies

Donald Trump 's former lawyer Michael Cohen has claimed Mr Trump wanted him to lie about a property deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign . During Wednesday 's testimony , Cohen said Mr Trump directed covert plans for a Trump hotel , even while he denied having any business in Russia . He also said Mr Trump knew about a leak of hacked Democratic emails , and called him a `` racist '' , `` conman '' and `` cheat '' . Mr Trump accused Cohen of `` lying in order to reduce his prison time '' . And speaking after Thursday 's summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi , Vietnam , the US president reiterated that Cohen `` lied a lot '' during his congressional testimony . But Mr Trump said his former lawyer provided no evidence about alleged collusion between the Trump campaign with Russia during the 2016 US presidential elections . `` He did n't lie about one thing . He said , no collusion with the Russian hoax . And I said , I wonder why he did n't lie about that , too , like everything else , '' Mr Trump said . Cohen , 52 , will start a three-year prison term in May for the campaign finance violation of paying hush money to one of Mr Trump 's alleged mistresses , tax evasion and lying to Congress . In his public testimony to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee on Wednesday , he said Mr Trump `` knew of and directed '' plans for a Trump Tower Moscow , while stating publicly that he had no dealings in Russia . `` At the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him , '' Cohen testified , `` he would look me in the eye and tell me there 's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing . In his way , he was telling me to lie . '' However , Cohen has been convicted of lying to Congress when he testified in 2017 that attempts to build a Trump skyscraper in Moscow had stopped by January 2016 . He has since acknowledged negotiations actually continued until June 2016 in the midst of the election campaign , though the real estate project ultimately did not go ahead . Cohen apologised on Wednesday for his earlier false statements to Congress , which he claimed were `` reviewed and edited '' by Mr Trump 's lawyers . Jay Sekulow , counsel to President Trump , said in a statement after the hearing : `` Today 's testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the president edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false . '' Cohen also suggested federal prosecutors in New York are investigating some unspecified crime involving Trump . Cohen said he was in Mr Trump 's office in July 2016 when Roger Stone , a longtime political adviser , called the then-Republican presidential candidate . The witness said Mr Stone rang Mr Trump to let him know he had been speaking to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange , who told him there would be a `` massive dump '' of emails within a couple of days that would politically embarrass Hillary Clinton 's White House campaign . Cohen said Mr Trump responded along the lines of `` would n't that be great '' . Mr Trump has denied having prior knowledge about Wikileaks ' disclosure of Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) emails during the election . The messages - which US authorities say were hacked by Russian intelligence - caused a damaging rift among Democrats by exposing how party officials preferred Mrs Clinton over her challenger for the presidential nomination , Bernie Sanders . Mr Stone , a self-proclaimed political dirty trickster , is currently facing charges of lying to Congress about his communications with Wikileaks and witness tampering . Anyone who 's met Michael Cohen recently will tell you that he 's burning with anger at having to take the blame for crimes he says were instigated by Trump . It seems he 's spent weeks being intensively prepped by his lawyers for this moment and intends to do the President fatal damage . The White House talking points - farmed out to surrogates such as Donald Trump Jr - are that he 's a `` disgraced liar '' and `` convicted perjurer '' . Cohen certainly knows he has - as he says in his testimony - a credibility problem . That 's why he 's attempting to wield a stiletto , not swing an axe , each charge backed up by what he calls `` documents that are irrefutable '' - hence the dramatic production of a cheque apparently signed by Trump ( the alleged refund for paying off Stormy Daniels ) . He did n't talk much about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia . In fact , he said he had no direct knowledge of collusion . He did , though , say he witnessed Trump in a telephone conversation during the campaign that showed he knew in advance Wikileaks was about to publish emails hacked - by Russia - from the Democratic Party . That would be hugely significant , if true . Trump has always denied it . Cohen testified that , contrary to Mr Trump 's repeated claims , he seemed to have advance knowledge of a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan between his campaign aides and a Russian lawyer promising `` dirt '' on Mrs Clinton . The June 2016 meeting has been investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller , who is winding up a 21-month justice department inquiry into whether the Trump campaign colluded with an alleged Kremlin plot to influence the 2016 US presidential election . Cohen spoke about an incident when Mr Trump 's son , Donald Jr , walked behind his father 's desk and told him in a low voice : `` The meeting is all set . '' Mr Trump , Cohen told the hearing , replied : `` OK good , let me know . '' Importantly , Cohen also said under oath that he has no direct evidence that Mr Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia . `` I do not , '' he said . `` I want to be clear . But I have my suspicions . '' He said : `` He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that was n't a 'shithole . ' `` This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States . `` While we were once driving through a struggling neighbourhood in Chicago , he commented that only black people could live that way . `` And he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid . And yet I continued to work for him . '' Cohen provided what he said was evidence of reimbursements he received from the president for hush money the lawyer has admitted paying to a porn star who says she had an affair with Mr Trump . He submitted to the committee a copy of his $ 130,000 ( £97,000 ) wire transfer to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet - a payment which led to Cohen 's conviction for campaign finance violations . Cohen also gave the panel a copy of a $ 35,000 cheque dated August 2017 - one of a series he said Mr Trump signed to pay him back in instalments . `` Lying to the first lady is one of my biggest regrets , '' Cohen said . `` She is a kind , good person . I respect her greatly - and she did not deserve that . '' During the hearing , the president 's fellow Republicans pilloried committee Democrats for inviting a man convicted of lying to Congress . Jim Jordan of Ohio called Cohen - who lost his law licence on Tuesday - a `` fraudster '' and `` cheat '' . But committee chairman Elijah Cummings , a Maryland Democrat , defended the decision to give Cohen a public platform , saying it was the panel 's job to search out the truth . After the hearing , when asked whether the president committed a crime while in office , Chairman Cummings said : `` It appears that he did '' . He did not offer any further detail on what crime he thought Mr Trump committed .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Five things Cohen said about Trump Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen has claimed Mr Trump wanted him to lie about a property deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign. During Wednesday's testimony, Cohen said Mr Trump directed covert plans for a Trump hotel, even while he denied having any business in Russia. He also said Mr Trump knew about a leak of hacked Democratic emails, and called him a "racist", "conman" and "cheat". Mr Trump accused Cohen of "lying in order to reduce his prison time". And speaking after Thursday's summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, Vietnam, the US president reiterated that Cohen "lied a lot" during his congressional testimony. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump criticises former lawyer Michael Cohen's testimony But Mr Trump said his former lawyer provided no evidence about alleged collusion between the Trump campaign with Russia during the 2016 US presidential elections. "He didn't lie about one thing. He said, no collusion with the Russian hoax. And I said, I wonder why he didn't lie about that, too, like everything else," Mr Trump said. Cohen, 52, will start a three-year prison term in May for the campaign finance violation of paying hush money to one of Mr Trump's alleged mistresses, tax evasion and lying to Congress. What did Cohen say about the Moscow project? In his public testimony to the House of Representatives Oversight Committee on Wednesday, he said Mr Trump "knew of and directed" plans for a Trump Tower Moscow, while stating publicly that he had no dealings in Russia. "At the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him," Cohen testified, "he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie." "He wanted me to lie," the witness added. However, Cohen has been convicted of lying to Congress when he testified in 2017 that attempts to build a Trump skyscraper in Moscow had stopped by January 2016. He has since acknowledged negotiations actually continued until June 2016 in the midst of the election campaign, though the real estate project ultimately did not go ahead. Cohen apologised on Wednesday for his earlier false statements to Congress, which he claimed were "reviewed and edited" by Mr Trump's lawyers. Jay Sekulow, counsel to President Trump, said in a statement after the hearing: "Today's testimony by Michael Cohen that attorneys for the president edited or changed his statement to Congress to alter the duration of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations is completely false." Cohen also suggested federal prosecutors in New York are investigating some unspecified crime involving Trump. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Michael Cohen: Trump told me 'Don Jr had worst judgement in world' What did Cohen say about the email leak? Cohen said he was in Mr Trump's office in July 2016 when Roger Stone, a longtime political adviser, called the then-Republican presidential candidate. The witness said Mr Stone rang Mr Trump to let him know he had been speaking to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who told him there would be a "massive dump" of emails within a couple of days that would politically embarrass Hillary Clinton's White House campaign. Cohen said Mr Trump responded along the lines of "wouldn't that be great". Mr Trump has denied having prior knowledge about Wikileaks' disclosure of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails during the election. The messages - which US authorities say were hacked by Russian intelligence - caused a damaging rift among Democrats by exposing how party officials preferred Mrs Clinton over her challenger for the presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders. Mr Stone, a self-proclaimed political dirty trickster, is currently facing charges of lying to Congress about his communications with Wikileaks and witness tampering. Wielding a stiletto, not an axe By Paul Wood, World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News Anyone who's met Michael Cohen recently will tell you that he's burning with anger at having to take the blame for crimes he says were instigated by Trump. It seems he's spent weeks being intensively prepped by his lawyers for this moment and intends to do the President fatal damage. The White House talking points - farmed out to surrogates such as Donald Trump Jr - are that he's a "disgraced liar" and "convicted perjurer". Cohen certainly knows he has - as he says in his testimony - a credibility problem. That's why he's attempting to wield a stiletto, not swing an axe, each charge backed up by what he calls "documents that are irrefutable" - hence the dramatic production of a cheque apparently signed by Trump (the alleged refund for paying off Stormy Daniels). He didn't talk much about whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. In fact, he said he had no direct knowledge of collusion. He did, though, say he witnessed Trump in a telephone conversation during the campaign that showed he knew in advance Wikileaks was about to publish emails hacked - by Russia - from the Democratic Party. That would be hugely significant, if true. Trump has always denied it. What else did he say about Russia? Cohen testified that, contrary to Mr Trump's repeated claims, he seemed to have advance knowledge of a meeting at Trump Tower in Manhattan between his campaign aides and a Russian lawyer promising "dirt" on Mrs Clinton. The June 2016 meeting has been investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is winding up a 21-month justice department inquiry into whether the Trump campaign colluded with an alleged Kremlin plot to influence the 2016 US presidential election. Cohen spoke about an incident when Mr Trump's son, Donald Jr, walked behind his father's desk and told him in a low voice: "The meeting is all set." Mr Trump, Cohen told the hearing, replied: "OK good, let me know." Importantly, Cohen also said under oath that he has no direct evidence that Mr Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. "I do not," he said. "I want to be clear. But I have my suspicions." More on Trump-Russia: What about the racism allegation? Cohen told lawmakers Mr Trump is a racist. He said: "He once asked me if I could name a country run by a black person that wasn't a 'shithole.' "This was when Barack Obama was President of the United States. "While we were once driving through a struggling neighbourhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way. "And he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid. And yet I continued to work for him." Image copyright Getty Images What did he say about hush money? Cohen provided what he said was evidence of reimbursements he received from the president for hush money the lawyer has admitted paying to a porn star who says she had an affair with Mr Trump. He submitted to the committee a copy of his $130,000 (£97,000) wire transfer to Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet - a payment which led to Cohen's conviction for campaign finance violations. Cohen also gave the panel a copy of a $35,000 cheque dated August 2017 - one of a series he said Mr Trump signed to pay him back in instalments. "Lying to the first lady is one of my biggest regrets," Cohen said. "She is a kind, good person. I respect her greatly - and she did not deserve that." How did committee members respond? During the hearing, the president's fellow Republicans pilloried committee Democrats for inviting a man convicted of lying to Congress. Jim Jordan of Ohio called Cohen - who lost his law licence on Tuesday - a "fraudster" and "cheat". But committee chairman Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, defended the decision to give Cohen a public platform, saying it was the panel's job to search out the truth. After the hearing, when asked whether the president committed a crime while in office, Chairman Cummings said: "It appears that he did". He did not offer any further detail on what crime he thought Mr Trump committed.

www.bbc.com

center

6Rd7MEpIJBFpppuS

test

75NUq0Nkv0FdMyZY

nuclear_weapons

The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/may/27/hope-and-hype-of-hiroshima-cant-conceal-obamas-dismal-record-on-nuclear-disarmament

Hope and hype of Hiroshima can’t conceal Obama’s dismal record on nuclear disarmament

2016-05-27

Tim Wright

Seven years ago , in the Czech capital of Prague , Barack Obama delivered his first major foreign policy speech as president . To rapturous applause , he laid out his vision for “ the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons ” . It earned him that year ’ s Nobel peace prize . On Friday he will bookend his two terms in office with another appeal for nuclear disarmament , this time during a historic trip to Hiroshima . No other sitting US president has ever visited the Japanese city that was razed to the ground by a single atomic bomb in the final days of the second world war . ███ view on Obama in Hiroshima : facing a nuclear past , not fixing a post-nuclear future | Editorial Read more An estimated 140,000 people , almost all of them civilians , perished instantly in the vast inferno , or died within a few months from severe burns , blast injuries or radiation sickness . Many more succumbed years later to cancers and other radiation-related illnesses . The president will make no apology on behalf of his nation for this horrific attack . That he has made clear . But most of the remaining survivors , known as hibakusha , have not demanded one . Their focus instead is on the future – how to realise the oft-cited , long-elusive goal of a nuclear weapon-free world , lest anyone else ever suffer as they have . Many hibakusha have been dismayed by the president ’ s dismal record on disarmament . Setsuko Thurlow , who was 13 years old when the building she was in collapsed around her from the atomic blast , wrote in the New York Daily News last week : “ We are frustrated by Obama ’ s eloquent propensity to say one thing and do another . ” Under the Obama presidency , contrary to perceptions , the pace of nuclear warhead dismantlement has slowed , not hastened . Indeed , the two presidents Bush and Bill Clinton each made greater gains in downsizing the colossal US nuclear stockpile amassed during the cold war . But more alarming than this failure to destroy old nuclear weapons has been the Obama administration ’ s aggressive pursuit of new , “ smaller ” ones , for which the threshold of use would be lower , according to former military commanders . At great expense , the president has bolstered all three components of the nation ’ s “ nuclear triad ” : the strategic bombers , intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles . This was the price paid for securing Republican support in 2010 for the ratification of a modest bilateral arms reduction treaty with Russia . Obama ’ s much-publicised “ nuclear security summits ” largely ignored the greatest source of nuclear insecurity in the world today : 15,000 nuclear weapons , including 1,800 on hair-trigger alert . Instead , they focused on measures to keep “ vulnerable nuclear material ” out of terrorists ’ hands – a vital endeavour , certainly , but for all the fanfare the results were small . Now the United States is stridently resisting diplomatic moves by two-thirds of the world ’ s nations to declare nuclear weapons illegal . It boycotted UN talks in Geneva this month aimed at setting the stage for negotiations on a prohibition treaty . But it can not veto this initiative , just as it could not veto the processes that led to bans on landmines in 1997 and cluster munitions in 2008 . While a prohibition on nuclear weapons will not result in disarmament overnight , it will powerfully challenge the notion that these weapons are acceptable for some nations . It will place them on the same legal footing as both other types of weapons of mass destruction – namely , chemical and biological weapons . In Geneva , Australia spoke neither for nor against a ban . Under the caretaker government , it was compelled to remain silent on matters for which there is no bipartisan agreement . The Coalition government has fervently opposed the “ ban the bomb ” movement , arguing that the so-called US “ nuclear umbrella ” guarantees Australia ’ s “ security and prosperity ” . Labor , by contrast , has declared its firm support for “ the negotiation of a global treaty banning [ nuclear ] weapons ” , welcoming “ the growing global movement of nations that is supporting this objective ” . This was an important addition to its revised national platform in 2015 . US nuclear arsenal controlled by 1970s computers with 8in floppy disks Read more Its new policy , no doubt , will prove unpopular with our powerful ally – whoever may serve as the next commander-in-chief – but it is in harmony with the policies of our nearest neighbours , from whom we have grown increasingly isolated on this issue in recent years . Among the most outspoken proponents of a ban are New Zealand , Indonesia , Malaysia , the Philippines and Thailand . Australia should look to these and other nuclear-free nations in our region , and beyond , for guidance on disarmament matters – not to a nation bristling with 7,000 nuclear weapons . The US will not , alas , lead the way to a world without these horrible weapons . Even under one of its most progressive presidents , it has failed abysmally to do so . The promise of Prague was broken . Let us not get caught up in the hope and hype of Hiroshima . To succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons , we must begin by stigmatising and prohibiting such weapons . The US will not support us in this endeavour . But the overwhelming majority of nations will . We must stand firmly on the right side of history . The problem is not North Korea or Russia or China , or whoever else we may perceive as the enemy . The problem is the weapons these and others possess and threaten to use every day through the doctrine of “ deterrence ” . They are inherently indiscriminate , inhumane and immoral weapons . Soon , too , they will be illegal . Australia must stop defending them simply out of deference to its ally .

Seven years ago, in the Czech capital of Prague, Barack Obama delivered his first major foreign policy speech as president. To rapturous applause, he laid out his vision for “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”. It earned him that year’s Nobel peace prize. On Friday he will bookend his two terms in office with another appeal for nuclear disarmament, this time during a historic trip to Hiroshima. No other sitting US president has ever visited the Japanese city that was razed to the ground by a single atomic bomb in the final days of the second world war. The Guardian view on Obama in Hiroshima: facing a nuclear past, not fixing a post-nuclear future | Editorial Read more An estimated 140,000 people, almost all of them civilians, perished instantly in the vast inferno, or died within a few months from severe burns, blast injuries or radiation sickness. Many more succumbed years later to cancers and other radiation-related illnesses. The president will make no apology on behalf of his nation for this horrific attack. That he has made clear. But most of the remaining survivors, known as hibakusha, have not demanded one. Their focus instead is on the future – how to realise the oft-cited, long-elusive goal of a nuclear weapon-free world, lest anyone else ever suffer as they have. Many hibakusha have been dismayed by the president’s dismal record on disarmament. Setsuko Thurlow, who was 13 years old when the building she was in collapsed around her from the atomic blast, wrote in the New York Daily News last week: “We are frustrated by Obama’s eloquent propensity to say one thing and do another.” Under the Obama presidency, contrary to perceptions, the pace of nuclear warhead dismantlement has slowed, not hastened. Indeed, the two presidents Bush and Bill Clinton each made greater gains in downsizing the colossal US nuclear stockpile amassed during the cold war. But more alarming than this failure to destroy old nuclear weapons has been the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of new, “smaller” ones, for which the threshold of use would be lower, according to former military commanders. At great expense, the president has bolstered all three components of the nation’s “nuclear triad”: the strategic bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles. This was the price paid for securing Republican support in 2010 for the ratification of a modest bilateral arms reduction treaty with Russia. Obama’s much-publicised “nuclear security summits” largely ignored the greatest source of nuclear insecurity in the world today: 15,000 nuclear weapons, including 1,800 on hair-trigger alert. Instead, they focused on measures to keep “vulnerable nuclear material” out of terrorists’ hands – a vital endeavour, certainly, but for all the fanfare the results were small. Now the United States is stridently resisting diplomatic moves by two-thirds of the world’s nations to declare nuclear weapons illegal. It boycotted UN talks in Geneva this month aimed at setting the stage for negotiations on a prohibition treaty. But it cannot veto this initiative, just as it could not veto the processes that led to bans on landmines in 1997 and cluster munitions in 2008. While a prohibition on nuclear weapons will not result in disarmament overnight, it will powerfully challenge the notion that these weapons are acceptable for some nations. It will place them on the same legal footing as both other types of weapons of mass destruction – namely, chemical and biological weapons. In Geneva, Australia spoke neither for nor against a ban. Under the caretaker government, it was compelled to remain silent on matters for which there is no bipartisan agreement. The Coalition government has fervently opposed the “ban the bomb” movement, arguing that the so-called US “nuclear umbrella” guarantees Australia’s “security and prosperity”. Labor, by contrast, has declared its firm support for “the negotiation of a global treaty banning [nuclear] weapons”, welcoming “the growing global movement of nations that is supporting this objective”. This was an important addition to its revised national platform in 2015. US nuclear arsenal controlled by 1970s computers with 8in floppy disks Read more Its new policy, no doubt, will prove unpopular with our powerful ally – whoever may serve as the next commander-in-chief – but it is in harmony with the policies of our nearest neighbours, from whom we have grown increasingly isolated on this issue in recent years. Among the most outspoken proponents of a ban are New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. Australia should look to these and other nuclear-free nations in our region, and beyond, for guidance on disarmament matters – not to a nation bristling with 7,000 nuclear weapons. The US will not, alas, lead the way to a world without these horrible weapons. Even under one of its most progressive presidents, it has failed abysmally to do so. The promise of Prague was broken. Let us not get caught up in the hope and hype of Hiroshima. To succeed in eliminating nuclear weapons, we must begin by stigmatising and prohibiting such weapons. The US will not support us in this endeavour. But the overwhelming majority of nations will. We must stand firmly on the right side of history. The problem is not North Korea or Russia or China, or whoever else we may perceive as the enemy. The problem is the weapons these and others possess and threaten to use every day through the doctrine of “deterrence”. They are inherently indiscriminate, inhumane and immoral weapons. Soon, too, they will be illegal. Australia must stop defending them simply out of deference to its ally.

www.theguardian.com

left

75NUq0Nkv0FdMyZY

test

a90gbWBi2s3ttiXs

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-gop-is-all-pastel-and-little-boldness/

The GOP Is All Pastel (and Little Boldness)

Brandon J. Weichert, Paul Kengor, Terence Kealey, Philip Leigh, Dov Fischer, Mark Shields

The real unemployment rate ( the U6 figure ) has reached a 17-year low in record time . This is almost exclusively in response to the massive amount of regulations that the Trump Administration slashed beginning from his very first day in office . The tax cuts also helped to goose the economy . For the first time in more than a decade , the economy has reached truly prosperous levels for many Americans . Now , there remains much work ahead of the Trump Administration . Government spending is out-of-control ; the failure to repeal Obamacare has raised the cost-of-living on many Americans ; and the stratification between the wealthy and the poor remains at stratospheric levels ( though the positive economic situation will help to mitigate this division ) . Also , the effects — whether positive or negative — from the ongoing ( and escalating ) trade war with China have yet to be fully felt by the American economy . However , in the near-term , things are brighter for most Americans than they have been in decades . So , how is it that the GOP is struggling to win the wave of special elections in 2018 ( and there seems to be some evidence that the general midterms in November will be a tougher race than , frankly , it should be , given all of the positive economic developments ) ? In a Country of Coke or Pepsi , We Need RC Cola You see , if the American political system were a parliamentary-style of government , rather than a presidential system , the Republican Party would be several different parties on the Right . However , because we live in such a binary political system ( where one must choose between Coca-Cola or Pepsi ) , the GOP is a tentpole party . The Democratic Party has similar cleavages — but they are nowhere near as divided and have far fewer differences between them . No Republican believes the same thing . Some are Libertarians ( not very many , though ) . Others are conservative internationalists . Still more are conservative-nationalists . There are too many to list ; each one of them believes that their version of “ conservatism ” is the purest way — and they will fight to prevent any form of consolidation of the party lest it be under their direction . Donald Trump ’ s election , in particular , created massive dislocations on the Right . Depending on which type of Republican you ask , Trump is either a savior-figure or a Svengali-type villain . Therefore , the Republicans — despite holding all of the reins of power — are more divided and opposed to each other than ever before . This is made especially true by the fact that Donald Trump himself — the great lightning rod of the party — is not on the ballot . So long as Trump ’ s name appeared as a voting option , enough people on the Right ( combined with the moderate , blue-collar , middle-class “ Reagan Democrats ” who allowed for Trump to penetrate the mythical “ blue wall ” in 2016 ) would materialize at their polling booths , and grant Trump a victory . But , with Trump only able to endorse candidates , the reason to vote for the GOP is less clear . The divisions dominate . They depress the vote at precisely the moment that the Left is galvanized ( and , paradoxically , this is made doubly so for those Republicans who either refused or did not secure Trump ’ s endorsement ) . One would think , then , that the natural solution would be simply to generate votes from the “ Reagan Democrats ” who gave Trump his electoral victory two years ago . Unfortunately , though , those voters are disinclined to vote for your archetypal Republican . Most Republican candidates favor “ free trade ” and open borders . They are also seen as being the party of entrenched wealth that wants to kill grandma , take away Medicare , and make people homeless . Such voters are unlikely to support traditional Republican candidates . More importantly , there ’ s the issue of morality . Conventional Republicans tell us that the social issues crowd needs to be drowned out ( especially in tight elections ) . They tell us that otherwise-magnificent candidates are destroyed because their great stances on economics and foreign policy are neutered by the fact that they tend to be weaker on social issues than the base is willing to countenance . As such , “ divisive ” candidates are put forward to appease the base . Yet , the Democrats have never gotten this message . At the very same time Republican Establishment-types get skittish over nominating candidates who will happily fight the Culture War , the Democrats are surging forward with their own take on the Culture War . Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently argued that the Democrats have the moral high ground on the major issues . She is not alone in this sentiment . In fact , most Millennials agree with her . They gravitate toward candidates on the Left who are the most extreme ( Bernie Sanders , for instance ) . While there is no guarantee that these democratic socialists will achieve electoral victory in 2018 ( or even in 2020 ) , the generational divide is key to understanding how Republicans are having such difficulty winning ( without Trump ) . After all , in 2020 , the largest cohort of Baby Boomers is set to retire and begin drawing on Welfare programs en masse . This will likely create massive economic distortions , as the debt explodes , and no one in Washington addresses the issue . As the situation declines , the radicalism exhibited by the Left will intensify and gain traction . Meanwhile , the Right will continue to lose influence and legitimacy , as it bickers among its various factions and ignores the massive grouping of blue-collar voters that catapulted Trump to victory ( as the GOP continues distancing itself from Trump and the issues of trade and immigration ) . Going forward , the GOP needs to more fully embrace Trumpism ; it needs to unequivocally take up the issues of trade and immigration — and stand firm on them ( except in extreme cases ) . The GOP also needs to unflinchingly wage the Culture War . A coalition of blue-collar workers and social conservatives is waiting to be embraced by the wider GOP . As Reagan said , the Republicans need to be “ raising a banner of bold colors , no pale pastels. ” So far , without Trump , the GOP is all pastel .

The real unemployment rate (the U6 figure) has reached a 17-year low in record time. This is almost exclusively in response to the massive amount of regulations that the Trump Administration slashed beginning from his very first day in office. The tax cuts also helped to goose the economy. For the first time in more than a decade, the economy has reached truly prosperous levels for many Americans. Now, there remains much work ahead of the Trump Administration. Government spending is out-of-control; the failure to repeal Obamacare has raised the cost-of-living on many Americans; and the stratification between the wealthy and the poor remains at stratospheric levels (though the positive economic situation will help to mitigate this division). Also, the effects — whether positive or negative — from the ongoing (and escalating) trade war with China have yet to be fully felt by the American economy. However, in the near-term, things are brighter for most Americans than they have been in decades. So, how is it that the GOP is struggling to win the wave of special elections in 2018 (and there seems to be some evidence that the general midterms in November will be a tougher race than, frankly, it should be, given all of the positive economic developments)? The problem is the GOP itself. In a Country of Coke or Pepsi, We Need RC Cola You see, if the American political system were a parliamentary-style of government, rather than a presidential system, the Republican Party would be several different parties on the Right. However, because we live in such a binary political system (where one must choose between Coca-Cola or Pepsi), the GOP is a tentpole party. The Democratic Party has similar cleavages — but they are nowhere near as divided and have far fewer differences between them. No Republican believes the same thing. Some are Libertarians (not very many, though). Others are conservative internationalists. Still more are conservative-nationalists. There are too many to list; each one of them believes that their version of “conservatism” is the purest way — and they will fight to prevent any form of consolidation of the party lest it be under their direction. Donald Trump’s election, in particular, created massive dislocations on the Right. Depending on which type of Republican you ask, Trump is either a savior-figure or a Svengali-type villain. Therefore, the Republicans — despite holding all of the reins of power — are more divided and opposed to each other than ever before. This is made especially true by the fact that Donald Trump himself — the great lightning rod of the party — is not on the ballot. So long as Trump’s name appeared as a voting option, enough people on the Right (combined with the moderate, blue-collar, middle-class “Reagan Democrats” who allowed for Trump to penetrate the mythical “blue wall” in 2016) would materialize at their polling booths, and grant Trump a victory. But, with Trump only able to endorse candidates, the reason to vote for the GOP is less clear. The divisions dominate. They depress the vote at precisely the moment that the Left is galvanized (and, paradoxically, this is made doubly so for those Republicans who either refused or did not secure Trump’s endorsement). One would think, then, that the natural solution would be simply to generate votes from the “Reagan Democrats” who gave Trump his electoral victory two years ago. Unfortunately, though, those voters are disinclined to vote for your archetypal Republican. Most Republican candidates favor “free trade” and open borders. They are also seen as being the party of entrenched wealth that wants to kill grandma, take away Medicare, and make people homeless. Such voters are unlikely to support traditional Republican candidates. Go Right, My Friends More importantly, there’s the issue of morality. Conventional Republicans tell us that the social issues crowd needs to be drowned out (especially in tight elections). They tell us that otherwise-magnificent candidates are destroyed because their great stances on economics and foreign policy are neutered by the fact that they tend to be weaker on social issues than the base is willing to countenance. As such, “divisive” candidates are put forward to appease the base. Yet, the Democrats have never gotten this message. At the very same time Republican Establishment-types get skittish over nominating candidates who will happily fight the Culture War, the Democrats are surging forward with their own take on the Culture War. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently argued that the Democrats have the moral high ground on the major issues. She is not alone in this sentiment. In fact, most Millennials agree with her. They gravitate toward candidates on the Left who are the most extreme (Bernie Sanders, for instance). While there is no guarantee that these democratic socialists will achieve electoral victory in 2018 (or even in 2020), the generational divide is key to understanding how Republicans are having such difficulty winning (without Trump). After all, in 2020, the largest cohort of Baby Boomers is set to retire and begin drawing on Welfare programs en masse. This will likely create massive economic distortions, as the debt explodes, and no one in Washington addresses the issue. As the situation declines, the radicalism exhibited by the Left will intensify and gain traction. Meanwhile, the Right will continue to lose influence and legitimacy, as it bickers among its various factions and ignores the massive grouping of blue-collar voters that catapulted Trump to victory (as the GOP continues distancing itself from Trump and the issues of trade and immigration). Going forward, the GOP needs to more fully embrace Trumpism; it needs to unequivocally take up the issues of trade and immigration — and stand firm on them (except in extreme cases). The GOP also needs to unflinchingly wage the Culture War. A coalition of blue-collar workers and social conservatives is waiting to be embraced by the wider GOP. As Reagan said, the Republicans need to be “raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels.” So far, without Trump, the GOP is all pastel.

www.spectator.org

right

a90gbWBi2s3ttiXs

test

HHnadjeT4yCuHVNk

great_britain

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/13/david-camer-gone-theresa-may-prepare-take-britains-pm/

David Camer-Gone: Theresa May Prepares To Take Over As Britain’s PM

2016-07-13

Breitbart London

British Prime Minister David Cameron steps down on Wednesday and Theresa May prepares to take his place following a momentous referendum to leave the European Union that has sent shockwaves around the world . Cameron will hold his final weekly question and answer session in parliament before tendering his resignation to Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace . The monarch will then call on May to form a government and the newly-anointed prime minister will make a statement outside her new Downing Street residence . 8:27pm – Britain ’ s New Foreign Sec Will Have An Awkward Time Dealing With Turkey Just weeks ago , Boris Johnson won a competition in The Spectator for writing this poem about Turkish President Erdogan having sex with a goat : There was a young fellow from Ankara Who was a terrific wankerer Till he sowed his wild oats With the help of a goat But he didn ’ t even stop to thankera . David Davis ( Leave ) will be the minister in charge of Britain ’ s Brexit negotiations . Liam Fox ( Leave ) has been appointed to head a new Department for International Trade . Amber Rudd ( Remain ) will replace Theresa May as Home Secretary . In a surprise announcement , Boris Johnson ( Leave ) has been appointed Foreign Secretary . Philip Hammond ( Remain ) is the first minister to meeting the new PM . Reports emerging he is the new Chancellor . George Osborne has resigned from the government . Breaking : George Osborne was sacked . Theresa May told him she did n't want him in her Cabinet . Wow . — Tom Newton Dunn ( @ tnewtondunn ) July 13 , 2016 6.51pm – Remain protesters arrested after trying to attack pro-Brexit protest : 6:35pm – Exclusive Pics As New PM Enters Downing Street : 6.21pm – May is now beginning her first tasks as PM : The new Prime Minister is receiving a security briefing after which the first appointments of her government are expected to be announced . New Uk PM @ theresa_may : David Cameron led One Nation government . It is in that spirit that I intend to lead . # MayDay pic.twitter.com/E99JYtK4G7 — Jon Williams ( @ WilliamsJon ) July 13 , 2016 The UK 's new prime minister Theresa May arrives in Downing Street pic.twitter.com/ADXKsZwtio — Nick Eardley ( @ nickeardleybbc ) July 13 , 2016 So Theresa Did pic.twitter.com/uQBnX2i4PX — Adam Boulton ( @ adamboultonSKY ) July 13 , 2016 This is a rehash of the speech May gave when she announced her candidacy for leader 2 weeks ago — Chris Ship ( @ chrisshipitv ) July 13 , 2016 The new Prime Minister is on her way to Downing Street . My warmest congratulations to @ theresa_may – I look forward to working closely with you and wish you every success pic.twitter.com/lG1hWw36aO — Jean-Claude Juncker ( @ JunckerEU ) July 13 , 2016 . @ Theresa_May has been officially appointed the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom pic.twitter.com/fBtbicqMqq — Sky News ( @ SkyNews ) July 13 , 2016 Theresa May meets the Queen as she is appointed new PM https : //t.co/KhyTKxNdjL pic.twitter.com/EtDOd43WQu — ITV News ( @ itvnews ) July 13 , 2016 BREAKING : Theresa May arrives at Buckingham Palace to be confirmed as British prime minister . — The Associated Press ( @ AP ) July 13 , 2016 # Breaking David Cameron officially tenders resignation as prime minister , Buckingham Palace announces pic.twitter.com/DLkHGPr1nY — Press Association ( @ PA ) July 13 , 2016 5:21pm – Theresa May is on her way to Buckingham Palace : Queen Elizabeth II is about to appoint Theresa May as her 13th Prime Minister . In the mean time : HM the Queen has now ( temporarily ) assumed absolute control of the United Kingdom . — Britain Elects ( @ britainelects ) July 13 , 2016 Artist Kaya Mar has drawn this portrait of Theresa May to welcome her to 10 Downing Street . pic.twitter.com/CoMugHSqGp — Christopher Hope ( @ christopherhope ) July 13 , 2016 With David Cameron having submitted his resignation and Theresa May not yet appointed , Britain is briefly an absolute monarchy as the Queen temporarily takes on the Prime Minister ’ s powers . So PM has resigned – May not there yet , Her Majesty has briefly `` taken back control '' — Faisal Islam ( @ faisalislam ) July 13 , 2016 4:58pm – David Cameron is now meeting the Queen to submit his resignation David Cameron arrives at Buckingham Palace to formally resign as prime minister https : //t.co/j1VPzAhuiE pic.twitter.com/1t30Gf8YU0 — ITV News ( @ itvnews ) July 13 , 2016 Crowds watch David Cameron 's speech at the end of Downing St , listening in their iPhones . # DavidCameron pic.twitter.com/qgq0HrpWkI — Christopher Hope ( @ christopherhope ) July 13 , 2016 Watch Live : David Cameron 's speech leaving 10 Downing St – thanks his family : https : //t.co/1nuVPEYw0c pic.twitter.com/HcuyoqdZMK — Reuters UK ( @ ReutersUK ) July 13 , 2016 Donald Tusk , president of the European Council , has prematurely congratulated Theresa May : 4:23 – Queen arrives back at Buckingham Palace for power transfer : Skills Minister Nick Boles has announced he is leaving his role and returning to the back benches — Sky News Breaking ( @ SkyNewsBreak ) July 13 , 2016 And they ’ re already making fun of new PM Theresa May outside Downing Street pic.twitter.com/LGyoVdb6pB — Peter Henley ( @ BBCPeterH ) July 13 , 2016 No word yet on whether he ’ s been moved or sacked completely . David Cameron will travel to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation to the Queen at 5pm . As it will be tea time , she may invite him to stay and chat for a while before summoning Theresa May . 1.54pm – ITV says May will appoint Remain-Supporting Foreign Sec as Chancellor : Jeremy Corbyn Is Right : Cameron ’ s Legacy Is Freeing Terrorists And Gay Marriage https : //t.co/X5mVSk0YOW pic.twitter.com/P4clmgawWr — Breitbart London ( @ BreitbartLondon ) July 13 , 2016 1.00pm – Cameron leaves Westminster for the last time as PM : 12:37pm – Cameron applauded as he finishes his last ever PMQs : Poor show from the Labour front bench . Not impressed in our office ! pic.twitter.com/q5mI0pMLRW — Kay Burley ( @ KayBurley ) July 13 , 2016 12:25 – Labour MP Jeff Smith sticks it to Cameron : He asks the outgoing Prime Minister : “ He came into power planning to get rid of the deficit and to stop his party banging on about Europe . How has that gone ? ” 12:21pm – Cameron says Britain should stay as close as possible to the EU JC rumour going round you are going to join Strictly DC I do n't have a passé double — Adam Boulton ( @ adamboultonSKY ) July 13 , 2016 Corbyn says he wishes PM & his family well & asks him to pass on thanks to his mum for her advice on his clothes . Nice touch . # PMQs — Sophy Ridge ( @ SophyRidgeSky ) July 13 , 2016 Corbyn `` it 's only right '' to thank PM for his service , mentions gay marriage but adds it was Labour votes that helped it pass # PMQs — Sophy Ridge ( @ SophyRidgeSky ) July 13 , 2016 . @ David_Cameron begins final # PMQs with Wimbledon and a joke : `` the diary for the rest of my day is remarkably light '' https : //t.co/998FPchzWV — Sky News ( @ SkyNews ) July 13 , 2016 Theresa May is here . Huge roar . Dark suit , red shoes . Labour MP says : `` Mr Speaker i did n't know I was that popular . '' # PMQs — Christopher Hope ( @ christopherhope ) July 13 , 2016 A spokeswoman for Mrs May said : “ Civil servants have already been charged with finding a building to house the Brexit department – an indication of Theresa ’ s commitment to get on with delivering the verdict of the EU referendum . Brexit means Brexit and we ’ re going to make a success of it . ” She added : “ It was Theresa that set up the campaign to elect more female MPs to parliament – and she has always believed that there should be more women in prominent government positions . ” 11:23am – Here ’ s a running order of what we expect to happen today : Midday – Cameron takes his last ever Prime Minister ’ s Questions in the House of Commons . Early afternoon – Cameron travels to Buckingham Palace to formally hand his resignation to the Queen . Mid-afternoon – The Queen invites Theresa May to form a government . Evening – the first new cabinet appointments may be announced . Reshuffle Time . 72 hours of saying congratulations to colleagues through gritted teeth while thinking `` it should have been me '' . # SuchFun — James Cleverly ( @ JamesCleverly ) July 13 , 2016 10:22am – David Cameron pictured leaving Downing Street . For the last time ? David Cameron leaves 10 Downing Street to face Prime Minister 's Questions for the last time as PM # PMQs pic.twitter.com/1sz8s70qzz — Press Association ( @ PA ) July 13 , 2016 ( AFP ) – British Prime Minister David Cameron steps down on Wednesday and Theresa May prepares to take his place following a momentous referendum to leave the European Union that has sent shockwaves around the world . Cameron will hold his final weekly question and answer session in parliament before tendering his resignation to Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace . The monarch will then call on May to form a government and the newly-anointed prime minister will make a statement outside her new Downing Street residence . European leaders have asked the government to move quickly to renegotiate its relationship with the EU but May has indicated she will not be rushed into triggering the formal procedure for Brexit . The 59-year-old , who will become Britain ’ s second female prime minister after Margaret Thatcher , also has to attempt to bridge Conservative Party divisions and deal with a potential economic downturn . Her other daunting challenges include keeping pro-EU Scotland from bidding for independence in order to stay in the 28-nation bloc , and weaving new global trade and diplomatic alliances to prepare for a post-Brexit future . May campaigned with Cameron for Britain to stay in the EU and she will also have to convince Brexit supporters that she will implement the result of the June 23 referendum to leave the EU as she has promised . After six years in office , Cameron announced he would resign the day after the vote . He will chiefly be remembered for proposing the referendum in the first place and then spectacularly failing to clinch it . He sought to deflect that criticism in an interview with the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday , saying : “ As I leave , I hope people will see a stronger country , a thriving economy and more chances to get on in life . “ It has been a privilege to serve the country I love . ” May ’ s bid for his job accelerated as key proponents of Britain ’ s EU withdrawal , including charismatic former mayor of London Boris Johnson , stepped back in a head-spinning round of political bloodletting . The vote exposed deep inequalities in British society which May has promised to address and upended the political scene , sending her Conservatives and the main opposition Labour Party into turmoil . Labour ’ s embattled leader Jeremy Corbyn , who was accused of failing to persuade working-class voters to back EU membership , now faces a bitter leadership contest of his own against rebel lawmaker Angela Eagle . Investors will be watching May ’ s first days in office closely but with greater optimism as the value of the pound , which fell by up to 15 percent against the dollar and the euro in the days of the Brexit vote , has rebounded on news of her impending promotion . “ Theresa May ’ s virtual ‘ coronation ’ as prime minister has delivered a boost to the pound as the clouds of uncertainty following the Brexit vote start to disperse , ” said market analyst Neil Wilson at ETX Capital , a financial trading company in London . May is expected to begin announcing cabinet picks later on Wednesday and these could reportedly include current energy minister Amber Rudd , foreign minister Philip Hammond and Brexit campaigner Chris Grayling , the Conservatives ’ House of Commons leader . May has been a tough-talking interior minister for the past six years and is something of an unknown quantity internationally , although she has received ringing endorsements from party colleagues and a normally sceptical British tabloid press . She is also liked in and around Maidenhead , the well-to-do commuter town west of London that she has represented in parliament since 1997 . “ She will get this country back on its feet , ” said 69-year-old Jim Charlesworth , a neighbour of May and her banker husband Philip . Martin Trepte , editor of the Maidenhead Advertiser , the local newspaper , said : “ She ’ s a mature , grown-up , no-nonsense politician . She knows her stuff . ” The daughter of a Church of England vicar , May is a cricket fan with a sober , well-mannered demeanour who lists her hobbies as cooking and walking . She shows a flash of flamboyance with a colourful shoe collection — particularly her leopard-skin heels — which has become famous in the British press .

British Prime Minister David Cameron steps down on Wednesday and Theresa May prepares to take his place following a momentous referendum to leave the European Union that has sent shockwaves around the world. Cameron will hold his final weekly question and answer session in parliament before tendering his resignation to Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. The monarch will then call on May to form a government and the newly-anointed prime minister will make a statement outside her new Downing Street residence. 8:27pm – Britain’s New Foreign Sec Will Have An Awkward Time Dealing With Turkey Just weeks ago, Boris Johnson won a competition in The Spectator for writing this poem about Turkish President Erdogan having sex with a goat: There was a young fellow from Ankara Who was a terrific wankerer Till he sowed his wild oats With the help of a goat But he didn’t even stop to thankera. 8:13pm – David Davis is Brexit Secretary David Davis (Leave) will be the minister in charge of Britain’s Brexit negotiations. 8:08pm – Liam Fox is Trade Secretary Liam Fox (Leave) has been appointed to head a new Department for International Trade. 8:00pm – Michael Fallon re-appointed Defence Secretary Michael Fallon (Remain) will continue as Defence Secretary. 7:52 – Amber Rudd is Home Secretary Amber Rudd (Remain) will replace Theresa May as Home Secretary. 7.45pm – Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary In a surprise announcement, Boris Johnson (Leave) has been appointed Foreign Secretary. 7.15pm – Hammond is Chancellor, Osborne out Philip Hammond (Remain) is the first minister to meeting the new PM. Reports emerging he is the new Chancellor. George Osborne has resigned from the government. Breaking: George Osborne was sacked. Theresa May told him she didn't want him in her Cabinet. Wow. — Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) July 13, 2016 6.51pm – Remain protesters arrested after trying to attack pro-Brexit protest: Photo by Rachel Megawhat: 6:35pm – Exclusive Pics As New PM Enters Downing Street: By Rachel Megawhat: 6.30pm – Pro-Brexit Protest As May Becomes PM: By Rachel Megawhat: 6.21pm – May is now beginning her first tasks as PM: The new Prime Minister is receiving a security briefing after which the first appointments of her government are expected to be announced. 6.02pm – May addresses the nation: New Uk PM @theresa_may: David Cameron led One Nation government. It is in that spirit that I intend to lead. #MayDay pic.twitter.com/E99JYtK4G7 — Jon Williams (@WilliamsJon) July 13, 2016 The UK's new prime minister Theresa May arrives in Downing Street pic.twitter.com/ADXKsZwtio — Nick Eardley (@nickeardleybbc) July 13, 2016 So Theresa Did pic.twitter.com/uQBnX2i4PX — Adam Boulton (@adamboultonSKY) July 13, 2016 This is a rehash of the speech May gave when she announced her candidacy for leader 2 weeks ago — Chris Ship (@chrisshipitv) July 13, 2016 5.58pm – May Leaves Buckingham Palace: The new Prime Minister is on her way to Downing Street. 5.53pm – Juncker Congratulates May: My warmest congratulations to @theresa_may – I look forward to working closely with you and wish you every success pic.twitter.com/lG1hWw36aO — Jean-Claude Juncker (@JunckerEU) July 13, 2016 5:40pm – Theresa May Confirmed As Prime Minister: .@Theresa_May has been officially appointed the second female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom pic.twitter.com/fBtbicqMqq — Sky News (@SkyNews) July 13, 2016 Theresa May meets the Queen as she is appointed new PM https://t.co/KhyTKxNdjL pic.twitter.com/EtDOd43WQu — ITV News (@itvnews) July 13, 2016 5:33pm – Cameron has already changed his Twitter bio: 5:28pm – Theresa May arrives at Buckingham Palace: BREAKING: Theresa May arrives at Buckingham Palace to be confirmed as British prime minister. — The Associated Press (@AP) July 13, 2016 5:25pm – Buckingham Palace confirms Cameron’s resignation: #Breaking David Cameron officially tenders resignation as prime minister, Buckingham Palace announces pic.twitter.com/DLkHGPr1nY — Press Association (@PA) July 13, 2016 5:21pm – Theresa May is on her way to Buckingham Palace: Queen Elizabeth II is about to appoint Theresa May as her 13th Prime Minister. In the mean time: HM the Queen has now (temporarily) assumed absolute control of the United Kingdom. — Britain Elects (@britainelects) July 13, 2016 5.16pm – Westminster’s favourite artist welcomes Theresa May: Artist Kaya Mar has drawn this portrait of Theresa May to welcome her to 10 Downing Street. pic.twitter.com/CoMugHSqGp — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) July 13, 2016 5.12pm – Exclusive Pics Of Cameron’s Farewell Speech By Rachel Megawhat: 5.06pm – There is presently no Prime Minister With David Cameron having submitted his resignation and Theresa May not yet appointed, Britain is briefly an absolute monarchy as the Queen temporarily takes on the Prime Minister’s powers. She probably will not exercise them, though. So PM has resigned – May not there yet, Her Majesty has briefly "taken back control" — Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 13, 2016 4:58pm – David Cameron is now meeting the Queen to submit his resignation David Cameron arrives at Buckingham Palace to formally resign as prime minister https://t.co/j1VPzAhuiE pic.twitter.com/1t30Gf8YU0 — ITV News (@itvnews) July 13, 2016 4:40pm – Cameron Says Goodbye: Crowds watch David Cameron's speech at the end of Downing St, listening in their iPhones. #DavidCameron pic.twitter.com/qgq0HrpWkI — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) July 13, 2016 Watch Live: David Cameron's speech leaving 10 Downing St – thanks his family: https://t.co/1nuVPEYw0c pic.twitter.com/HcuyoqdZMK — Reuters UK (@ReutersUK) July 13, 2016 4:35pm – Tusk Congratulates May Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, has prematurely congratulated Theresa May: 4:23 – Queen arrives back at Buckingham Palace for power transfer: 3:53pm – Leading “moderniser” Nick Boles leaves the government: Skills Minister Nick Boles has announced he is leaving his role and returning to the back benches — Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) July 13, 2016 Unclear whether he’s resigned or been sacked. 3.09pm – The first anti-May protests outside Downing Street: And they’re already making fun of new PM Theresa May outside Downing Street pic.twitter.com/LGyoVdb6pB — Peter Henley (@BBCPeterH) July 13, 2016 2:54pm – Telegraph reports Osborne is to Leave Treasury: No word yet on whether he’s been moved or sacked completely. 2:41pm – Cameron to meet Queen at 5pm: David Cameron will travel to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation to the Queen at 5pm. As it will be tea time, she may invite him to stay and chat for a while before summoning Theresa May. 2:35pm – May delivers 2,000 new UKIP members: https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/753220239530270720 2:28pm – Delivery Van at Downing Street: 1.54pm – ITV says May will appoint Remain-Supporting Foreign Sec as Chancellor: 1.11pm – Breitbart London’s editor-in-chief writes: Jeremy Corbyn Is Right: Cameron’s Legacy Is Freeing Terrorists And Gay Marriage https://t.co/X5mVSk0YOW pic.twitter.com/P4clmgawWr — Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) July 13, 2016 1.00pm – Cameron leaves Westminster for the last time as PM: 12:37pm – Cameron applauded as he finishes his last ever PMQs: Poor show from the Labour front bench. Not impressed in our office! pic.twitter.com/q5mI0pMLRW — Kay Burley (@KayBurley) July 13, 2016 12:25 – Labour MP Jeff Smith sticks it to Cameron: He asks the outgoing Prime Minister: “He came into power planning to get rid of the deficit and to stop his party banging on about Europe. How has that gone?” 12:21pm – Cameron says Britain should stay as close as possible to the EU 12:18 – Corbyn says goodbye by attempting some jokes: JC rumour going round you are going to join Strictly DC I don't have a passé double — Adam Boulton (@adamboultonSKY) July 13, 2016 Corbyn says he wishes PM & his family well & asks him to pass on thanks to his mum for her advice on his clothes. Nice touch. #PMQs — Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) July 13, 2016 12:05pm – Corbyn thanks Cameron for gay marriage https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/753184137947873280 Corbyn "it's only right" to thank PM for his service, mentions gay marriage but adds it was Labour votes that helped it pass #PMQs — Sophy Ridge (@SophyRidgeSky) July 13, 2016 Midday – Cameron Gives Last PMQs .@David_Cameron begins final #PMQs with Wimbledon and a joke: "the diary for the rest of my day is remarkably light" https://t.co/998FPchzWV — Sky News (@SkyNews) July 13, 2016 Theresa May is here. Huge roar. Dark suit, red shoes. Labour MP says: "Mr Speaker i didn't know I was that popular." #PMQs — Christopher Hope (@christopherhope) July 13, 2016 11:50am – May spokeswoman confirms special Brexit department: A spokeswoman for Mrs May said: “Civil servants have already been charged with finding a building to house the Brexit department – an indication of Theresa’s commitment to get on with delivering the verdict of the EU referendum. Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it.” She added: “It was Theresa that set up the campaign to elect more female MPs to parliament – and she has always believed that there should be more women in prominent government positions.” 11:23am – Here’s a running order of what we expect to happen today: Midday – Cameron takes his last ever Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. Early afternoon – Cameron travels to Buckingham Palace to formally hand his resignation to the Queen. Mid-afternoon – The Queen invites Theresa May to form a government. Evening – the first new cabinet appointments may be announced. 10:34am – Brutal honesty from one MP: Reshuffle Time. 72 hours of saying congratulations to colleagues through gritted teeth while thinking "it should have been me". #SuchFun — James Cleverly (@JamesCleverly) July 13, 2016 10:22am – David Cameron pictured leaving Downing Street. For the last time? David Cameron leaves 10 Downing Street to face Prime Minister's Questions for the last time as PM #PMQs pic.twitter.com/1sz8s70qzz — Press Association (@PA) July 13, 2016 Original Story: (AFP) – British Prime Minister David Cameron steps down on Wednesday and Theresa May prepares to take his place following a momentous referendum to leave the European Union that has sent shockwaves around the world. Cameron will hold his final weekly question and answer session in parliament before tendering his resignation to Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace. The monarch will then call on May to form a government and the newly-anointed prime minister will make a statement outside her new Downing Street residence. European leaders have asked the government to move quickly to renegotiate its relationship with the EU but May has indicated she will not be rushed into triggering the formal procedure for Brexit. The 59-year-old, who will become Britain’s second female prime minister after Margaret Thatcher, also has to attempt to bridge Conservative Party divisions and deal with a potential economic downturn. Her other daunting challenges include keeping pro-EU Scotland from bidding for independence in order to stay in the 28-nation bloc, and weaving new global trade and diplomatic alliances to prepare for a post-Brexit future. – Clouds start to disperse – May campaigned with Cameron for Britain to stay in the EU and she will also have to convince Brexit supporters that she will implement the result of the June 23 referendum to leave the EU as she has promised. After six years in office, Cameron announced he would resign the day after the vote. He will chiefly be remembered for proposing the referendum in the first place and then spectacularly failing to clinch it. He sought to deflect that criticism in an interview with the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, saying: “As I leave, I hope people will see a stronger country, a thriving economy and more chances to get on in life. “It has been a privilege to serve the country I love.” May’s bid for his job accelerated as key proponents of Britain’s EU withdrawal, including charismatic former mayor of London Boris Johnson, stepped back in a head-spinning round of political bloodletting. The vote exposed deep inequalities in British society which May has promised to address and upended the political scene, sending her Conservatives and the main opposition Labour Party into turmoil. Labour’s embattled leader Jeremy Corbyn, who was accused of failing to persuade working-class voters to back EU membership, now faces a bitter leadership contest of his own against rebel lawmaker Angela Eagle. Investors will be watching May’s first days in office closely but with greater optimism as the value of the pound, which fell by up to 15 percent against the dollar and the euro in the days of the Brexit vote, has rebounded on news of her impending promotion. “Theresa May’s virtual ‘coronation’ as prime minister has delivered a boost to the pound as the clouds of uncertainty following the Brexit vote start to disperse,” said market analyst Neil Wilson at ETX Capital, a financial trading company in London. May is expected to begin announcing cabinet picks later on Wednesday and these could reportedly include current energy minister Amber Rudd, foreign minister Philip Hammond and Brexit campaigner Chris Grayling, the Conservatives’ House of Commons leader. – Leopard-skin heels – May has been a tough-talking interior minister for the past six years and is something of an unknown quantity internationally, although she has received ringing endorsements from party colleagues and a normally sceptical British tabloid press. She is also liked in and around Maidenhead, the well-to-do commuter town west of London that she has represented in parliament since 1997. “She will get this country back on its feet,” said 69-year-old Jim Charlesworth, a neighbour of May and her banker husband Philip. Martin Trepte, editor of the Maidenhead Advertiser, the local newspaper, said: “She’s a mature, grown-up, no-nonsense politician. She knows her stuff.” The daughter of a Church of England vicar, May is a cricket fan with a sober, well-mannered demeanour who lists her hobbies as cooking and walking. She shows a flash of flamboyance with a colourful shoe collection — particularly her leopard-skin heels — which has become famous in the British press.

www.breitbart.com

right

HHnadjeT4yCuHVNk

test

hbkbWlYpoHhDSTfP

cybersecurity

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/cyber-attacks-highlight-growing-vulnerability-of-us-all

Cyber-attacks highlight growing vulnerability of us all

2017-05-14

In 2010 , an agreement between Microsoft and the NHS to provide almost all Microsoft software to the service for one single fee and to keep the software updated with new releases was not renewed by the incoming coalition government ( NHS targeted in global cyber-attack , 14 May ) . It cost a few billion , but the budget for it was there , and it saved many billions more . Microsoft also liked it , of course , as it saved it the hassle of organising multiple sales with the many different parts of the service . As I understood it , the Cabinet Office stopped it dead . At the time , I was one of a group of NHS users consulted by those preparing the case for the arrangement to be continued . We were all shocked when it wasn ’ t renewed . Many people argued it was a mistake at the time . This relatively basic IT ( Windows , Office , Mail , SQL server , and so forth ) cost the NHS far more as a result . Further , the lack of the single agreement effectively moved the cost of upgrades on to individual hospitals , community providers , GPs and commissioners , and no new money was made available by the coalition government to help these individual units close the gap . Obviously , directors of finance looked sceptically at new requests to upgrade systems that seemed to be working perfectly OK , and with the huge pressures on NHS budgets that we all know about , it is perhaps understandable that other local priorities were addressed first . I suspect this goes some way to explain why the NHS was hit harder than many organisations by the recent malware attack – as a result of that single bad decision , the service contains far more older systems which can ’ t be or haven ’ t been updated . • The “ ransomware ” attacks targeted PCs which use Windows XP – this is an old operating system and has security flaws . Many organisations have still not completed the upgrade from XP to Windows 7 or 10 – which is a logistical nightmare , very expensive and takes years . Microsoft stopped issuing security patches for XP in 2014 , which means that organisations who use XP have major security risks . The real question is this : who is holding whom to ransom ? Is it the criminal hackers who use ransomware – or is it Microsoft , which put pressure on organisations to do costly upgrades from XP to Windows 7 ( or 10 ) by withdrawing support from XP so that they are then running on insecure operating systems ? • Every IT specialist in the NHS knows that the recent cyber-attack was not just bad luck – it was occasioned by criminal negligence and any patients affected should be able to sue the government . Microsoft issued almost daily warnings not to continue using the XP operating system back in 2014 when it withdrew all support for this , and almost all NHS staff upgraded their own systems at home . The only reason the service as a whole did not take the necessary action was that managers preferred to invest incredible sums of money in a vast centralised computer network which failed to materialise while completely ignoring these warnings , and remedial action will now be very expensive , not to mention the cost of this failure to patient ’ s lives . • Top civil servants in Whitehall have been pushing government organisations like the NHS into keeping computer records only , without any paper alternative or back up , for the best part of a decade . More and more services such as legal aid and the courts are scrapping the paper version of their applications and records . With these cyber-attacks , we see the way Whitehall has left us all vulnerable . Top civil servants have had a ridiculous faith in modern technology , now seen to be hopelessly misplaced . This was all entirely foreseeable and they have been warned for years . They just would not listen to professionals who told them this would happen . Thankfully there are just enough long-serving civil servants left working to put all the old systems back in place again for them . A complete reversal of policy is urgently needed as clearly demonstrated by the last few days . Plainly we still need the postal service along with our landlines . • The blame for these cyber-attacks can be laid squarely at the door of the US National Security Agency . It identified the weakness in Microsoft Windows which was exploited by the attack . But instead of telling Microsoft about it so the vulnerability could be fixed , it appears the agency kept it secret to use it for its own espionage activities . When the details became public after a large cache of NSA documents was posted on the internet , it was inevitable that criminal actors would make use of it . Spying organisations such as the NSA and our own GCHQ suffer a fundamental conflict of interest between their duty to defend their own populations against cyber-attack and practising their own attacks against perceived enemies . Because of the pervasive and instantaneous nature of the internet , if your attack method leaks out it can be used immediately against you . It is the same with encryption : if you once try to weaken it so that security services can break into private data , you eventually weaken it for everyone and everything becomes vulnerable , including the safety of online payments systems . Therefore the hoarding of software vulnerabilities by the agencies must cease . They should concentrate solely on defending systems from attack . Indeed , this was one feature of Microsoft ’ s recent proposal of a digital Geneva convention to tone down the cyber arms race and make the internet a safer place – an initiative we would do well to encourage . • The global chaos caused by the recent ransomware attacks is only possible because of the impregnable anonymity of bitcoin . The ideology of bitcoin deserves deeper analysis but it reflects the US libertarian belief that maximum anonymity in financial transactions is always a good thing . However , commerce is a social activity and there are many reasons why society should be in a position , with due safeguards , to investigate suspect transactions and , where necessary , identify both payers and payees . Many of the other claimed benefits of bitcoin are also spurious . Its much-touted security is based on the ownership of a unique key which , because it can never be tied to an individual or recovered by its rightful owner , is just as vulnerable to robbery or theft as cash , with even less chance of recovery . So it is time to stop accepting bitcoin and , while we are at it , to tear down the cloak of darkness that hides far too much of the world ’ s financial activities • The rows of frozen NHS screens should serve as a warning to those who advocate online voting in parliamentary elections , not to mention enthusiasts for a cashless society . • Didn ’ t I read in ███ that our Trident fleet is still using XP ? Should the Royal Navy be laying aside some bitcoins ?

In 2010, an agreement between Microsoft and the NHS to provide almost all Microsoft software to the service for one single fee and to keep the software updated with new releases was not renewed by the incoming coalition government (NHS targeted in global cyber-attack, 14 May). It cost a few billion, but the budget for it was there, and it saved many billions more. Microsoft also liked it, of course, as it saved it the hassle of organising multiple sales with the many different parts of the service. As I understood it, the Cabinet Office stopped it dead. At the time, I was one of a group of NHS users consulted by those preparing the case for the arrangement to be continued. We were all shocked when it wasn’t renewed. Many people argued it was a mistake at the time. This relatively basic IT (Windows, Office, Mail, SQL server, and so forth) cost the NHS far more as a result. Further, the lack of the single agreement effectively moved the cost of upgrades on to individual hospitals, community providers, GPs and commissioners, and no new money was made available by the coalition government to help these individual units close the gap. Obviously, directors of finance looked sceptically at new requests to upgrade systems that seemed to be working perfectly OK, and with the huge pressures on NHS budgets that we all know about, it is perhaps understandable that other local priorities were addressed first. I suspect this goes some way to explain why the NHS was hit harder than many organisations by the recent malware attack – as a result of that single bad decision, the service contains far more older systems which can’t be or haven’t been updated. Graham Head London • The “ransomware” attacks targeted PCs which use Windows XP – this is an old operating system and has security flaws. Many organisations have still not completed the upgrade from XP to Windows 7 or 10 – which is a logistical nightmare, very expensive and takes years. Microsoft stopped issuing security patches for XP in 2014, which means that organisations who use XP have major security risks. The real question is this: who is holding whom to ransom? Is it the criminal hackers who use ransomware – or is it Microsoft, which put pressure on organisations to do costly upgrades from XP to Windows 7 (or 10) by withdrawing support from XP so that they are then running on insecure operating systems? Gordon Kennedy Bolton • Every IT specialist in the NHS knows that the recent cyber-attack was not just bad luck – it was occasioned by criminal negligence and any patients affected should be able to sue the government. Microsoft issued almost daily warnings not to continue using the XP operating system back in 2014 when it withdrew all support for this, and almost all NHS staff upgraded their own systems at home. The only reason the service as a whole did not take the necessary action was that managers preferred to invest incredible sums of money in a vast centralised computer network which failed to materialise while completely ignoring these warnings, and remedial action will now be very expensive, not to mention the cost of this failure to patient’s lives. Dr Richard Turner Harrogate, North Yorkshire • Top civil servants in Whitehall have been pushing government organisations like the NHS into keeping computer records only, without any paper alternative or back up, for the best part of a decade. More and more services such as legal aid and the courts are scrapping the paper version of their applications and records. With these cyber-attacks, we see the way Whitehall has left us all vulnerable. Top civil servants have had a ridiculous faith in modern technology, now seen to be hopelessly misplaced. This was all entirely foreseeable and they have been warned for years. They just would not listen to professionals who told them this would happen. Thankfully there are just enough long-serving civil servants left working to put all the old systems back in place again for them. A complete reversal of policy is urgently needed as clearly demonstrated by the last few days. Plainly we still need the postal service along with our landlines. Nigel Boddy Darlington • The blame for these cyber-attacks can be laid squarely at the door of the US National Security Agency. It identified the weakness in Microsoft Windows which was exploited by the attack. But instead of telling Microsoft about it so the vulnerability could be fixed, it appears the agency kept it secret to use it for its own espionage activities. When the details became public after a large cache of NSA documents was posted on the internet, it was inevitable that criminal actors would make use of it. Spying organisations such as the NSA and our own GCHQ suffer a fundamental conflict of interest between their duty to defend their own populations against cyber-attack and practising their own attacks against perceived enemies. Because of the pervasive and instantaneous nature of the internet, if your attack method leaks out it can be used immediately against you. It is the same with encryption: if you once try to weaken it so that security services can break into private data, you eventually weaken it for everyone and everything becomes vulnerable, including the safety of online payments systems. Therefore the hoarding of software vulnerabilities by the agencies must cease. They should concentrate solely on defending systems from attack. Indeed, this was one feature of Microsoft’s recent proposal of a digital Geneva convention to tone down the cyber arms race and make the internet a safer place – an initiative we would do well to encourage. Ron Mitchell Coventry • The global chaos caused by the recent ransomware attacks is only possible because of the impregnable anonymity of bitcoin. The ideology of bitcoin deserves deeper analysis but it reflects the US libertarian belief that maximum anonymity in financial transactions is always a good thing. However, commerce is a social activity and there are many reasons why society should be in a position, with due safeguards, to investigate suspect transactions and, where necessary, identify both payers and payees. Many of the other claimed benefits of bitcoin are also spurious. Its much-touted security is based on the ownership of a unique key which, because it can never be tied to an individual or recovered by its rightful owner, is just as vulnerable to robbery or theft as cash, with even less chance of recovery. So it is time to stop accepting bitcoin and, while we are at it, to tear down the cloak of darkness that hides far too much of the world’s financial activities Dr Kevin Ryan Limerick, Ireland • The rows of frozen NHS screens should serve as a warning to those who advocate online voting in parliamentary elections, not to mention enthusiasts for a cashless society. Brian Moss Tamworth, Staffordshire • Didn’t I read in the Guardian that our Trident fleet is still using XP? Should the Royal Navy be laying aside some bitcoins? Mike Jones Exeter • Join the debate – email [email protected] • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

www.theguardian.com

left

hbkbWlYpoHhDSTfP

test

SaeWhmagUXdyUaZH

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46563979

Cohen says Trump knew hush money payment was wrong

US President Donald Trump 's former lawyer insists Mr Trump knew making hush money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign was wrong . Speaking after he was sentenced to prison for campaign finance and fraud crimes , Michael Cohen told ABC News : `` He directed me to make the payments . '' `` Nothing at the Trump organisation was ever done unless it was run through Mr Trump , '' he said . The president has denied ever asking Cohen to make illegal payments . `` He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law , '' Mr Trump tweeted on Thursday , suggesting Cohen had pleaded guilty `` to embarrass the president '' . Cohen , 52 , was sentenced to three years on Wednesday and must report to prison by 6 March . He admitted to lying to Congress , campaign finance violations and tax evasion . In addition to the jail term , he was also ordered to forfeit nearly $ 2m ( £1.6m ) . He is the first of Mr Trump 's inner circle to be jailed following Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election . He was asked in the ABC News interview about money paid to two women to keep quiet about alleged affairs with the then-presidential candidate . Mr Trump `` was very concerned about how this would affect the election '' , Cohen said . The purpose of the payments had been to `` help [ Trump ] and his campaign '' , he added . `` People of the United States of America , people of the world , do n't believe what he is saying , '' Cohen continued . `` The man does n't tell the truth . And it is sad that I should take responsibility for his dirty deeds . '' The sentencing was related to two separate cases brought by the Southern District of New York and the Mueller investigation . Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in making hush money payments regarding the two women , porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal . He confessed to making a $ 130,000 payment to Ms Daniels and arranging for a $ 150,000 payment to Ms McDougal . Prosecutors argued successfully that these payments amounted to illegal campaign contributions . Under US law , an individual donation can not exceed $ 2,700 . The payment to Ms McDougal was made by American Media Inc ( AMI ) , the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid , to suppress her allegations of an affair with Mr Trump . On Wednesday , the Department of Justice announced it had reached a deal with AMI to avoid prosecution if the company admitted it made the $ 150,000 payment `` in concert with a candidate 's presidential campaign '' and to `` ensure that the woman did not publicise damaging allegations '' ahead of the 2016 election . Mr Trump has acknowledged both payments were made despite denying having actual affairs , and has called them a private transaction unrelated to his election campaign . Cohen 's other convictions , for tax evasion and bank fraud , are unrelated to the president . Cohen also admitted to making false statements to Congress about a property deal Mr Trump was looking into in Moscow in the run-up to the 2016 election .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Cohen walked free from court - but will have to report to jail in March US President Donald Trump's former lawyer insists Mr Trump knew making hush money payments during the 2016 presidential campaign was wrong. Speaking after he was sentenced to prison for campaign finance and fraud crimes, Michael Cohen told ABC News: "He directed me to make the payments." "Nothing at the Trump organisation was ever done unless it was run through Mr Trump," he said. The president has denied ever asking Cohen to make illegal payments. "He was a lawyer and he is supposed to know the law," Mr Trump tweeted on Thursday, suggesting Cohen had pleaded guilty "to embarrass the president". Cohen, 52, was sentenced to three years on Wednesday and must report to prison by 6 March. He admitted to lying to Congress, campaign finance violations and tax evasion. In addition to the jail term, he was also ordered to forfeit nearly $2m (£1.6m). He is the first of Mr Trump's inner circle to be jailed following Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. What else did Cohen say? He was asked in the ABC News interview about money paid to two women to keep quiet about alleged affairs with the then-presidential candidate. Mr Trump "was very concerned about how this would affect the election", Cohen said. The purpose of the payments had been to "help [Trump] and his campaign", he added. "People of the United States of America, people of the world, don't believe what he is saying," Cohen continued. "The man doesn't tell the truth. And it is sad that I should take responsibility for his dirty deeds." What are Cohen's crimes? The sentencing was related to two separate cases brought by the Southern District of New York and the Mueller investigation. Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations for his role in making hush money payments regarding the two women, porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. He confessed to making a $130,000 payment to Ms Daniels and arranging for a $150,000 payment to Ms McDougal. Prosecutors argued successfully that these payments amounted to illegal campaign contributions. Under US law, an individual donation cannot exceed $2,700. The payment to Ms McDougal was made by American Media Inc (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer tabloid, to suppress her allegations of an affair with Mr Trump. On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced it had reached a deal with AMI to avoid prosecution if the company admitted it made the $150,000 payment "in concert with a candidate's presidential campaign" and to "ensure that the woman did not publicise damaging allegations" ahead of the 2016 election. AMI has agreed to continue co-operating with investigators. Mr Trump has acknowledged both payments were made despite denying having actual affairs, and has called them a private transaction unrelated to his election campaign. Cohen's other convictions, for tax evasion and bank fraud, are unrelated to the president. Cohen also admitted to making false statements to Congress about a property deal Mr Trump was looking into in Moscow in the run-up to the 2016 election.

www.bbc.com

center

SaeWhmagUXdyUaZH

test

RQV73uGttmhb79nq

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49881847

Trump impeachment: Whistleblower 'endangered' by Trump criticism

The lawyers for a whistleblower whose complaint triggered a US presidential impeachment inquiry say Donald Trump 's words are endangering their client . Since the transcript of his call with the president of Ukraine was revealed , Mr Trump has called for the anonymous whistleblower to be unmasked . Democrats say the whistleblower will testify to Congress `` soon '' once steps are taken to protect their identity . Mr Trump has suggested his opponents could be arrested for treason . A transcript of a call Mr Trump made to Ukraine 's new President Volodymyr Zelensky shows he urged him to investigate discredited corruption allegations against former vice-president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden as well as his son . The call is now at the centre of an effort by Democrats that could see Mr Trump expelled from office , but doing so would require members of his Republican party to turn against him . The letter from the whistleblower 's legal team - in which the lawyers call attention to Mr Trump 's language - was sent to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on Saturday , and made public on Sunday . `` The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client 's identity will be disclosed publicly and that , as a result , our client will be put in harm 's way , '' wrote lawyer Andrew Bakaj . The letter specifically mentions Mr Trump 's call last week for the whistleblower to be identified , as well as the person that supplied the whistleblower with information about the call . It quotes Mr Trump as saying : `` I want to know who 's the person that gave the whistleblower , who 's the person that gave the whistleblower the information , because that 's close to a spy . `` You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart ? Right ? With spies and treason , right ? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now . '' The letter also references a $ 50,000 ( £40,600 ) `` bounty '' that two conservative Trump supporters have offered as a `` reward '' for information about the whistleblower . `` Unfortunately , we expect this situation to worsen , and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistleblowers , as Congress seeks to investigate this matter , '' Mr Bakaj 's letter adds . Mr Maguire faced lawmakers last week and said he believed the whistleblower acted in `` good faith '' . Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment , the Senate is forced to hold a trial A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case , given that Mr Trump 's party controls the chamber Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached but neither was convicted and removed On Sunday evening Mr Trump retweeted a Fox News guest who warned that if Mr Trump is removed from office it will spark `` a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal '' . Illinois Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger condemned Mr Trump 's tweet as `` repugnant '' . It came as part of a massive Twitter volley against his critics , in which Mr Trump said he wanted to meet the whistleblower . `` I want to meet not only my accuser ... but also the person who illegally gave this information , which was largely incorrect , to the 'Whistleblower . ' Was this person SPYING on the US President ? Big Consequences ! '' On Monday , Mr Trump resumed his Twitter campaign against the whistleblower , as well as Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who is playing a leading role in the inquiry and has been one of the most vocal critics of the US president . `` I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason , '' wrote Mr Trump . Over the weekend Republicans began to mount a campaign to defend Mr Trump , however some prominent Republican officials appeared to condemn Mr Trump for this latest scandal . Tom Bossert , who served as Homeland Security Advisor under Mr Trump , told ABC News : `` I 'm deeply disturbed by it [ the call ] as well and this entire mess '' . Donald Trump is frequently at his most unfiltered over weekends - and this last one served as evidence in the extreme . Since Saturday morning the president has fired off more than a hundred tweets and retweets , lashing out at Democrats in Congress , the media , his political critics and even conservative Fox News . The recently announced formal impeachment inquiry has become all-consuming for Mr Trump - and is turning the man who likes to fashion himself as a `` counter-puncher '' into a whirling frenzy of fists . The risk for the president is the more he lashes out , the more it reminds the American public of what they see as Mr Trump 's greatest flaw . Polls consistently demonstrate a majority of Americans - on the left and the right - disapprove of the president 's penchant for social media invective and the apparent lack of discipline it represents . If a weekend spent on scorched-earth responses mark Mr Trump 's impeachment battle plan - with him tweeting the shots from his phone - it may make for a shaky defence and cause growing unease among Republicans who contemplate the challenges of campaigning for re-election under the president 's banner in 2020 . In a complaint filed last month , a whistleblower from the intelligence community reported his `` urgent concern '' that the president had used his office to `` solicit interference from a foreign country '' in the 2020 US election . The impeachment inquiry launched on Tuesday now focuses specifically on Mr Trump 's call to the Ukrainian president about the Biden allegations . Democrats accuse Mr Trump of improperly seeking foreign help in the hope of smearing Mr Biden and of using military aid as a bargaining tool . Ukrainian ex-prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko has told the BBC that there was no reason to investigate Mr Biden or his son Hunter Biden , who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm . Democrats in Congress - which is currently in recess - say they plan to remain in Washington over the break to move `` expeditiously '' on with impeachment hearings and subpoenas . Lawmakers say in addition to the whistleblower , they also wish to speak with the president 's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , who Mr Trump asked the Ukrainian president to co-ordinate with on an inquiry into the Bidens .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The US president is accused of pressuring a foreign power for personal gain The lawyers for a whistleblower whose complaint triggered a US presidential impeachment inquiry say Donald Trump's words are endangering their client. Since the transcript of his call with the president of Ukraine was revealed, Mr Trump has called for the anonymous whistleblower to be unmasked. Democrats say the whistleblower will testify to Congress "soon" once steps are taken to protect their identity. Mr Trump has suggested his opponents could be arrested for treason. A transcript of a call Mr Trump made to Ukraine's new President Volodymyr Zelensky shows he urged him to investigate discredited corruption allegations against former vice-president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden as well as his son. The call is now at the centre of an effort by Democrats that could see Mr Trump expelled from office, but doing so would require members of his Republican party to turn against him. What did the lawyers say? The letter from the whistleblower's legal team - in which the lawyers call attention to Mr Trump's language - was sent to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire on Saturday, and made public on Sunday. "The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client's identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm's way," wrote lawyer Andrew Bakaj. The letter specifically mentions Mr Trump's call last week for the whistleblower to be identified, as well as the person that supplied the whistleblower with information about the call. It quotes Mr Trump as saying: "I want to know who's the person that gave the whistleblower, who's the person that gave the whistleblower the information, because that's close to a spy. "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now." Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump impeachment: Was there quid pro quo? The letter also references a $50,000 (£40,600) "bounty" that two conservative Trump supporters have offered as a "reward" for information about the whistleblower. "Unfortunately, we expect this situation to worsen, and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistleblowers, as Congress seeks to investigate this matter," Mr Bakaj's letter adds. Mr Maguire faced lawmakers last week and said he believed the whistleblower acted in "good faith". Quick facts on impeachment Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached but neither was convicted and removed President Nixon resigned before he could have been impeached What has Mr Trump said? On Sunday evening Mr Trump retweeted a Fox News guest who warned that if Mr Trump is removed from office it will spark "a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal". Illinois Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger condemned Mr Trump's tweet as "repugnant". It came as part of a massive Twitter volley against his critics, in which Mr Trump said he wanted to meet the whistleblower. "I want to meet not only my accuser... but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the 'Whistleblower.' Was this person SPYING on the US President? Big Consequences!" On Monday, Mr Trump resumed his Twitter campaign against the whistleblower, as well as Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff who is playing a leading role in the inquiry and has been one of the most vocal critics of the US president. "I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason," wrote Mr Trump. Over the weekend Republicans began to mount a campaign to defend Mr Trump, however some prominent Republican officials appeared to condemn Mr Trump for this latest scandal. Tom Bossert, who served as Homeland Security Advisor under Mr Trump, told ABC News: "I'm deeply disturbed by it [the call] as well and this entire mess". Counter punching carries its own risks Donald Trump is frequently at his most unfiltered over weekends - and this last one served as evidence in the extreme. Since Saturday morning the president has fired off more than a hundred tweets and retweets, lashing out at Democrats in Congress, the media, his political critics and even conservative Fox News. The recently announced formal impeachment inquiry has become all-consuming for Mr Trump - and is turning the man who likes to fashion himself as a "counter-puncher" into a whirling frenzy of fists. The risk for the president is the more he lashes out, the more it reminds the American public of what they see as Mr Trump's greatest flaw. Polls consistently demonstrate a majority of Americans - on the left and the right - disapprove of the president's penchant for social media invective and the apparent lack of discipline it represents. If a weekend spent on scorched-earth responses mark Mr Trump's impeachment battle plan - with him tweeting the shots from his phone - it may make for a shaky defence and cause growing unease among Republicans who contemplate the challenges of campaigning for re-election under the president's banner in 2020. What is the impeachment inquiry about? In a complaint filed last month, a whistleblower from the intelligence community reported his "urgent concern" that the president had used his office to "solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 US election. The impeachment inquiry launched on Tuesday now focuses specifically on Mr Trump's call to the Ukrainian president about the Biden allegations. Democrats accuse Mr Trump of improperly seeking foreign help in the hope of smearing Mr Biden and of using military aid as a bargaining tool. Ukrainian ex-prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko has told the BBC that there was no reason to investigate Mr Biden or his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Former prosecutor-general Yuriy Lutsenko speaks to the BBC's Jonah Fisher Democrats in Congress - which is currently in recess - say they plan to remain in Washington over the break to move "expeditiously" on with impeachment hearings and subpoenas. Lawmakers say in addition to the whistleblower, they also wish to speak with the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who Mr Trump asked the Ukrainian president to co-ordinate with on an inquiry into the Bidens.

www.bbc.com

center

RQV73uGttmhb79nq

test

lbJ71AXR6pkG8HAI

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43174069

Trump: Florida school officer 'didn't have the courage'

An armed officer who stood outside a Florida school where a gunman killed 17 people last week `` certainly did a poor job '' , US President Donald Trump says . Deputy Scot Peterson resigned after an investigation found he failed to confront the suspect . Mr Trump said Mr Peterson might be a `` coward '' who `` did n't react properly under pressure '' . Florida 's governor meanwhile called for law enforcement officers to be placed in every public school in the state . Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday morning , President Trump criticised the police officer who did not confront the perpetrator of the 14 February massacre in Parkland , Florida . `` He trained his whole life but when it came time to do something he did n't have the courage , '' he said . `` But that 's a case where somebody was outside , they 're trained , they did n't react properly under pressure or they were coward , '' he added . The Republican president later touted his love for gun rights on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference ( Cpac ) in Maryland . He again proposed arming teachers as a solution to school safety , a method long championed by the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) gun lobby . Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel revealed on Thursday that Mr Peterson , the 54-year-old school resource officer , stood outside while the alleged gunman shot students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School . He said video footage showed Mr Peterson arriving at the building where the shooting broke out about 90 seconds after the first shots were fired , and that he remained outside for about four minutes . The attack lasted six minutes , Sheriff Israel said . `` I am devastated . Sick to my stomach . He never went in , '' Sheriff Israel said . Asked what Mr Peterson should have done , Sheriff Israel said : `` Went in , addressed the killer , killed the killer . '' Mr Peterson is yet to publicly comment on what happened . Officers are reportedly guarding his home . It is unclear if he will face charges . The suspect used a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle , police say , and escaped the scene before being captured later . School resource officers are sworn law enforcement officers who are responsible for safety and crime prevention in schools , although their exact roles differ from school to school and authority to authority . Employed by the local police or sheriff 's office , they document incidents and can make arrests , as well as working on areas such as mentoring and education . There are between 14,000 and 20,000 such officers in the US , according to the National Association of School Resource Officers . Mr Peterson had been in his position at the school since 2009 , local media report . The Sun-Sentinel newspaper said he had worked for the sheriff 's office since 1985 and office records showed his salary for 2016 was $ 75,673 ( £54,137 ) . Concerns have been raised about both the school 's video surveillance system and whether warnings about the former student charged with the massacre were ignored . It has been reported that the person watching the surveillance system was relaying information 20 minutes old to police , so officers believed the gunman was in a certain area when he was not . Calls were also reportedly made to the authorities in 2016 and 2017 expressing concern about the suspect , including one saying he was planning to attack the school . A transcript of one call to the FBI was released to US media on Friday , in which a tipster warns that Mr Cruz `` wants to kill people '' and that `` he 's going to explode '' . The female caller , whose identification was redacted in the report , said that Mr Cruz once brought a bird inside `` threw it on his mother 's kitchen counter and he started cutting it up '' . She also warned that Mr Cruz was receiving an inheritance of $ 25,000 per year , and that he may spend that money on guns . Governor Rick Scott called for `` active shooter training '' for all students and staff at public schools in the state . He said he planned to raise Florida 's minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old . Governor Scott also pledged to make it `` virtually impossible for anyone who has mental health issues to use guns . '' `` If a court involuntarily commits someone because they are a risk to themselves or others , they would be required to surrender all firearms and not regain the right to purchase or possess a firearm until a court hearing , '' he said during a speech about a new proposal on guns in Tallahassee . Mr Trump added : `` What I 'd recommend doing is the people that do carry , we give them a bonus . We give them a little bit of a bonus . '' But Randi Weingarten , president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers union , disagreed that arming teachers was a suitable solution . `` Anyone who wants guns in schools has no understanding of what goes on inside them - or worse , does n't care , '' she said .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "He didn't have the courage" An armed officer who stood outside a Florida school where a gunman killed 17 people last week "certainly did a poor job", US President Donald Trump says. Deputy Scot Peterson resigned after an investigation found he failed to confront the suspect. Mr Trump said Mr Peterson might be a "coward" who "didn't react properly under pressure". Florida's governor meanwhile called for law enforcement officers to be placed in every public school in the state. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How young conservatives view #NeverAgain What did Trump say? Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Friday morning, President Trump criticised the police officer who did not confront the perpetrator of the 14 February massacre in Parkland, Florida. "He trained his whole life but when it came time to do something he didn't have the courage," he said. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mourning for the shooting victims continued in Parkland on Friday "He certainly did a poor job." "But that's a case where somebody was outside, they're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were coward," he added. The Republican president later touted his love for gun rights on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (Cpac) in Maryland. He again proposed arming teachers as a solution to school safety, a method long championed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What the British think of arming teachers What did the officer do? Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel revealed on Thursday that Mr Peterson, the 54-year-old school resource officer, stood outside while the alleged gunman shot students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He said video footage showed Mr Peterson arriving at the building where the shooting broke out about 90 seconds after the first shots were fired, and that he remained outside for about four minutes. The attack lasted six minutes, Sheriff Israel said. "I am devastated. Sick to my stomach. He never went in," Sheriff Israel said. Asked what Mr Peterson should have done, Sheriff Israel said: "Went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer." Mr Peterson is yet to publicly comment on what happened. Officers are reportedly guarding his home. It is unclear if he will face charges. The suspect used a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, police say, and escaped the scene before being captured later. What was Deputy Peterson's role? School resource officers are sworn law enforcement officers who are responsible for safety and crime prevention in schools, although their exact roles differ from school to school and authority to authority. Employed by the local police or sheriff's office, they document incidents and can make arrests, as well as working on areas such as mentoring and education. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption As a gunman opened fire in a Florida high school, students inside reached for their phones. There are between 14,000 and 20,000 such officers in the US, according to the National Association of School Resource Officers. Mr Peterson had been in his position at the school since 2009, local media report. The Sun-Sentinel newspaper said he had worked for the sheriff's office since 1985 and office records showed his salary for 2016 was $75,673 (£54,137). Were there any other failures? Concerns have been raised about both the school's video surveillance system and whether warnings about the former student charged with the massacre were ignored. It has been reported that the person watching the surveillance system was relaying information 20 minutes old to police, so officers believed the gunman was in a certain area when he was not. Calls were also reportedly made to the authorities in 2016 and 2017 expressing concern about the suspect, including one saying he was planning to attack the school. A transcript of one call to the FBI was released to US media on Friday, in which a tipster warns that Mr Cruz "wants to kill people" and that "he's going to explode". The female caller, whose identification was redacted in the report, said that Mr Cruz once brought a bird inside "threw it on his mother's kitchen counter and he started cutting it up". She also warned that Mr Cruz was receiving an inheritance of $25,000 per year, and that he may spend that money on guns. What is Florida's governor proposing? Governor Rick Scott called for "active shooter training" for all students and staff at public schools in the state. He said he planned to raise Florida's minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old. Governor Scott also pledged to make it "virtually impossible for anyone who has mental health issues to use guns." "If a court involuntarily commits someone because they are a risk to themselves or others, they would be required to surrender all firearms and not regain the right to purchase or possess a firearm until a court hearing," he said during a speech about a new proposal on guns in Tallahassee. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Seven things the NRA blames after Florida Mr Trump added: "What I'd recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus." But Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers union, disagreed that arming teachers was a suitable solution. "Anyone who wants guns in schools has no understanding of what goes on inside them - or worse, doesn't care," she said.

www.bbc.com

center

lbJ71AXR6pkG8HAI

test

b0hxX6LWMTUVe2l8

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/accountant-of-ex-trump-aide-manafort-faces-cross-exam-after-possibly-damaging-testimony-idUSKBN1KR113

Accountant of ex-Trump aide Manafort faces cross exam after possibly damaging testimony

2018-08-07

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - Rick Gates , a longtime business associate of U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort , on Monday testified that he helped Manafort file false tax returns and hide his foreign bank accounts . Gates is the government ’ s star witness in its case against Manafort , who is accused of bank and tax fraud . Gates , who also served on Trump ’ s campaign , pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors under a deal that could lead to a reduced sentence . Taking the stand on the trial ’ s fifth day , Gates admitted to helping Manafort doctor financial statements , hide foreign income and cheat on his taxes . He said he was aware Manafort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent in lobbying for Ukraine . He said he engaged in the wrongdoing at Manafort ’ s direction . “ At Mr. Manafort ’ s request we did not disclose foreign bank accounts , ” Gates told the jury in federal court in Alexandria , Virginia . Manafort ’ s defense hinges on pinning the blame on Gates , who they accuse of embezzling millions of dollars from Manafort . Gates , who first met Manafort working for him as an intern fresh out of college , has been described by witnesses as Manafort ’ s right-hand man in his multimillion-dollar political consulting business . Throughout his testimony , Gates largely avoided making eye contact with Manafort , who appeared to be watching him . In addition to assisting in Manafort ’ s alleged crimes , Gates told the jury he had failed to report income he routed through his bank accounts in the United Kingdom and said he stole several hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort by filing false and inflated expense reports . Those admissions are likely to become a focal point for Manafort ’ s defense team when he is cross examined on Tuesday . Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . The charges largely predate his five months on the Trump campaign . His case is the first to go to trial arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election . The jury has heard how Manafort made tens of millions of dollars for work with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine . Mueller is also investigating possible coordination between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the election campaign , but the charges against Manafort do not address that . Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is shown in a court room sketch , during a testimony of a longtime business associate Rick Gates ( not shown ) , on the fifth day of his trial , on bank and tax fraud charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election , in federal court in Alexandria , Virginia , U.S. , August 6 , 2018 . Judge T.S . Ellis ( rear C ) looks on . ███/Bill Hennessy Gates also testified about how wealthy Ukrainian businessmen paid Manafort millions of dollars for his political services through wire transfers to Cyprus-based accounts that were set up for Manafort by a lawyer and local politician known as “ Dr . K . ” “ He indicated that the Ukrainian businessmen ... had directed him to set up Cyprus accounts because the payments would be coming from Cyprus , ” Gates said when asked to explain the payment structure . Gates also testified that both he and Manafort had control over the foreign accounts , as well as Manafort ’ s business associate Konstantin Kilimnik . Kilimnik is a Russian-Ukrainian political consultant who was indicted in June on charges stemming from the Mueller probe . In court filings , Mueller has accused Kilimnik of having ties to Russian intelligence services , an allegation he has denied . Gates testified that Manafort told him to report overseas income as loans to lower Manafort ’ s taxable income , supporting the testimony of his accountant . “ When income came into the company , Mr. Manafort directed whether it would be treated as income ... or loans , ” Gates said . The jury heard testimony on Friday and Monday from accountant Cynthia Laporta , who described how Manafort and Gates doctored financial statements and backdated loans . Gates admitted in testimony on Friday that he had lied to Laporta , as well as other accountants and Manafort ’ s bookkeeper . In questioning Laporta on Monday , a prosecutor asked her about a $ 10 million loan purportedly received by Manafort from Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska in 2006 . Laporta said she had no indication that the loan from Deripaska had been paid off . Since the trial started before U.S. District Judge T.S . Ellis last Tuesday , Manafort ’ s lawyers have kept their cross-examinations brief and at times refrained from attempting to rebut damaging testimony in detail . But Laporta ’ s testimony raised the stakes for Manafort . Testifying under immunity , she was the first witness to admit she knew accounting maneuvers Manafort and Gates requested of her were wrong and could be crimes . One accounting trick saved Manafort $ 500,000 in taxes , she said . Under cross examination on Monday , defense attorney Kevin Downing attempted to show that Gates was the point person in dealing with the accountants . But while Laporta acknowledged that she regularly communicated with Gates , she said she believed Manafort was in the know . “ In most instances it was clear Mr. Manafort knew what was going on , ” Laporta said . On redirect , prosecutor Uzo Asonye used a spreadsheet to show that Manafort ’ s firm had earned $ 31 million in gross receipts between 2010 and 2014 - half the amount prosecutors say he netted during the same time frame in Ukraine .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - Rick Gates, a longtime business associate of U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, on Monday testified that he helped Manafort file false tax returns and hide his foreign bank accounts. Gates is the government’s star witness in its case against Manafort, who is accused of bank and tax fraud. Gates, who also served on Trump’s campaign, pleaded guilty in February and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors under a deal that could lead to a reduced sentence. Taking the stand on the trial’s fifth day, Gates admitted to helping Manafort doctor financial statements, hide foreign income and cheat on his taxes. He said he was aware Manafort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent in lobbying for Ukraine. He said he engaged in the wrongdoing at Manafort’s direction. “At Mr. Manafort’s request we did not disclose foreign bank accounts,” Gates told the jury in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Manafort’s defense hinges on pinning the blame on Gates, who they accuse of embezzling millions of dollars from Manafort. Gates, who first met Manafort working for him as an intern fresh out of college, has been described by witnesses as Manafort’s right-hand man in his multimillion-dollar political consulting business. Throughout his testimony, Gates largely avoided making eye contact with Manafort, who appeared to be watching him. In addition to assisting in Manafort’s alleged crimes, Gates told the jury he had failed to report income he routed through his bank accounts in the United Kingdom and said he stole several hundreds of thousands of dollars from Manafort by filing false and inflated expense reports. Those admissions are likely to become a focal point for Manafort’s defense team when he is cross examined on Tuesday. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank and tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. The charges largely predate his five months on the Trump campaign. His case is the first to go to trial arising from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The jury has heard how Manafort made tens of millions of dollars for work with pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Mueller is also investigating possible coordination between Trump campaign members and Russian officials in the election campaign, but the charges against Manafort do not address that. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is shown in a court room sketch, during a testimony of a longtime business associate Rick Gates (not shown), on the fifth day of his trial, on bank and tax fraud charges stemming from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, U.S., August 6, 2018. Judge T.S. Ellis (rear C) looks on. REUTERS/Bill Hennessy CYPRUS ACCOUNTS Gates also testified about how wealthy Ukrainian businessmen paid Manafort millions of dollars for his political services through wire transfers to Cyprus-based accounts that were set up for Manafort by a lawyer and local politician known as “Dr. K.” “He indicated that the Ukrainian businessmen...had directed him to set up Cyprus accounts because the payments would be coming from Cyprus,” Gates said when asked to explain the payment structure. Gates also testified that both he and Manafort had control over the foreign accounts, as well as Manafort’s business associate Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian-Ukrainian political consultant who was indicted in June on charges stemming from the Mueller probe. In court filings, Mueller has accused Kilimnik of having ties to Russian intelligence services, an allegation he has denied. Gates testified that Manafort told him to report overseas income as loans to lower Manafort’s taxable income, supporting the testimony of his accountant. “When income came into the company, Mr. Manafort directed whether it would be treated as income ...or loans,” Gates said. The jury heard testimony on Friday and Monday from accountant Cynthia Laporta, who described how Manafort and Gates doctored financial statements and backdated loans. Gates admitted in testimony on Friday that he had lied to Laporta, as well as other accountants and Manafort’s bookkeeper. In questioning Laporta on Monday, a prosecutor asked her about a $10 million loan purportedly received by Manafort from Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska in 2006. Laporta said she had no indication that the loan from Deripaska had been paid off. Since the trial started before U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis last Tuesday, Manafort’s lawyers have kept their cross-examinations brief and at times refrained from attempting to rebut damaging testimony in detail. But Laporta’s testimony raised the stakes for Manafort. Testifying under immunity, she was the first witness to admit she knew accounting maneuvers Manafort and Gates requested of her were wrong and could be crimes. One accounting trick saved Manafort $500,000 in taxes, she said. Under cross examination on Monday, defense attorney Kevin Downing attempted to show that Gates was the point person in dealing with the accountants. But while Laporta acknowledged that she regularly communicated with Gates, she said she believed Manafort was in the know. Slideshow (4 Images) “In most instances it was clear Mr. Manafort knew what was going on,” Laporta said. On redirect, prosecutor Uzo Asonye used a spreadsheet to show that Manafort’s firm had earned $31 million in gross receipts between 2010 and 2014 - half the amount prosecutors say he netted during the same time frame in Ukraine.

www.reuters.com

center

b0hxX6LWMTUVe2l8

test

0hZ6vtYk1mu5RwH5

education

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/cc2afd89f4d2cc572aa08b172283916b?utm_medium=AP&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter

Virus spread, not politics should guide schools, doctors say

2020-07-12

Lindsey Tanner

Des Moines Public Schools custodian Cynthia Adams cleans a desk in a classroom at Brubaker Elementary School , Wednesday , July 8 , 2020 , in Des Moines , Iowa . As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education , public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher . ( AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall ) Des Moines Public Schools custodian Cynthia Adams cleans a desk in a classroom at Brubaker Elementary School , Wednesday , July 8 , 2020 , in Des Moines , Iowa . As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education , public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher . ( AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall ) As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education , public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher . They ’ re urging a more cautious approach , which many local governments and school districts are already pursuing . But U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doubled down on President Donald Trump ’ s insistence that kids can safely return to the classroom . “ There ’ s nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous , ” she told Chris Wallace on “ Fox News Sunday . ” Still , health experts say there are too many uncertainties and variables for back-to-school to be back-to-normal . Where is the virus spreading rapidly ? Do students live with aged grandparents ? Do teachers have high-risk health conditions that would make online teaching safest ? Do infected children easily spread COVID-19 to each other and to adults ? Regarding the latter , some evidence suggests they don ’ t , but a big government study aims to find better proof . Results won ’ t be available before the fall , and some schools are slated to reopen in just a few weeks . “ These are complicated issues . You can ’ t just charge straight ahead , ” Dr. Tom Frieden , former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , said Wednesday during an online briefing . Children infected with coronavirus are more likely than adults to have mild illnesses , but their risk for severe disease and death isn ’ t zero . While a virus-linked inflammatory condition is uncommon , most children who develop it require intensive care , and a few have died . Doctors don ’ t know which children are at risk . “ The single most important thing we can do to keep our schools safe has nothing to do with what happens in school . It ’ s how well we control COVID-19 in the community , ” Frieden said . “ Right now there are places around the country where the virus is spreading explosively and it would be difficult if not impossible to operate schools safely until the virus is under better control . ” Zahrah Wattier teaches high school in Galveston , Texas , where cases and deaths have been spiking . Until the state recently said schools must reopen to in-person classes , her district had been weighing options many others are considering , including full-time online teaching or a hybrid mix . Wattier ’ s school has mostly Hispanic and Black students , many from low-income families ; almost 70 % qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches and many have parents who work in “ essential ” jobs that increase potential exposure to the virus . Online education was hard for many with limited internet access , and Wattier knows in-person classes can help even the playing field . “ My school has over 2,000 students . That ’ s over 2,000 exposures in a day , ” said Wattier , whose parents live with the family and are both high-risk . “ It ’ s a lot to think about . It ’ s my job . It ’ s something I choose to do , it ’ s something I love . Now it comes at a really high risk . ” The American Academy of Pediatrics , whose guidance the Trump administration has cited to support its demands , says the goal is for all students to be physically present in school . But , it adds , districts must be flexible , consult with health authorities and be ready to pivot as virus activity waxes and wanes . “ It is not that the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks this is a done deal because we have put out guidance , ” said Dr. Nathaniel Beers , a member of the academy ’ s school health council . “ But what we do know is that we need to have a more realistic dialogue about the implications of virtual learning on the future of children . We have left whole swaths of society behind , whether it ’ s because they have limited access to a computer , or broadband internet , ” or because of other challenges that online education can ’ t address . DeVos said local school officials are smart enough to know when conditions are not right . “ There ’ s going to be the exception to the rule , but the rule should be that kids go back to school this fall , ” she told CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” “ And where there are little flare-ups or hot spots , that can be dealt with on a school by school or a case by case basis . ” Following CDC and academy guidelines would mean big changes for most schools . Mask-wearing would be strongly encouraged for adult staff and students except the youngest . Desks would be distanced at least 3 feet apart ; the CDC recommends 6 feet . Both suggest limiting adults allowed in schools , including parents , and canceling group activities like choir and assemblies . Staggered arrival and dismissal times , outdoor classes , and keeping kids in the same classroom all day are other options . President Trump has threatened federal funding cuts for districts that don ’ t fully reopen . DeVos defended that stance , saying , “ American investment in education is a promise to students and their families . ” “ If schools aren ’ t going to reopen and not fulfill that promise , they shouldn ’ t get the funds , and give it to the families to decide to go to a school that is going to meet that promise , ” she said on “ Fox News Sunday . ” U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called DeVos ’ comments “ malfeasance and dereliction of duty . ” “ They ’ re messing , the president and his administration are messing with the health of our children , ” the California Democrat told CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” While most funding typically comes from state and local sources , experts say schools will need more federal funding , not less , to reopen safely . Masks , extra cleaning supplies or janitors , additional classroom space , and mental health support for students and staff traumatized by the pandemic are among potential costs . And with more parents out of work , more children will qualify for federally funded school lunches . Lynn Morales , 49 , teaches 8th grade English at a high-poverty public school in Bloomington , Minnesota , that is considering several options including in-person classes ; a final decision is expected Aug. 1 . Some colleagues are considering not returning to the classroom because their children ’ s day care centers aren ’ t reopening . Some say they won ’ t come back until there ’ s a vaccine . “ I am concerned and it ’ s because of the age group , ” Morales said . ’ ’ Middle school students ... are lovely and I love them , but they touch , they get close , they roughhouse . It is their nature . They ’ re 13 years old . They are defiant . ” “ If masks are required and a kid isn ’ t wearing a mask , is my job description going to be to chase down this kid and insist they wear a mask ? And what if they don ’ t ? ” Dr. Emily Landon , a University of Chicago infectious disease specialist , is helping the university and a campus preK-12 school decide how to reopen safely . “ Things are evolving from , ‘ We can ’ t do it unless it ’ s perfectly safe ’ to more of a harm reduction model , with the caveat that you can always step back ” if virus activity flares , Landon said . Single-occupancy dorms , outdoor classes , socially distanced classrooms and mask-wearing by students and faculty are on tap for the university . Face coverings will be required at the school too . Policies may change depending on virus activity . She dismisses complaints from some parents who say masks are a loss of personal freedom . “ It ’ s not harmful for your child , ” she said . “ If you see wearing masks as a loss of personal freedom , then you have to think the same of pants . ” Dr. Tina Hartert of Vanderbilt University is leading a National Institutes of Health-funded study to determine what role children play in transmitting COVID-19 . Almost 2,000 families are enrolled and self-test every two weeks . The idea is to find infected children without symptoms and see how easily disease spreads within families . Results may come by year ’ s end . “ If we don ’ t see significant transmission within households , that would be very reassuring , ” Hartert said . She noted that in other countries where schools have reopened , evidence suggests no widespread transmission from children . In France , public schools reopened briefly before a summer break , with no sign of widespread virus transmission . Masks were only required for upper grades , but students stayed in the same classroom all day . A better test will be when the new school year starts Sept. 1 . In Norway , schools closed in March for several weeks . Nursery schools reopened first , then other grades . Children were put in smaller groups that stay together all day . Masks aren ’ t required . There have been only a few virus cases , said Dr. Margrethe Greve-Isdahl of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health , but she noted virus activity is much lower than in the U.S . Kati Spaniak , a realtor in Northbrook , Illinois , says her five teenage daughters have struggled to cope with pandemic fears , school closures and deficits of online learning . She strongly supports getting kids back in the classroom , and all her girls will return to some form of that in the fall . It ’ s been hard for her high school senior , Kylie Ciesla . Prom , graduation and other senior rituals were canceled , and there were no good-byes . “ Just to get ripped away from everything I ’ ve worked for 12 years , it ’ s really hard , ” Kylie said . At college , classes will be in person , masks mandated and a COVID-19 test required before she can move into her dorm . Kylie isn ’ t sure all that is needed . “ I hate that this thing has become so political . I just want the science . I want to know what we need to do to fix it , ” she said . The ███ Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ’ s Department of Science Education . The AP is solely responsible for all content . This story was first published on July 12 , 2020 . It was updated on July 13 , 2020 , to correct the name of the member of the American Academy of Pediatrics school health council . He is Dr. Nathaniel Beers , not Dr. Nicholas Beers .

Des Moines Public Schools custodian Cynthia Adams cleans a desk in a classroom at Brubaker Elementary School, Wednesday, July 8, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education, public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) Des Moines Public Schools custodian Cynthia Adams cleans a desk in a classroom at Brubaker Elementary School, Wednesday, July 8, 2020, in Des Moines, Iowa. As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education, public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall) As the Trump administration pushes full steam ahead to force schools to resume in-person education, public health experts warn that a one-size-fits-all reopening could drive infection and death rates even higher. They’re urging a more cautious approach, which many local governments and school districts are already pursuing. Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak But U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos doubled down on President Donald Trump’s insistence that kids can safely return to the classroom. “There’s nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous,” she told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.” ADVERTISEMENT Still, health experts say there are too many uncertainties and variables for back-to-school to be back-to-normal. Where is the virus spreading rapidly? Do students live with aged grandparents? Do teachers have high-risk health conditions that would make online teaching safest? Do infected children easily spread COVID-19 to each other and to adults? Regarding the latter, some evidence suggests they don’t, but a big government study aims to find better proof. Results won’t be available before the fall, and some schools are slated to reopen in just a few weeks. “These are complicated issues. You can’t just charge straight ahead,” Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said Wednesday during an online briefing. Children infected with coronavirus are more likely than adults to have mild illnesses, but their risk for severe disease and death isn’t zero. While a virus-linked inflammatory condition is uncommon, most children who develop it require intensive care, and a few have died. Doctors don’t know which children are at risk. “The single most important thing we can do to keep our schools safe has nothing to do with what happens in school. It’s how well we control COVID-19 in the community,” Frieden said. “Right now there are places around the country where the virus is spreading explosively and it would be difficult if not impossible to operate schools safely until the virus is under better control.” Zahrah Wattier teaches high school in Galveston, Texas, where cases and deaths have been spiking. Until the state recently said schools must reopen to in-person classes, her district had been weighing options many others are considering, including full-time online teaching or a hybrid mix. Wattier’s school has mostly Hispanic and Black students, many from low-income families; almost 70% qualify for free or reduced-cost lunches and many have parents who work in “essential” jobs that increase potential exposure to the virus. Online education was hard for many with limited internet access, and Wattier knows in-person classes can help even the playing field. ADVERTISEMENT But she’s worried. “My school has over 2,000 students. That’s over 2,000 exposures in a day,” said Wattier, whose parents live with the family and are both high-risk. “It’s a lot to think about. It’s my job. It’s something I choose to do, it’s something I love. Now it comes at a really high risk.” The American Academy of Pediatrics, whose guidance the Trump administration has cited to support its demands, says the goal is for all students to be physically present in school. But, it adds, districts must be flexible, consult with health authorities and be ready to pivot as virus activity waxes and wanes. “It is not that the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks this is a done deal because we have put out guidance,” said Dr. Nathaniel Beers, a member of the academy’s school health council. “But what we do know is that we need to have a more realistic dialogue about the implications of virtual learning on the future of children. We have left whole swaths of society behind, whether it’s because they have limited access to a computer, or broadband internet,” or because of other challenges that online education can’t address. DeVos said local school officials are smart enough to know when conditions are not right. “There’s going to be the exception to the rule, but the rule should be that kids go back to school this fall,” she told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And where there are little flare-ups or hot spots, that can be dealt with on a school by school or a case by case basis.” Following CDC and academy guidelines would mean big changes for most schools. Mask-wearing would be strongly encouraged for adult staff and students except the youngest. Desks would be distanced at least 3 feet apart; the CDC recommends 6 feet. Both suggest limiting adults allowed in schools, including parents, and canceling group activities like choir and assemblies. Staggered arrival and dismissal times, outdoor classes, and keeping kids in the same classroom all day are other options. President Trump has threatened federal funding cuts for districts that don’t fully reopen. DeVos defended that stance, saying, “American investment in education is a promise to students and their families.” “If schools aren’t going to reopen and not fulfill that promise, they shouldn’t get the funds, and give it to the families to decide to go to a school that is going to meet that promise,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called DeVos’ comments “malfeasance and dereliction of duty.” “They’re messing, the president and his administration are messing with the health of our children,” the California Democrat told CNN’s “State of the Union.” While most funding typically comes from state and local sources, experts say schools will need more federal funding, not less, to reopen safely. Masks, extra cleaning supplies or janitors, additional classroom space, and mental health support for students and staff traumatized by the pandemic are among potential costs. And with more parents out of work, more children will qualify for federally funded school lunches. Lynn Morales, 49, teaches 8th grade English at a high-poverty public school in Bloomington, Minnesota, that is considering several options including in-person classes; a final decision is expected Aug. 1. Some colleagues are considering not returning to the classroom because their children’s day care centers aren’t reopening. Some say they won’t come back until there’s a vaccine. “I am concerned and it’s because of the age group,” Morales said. ’’Middle school students ... are lovely and I love them, but they touch, they get close, they roughhouse. It is their nature. They’re 13 years old. They are defiant.” “If masks are required and a kid isn’t wearing a mask, is my job description going to be to chase down this kid and insist they wear a mask? And what if they don’t?” Dr. Emily Landon, a University of Chicago infectious disease specialist, is helping the university and a campus preK-12 school decide how to reopen safely. “Things are evolving from, ‘We can’t do it unless it’s perfectly safe’ to more of a harm reduction model, with the caveat that you can always step back” if virus activity flares, Landon said. Single-occupancy dorms, outdoor classes, socially distanced classrooms and mask-wearing by students and faculty are on tap for the university. Face coverings will be required at the school too. Policies may change depending on virus activity. She dismisses complaints from some parents who say masks are a loss of personal freedom. “It’s not harmful for your child,” she said. “If you see wearing masks as a loss of personal freedom, then you have to think the same of pants.” Dr. Tina Hartert of Vanderbilt University is leading a National Institutes of Health-funded study to determine what role children play in transmitting COVID-19. Almost 2,000 families are enrolled and self-test every two weeks. The idea is to find infected children without symptoms and see how easily disease spreads within families. Results may come by year’s end. “If we don’t see significant transmission within households, that would be very reassuring,” Hartert said. She noted that in other countries where schools have reopened, evidence suggests no widespread transmission from children. In France, public schools reopened briefly before a summer break, with no sign of widespread virus transmission. Masks were only required for upper grades, but students stayed in the same classroom all day. A better test will be when the new school year starts Sept. 1. In Norway, schools closed in March for several weeks. Nursery schools reopened first, then other grades. Children were put in smaller groups that stay together all day. Masks aren’t required. There have been only a few virus cases, said Dr. Margrethe Greve-Isdahl of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, but she noted virus activity is much lower than in the U.S. Kati Spaniak, a realtor in Northbrook, Illinois, says her five teenage daughters have struggled to cope with pandemic fears, school closures and deficits of online learning. She strongly supports getting kids back in the classroom, and all her girls will return to some form of that in the fall. It’s been hard for her high school senior, Kylie Ciesla. Prom, graduation and other senior rituals were canceled, and there were no good-byes. “Just to get ripped away from everything I’ve worked for 12 years, it’s really hard,” Kylie said. At college, classes will be in person, masks mandated and a COVID-19 test required before she can move into her dorm. Kylie isn’t sure all that is needed. “I hate that this thing has become so political. I just want the science. I want to know what we need to do to fix it,” she said. ___ AP reporters John Leicester and Arno Pedram in Paris contributed to this report. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner at @LindseyTanner. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ This story was first published on July 12, 2020. It was updated on July 13, 2020, to correct the name of the member of the American Academy of Pediatrics school health council. He is Dr. Nathaniel Beers, not Dr. Nicholas Beers.

www.apnews.com

center

0hZ6vtYk1mu5RwH5

test

e2mqb0kW5szkkIrW

national_defense

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2020/january/is-irans-attack-on-us-bases-the-end-of-a-confrontation-or-just-the-beginning

Is Iran's Missile Attack on US Bases the End of a Confrontation or Just the Beginning?

2020-01-08

JERUSALEM , Israel – After days of speculation of how Iran would retaliate for the killing of General Qassam Soleimani , on Wednesday night the Islamic regime fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two US bases inside Iraq . Many are now looking to Washington 's response and wondering if this is the end of the US-Iran confrontation or the prelude to an escalation . Iran called the missile attack “ Operation Martyr Soleimani ” and fired the surface-to-surface missiles at two US military bases , one near Erbil in northern Iraq and the other in Iraq ’ s Anbar Province at the Ain al-Assad airbase . Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addressed his nation and called the attack a slap in the face to the US , while Iran 's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called it an act of self-defense . Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched . We do not seek escalation or war , but will defend ourselves against any aggression . — Javad Zarif ( @ JZarif ) January 8 , 2020 After the attacks , Trump tweeted , “ All is well ! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq . Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now . So far , so good ! ” Vice President Mike Pence briefed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and after she tweeted , “ We must ensure the safety of our [ service members ] , including ending needless provocations from the administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence . America [ and the ] world can not afford war . ” On Capitol Hill , the House will vote on a war powers resolution and at the White House , President Trump plans to speak about the attacks . On Tuesday he said it wouldn ’ t be good for the US to leave Iraq . “ Well , I think it 's the worst thing that can happen to Iraq . If we leave that would mean that Iran would have a much bigger foothold and the people of Iraq do not want to see Iran running the company that , the country , that I can tell you . So , we 'll see how it all works out , '' he said . Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the decision to kill Soleimani . `` We could clearly see were continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans . It 's the right decision . We got it right , '' Pompeo explained . Some Middle East observers believe the night attacks appear designed to allow Iran to show a military response but avoid American casualties and further escalate the situation .

JERUSALEM, Israel – After days of speculation of how Iran would retaliate for the killing of General Qassam Soleimani, on Wednesday night the Islamic regime fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two US bases inside Iraq. Many are now looking to Washington's response and wondering if this is the end of the US-Iran confrontation or the prelude to an escalation. Iran called the missile attack “Operation Martyr Soleimani” and fired the surface-to-surface missiles at two US military bases, one near Erbil in northern Iraq and the other in Iraq’s Anbar Province at the Ain al-Assad airbase. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addressed his nation and called the attack a slap in the face to the US, while Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called it an act of self-defense. Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 8, 2020 President Donald Trump had recently visited the al-Asad base. After the attacks, Trump tweeted, “All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good!” Vice President Mike Pence briefed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and after she tweeted, “We must ensure the safety of our [service members], including ending needless provocations from the administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America [and the] world cannot afford war.” On Capitol Hill, the House will vote on a war powers resolution and at the White House, President Trump plans to speak about the attacks. On Tuesday he said it wouldn’t be good for the US to leave Iraq. “Well, I think it's the worst thing that can happen to Iraq. If we leave that would mean that Iran would have a much bigger foothold and the people of Iraq do not want to see Iran running the company that, the country, that I can tell you. So, we'll see how it all works out," he said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo defended the decision to kill Soleimani. "We could clearly see were continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans. It's the right decision. We got it right," Pompeo explained. Some Middle East observers believe the night attacks appear designed to allow Iran to show a military response but avoid American casualties and further escalate the situation. CLICK HERE TO GET THE CBN NEWS APP

www1.cbn.com

right

e2mqb0kW5szkkIrW

test

VRGNS1OD0qD9Qnuc

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52978780

Why were US Democrats wearing Ghana’s kente cloth?

When US Democrats in Congress proposed legislation to reform the police following weeks of protests over the death of African American George Floyd at the hands of a white officer , commenters on social media only wanted to talk about one thing : what they were wearing . Nancy Pelosi , the Speaker of the House of Representatives , and other Democratic lawmakers were draped in scarves made from a cloth of colourful geometric Ghanaian designs called kente . It turned out to be quite a controversial sartorial choice . The kente scarves were given out to the congressmen and women by the Congressional Black Caucus , according to NBC News reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell . This congressional group meets to pursue legislative goals around greater equality for black people . `` The significance of the kente cloth is our African heritage and for those of you without that heritage who are acting in solidarity , '' Karen Bass , chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus , told reporters on Monday . `` That is the significance of the kente cloth - our origins and respecting our past . '' Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have worn kente at other occasions , including events last year to mark the 400th anniversary of the arrival of enslaved Africans to America and President Donald Trump 's State of the Union address in 2018 . Over the years , kente has been used in the US to reflect a pride in African heritage , including at graduation ceremonies for students in historically black fraternities or sororities . Modern kente is characterised by intricately woven and richly colourful geometric designs . You are most likely to see it in bold shades of yellow , blue , green , red and orange . It is associated with the Ashanti people in central Ghana and is linked with special occasions as it is expensive to make . The skills of the finest weavers are reserved for the use of Ashanti royalty - and certain patterns are reserved for the king . Otumfuo Osei Tutu II is the current king , or Asantehene , who ascended to the throne in 1999 . A revered figurehead , he adjudicates in disputes and is closely involved in local issues . However , like other traditional leaders , he is barred by the constitution from taking part in Ghanaian politics . The word `` kente '' was trending on Twitter in the US on Monday , prompting laughter from some celebrities . The drummer for the Roots , Questlove , tweeted his disbelief , saying at first he thought he was being pranked when he was told about it : Skip Twitter post by @ questlove Everyone was texting me these Kente Cloth photos , I had to come here to make sure the Roots weren ’ t pranking me . I just ... — Trash That Rizzo Statue ( @ questlove ) June 8 , 2020 Report The singer John Legend was particularly tickled about how life had imitated art as last month he had taken part in a comedy sketch in the US about Black History Month , which included a satirical song about adding kente cloth to your outfit . The reaction in Ghana has not been as noticeable , reports the BBC 's Thomas Naadi from the Ghanaian capital , Accra . Instead , he suspects Ghanaians will be happy with the opportunity to promote the cloth . However , Kenyan writer Nanjala Nyabola saw the Democrats ' use of kente as an insult to Africans , saying : `` We are not your props . '' Skip Twitter post by @ Nanjala1 Stop using Africans and African cultures as props to deflect criticism . We are not your props . — Nanjala Nyabola ( @ Nanjala1 ) June 8 , 2020 Report Others in the US complained that talk about the cloth was diverting attention from proposed reforms , with one tweeter saying , `` Now is NOT the time to learn the history of kente cloth . I assure this too is a distraction . '' The Democrats want sweeping legislation to reform the police in America to make it easier to prosecute officers for misconduct , ban chokeholds and addresses racism . As she unveiled the bill , Mrs Pelosi read the names of black men and women who have died at the hands of police in recent years . However , it is unclear whether Republicans , who control the US Senate , will support the proposed Justice in Policing Act of 2020 . US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that `` the Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police . Sorry , I want LAW & ORDER ! ''

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Democrats kneel in moment of silence for George Floyd When US Democrats in Congress proposed legislation to reform the police following weeks of protests over the death of African American George Floyd at the hands of a white officer, commenters on social media only wanted to talk about one thing: what they were wearing. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and other Democratic lawmakers were draped in scarves made from a cloth of colourful geometric Ghanaian designs called kente. It turned out to be quite a controversial sartorial choice. Why were they wearing it? The kente scarves were given out to the congressmen and women by the Congressional Black Caucus, according to NBC News reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell. This congressional group meets to pursue legislative goals around greater equality for black people. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption For the Democrats kente cloth is about African heritage "The significance of the kente cloth is our African heritage and for those of you without that heritage who are acting in solidarity," Karen Bass, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told reporters on Monday. "That is the significance of the kente cloth - our origins and respecting our past." Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have worn kente at other occasions, including events last year to mark the 400th anniversary of the arrival of enslaved Africans to America and President Donald Trump's State of the Union address in 2018. Over the years, kente has been used in the US to reflect a pride in African heritage, including at graduation ceremonies for students in historically black fraternities or sororities. What is kente and where is it from? Modern kente is characterised by intricately woven and richly colourful geometric designs. You are most likely to see it in bold shades of yellow, blue, green, red and orange. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Kente is often woven from silk and cotton It is associated with the Ashanti people in central Ghana and is linked with special occasions as it is expensive to make. The skills of the finest weavers are reserved for the use of Ashanti royalty - and certain patterns are reserved for the king. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Kente cloth is reserved for special occasions Otumfuo Osei Tutu II is the current king, or Asantehene, who ascended to the throne in 1999. A revered figurehead, he adjudicates in disputes and is closely involved in local issues. However, like other traditional leaders, he is barred by the constitution from taking part in Ghanaian politics. What has the reaction been? The word "kente" was trending on Twitter in the US on Monday, prompting laughter from some celebrities. The drummer for the Roots, Questlove, tweeted his disbelief, saying at first he thought he was being pranked when he was told about it: Skip Twitter post by @questlove Everyone was texting me these Kente Cloth photos, I had to come here to make sure the Roots weren’t pranking me. I just... — Trash That Rizzo Statue (@questlove) June 8, 2020 Report The singer John Legend was particularly tickled about how life had imitated art as last month he had taken part in a comedy sketch in the US about Black History Month, which included a satirical song about adding kente cloth to your outfit. The reaction in Ghana has not been as noticeable, reports the BBC's Thomas Naadi from the Ghanaian capital, Accra. Instead, he suspects Ghanaians will be happy with the opportunity to promote the cloth. However, Kenyan writer Nanjala Nyabola saw the Democrats' use of kente as an insult to Africans, saying: "We are not your props." Skip Twitter post by @Nanjala1 Stop using Africans and African cultures as props to deflect criticism. We are not your props. — Nanjala Nyabola (@Nanjala1) June 8, 2020 Report Others in the US complained that talk about the cloth was diverting attention from proposed reforms, with one tweeter saying, "Now is NOT the time to learn the history of kente cloth. I assure this too is a distraction." What are the proposed reforms? The Democrats want sweeping legislation to reform the police in America to make it easier to prosecute officers for misconduct, ban chokeholds and addresses racism. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption It is unclear whether the Democrats will get the support for their proposals As she unveiled the bill, Mrs Pelosi read the names of black men and women who have died at the hands of police in recent years. However, it is unclear whether Republicans, who control the US Senate, will support the proposed Justice in Policing Act of 2020. US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that "the Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police. Sorry, I want LAW & ORDER!" More on George Floyd's death

www.bbc.com

center

VRGNS1OD0qD9Qnuc

test

rTv1m1JORBgJtBhS

politics

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2019/june/as-aoc-accuses-us-of-running-concentration-camps-a-fact-check-from-auschwitz-and-a-holocaust-survivor

As AOC Accuses US of Running Concentration Camps, a Fact Check from Auschwitz and a Holocaust Survivor

2019-06-20

The Auschwitz Memorial and Museum is weighing in on a controversy caused by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) who accused the US is running `` concentration camps '' on the southern border . The museum joined the conversation tweeting : `` The history of Auschwitz is far more complicated than this as it combined two functions : a concentration camp and from March 1942 an extermination center . '' They then provided a link to an online lesson telling the history of the real concentration camps run by the Nazis . While the story of Auschwitz is complex as it was both a concentration & extermination camp in a context of war & occupation , the 12-years history of development of concentration camps in Nazi Germany is more complicated . Read Nikolaus Wachsmann book `` KL '' : https : //t.co/WN7E2ICesC pic.twitter.com/zr6oNydJHN — Auschwitz Memorial ( @ AuschwitzMuseum ) June 18 , 2019 It all started after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted : `` This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants , where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying . This is not hyperbole . It is the conclusion of expert analysis . '' This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants , where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying . This is not hyperbole . It is the conclusion of expert analysis https : //t.co/2dWHxb7UuL — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( @ AOC ) June 18 , 2019 AOC then linked to an Esquire article where an author of a book on the history of concentration camps defines them as `` mass detention of civilians without trial . '' I spoke with people who have true authority on this issue : David & Sami . They both survived real Nazi concentration camps . They have a message for anyone who thinks America runs concentration camps . AOC - Please listen , for once pic.twitter.com/hGOwa1T2UG — Benny ( @ bennyjohnson ) June 22 , 2019 The whole thing has caused a debate across social media . Pro-Israel public speaker Hananya Naftali tweeted , `` Rep. # AOC needs to apologize to the entire world for her shameful words , '' highlighting the account a Holocaust survivor who rejects AOC 's claim saying America does NOT run concentration camps . `` Grow up . You know how to spell , how to read , how to listen . Do it , '' the Holocaust survivor says in the Daily Caller interview . `` You ca n't compare . Anytime I hear it it 's sickening . '' Holocaust Survivor : America Does NOT Run Concentration Camps . Rep. # AOC needs to apologize to the entire world for her shameful words . # Antisemitism Via Daily Caller pic.twitter.com/IU9RsCI45r — Hananya Naftali ( @ HananyaNaftali ) June 20 , 2019 And even Dictionary websites like Merriam-Webster 's show the word trending with many people looking up the standard definition which reads : `` A place where large numbers of people ... such as prisoners of war , political prisoners , refugees , or the members of an ethnic or religious minority ... are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners . '' Many conservative politicians and analysts have said Ocasio-Cortez owes every Jew an apology for the comparison .

The Auschwitz Memorial and Museum is weighing in on a controversy caused by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who accused the US is running "concentration camps" on the southern border. The museum joined the conversation tweeting: "The history of Auschwitz is far more complicated than this as it combined two functions: a concentration camp and from March 1942 an extermination center." They then provided a link to an online lesson telling the history of the real concentration camps run by the Nazis. While the story of Auschwitz is complex as it was both a concentration & extermination camp in a context of war & occupation, the 12-years history of development of concentration camps in Nazi Germany is more complicated. Read Nikolaus Wachsmann book "KL": https://t.co/WN7E2ICesC pic.twitter.com/zr6oNydJHN — Auschwitz Memorial (@AuschwitzMuseum) June 18, 2019 It all started after Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying. This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis." This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying. This is not hyperbole. It is the conclusion of expert analysis https://t.co/2dWHxb7UuL — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 18, 2019 AOC then linked to an Esquire article where an author of a book on the history of concentration camps defines them as "mass detention of civilians without trial." Hi @AOC - You say America runs concentration camps. I spoke with people who have true authority on this issue: David & Sami. They both survived real Nazi concentration camps. They have a message for anyone who thinks America runs concentration camps. AOC - Please listen, for once pic.twitter.com/hGOwa1T2UG — Benny (@bennyjohnson) June 22, 2019 The whole thing has caused a debate across social media. Pro-Israel public speaker Hananya Naftali tweeted, "Rep. #AOC needs to apologize to the entire world for her shameful words," highlighting the account a Holocaust survivor who rejects AOC's claim saying America does NOT run concentration camps. "Grow up. You know how to spell, how to read, how to listen. Do it," the Holocaust survivor says in the Daily Caller interview. "You can't compare. Anytime I hear it it's sickening." Holocaust Survivor: America Does NOT Run Concentration Camps. Rep. #AOC needs to apologize to the entire world for her shameful words. #Antisemitism Via Daily Caller pic.twitter.com/IU9RsCI45r — Hananya Naftali (@HananyaNaftali) June 20, 2019 And even Dictionary websites like Merriam-Webster's show the word trending with many people looking up the standard definition which reads: "A place where large numbers of people... such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority... are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners." Many conservative politicians and analysts have said Ocasio-Cortez owes every Jew an apology for the comparison.

www1.cbn.com

right

rTv1m1JORBgJtBhS

test

QrwDeY65WeREJdtS

politics

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/23/rand-paul-celebrates-festivus-tweeting-grievances-with-washington/?hpt=po_c2

Rand Paul celebrates 'Festivus,' tweeting grievances with Washington

2013-12-23

( CNN ) - Apparently , Sen. Rand Paul is a fan of the famed sitcom `` Seinfeld '' and unsurprisingly , not a fan of Washington . The Kentucky Republican took to Twitter on Monday to partake in `` Festivus , '' a quirky holiday-esqe tradition popularized in a 1997 episode of the show that is “ celebrated ” on December 23 and calls for , among other things , the airing of grievances . Paul sent a barrage of tweets , expressing discontent with politics inside the Beltway - from the Federal Reserve to the just-passed bipartisan budget - interspersed with an assortment of otherwise conventional complaints - including the food in the Senate cafeteria and the D.C. street cleaning schedule . In Washington , `` bipartisan deal '' is a synonym for `` increasing our debt '' — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 One more Festivus grievance about bipartisanship . @ CoryBooker does n't RT me enough . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 U , me & `` feats of strength : '' Senate floor , name the time MT @ SenRandPaul A Festivus grievance re bipartisanship . Booker does n't RT me enough — Cory Booker ( @ CoryBooker ) December 23 , 2013 Allow more debate and amendments . Do n't change the rules to run it with an iron fist . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 The Senate cafeteria never has burgoo . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Grievance with my otherwise wonderful staff : leave the turtleneck alone . I like it and so do viewers . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Minor grievance : I can never remember when to move my car for DC street cleaning . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 Fed policies make you poorer , and hurt the poor and middle class the most . Ridiculous monetary policies increase the costs of goods . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 So you can thank the Fed for your grocery and gas bills getting out or control . — Senator Rand Paul ( @ SenRandPaul ) December 23 , 2013 `` Seinfeld '' writer Dan O ’ Keefe himself weighed in on Paul 's reference the next day .

6 years ago (CNN) - Apparently, Sen. Rand Paul is a fan of the famed sitcom "Seinfeld" and unsurprisingly, not a fan of Washington. The Kentucky Republican took to Twitter on Monday to partake in "Festivus," a quirky holiday-esqe tradition popularized in a 1997 episode of the show that is “celebrated” on December 23 and calls for, among other things, the airing of grievances. Paul sent a barrage of tweets, expressing discontent with politics inside the Beltway - from the Federal Reserve to the just-passed bipartisan budget - interspersed with an assortment of otherwise conventional complaints - including the food in the Senate cafeteria and the D.C. street cleaning schedule. Here are some of the highlights: First, Washington: In Washington, "bipartisan deal" is a synonym for "increasing our debt" — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Speaking of bipartisanship: One more Festivus grievance about bipartisanship. @CoryBooker doesn't RT me enough. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 To which Cory Booker replied: U, me & "feats of strength:" Senate floor, name the time MT @SenRandPaul A Festivus grievance re bipartisanship. Booker doesn't RT me enough — Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) December 23, 2013 And the Senate: Allow more debate and amendments. Don't change the rules to run it with an iron fist. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 The Senate cafeteria never has burgoo. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 Grievance with my otherwise wonderful staff: leave the turtleneck alone. I like it and so do viewers. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 D.C. parking: Minor grievance: I can never remember when to move my car for DC street cleaning. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 And there's the Federal Reserve: Fed policies make you poorer, and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Ridiculous monetary policies increase the costs of goods. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 So you can thank the Fed for your grocery and gas bills getting out or control. — Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) December 23, 2013 "Seinfeld" writer Dan O’Keefe himself weighed in on Paul's reference the next day.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

QrwDeY65WeREJdtS

test

sdIlMZf7QiV2SiVA

us_military

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/18/huckabee-to-christians-wait-to-join-the-military-after-obama-leaves-office/

Huckabee to Christians: Wait to Join the Military After Obama Leaves Office

2015-04-18

Austin Ruse

Former Arkansas Gov . Mike Huckabee told an Iowa talk radio show host on Saturday that young Christians should wait until President Obama left office before considering military service . He said there is a culture of persecution in the military under Obama , making it a “ hostile work environment . ” Huckabee was responding to a story in the Washington Times about recent high-profile cases of discrimination against Christians in the military . Michael Berry of the Liberty Institute , a Florida-based public interest law firm representing many of these cases , said Christian parents may discourage their children from serving . Berry ’ s firm represents a Christian pastor who has ministered to sailors and Marines for almost 20 years , whom the Navy is about to discharge because he counseled sailors on human sexuality that offended a homosexual officer . Huckabee called it “ one of the great tragedies of our time ” : “ This administration has had an open hostility toward the Christian faith . And I know that sounds like a bold statement , Jan , but when you have a president whose administration orders its chaplains to put its Bibles away , not to pray in Jesus ’ name , not to counsel people on the issues of sexual morality ; when you have this attitude that is more about promoting gay marriage and gay rights in the military than it is about being able to protect religious liberty for those people of faith , it ’ s going to be hard to find people that are truly devoted people of faith and Christian believers and Orthodox Jews and others . Why would they want to be in a military that would be openly hostile and not just simply bring some scorn to their faith , but would punish them for it ? ” Huckabee , who is expected to announce for the presidency soon , said he would advise young men and women to “ wait a few years until we have a new commander-in-chief . ”

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told an Iowa talk radio show host on Saturday that young Christians should wait until President Obama left office before considering military service. He said there is a culture of persecution in the military under Obama, making it a “hostile work environment.” Huckabee was responding to a story in the Washington Times about recent high-profile cases of discrimination against Christians in the military. Michael Berry of the Liberty Institute, a Florida-based public interest law firm representing many of these cases, said Christian parents may discourage their children from serving. Berry’s firm represents a Christian pastor who has ministered to sailors and Marines for almost 20 years, whom the Navy is about to discharge because he counseled sailors on human sexuality that offended a homosexual officer. Huckabee called it “one of the great tragedies of our time”: “This administration has had an open hostility toward the Christian faith. And I know that sounds like a bold statement, Jan, but when you have a president whose administration orders its chaplains to put its Bibles away, not to pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people on the issues of sexual morality; when you have this attitude that is more about promoting gay marriage and gay rights in the military than it is about being able to protect religious liberty for those people of faith, it’s going to be hard to find people that are truly devoted people of faith and Christian believers and Orthodox Jews and others. Why would they want to be in a military that would be openly hostile and not just simply bring some scorn to their faith, but would punish them for it?” Huckabee, who is expected to announce for the presidency soon, said he would advise young men and women to “wait a few years until we have a new commander-in-chief.”

www.breitbart.com

right

sdIlMZf7QiV2SiVA

test

rOpUSeecpTWtgQWF

politics

Ben Stein

https://spectator.org/a-super-speech/

Trump’s Blast Off

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

Let ’ s not kid ourselves . That was a super speech . Not flowery , except that in parts it was eloquent without being flowery . Not poetry , except that it was poetry . It was a blast from the heart of the heart of America . It was as if Mr. Trump did not even have to use words . His sincerity and power in touching what Americans want to hear was beyond prose . The days of being pushed around — especially by the worst elements in our own country — are over . We ’ re proud to be Americans . We have nothing to be ashamed of , so we ’ re going to stop being ashamed . The world is a dangerous place , so we ’ re going to rearm . There are people out there who want to hurt us badly . It ’ s Trump ’ s priority to keep them far away . The streets of America have roaming gangs of savage beasts . Trump will save the urban Americans by locking up the savage beasts . The cops are our saviors here on earth . So we ’ re not going to lambaste them and shame them with nonsense about “ systemic racism. ” We ’ re behind them . Mr. Trump , with us standing with the men and women in blue , has got their backs . He ’ s not going to stab them in the back the way recent high officials have done : he ’ s going to protect their back and their front . There ’ s a Civil War going on in the violent urban parts of America . Mr. Trump is going to win that war for the peaceable families by war to the knife against the gangs and the gangsters . The military wife is the backbone of America . She will never be forgotten . She will always be cheered and loved . The President will not mock her for believing in God . He BELIEVES right along with her as all America weeps for her loss . Pride and conviction that America is the greatest place on earth and in history . The sure and certain hope and belief that whatever problems we have , we can fix them . In response to the back of the hand from the black “ leaders , ” an unwavering hand of friendship to the blacks . And a plan to bring them into the middle class with the only ladder that works — education by choice , not by union diktat . Yes , there were parts that were wrong . Mr. Trump ’ s stand on trade is dead wrong . We need free trade . His stance on immigration from this hemisphere is wrong . We need those workers desperately . But his urgent promise not to let the migrants come here for a drugging and raping holiday is absolutely right . No apologies . No quavering before the snobs of McLean and Georgetown . Light up America first and then that light lights up the whole world . Light up the world with the prayers and uplifted , pained countenance of a Navy widow , and soon the world glows with hope . I have been a speechwriter since I was 18 . First for Senator Joe Tydings ( D-Md . ) and then for Mr. Nixon and Mr. Ford and for decades for myself . I listen to all speeches carefully and with an ear to their music . Sometimes , as with Jimmy Carter , there was a dull thud . Recently , there was the wild self-mockery of Mr. Obama talking to whites like a Cambridge , Mass . Don , and a few hours later to black people in Philadelphia as if he were raised with hands bleeding from picking cotton in the Mississippi Delta . Tonight ’ s was an early Mozart symphony —far better than we could have expected , hitting every right note , and with the promise of still greater to come . This man is a fast learner . And as my pal , John Coyne , an ace speechwriter himself , said to me recently , “ His heart is in the right place. ” He ’ s off and running .

Let’s not kid ourselves. That was a super speech. Not flowery, except that in parts it was eloquent without being flowery. Not poetry, except that it was poetry. It was a blast from the heart of the heart of America. It was as if Mr. Trump did not even have to use words. His sincerity and power in touching what Americans want to hear was beyond prose. The days of being pushed around — especially by the worst elements in our own country — are over. We’re proud to be Americans. We have nothing to be ashamed of, so we’re going to stop being ashamed. The world is a dangerous place, so we’re going to rearm. There are people out there who want to hurt us badly. It’s Trump’s priority to keep them far away. The streets of America have roaming gangs of savage beasts. Trump will save the urban Americans by locking up the savage beasts. The cops are our saviors here on earth. So we’re not going to lambaste them and shame them with nonsense about “systemic racism.” We’re behind them. Mr. Trump, with us standing with the men and women in blue, has got their backs. He’s not going to stab them in the back the way recent high officials have done: he’s going to protect their back and their front. There’s a Civil War going on in the violent urban parts of America. Mr. Trump is going to win that war for the peaceable families by war to the knife against the gangs and the gangsters. The military wife is the backbone of America. She will never be forgotten. She will always be cheered and loved. The President will not mock her for believing in God. He BELIEVES right along with her as all America weeps for her loss. Pride and conviction that America is the greatest place on earth and in history. The sure and certain hope and belief that whatever problems we have, we can fix them. In response to the back of the hand from the black “leaders,” an unwavering hand of friendship to the blacks. And a plan to bring them into the middle class with the only ladder that works — education by choice, not by union diktat. Yes, there were parts that were wrong. Mr. Trump’s stand on trade is dead wrong. We need free trade. His stance on immigration from this hemisphere is wrong. We need those workers desperately. But his urgent promise not to let the migrants come here for a drugging and raping holiday is absolutely right. No apologies. No quavering before the snobs of McLean and Georgetown. Light up America first and then that light lights up the whole world. Light up the world with the prayers and uplifted, pained countenance of a Navy widow, and soon the world glows with hope. I have been a speechwriter since I was 18. First for Senator Joe Tydings (D-Md.) and then for Mr. Nixon and Mr. Ford and for decades for myself. I listen to all speeches carefully and with an ear to their music. Sometimes, as with Jimmy Carter, there was a dull thud. Recently, there was the wild self-mockery of Mr. Obama talking to whites like a Cambridge, Mass. Don, and a few hours later to black people in Philadelphia as if he were raised with hands bleeding from picking cotton in the Mississippi Delta. Tonight’s was an early Mozart symphony —far better than we could have expected, hitting every right note, and with the promise of still greater to come. This man is a fast learner. And as my pal, John Coyne, an ace speechwriter himself, said to me recently, “His heart is in the right place.” He’s off and running.

www.spectator.org

right

rOpUSeecpTWtgQWF

test

5ZK42XthexPPKFVq

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/21/count-the-errors-in-this-msnbc-hosts-attack-on-trumps-soviet-wives/

MSNBC Host Swings At Trump's Wives, Misses Spectacularly

2017-07-21

MSNBC host Joy Reid spectacularly failed when she tried to take a swing at President Donald Trump on Friday . Reid , who hosts a weekend show on MSNBC , attempted to cast aspersions on Trump by pointing out that two of his three wives are from nations formerly part of the Soviet Union . Reid did not clarify why she was making the point , though it ’ s most likely part of the campaign to tie Trump to Russia . “ Donald Trump married one American ( his second wife ) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia : Ivana-Slovakia , Melania-Slovenia , ” Reid wrote . Donald Trump married one American ( his second wife ) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia : Ivana-Slovakia , Melania-Slovenia . — Joy Reid ( @ JoyAnnReid ) July 21 , 2017 There are several errors in that tweet . Reid is correct that one of the three women Trump has married is an American . Marla Maples was born in Georgia , the southern U.S. state , not the former Soviet republic . She is also correct that Melania Trump , who Trump married in 2005 , is from Slovenia . But Trump ’ s first wife , Ivana , is not from Slovakia . Nor was Slovakia part of Yugoslavia . And Yugoslavia , while communist , was not a member of the Soviet bloc . Ivana Trump , the mother of Trump ’ s first three children , was born in what is now the Czech Republic , formerly known as Czechoslovakia . Czechoslovakia became a part of the Soviet bloc in 1948 , a year before Ivana was born . Reid was correct in one regard : Slovenia , where Melania was born , is one of the five nations that once made up Yugoslavia . But as noted above , Yugoslavia was not a part of the Soviet Union . Reid noted only one of the errors in her tweet . Right- correction . Ivana is from Czechoslovakia ( now the Czech Republic . ) Good catch . — Joy Reid ( @ JoyAnnReid ) July 21 , 2017 Melania is from Slovenia ( which plus Slovakia used to be Yugoslavia ) . — Joy Reid ( @ JoyAnnReid ) July 21 , 2017

MSNBC host Joy Reid spectacularly failed when she tried to take a swing at President Donald Trump on Friday. Reid, who hosts a weekend show on MSNBC, attempted to cast aspersions on Trump by pointing out that two of his three wives are from nations formerly part of the Soviet Union. Reid did not clarify why she was making the point, though it’s most likely part of the campaign to tie Trump to Russia. Here’s a review of everything Reid got wrong. “Donald Trump married one American (his second wife) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia: Ivana-Slovakia, Melania-Slovenia,” Reid wrote. Donald Trump married one American (his second wife) and two women from what used to be Soviet Yugoslavia: Ivana-Slovakia, Melania-Slovenia. — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 21, 2017 There are several errors in that tweet. Reid is correct that one of the three women Trump has married is an American. Marla Maples was born in Georgia, the southern U.S. state, not the former Soviet republic. She is also correct that Melania Trump, who Trump married in 2005, is from Slovenia. But Trump’s first wife, Ivana, is not from Slovakia. Nor was Slovakia part of Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia, while communist, was not a member of the Soviet bloc. Ivana Trump, the mother of Trump’s first three children, was born in what is now the Czech Republic, formerly known as Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia became a part of the Soviet bloc in 1948, a year before Ivana was born. Reid was correct in one regard: Slovenia, where Melania was born, is one of the five nations that once made up Yugoslavia. But as noted above, Yugoslavia was not a part of the Soviet Union. Reid noted only one of the errors in her tweet. Right- correction. Ivana is from Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic.) Good catch. — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 21, 2017 But she doubled down on another inaccuracy. Melania is from Slovenia (which plus Slovakia used to be Yugoslavia). — Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 21, 2017 One Twitter user responded aptly to Reid’s numerous errors. holy shit — derp™️ (@D2_Derpinator) July 21, 2017 Follow Chuck on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

5ZK42XthexPPKFVq

test

4nE6HFtoWtnAFV0n

media_bias

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/1d791d3828504336b6a952912621fe56/On-second-thought:-Trump,-Cohen-lawyers-stumble-on-facts

On second thought: Trump, Cohen lawyers stumble on facts

2018-08-28

FILE - In this May 3 , 2018 , file photo , attorney Lanny Davis speaks during an interview with The ███ in his K Street office in Washington . Cohen ’ s lawyer is walking back his assertions that his client could tell a special prosecutor that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton . Davis said Monday , Aug. 27 , he “ should been much clearer that I could not confirm the story. ” ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) FILE - In this May 3 , 2018 , file photo , attorney Lanny Davis speaks during an interview with The ███ in his K Street office in Washington . Cohen ’ s lawyer is walking back his assertions that his client could tell a special prosecutor that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton . Davis said Monday , Aug. 27 , he “ should been much clearer that I could not confirm the story. ” ( AP Photo/J . Scott Applewhite , File ) NEW YORK ( AP ) — They ’ re the ultimate insiders , but the lawyers speaking publicly on behalf of President Donald Trump and his longtime “ fixer ” -turned-foe Michael Cohen have been fumbling the facts of late . Cohen ’ s lawyer , Lanny Davis , spent recent days walking back his bombshell assertions that his client could tell the special counsel that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton . “ I should have been much clearer that I could not confirm the story , ” Davis said Monday , attempting to clean up his comments in interviews last week after Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations , tax evasion and bank fraud . Trump ’ s lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , caused a stir last week when he told The Washington Post that Trump had sought his advice on the possibility of granting a pardon to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort , who was convicted last week on tax and bank fraud charges . Giuliani told the Post that he counseled against the move at least until the end of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , but Fox News later reported that Giuliani said that Trump had not broached the idea of a pardon for Manafort specifically . The apparent contradiction added to confusion about the president ’ s plans and underscored how the two loudest voices speaking on the Russia probe were , in many ways , unreliable narrators . Federal ethics rules frown on lawyers making comments intended to prejudice a jury or engaging in fraud or dishonesty , but legal ethics expert Steven Lubet said there ’ s no boundary crossed by an inaccurate public statement . “ This is , I think , what I think some of the ethics opinions would call mere puffery , and typically that is not subject to discipline , ” said Lubet , of Northwestern University law school . “ In the age of 24/7 news , it ’ s a hopeless quest to expect people to know what they ’ re talking about , ” Lubet added , jokingly . Davis told The Washington Post over the weekend that he “ could not independently confirm ” the claims he made on television last week that Cohen witnessed Trump ’ s eldest son , Donald Trump Jr. , telling his father about the Trump Tower meeting beforehand . “ I take responsibility for not communicating more clearly my uncertainty , ” Davis told The ███ on Monday . “ I regret the error . ” Davis also is hedging suggestions he made on television last week that Cohen could tell special counsel Robert Mueller about whether Trump was aware of and encouraged Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign before it became publicly known . After suggesting to CNN last Wednesday that “ Cohen was an observer and was a witness to Mr. Trump ’ s awareness of those emails before they were dropped , ” Cohen told the Post , “ there ’ s a possibility that is the case . But I am not sure . ” The prospect of Cohen telling Mueller that Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting has hung over the Russia probe since CNN , citing anonymous sources , reported last month that Cohen was willing to share the information . Davis told the AP at the time that the basic substance of the CNN report was correct and told CNN last Wednesday that Cohen “ was present during a discussion with junior and dad ” pertaining to the Trump Tower meeting . Davis , citing a lack of independent verification , apologized Monday to the AP , saying “ I express my regrets that I could not confirm what I told you . ” He told NBC News on Aug. 19 that he didn ’ t know if participants in the meeting , including Trump Jr. and Manafort , knew that lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya “ was Russian at the time . ” In fact , emails released by Trump Jr. himself make clear that he was explicitly told an attendee at the meeting would be a “ Russian government attorney ” who wanted to provide damaging information about Clinton . Additionally , Trump Jr. has said he didn ’ t have the lawyer ’ s name prior to the meeting . Trump , who has denied knowing about the meeting , seized on Davis ’ about-face . “ Michaels Cohen ’ s attorney clarified the record , saying his client does not know if President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting ( out of which came nothing ! ) , ” Trump tweeted on Saturday . “ The answer is that I did NOT know about the meeting . Just another phony story by the Fake News Media ! ” CNN said it stands by the story , which included reporting from Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein . Trump Jr. tweeted that CNN was defending “ literal fake news ” and derided Bernstein as a “ leftist hack . ” Another Trump lawyer , Jay Sekulow , was forced earlier this month to correct an assertion from last year that Trump was not involved in dictating a news media statement aboard Air Force One about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting . Sekulow said in an ABC News interview this month that he “ had bad information ” and that “ over time facts develop . ” The conflicting statements are important not only because they can raise credibility questions but also because , in the absence of any comments , clarification or corrections from the special counsel ’ s office , the lawyers ’ words are sometimes the most direct vehicle for providing information to the public about the status of the investigation . It ’ s not clear , though , that they have any bearing on the investigation itself . Davis primarily functions as a spokesman for Cohen , with the bulk of the actual legal work being done by New York lawyer , Guy Petrillo , who used to work for the Manhattan office now leading the prosecution . And Giuliani , though the public face of Trump ’ s legal team , is hardly the primary negotiator with Mueller ’ s office . In addition to Sekulow , Trump has been relying on a husband-wife duo from Florida , Jane and Martin Raskin , and a veteran Washington hand , Emmet Flood , to serve as the White House liaison in the Russia investigation .

FILE - In this May 3, 2018, file photo, attorney Lanny Davis speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in his K Street office in Washington. Cohen’s lawyer is walking back his assertions that his client could tell a special prosecutor that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Davis said Monday, Aug. 27, he “should been much clearer that I could not confirm the story.” (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) FILE - In this May 3, 2018, file photo, attorney Lanny Davis speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in his K Street office in Washington. Cohen’s lawyer is walking back his assertions that his client could tell a special prosecutor that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Davis said Monday, Aug. 27, he “should been much clearer that I could not confirm the story.” (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) NEW YORK (AP) — They’re the ultimate insiders, but the lawyers speaking publicly on behalf of President Donald Trump and his longtime “fixer”-turned-foe Michael Cohen have been fumbling the facts of late. Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, spent recent days walking back his bombshell assertions that his client could tell the special counsel that Trump had prior knowledge of a meeting with a Russian lawyer to get damaging information on Hillary Clinton. “I should have been much clearer that I could not confirm the story,” Davis said Monday, attempting to clean up his comments in interviews last week after Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, tax evasion and bank fraud. Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, caused a stir last week when he told The Washington Post that Trump had sought his advice on the possibility of granting a pardon to former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was convicted last week on tax and bank fraud charges. Giuliani told the Post that he counseled against the move at least until the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but Fox News later reported that Giuliani said that Trump had not broached the idea of a pardon for Manafort specifically. The apparent contradiction added to confusion about the president’s plans and underscored how the two loudest voices speaking on the Russia probe were, in many ways, unreliable narrators. Federal ethics rules frown on lawyers making comments intended to prejudice a jury or engaging in fraud or dishonesty, but legal ethics expert Steven Lubet said there’s no boundary crossed by an inaccurate public statement. “This is, I think, what I think some of the ethics opinions would call mere puffery, and typically that is not subject to discipline,” said Lubet, of Northwestern University law school. “In the age of 24/7 news, it’s a hopeless quest to expect people to know what they’re talking about,” Lubet added, jokingly. Davis told The Washington Post over the weekend that he “could not independently confirm” the claims he made on television last week that Cohen witnessed Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., telling his father about the Trump Tower meeting beforehand. “I take responsibility for not communicating more clearly my uncertainty,” Davis told The Associated Press on Monday. “I regret the error.” Davis also is hedging suggestions he made on television last week that Cohen could tell special counsel Robert Mueller about whether Trump was aware of and encouraged Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign before it became publicly known. After suggesting to CNN last Wednesday that “Cohen was an observer and was a witness to Mr. Trump’s awareness of those emails before they were dropped,” Cohen told the Post, “there’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.” The prospect of Cohen telling Mueller that Trump knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting has hung over the Russia probe since CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported last month that Cohen was willing to share the information. Davis told the AP at the time that the basic substance of the CNN report was correct and told CNN last Wednesday that Cohen “was present during a discussion with junior and dad” pertaining to the Trump Tower meeting. Davis, citing a lack of independent verification, apologized Monday to the AP, saying “I express my regrets that I could not confirm what I told you.” Giuliani also has misspoken about the Trump Tower meeting. He told NBC News on Aug. 19 that he didn’t know if participants in the meeting, including Trump Jr. and Manafort, knew that lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya “was Russian at the time.” “All they had was her name,” Giuliani said. In fact, emails released by Trump Jr. himself make clear that he was explicitly told an attendee at the meeting would be a “Russian government attorney” who wanted to provide damaging information about Clinton. Additionally, Trump Jr. has said he didn’t have the lawyer’s name prior to the meeting. Trump, who has denied knowing about the meeting, seized on Davis’ about-face. “Michaels Cohen’s attorney clarified the record, saying his client does not know if President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting (out of which came nothing!),” Trump tweeted on Saturday. “The answer is that I did NOT know about the meeting. Just another phony story by the Fake News Media!” CNN said it stands by the story, which included reporting from Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein. Trump Jr. tweeted that CNN was defending “literal fake news” and derided Bernstein as a “leftist hack.” Another Trump lawyer, Jay Sekulow, was forced earlier this month to correct an assertion from last year that Trump was not involved in dictating a news media statement aboard Air Force One about the purpose of the Trump Tower meeting. Sekulow said in an ABC News interview this month that he “had bad information” and that “over time facts develop.” The conflicting statements are important not only because they can raise credibility questions but also because, in the absence of any comments, clarification or corrections from the special counsel’s office, the lawyers’ words are sometimes the most direct vehicle for providing information to the public about the status of the investigation. It’s not clear, though, that they have any bearing on the investigation itself. Davis primarily functions as a spokesman for Cohen, with the bulk of the actual legal work being done by New York lawyer, Guy Petrillo, who used to work for the Manhattan office now leading the prosecution. And Giuliani, though the public face of Trump’s legal team, is hardly the primary negotiator with Mueller’s office. In addition to Sekulow, Trump has been relying on a husband-wife duo from Florida, Jane and Martin Raskin, and a veteran Washington hand, Emmet Flood, to serve as the White House liaison in the Russia investigation. ___ Tucker reported from Washington. ___ Follow Sisak at twitter.com/mikesisak and Tucker at twitter.com/etuckerAP

www.apnews.com

center

4nE6HFtoWtnAFV0n

test

ym8g68mOEkM56VZd

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47910820

Julian Assange: Sweden considers reviving rape inquiry

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange could face a renewed investigation into an allegation of rape in Sweden . Assange , 47 , who had been granted asylum in Ecuador 's London embassy for seven years , was arrested on Thursday . Swedish prosecutors said they were examining the case at the request of the alleged victim 's lawyer . The US also wants to extradite him from the UK over his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010 . Australian-born Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US for his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010 , which could result in a prison term of up to five years . Lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz said she would do `` everything we possibly can '' to get the investigation reopened in Sweden . Assange sought refuge in the Knightsbridge embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault . But Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum and invited the police to arrest him on Thursday . After his dramatic arrest , he was taken to Westminster Magistrates ' Court and found guilty of a British charge of breaching bail . He spent Thursday night in custody and is facing up to 12 months in prison for that conviction . The United Nations has called for his right to a fair trial to be respected during any extradition process . Assange was accused of rape and other sexual offences , against two women , following a Wikileaks conference in Stockholm in 2010 . He has always denied the allegations , saying the sex was consensual . Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to proceed while he remained in the Ecuadorean embassy . Assange also faced investigation for molestation and unlawful coercion , but these cases were dropped in 2015 because time had run out . Prosecutors will now re-examine the rape case to decide whether to resume it before the statute of limitations runs out in August 2020 . Ms Massi Fritz , lawyer for the alleged victim , said the arrest came as a shock but `` what we have been waiting and hoping for since 2012 has now finally happened '' . She said : `` No rape victim should have to wait nine years to see justice be served . '' Assange is due to face a hearing over his possible extradition to the US on 2 May . The US Department of Justice has accused him of conspiring with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to commit `` one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States '' . Manning was arrested in 2010 for disclosing more than 700,000 confidential documents , including a video of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq . She was recently jailed for a second time for refusing to testify in an investigation into Wikileaks . Assange 's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said they would be fighting the extradition request . She said it set a `` dangerous precedent '' for journalists publishing information about the US . Jonathan Turley , a law professor at George Washington University , said the charges had been crafted to avoid free speech concerns by accusing Assange of participating in the theft of information . But he said the indictment was `` thin on evidence '' . During a briefing at the White House following Assange 's arrest , US President Donald Trump was asked by reporters if he stood by his election campaign remark that he loved Wikileaks , which released damaging information on his opponent Hillary Clinton . `` I know nothing about Wikileaks , '' said Mr Trump . `` It 's not my thing . '' With Assange facing extradition proceedings and up to five years in federal prison on the US computer hacking charge , shadow home secretary Diane Abbott told BBC Radio 4 's Today programme that the UK should resist handing him over . She said : `` This is all about Wikileaks and all of that embarrassing information about the activities of the American military and security services that was made public . '' Initially Ms Abbott dismissed the Swedish allegations , saying three times that Assange was never charged , but she later said he should face the criminal justice system if the Swedish government does charge him . Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also said the UK should oppose Assange 's extradition , `` for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan '' . The BBC 's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but it means `` the battle over Assange 's future will now be as much political as it is legal '' . Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed the arrest , saying it showed that `` in the UK , no one is above the law '' . Lawyer Rebecca Niblock said the extradition decision lies primarily with the courts and that only a judge can decide whether an extradition breaches an individual 's human rights . The home secretary can consider a limited number of issues when deciding whether or not to order an extradition , including whether the person is at risk of the death penalty . However , if Sweden also made an extradition request , Ms Niblock said it would be for the home secretary to decide which request would take precedence , considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence and which request was made first . Nick Vamos , former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service , said the UK proceedings should not take more than 18 months . Considering Assange 's potential objections to extradition , Mr Vamos said that he did not think courts would accept the US case was politically motivated . But he said Assange may be able to argue that his likely treatment in the US prison system would breach his human rights and that could not receive a fair trial due to his notoriety and links to political scandals .

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Assange was found guilty of a British charge, but he could be extradited to the US to face a separate charge Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange could face a renewed investigation into an allegation of rape in Sweden. Assange, 47, who had been granted asylum in Ecuador's London embassy for seven years, was arrested on Thursday. Swedish prosecutors said they were examining the case at the request of the alleged victim's lawyer. The US also wants to extradite him from the UK over his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010. Australian-born Assange faces a charge of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion in the US for his alleged role in one of the largest ever leaks of government secrets in 2010, which could result in a prison term of up to five years. Lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz said she would do "everything we possibly can" to get the investigation reopened in Sweden. Assange sought refuge in the Knightsbridge embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over allegations of sexual assault. But Ecuador abruptly withdrew its asylum and invited the police to arrest him on Thursday. After his dramatic arrest, he was taken to Westminster Magistrates' Court and found guilty of a British charge of breaching bail. He spent Thursday night in custody and is facing up to 12 months in prison for that conviction. The United Nations has called for his right to a fair trial to be respected during any extradition process. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Julian Assange being dragged from the Ecuadorean embassy in London What is the Swedish investigation about? Assange was accused of rape and other sexual offences, against two women, following a Wikileaks conference in Stockholm in 2010. He has always denied the allegations, saying the sex was consensual. Swedish prosecutors dropped the rape investigation in 2017 because they were unable to proceed while he remained in the Ecuadorean embassy. Assange also faced investigation for molestation and unlawful coercion, but these cases were dropped in 2015 because time had run out. Prosecutors will now re-examine the rape case to decide whether to resume it before the statute of limitations runs out in August 2020. Ms Massi Fritz, lawyer for the alleged victim, said the arrest came as a shock but "what we have been waiting and hoping for since 2012 has now finally happened". She said: "No rape victim should have to wait nine years to see justice be served." What does the US want with Assange? Assange is due to face a hearing over his possible extradition to the US on 2 May. The US Department of Justice has accused him of conspiring with former intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning to commit "one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States". Manning was arrested in 2010 for disclosing more than 700,000 confidential documents, including a video of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq. She was recently jailed for a second time for refusing to testify in an investigation into Wikileaks. Assange's lawyer Jennifer Robinson said they would be fighting the extradition request. She said it set a "dangerous precedent" for journalists publishing information about the US. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Does Trump still love Wikileaks... or what? Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said the charges had been crafted to avoid free speech concerns by accusing Assange of participating in the theft of information. But he said the indictment was "thin on evidence". During a briefing at the White House following Assange's arrest, US President Donald Trump was asked by reporters if he stood by his election campaign remark that he loved Wikileaks, which released damaging information on his opponent Hillary Clinton. "I know nothing about Wikileaks," said Mr Trump. "It's not my thing." How has the UK reacted? With Assange facing extradition proceedings and up to five years in federal prison on the US computer hacking charge, shadow home secretary Diane Abbott told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the UK should resist handing him over. She said: "This is all about Wikileaks and all of that embarrassing information about the activities of the American military and security services that was made public." Initially Ms Abbott dismissed the Swedish allegations, saying three times that Assange was never charged, but she later said he should face the criminal justice system if the Swedish government does charge him. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also said the UK should oppose Assange's extradition, "for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan". The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but it means "the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal". Prime Minister Theresa May welcomed the arrest, saying it showed that "in the UK, no one is above the law". How does the extradition process work? Lawyer Rebecca Niblock said the extradition decision lies primarily with the courts and that only a judge can decide whether an extradition breaches an individual's human rights. The home secretary can consider a limited number of issues when deciding whether or not to order an extradition, including whether the person is at risk of the death penalty. However, if Sweden also made an extradition request, Ms Niblock said it would be for the home secretary to decide which request would take precedence, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence and which request was made first. Nick Vamos, former head of extradition at the Crown Prosecution Service, said the UK proceedings should not take more than 18 months. Considering Assange's potential objections to extradition, Mr Vamos said that he did not think courts would accept the US case was politically motivated. But he said Assange may be able to argue that his likely treatment in the US prison system would breach his human rights and that could not receive a fair trial due to his notoriety and links to political scandals.

www.bbc.com

center

ym8g68mOEkM56VZd

test

GK86dn1j9PToZNnX

lgbt_rights

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/march/michigan-orders-faith-based-adoption-agencies-to-violate-their-religious-beliefs

Michigan Orders Faith-Based Adoption Agencies to Violate Their Religious Beliefs

2019-03-22

Michigan is ordering faith-based adoption agencies to violate their own religious beliefs and place children with LGBTQ couples . Agencies that decide not to reject their own faith will no longer be allowed to receive funding from the state to make foster care adoptions possible . The decision by the state is part of a legal settlement that was announced Friday between Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel 's office and lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union . The ACLU had sued the state for two lesbian couples . Nessel said , `` Limiting the opportunity for a child to be adopted or fostered by a loving home not only goes against the state 's goal of finding a home for every child , it is a direct violation of the contract every child-placing agency enters into with the state . '' But faith-based groups say this decision will prevent the state from reaching its goal of finding homes for children , because it will eliminate key groups like Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services that help children find those homes . In recent years , Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services have handled roughly 25 to 30 percent of the state 's foster care adoptions . Lori Windham , senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty , said , `` The Michigan AG and the ACLU are trying to stop the state from working with faith-based adoption agencies . The result of that will be tragic . Thousands of children will be kept from finding the loving homes they deserve . '' `` This settlement violates the state law protecting religious adoption agencies . This harms children and families waiting for forever homes and limits access for couples who chose to partner with those agencies , '' she said . Michigan actually has a law that blocks the state from doing what it just did . The 2015 law says child-placement agencies can not be forced to provide services that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs .

Michigan is ordering faith-based adoption agencies to violate their own religious beliefs and place children with LGBTQ couples. Agencies that decide not to reject their own faith will no longer be allowed to receive funding from the state to make foster care adoptions possible. The decision by the state is part of a legal settlement that was announced Friday between Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel's office and lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU had sued the state for two lesbian couples. Nessel said, "Limiting the opportunity for a child to be adopted or fostered by a loving home not only goes against the state's goal of finding a home for every child, it is a direct violation of the contract every child-placing agency enters into with the state." But faith-based groups say this decision will prevent the state from reaching its goal of finding homes for children, because it will eliminate key groups like Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services that help children find those homes. In recent years, Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services have handled roughly 25 to 30 percent of the state's foster care adoptions. Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "The Michigan AG and the ACLU are trying to stop the state from working with faith-based adoption agencies. The result of that will be tragic. Thousands of children will be kept from finding the loving homes they deserve." "This settlement violates the state law protecting religious adoption agencies. This harms children and families waiting for forever homes and limits access for couples who chose to partner with those agencies," she said. Michigan actually has a law that blocks the state from doing what it just did. The 2015 law says child-placement agencies cannot be forced to provide services that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

www1.cbn.com

right

GK86dn1j9PToZNnX

test

YWwNH1bf5xYocr3P

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/how-comey-lied-about-spying-on-trump-tower/

How Comey Lied About Spying on Trump Tower

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

Jim Comey deserves a special place in the annals of sanctimonious frauds in Washington , D.C . He leaked , lied , bent rules , treated FBI material as his own personal property , violated confidential conversations , and generally acted like a government unto himself . But now he has the gall to write it all up in the sonorous nonsense language of “ constitutional crisis. ” His forthcoming memoir amounts to nothing more than the sour grapes of a self-serving operator over a wholly justified sacking . The media is already burbling over its fatuous contents . Ever the leaker , Comey tossed a pre-publication morsel of gossip from the book to the liberals at the Daily Beast — Comey ’ s claim that General Kelly commiserated with him over his “ dishonorable ” firing . The White House has denied the claim . So Comey is already cashing in on betrayed confidences , all while lecturing others about “ loyalty ” and probity . What Comey calls “ higher loyalty ” is just adherence to the interests of an unaccountable ruling class and the needs of his own ego . Comey slithered out of the swamp and now plays the great conscience of Washington . He sighs , looks heavenward , quotes Reinhold Niebuhr , tries hard to look very thoughtful — only to relay low hearsay and peddle anti-Trump dreck . Who cares ? Comey ’ s wounded ego is not a constitutional crisis . The scandal is not that he lost his exalted job but that such a pompous creep once held it . To understand the depth of Comey ’ s leaking and lying , all you have to do is go back and look at his scummy maneuvering in response to Trump ’ s “ wiretap ” tweets . Those tweets turned out to be entirely accurate : The Obama administration was intercepting communications at Trump Tower , both during the campaign and the transition . Comey knew perfectly well that Trump was right — FBI agents had been sifting through the Trump Tower records of Carter Page and Paul Manafort — but he sent his team out to lie about Trump ’ s tweets anyways . He had a story placed in the New York Times shortly after Trump ’ s tweets : “ Comey Asks Justice Department to Reject Trump ’ s Wiretapping Claim. ” It quoted Comey ’ s leakers , “ senior American officials , ” as saying that Trump ’ s assertion was “ false ” and that the FBI director had asked the Justice Department to refute it . As Comey ’ s stenographer , the Times wrote up his lie in its inimitably smearing style : Mr. Comey ’ s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president , putting the nation ’ s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump ’ s truthfulness . The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump ’ s weekend Twitter outburst , and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump ’ s young administration . So here was an FBI director using the front page of a newspaper to libel a sitting president , all while a FISA warrant based on Hillary ’ s campaign research , which gave Comey the power to reach into Trump Tower , sat on his desk . In retrospect , the article is laughably dishonest , with the Times pretending to wonder why Comey chose to leak a denial to it rather than make a formal denial . It wasn ’ t much of a puzzle ; he was lying his head off . But the Times struck an innocent tone : It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue a statement himself . He is the most senior law enforcement official who was kept on the job as the Obama administration gave way to the Trump administration . And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants , the F.B.I . keeps its own records and is in a position to know whether Mr. Trump ’ s claims are true . While intelligence officials do not normally discuss the existence or nonexistence of surveillance warrants , no law prevents Mr. Comey from issuing the statement . Meanwhile , Comey sat back as Jim Clapper , another dolt he could manipulate , reinforced his lie on television , which the Times included in its story to bolster Comey ’ s leak : Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said that there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump . Asked whether such a warrant existed , James R. Clapper Jr. , a former director of national intelligence , said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press , ” “ Not to my knowledge , no. ” “ There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time , as a candidate or against his campaign , ” Mr. Clapper added . Think about that : Comey , with the Carter Page warrant in hand ( which gave Comey the power to rifle through Trump Tower communications both past and future ) , planted a story in the Times , designed to make Trump look like a lunatic , that makes use of a Clapper quote Comey knew to be false . What a weasel . And he knew that he could get away with it , confident that the ruling class would cover for him and split semantic hairs in his favor . In a just age , Comey would have the book thrown at him , not be writing one . It is a measure of our skewed times that an unelected charlatan could subvert the elected chief executive and then emerge from his subversion as a celebrated expert on constitutional loyalty . Samuel Johnson would call Comey ’ s “ higher loyalty ” the last refuge of a scoundrel .

Jim Comey deserves a special place in the annals of sanctimonious frauds in Washington, D.C. He leaked, lied, bent rules, treated FBI material as his own personal property, violated confidential conversations, and generally acted like a government unto himself. But now he has the gall to write it all up in the sonorous nonsense language of “constitutional crisis.” His forthcoming memoir amounts to nothing more than the sour grapes of a self-serving operator over a wholly justified sacking. The media is already burbling over its fatuous contents. Ever the leaker, Comey tossed a pre-publication morsel of gossip from the book to the liberals at the Daily Beast — Comey’s claim that General Kelly commiserated with him over his “dishonorable” firing. The White House has denied the claim. So Comey is already cashing in on betrayed confidences, all while lecturing others about “loyalty” and probity. What Comey calls “higher loyalty” is just adherence to the interests of an unaccountable ruling class and the needs of his own ego. Comey slithered out of the swamp and now plays the great conscience of Washington. He sighs, looks heavenward, quotes Reinhold Niebuhr, tries hard to look very thoughtful — only to relay low hearsay and peddle anti-Trump dreck. Who cares? Comey’s wounded ego is not a constitutional crisis. The scandal is not that he lost his exalted job but that such a pompous creep once held it. To understand the depth of Comey’s leaking and lying, all you have to do is go back and look at his scummy maneuvering in response to Trump’s “wiretap” tweets. Those tweets turned out to be entirely accurate: The Obama administration was intercepting communications at Trump Tower, both during the campaign and the transition. Comey knew perfectly well that Trump was right — FBI agents had been sifting through the Trump Tower records of Carter Page and Paul Manafort — but he sent his team out to lie about Trump’s tweets anyways. He had a story placed in the New York Times shortly after Trump’s tweets: “Comey Asks Justice Department to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim.” It quoted Comey’s leakers, “senior American officials,” as saying that Trump’s assertion was “false” and that the FBI director had asked the Justice Department to refute it. As Comey’s stenographer, the Times wrote up his lie in its inimitably smearing style: Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration. So here was an FBI director using the front page of a newspaper to libel a sitting president, all while a FISA warrant based on Hillary’s campaign research, which gave Comey the power to reach into Trump Tower, sat on his desk. In retrospect, the article is laughably dishonest, with the Times pretending to wonder why Comey chose to leak a denial to it rather than make a formal denial. It wasn’t much of a puzzle; he was lying his head off. But the Times struck an innocent tone: It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue a statement himself. He is the most senior law enforcement official who was kept on the job as the Obama administration gave way to the Trump administration. And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants, the F.B.I. keeps its own records and is in a position to know whether Mr. Trump’s claims are true. While intelligence officials do not normally discuss the existence or nonexistence of surveillance warrants, no law prevents Mr. Comey from issuing the statement. Meanwhile, Comey sat back as Jim Clapper, another dolt he could manipulate, reinforced his lie on television, which the Times included in its story to bolster Comey’s leak: Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said that there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “Not to my knowledge, no.” “There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate or against his campaign,” Mr. Clapper added. Think about that: Comey, with the Carter Page warrant in hand (which gave Comey the power to rifle through Trump Tower communications both past and future), planted a story in the Times, designed to make Trump look like a lunatic, that makes use of a Clapper quote Comey knew to be false. What a weasel. And he knew that he could get away with it, confident that the ruling class would cover for him and split semantic hairs in his favor. In a just age, Comey would have the book thrown at him, not be writing one. It is a measure of our skewed times that an unelected charlatan could subvert the elected chief executive and then emerge from his subversion as a celebrated expert on constitutional loyalty. Samuel Johnson would call Comey’s “higher loyalty” the last refuge of a scoundrel.

www.spectator.org

right

YWwNH1bf5xYocr3P

test

7dgibfKxkYUKj5Hp

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/21/contempt-or-impeachment-trump-and-democrats-locked-in-ultimate-congressional-battle

Contempt or impeachment? Trump and Democrats locked in ultimate congressional battle

2019-05-21

Sabrina Siddiqui

The White House strategy appears to be designed to force the Democrats ’ hand , but lawmakers are treading cautiously Democrats grabbed control of the House of Representatives in January of this year determined to restore congressional oversight . But with the Trump administration now at a moment of reckoning , a battle royal has unfolded . The Trump administration ’ s strategy is simple : block any and all requests from Democrats in Congress , even if it means defying a subpoena , such as blocking compliance by former White House counsel Don McGahn , a key witness in the Mueller inquiry , to testify on Capitol Hill this week . Also this month , the attorney general , William Barr , has ignored a subpoena for the full report by Robert Mueller on his Trump-Russia investigation and treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin rebuffed a House request to hand over six years ’ of Trump ’ s tax returns . Trump , who has dismissed the congressional inquiries as “ presidential harassment ” , suggested the Democratic chairs of House committees instead turn their powers to investigating his former political opponent Hillary Clinton . Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) Why are the Democrats not looking into all of the crimes committed by Crooked Hillary and the phony Russia Investigation ? They would get back their credibility . Jerry Nadler , Schiff , would have a whole new future open to them . Perhaps they could even run for President ! The White House strategy appears designed either to force Democrats to take the administration to court – which could take years – or pull the trigger on impeachment . Democrats on the House judiciary committee have voted to hold Barr in contempt and have threatened to hold McGahn in contempt , too . The House majority leader , Steny Hoyer , said the chamber may consolidate multiple contempt citations against officials . Some Democrats cite the House ’ s “ inherent contempt ” powers , which grant them the right to jail individuals in the Capitol – an action that hasn ’ t been taken since the 1930s – or issue fines . Adam Schiff , the House intelligence committee chairman , suggested US officials held in contempt of Congress be fined $ 25,000 a day . “ We ’ re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we ’ re on solid ground , ” Schiff told Axios in a recent interview . Others see the third branch of US government , the judicial branch , as the answer . “ The only recourse is litigation , which the president will likely lose , but it will cause delay , ” said Greg Brower , a former assistant director in the FBI ’ s office of congressional affairs . The White House could drag court action out beyond the 2020 election . The heart of the debate among Democrats is whether or not to begin impeachment proceedings . Some rank-and-file lawmakers have already embraced the idea , stating the 11 instances outlined in Mueller ’ s report in which Trump or his campaign sought to obstruct justice are reason enough alone . But Democratic leaders are treading cautiously , because they would never win a conviction in the Republican-led Senate . The American public is split on the issue , with polls showing a majority against it and support for the idea falling even among Democrats . Justin Amash , a representative from Michigan , just became the first Republican to call for impeaching Trump , an important bipartisan point that drew widespread backlash for him . And Jerry Nadler , Democratic chair of the powerful House judiciary committee , signaled impatience on Tuesday , after McGahn was a no-show to testify . “ We will not allow the president to stop this investigation , and nothing in these unjustified and unjustifiable legal attacks will stop us from pressing forward with our work on behalf of the American people , ” Nadler said . “ We will hold this president accountable , one way or the other . ”

The White House strategy appears to be designed to force the Democrats’ hand, but lawmakers are treading cautiously This article is more than 5 months old This article is more than 5 months old Democrats grabbed control of the House of Representatives in January of this year determined to restore congressional oversight. But with the Trump administration now at a moment of reckoning, a battle royal has unfolded. What exactly is the White House doing? The Trump administration’s strategy is simple: block any and all requests from Democrats in Congress, even if it means defying a subpoena, such as blocking compliance by former White House counsel Don McGahn, a key witness in the Mueller inquiry, to testify on Capitol Hill this week. Also this month, the attorney general, William Barr, has ignored a subpoena for the full report by Robert Mueller on his Trump-Russia investigation and treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin rebuffed a House request to hand over six years’ of Trump’s tax returns. Trump, who has dismissed the congressional inquiries as “presidential harassment”, suggested the Democratic chairs of House committees instead turn their powers to investigating his former political opponent Hillary Clinton. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Why are the Democrats not looking into all of the crimes committed by Crooked Hillary and the phony Russia Investigation? They would get back their credibility. Jerry Nadler, Schiff, would have a whole new future open to them. Perhaps they could even run for President! The White House strategy appears designed either to force Democrats to take the administration to court – which could take years – or pull the trigger on impeachment. What can Democrats actually do? Democrats on the House judiciary committee have voted to hold Barr in contempt and have threatened to hold McGahn in contempt, too. The House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said the chamber may consolidate multiple contempt citations against officials. Some Democrats cite the House’s “inherent contempt” powers, which grant them the right to jail individuals in the Capitol – an action that hasn’t been taken since the 1930s – or issue fines. Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, suggested US officials held in contempt of Congress be fined $25,000 a day. “We’re looking through the history and studying the law to make sure we’re on solid ground,” Schiff told Axios in a recent interview. Others see the third branch of US government, the judicial branch, as the answer. “The only recourse is litigation, which the president will likely lose, but it will cause delay,” said Greg Brower, a former assistant director in the FBI’s office of congressional affairs. The White House could drag court action out beyond the 2020 election. Is impeachment really in the cards? The heart of the debate among Democrats is whether or not to begin impeachment proceedings. Some rank-and-file lawmakers have already embraced the idea, stating the 11 instances outlined in Mueller’s report in which Trump or his campaign sought to obstruct justice are reason enough alone. But Democratic leaders are treading cautiously, because they would never win a conviction in the Republican-led Senate. The American public is split on the issue , with polls showing a majority against it and support for the idea falling even among Democrats. Justin Amash, a representative from Michigan, just became the first Republican to call for impeaching Trump, an important bipartisan point that drew widespread backlash for him. And Jerry Nadler, Democratic chair of the powerful House judiciary committee, signaled impatience on Tuesday, after McGahn was a no-show to testify. “We will not allow the president to stop this investigation, and nothing in these unjustified and unjustifiable legal attacks will stop us from pressing forward with our work on behalf of the American people,” Nadler said. “We will hold this president accountable, one way or the other.”

www.theguardian.com

left

7dgibfKxkYUKj5Hp

test

Fi4Q1vvBtSMiZSGM

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/09/26/against-democracy-and-elitism

Against Democracy and Elitism

2016-09-26

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

Whenever we libertarians point out democracy 's perverse incentives ( as I do here ) we risk being accused of elitism . However , those who assume that the only alternative to rule by the people is rule by an aristocracy reveal a tragically incomplete awareness of the choices before us . Rather than choose among rulers , we should ask why anyone at all must rule . But even if we do n't go quite that far , we could entertain the idea that radically reducing the scale and scope of government , which essentially is the threat of violence , would also drastically reduce the harm produced by those perverse incentives . Elitism is n't the only available alternative to democracy—and it certainly is not the most desirable one . Unfortunately , some libertarian critiques of democracy encourage nonlibertarians to believe some form of elitism is the only alternative . Take Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan 's recent op-ed , `` Can epistocracy , or knowledge-based voting , fix democracy ? '' in the Los Angeles Times , which is drawn from his book Against Democracy . Brennan begins by citing democracy 's systemic flaw : `` The median voter wields great power over what politicians ultimately do . But—and here 's the problem—the median voter would fail economics or Political Science 101 . '' `` For 60 years , political scientists have studied what voters actually know , '' Brennan continues . The results are depressing . Hundreds of different surveys , such as the American National Election Studies , find that the median voter is ignorant or misinformed not only about the social sciences needed to evaluate candidates ' policy proposals , but even of basic facts and trends , such as what the unemployment rate is and whether it 's going up or down . This is n't because public schools fail us . It 's not because Fox News or MSNBC ( take your pick ) bamboozles poor voters with well-crafted lies . It 's not because people are inherently stupid or unable to think for themselves . It 's because democracy gives us the wrong incentives . How we vote matters , but how any one of us votes does not . The chance an individual vote will make a difference is vanishingly small . Thus , we have little incentive to gather relevant information so that we can cast our votes in careful , thoughtful ways… . While not everything governments do is decided by voters — bureaucracies , parties and officials have significant independence — what voters want makes a difference . And since voters are generally uninformed , we get worse policies that we would with a better-informed electorate . I 'll leave for another time Brennan 's debatable contention that this `` better-informed electorate '' is really better informed where it counts . ( When this electorate says it favors `` free trade , '' does it actually mean neoliberal managed trade through government agreements , which may be what some of the supposedly lesser informed electorate fears ? ) Instead , I 'll focus on Brennan 's `` alternative to democracy called epistocracy . '' He explains : `` In a democracy , every citizen gets an equal right to vote . In an epistocracy , voting power is widespread , but votes are weighted : More knowledgeable citizens ' votes count more . '' Brennan lays out several ways to implement epistocracy , insisting that `` epistocracies should keep some things—like our basic rights—off the bargaining table . They should make power widespread because concentrating power among the few invites abuse . Epistocracies should have constitutional limits on power , judicial review , checks and balances and a bill of rights—just like representative democracies . '' That 's a relief , but can we really trust the informed elite to understand basic rights ? ( Did the framers of the Constitution get it right ? I argue otherwise in America 's Counter-Revolution : The Constitution Revisited . ) Even with his caveat , Brennan 's proposal leaves him open to the charge of elitism . Rod Dreher of The American Conservative writes : Restricting the vote to the cognitive elite is no solution . I would rather be ruled by the first thousand people through the gates at the Daytona 500 than the people in that room Friday night with Hillary Clinton and Barbra Streisand . Guess who holds more power already in our society ? That 's right : the cognitive elite . That 's how it works in a meritocracy . Prof. Brennan 's epistocracy would only give them more — for our own good . Brennan certainly does not blunt the elitism charge when he writes : Some would object that epistocracy is essentially inegalitarian . In an epistocracy , not everyone has the same voting power . But what 's so wrong with that ? Only some people have plumbing or hairdressing licenses because we accept that only some people are qualified to fix pipes or cut hair . Perhaps only some people , rather than everyone 18 and over , are truly qualified to decide who will lead the most powerful country on earth . Need I point out that it is astonishing for a libertarian to cite licensing in defense of his plan for an unequal distribution of voting power ? Formally , licensing is the state 's way of determining who may and may not engage in occupations supposedly in the interest of consumers . Actually , licensing is how incumbent practitioners of occupations exclude competition and hamper innovation in order to support the monopolistic incomes to which they have become accustomed . It 's a system of privilege . Why hitch political reform to it ? The public-choice problems with any form of epistocracy have long been noted , and Brennan is familiar with them . For example , who would compose the test to determine who gets extra votes ? Even if we assume that Brennan has good ideas about making any test fair , public-choice analysis gives us ███ to doubt that his ideas would be adopted . Another problem with testing relates to Gilbert Ryle 's distinction between `` knowing how '' and `` knowing that . '' Someone could be ignorant of the facts asked for on a test—what 's the unemployment rate ? what party controls Congress ? Etc.—but have perfectly libertarian instincts about what the government ought not to be able to do to him . Why should that person have fewer votes than , say , Paul Krugman or George Will ? The shame here is the Brennan need n't have gone down this road . He needed only to spell out the flaws in democracy , contrast stupid `` public '' action with reasonably intelligent private action , and call for a substantial shrinking of government—if not its abolition . Why invite the elitist charge with a call for an epistocracy ? Albert Jay Nock had it right in the opening of his classic book , Our Enemy the State : If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs , we can discern one fundamental fact , namely , a great redistribution of power between society and the State . This is the fact that interests the student of civilization . He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price fixing , wage fixing , inflation , political banking , 'agricultural adjustment , ' and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians . All these can be run up under one head . They have an immediate and temporary importance , and for this ███ they monopolize public attention , but they all come to the same thing ; which is , an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power . It is unfortunately none too well understood that , just as the State has no money of its own , so it has no power of its own . All the power it has is what society gives it , plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another ; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn . Therefore every assumption of State power , whether by gift or seizure , leaves society with so much less power . There is never , nor can there be , any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power . Social power is Nock 's term for the web of peaceful consensual relations—market and otherwise—among free individuals . Thus the people 's best political framework is neither democracy nor epistocracy but original liberalism , or what we today call libertarianism .

Whenever we libertarians point out democracy's perverse incentives (as I do here) we risk being accused of elitism. However, those who assume that the only alternative to rule by the people is rule by an aristocracy reveal a tragically incomplete awareness of the choices before us. Rather than choose among rulers, we should ask why anyone at all must rule. But even if we don't go quite that far, we could entertain the idea that radically reducing the scale and scope of government, which essentially is the threat of violence, would also drastically reduce the harm produced by those perverse incentives. Elitism isn't the only available alternative to democracy—and it certainly is not the most desirable one. Unfortunately, some libertarian critiques of democracy encourage nonlibertarians to believe some form of elitism is the only alternative. Take Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan's recent op-ed, "Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?" in the Los Angeles Times, which is drawn from his book Against Democracy. Brennan begins by citing democracy's systemic flaw: "The median voter wields great power over what politicians ultimately do. But—and here's the problem—the median voter would fail economics or Political Science 101." "For 60 years, political scientists have studied what voters actually know," Brennan continues. The results are depressing. Hundreds of different surveys, such as the American National Election Studies, find that the median voter is ignorant or misinformed not only about the social sciences needed to evaluate candidates' policy proposals, but even of basic facts and trends, such as what the unemployment rate is and whether it's going up or down. This isn't because public schools fail us. It's not because Fox News or MSNBC (take your pick) bamboozles poor voters with well-crafted lies. It's not because people are inherently stupid or unable to think for themselves. It's because democracy gives us the wrong incentives. How we vote matters, but how any one of us votes does not. The chance an individual vote will make a difference is vanishingly small. Thus, we have little incentive to gather relevant information so that we can cast our votes in careful, thoughtful ways…. While not everything governments do is decided by voters — bureaucracies, parties and officials have significant independence — what voters want makes a difference. And since voters are generally uninformed, we get worse policies that we would with a better-informed electorate. I'll leave for another time Brennan's debatable contention that this "better-informed electorate" is really better informed where it counts. (When this electorate says it favors "free trade," does it actually mean neoliberal managed trade through government agreements, which may be what some of the supposedly lesser informed electorate fears?) Instead, I'll focus on Brennan's "alternative to democracy called epistocracy." He explains: "In a democracy, every citizen gets an equal right to vote. In an epistocracy, voting power is widespread, but votes are weighted: More knowledgeable citizens' votes count more." Brennan lays out several ways to implement epistocracy, insisting that "epistocracies should keep some things—like our basic rights—off the bargaining table. They should make power widespread because concentrating power among the few invites abuse. Epistocracies should have constitutional limits on power, judicial review, checks and balances and a bill of rights—just like representative democracies." That's a relief, but can we really trust the informed elite to understand basic rights? (Did the framers of the Constitution get it right? I argue otherwise in America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.) Even with his caveat, Brennan's proposal leaves him open to the charge of elitism. Rod Dreher of The American Conservative writes: Restricting the vote to the cognitive elite is no solution. I would rather be ruled by the first thousand people through the gates at the Daytona 500 than the people in that room Friday night with Hillary Clinton and Barbra Streisand. Guess who holds more power already in our society? That's right: the cognitive elite. That's how it works in a meritocracy. Prof. Brennan's epistocracy would only give them more — for our own good. Brennan certainly does not blunt the elitism charge when he writes: Some would object that epistocracy is essentially inegalitarian. In an epistocracy, not everyone has the same voting power. But what's so wrong with that? Only some people have plumbing or hairdressing licenses because we accept that only some people are qualified to fix pipes or cut hair. Perhaps only some people, rather than everyone 18 and over, are truly qualified to decide who will lead the most powerful country on earth. Need I point out that it is astonishing for a libertarian to cite licensing in defense of his plan for an unequal distribution of voting power? Formally, licensing is the state's way of determining who may and may not engage in occupations supposedly in the interest of consumers. Actually, licensing is how incumbent practitioners of occupations exclude competition and hamper innovation in order to support the monopolistic incomes to which they have become accustomed. It's a system of privilege. Why hitch political reform to it? The public-choice problems with any form of epistocracy have long been noted, and Brennan is familiar with them. For example, who would compose the test to determine who gets extra votes? Even if we assume that Brennan has good ideas about making any test fair, public-choice analysis gives us reason to doubt that his ideas would be adopted. Another problem with testing relates to Gilbert Ryle's distinction between "knowing how" and "knowing that." Someone could be ignorant of the facts asked for on a test—what's the unemployment rate? what party controls Congress? Etc.—but have perfectly libertarian instincts about what the government ought not to be able to do to him. Why should that person have fewer votes than, say, Paul Krugman or George Will? The shame here is the Brennan needn't have gone down this road. He needed only to spell out the flaws in democracy, contrast stupid "public" action with reasonably intelligent private action, and call for a substantial shrinking of government—if not its abolition. Why invite the elitist charge with a call for an epistocracy? Albert Jay Nock had it right in the opening of his classic book, Our Enemy the State: If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely, a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price fixing, wage fixing, inflation, political banking, 'agricultural adjustment,' and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power. It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power. (Emphasis added.) Social power is Nock's term for the web of peaceful consensual relations—market and otherwise—among free individuals. Thus the people's best political framework is neither democracy nor epistocracy but original liberalism, or what we today call libertarianism. This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog.

www.reason.com

right

Fi4Q1vvBtSMiZSGM

test

HxXPcwaDzQuxAqQv

fbi

American Spectator

http://spectator.org/reopening-email-investigation-stain-on-clinton-and-comey/

Reopening Email Investigation Stain on Clinton AND Comey

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

Anthony Weiner , a man ill-equipped to keep even his most private equipment from public exposure , possessed emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on his home computer . The revelation prompted the FBI to announce Friday a reopening of its investigation into the former secretary of state sending and receiving public business on a private server . The FBI remained unaware of these electronic missives when its director recommended not to indict Clinton this summer . “ In connection with an unrelated case , the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation , ” FBI Director James Comey wrote Congressional leaders . “ I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information , as well as to assess their importance to our investigation . ” Comey continued that “ the FBI can not yet assess whether or not this material may be significant ” or contain classified documents . But amateur sleuths without training at Quantico can deduce that if Andrew Breitbart could obtain a picture of the former member of Congress ’ s member originating from one of his digital devices , then surely the Russians , Chinese , North Koreans , or just bored kids in California could easily obtain documents on the computer shared by Weiner ’ s wife Huma Abedin originating from the secretary of state . Like the publication of private emails from Clinton ’ s closest aides through WikiLeaks , the discovery of the former secretary ’ s emails on Anthony Weiner ’ s computer suggests that shielding public business on a private server left State Department less protected than its secretary . Joe diGenova , a former U.S. attorney and independent counsel , believes the reopening of the case hurts not just Clinton but Comey . “ The stunning revelation in Comey ’ s letter to various Congressional committees today reveals that the Bureau ’ s investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a private , unsecured , unencrypted server in her home to conduct government business was not thorough , ” diGenova told The ███ on Friday . “ Any rudimentary probe would have required that the devices of a target/subject ’ s husband be seized and examined . The fact that Weiner ’ s devices were not seized shows a level of incompetence by Comey that should lead to his resignation . ” Comey characterizing a unilateral decision to recommend not indicting Clinton as unanimous within the bureau hurt his standing with the rank-and-file . The decision to come clean with the findings regarding the separate Anthony Weiner investigation on Friday preempts any danger of investigators fed up with their boss ’ s handling of the matter from leaking the findings to the press . “ Comey ’ s letter to the Hill was the most embarrassing moment for the Bureau since former director L. Patrick Gray burned Watergate documents in his fireplace , ” diGenova judges . “ Former and current agents remain bereft and view Comey as a ‘ dirty cop. ’ They believe that he threw the original case for political reasons and no longer has the moral authority to lead the world ’ s premier investigative agency . ” The director , in a damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don ’ t position this summer in opening up the bureau to charges of politicizing the apolitical FBI whether he recommended an indictment of not , now , less than two weeks before an election , puts himself and the bureau in a far more precarious spot . “ Now , because of his cynical use of his power originally to be a ‘ hero ’ he must either end the new probe quickly and be criticized for that or let it [ continue ] beyond the election and be criticized for that , ” diGenova notes . “ It is all a disaster of his own making . ”

Anthony Weiner, a man ill-equipped to keep even his most private equipment from public exposure, possessed emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on his home computer. The revelation prompted the FBI to announce Friday a reopening of its investigation into the former secretary of state sending and receiving public business on a private server. The FBI remained unaware of these electronic missives when its director recommended not to indict Clinton this summer. “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” FBI Director James Comey wrote Congressional leaders. “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” Comey continued that “the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant” or contain classified documents. But amateur sleuths without training at Quantico can deduce that if Andrew Breitbart could obtain a picture of the former member of Congress’s member originating from one of his digital devices, then surely the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or just bored kids in California could easily obtain documents on the computer shared by Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin originating from the secretary of state. Like the publication of private emails from Clinton’s closest aides through WikiLeaks, the discovery of the former secretary’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer suggests that shielding public business on a private server left State Department less protected than its secretary. Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney and independent counsel, believes the reopening of the case hurts not just Clinton but Comey. “The stunning revelation in Comey’s letter to various Congressional committees today reveals that the Bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private, unsecured, unencrypted server in her home to conduct government business was not thorough,” diGenova told The American Spectator on Friday. “Any rudimentary probe would have required that the devices of a target/subject’s husband be seized and examined. The fact that Weiner’s devices were not seized shows a level of incompetence by Comey that should lead to his resignation.” Comey characterizing a unilateral decision to recommend not indicting Clinton as unanimous within the bureau hurt his standing with the rank-and-file. The decision to come clean with the findings regarding the separate Anthony Weiner investigation on Friday preempts any danger of investigators fed up with their boss’s handling of the matter from leaking the findings to the press. “Comey’s letter to the Hill was the most embarrassing moment for the Bureau since former director L. Patrick Gray burned Watergate documents in his fireplace,” diGenova judges. “Former and current agents remain bereft and view Comey as a ‘dirty cop.’ They believe that he threw the original case for political reasons and no longer has the moral authority to lead the world’s premier investigative agency.” The director, in a damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don’t position this summer in opening up the bureau to charges of politicizing the apolitical FBI whether he recommended an indictment of not, now, less than two weeks before an election, puts himself and the bureau in a far more precarious spot. “Now, because of his cynical use of his power originally to be a ‘hero’ he must either end the new probe quickly and be criticized for that or let it [continue] beyond the election and be criticized for that,” diGenova notes. “It is all a disaster of his own making.”

www.spectator.org

right

HxXPcwaDzQuxAqQv

test

KcraidT8qGg5BCQm

nuclear_weapons

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/u-s-ultimatum-on-nuclear-deal-new-sanctions-draw-iran-threat-idUSKBN1F20FG

U.S. ultimatum on nuclear deal, new sanctions draw Iran threat

2018-01-14

Andrey Ostroukh

MOSCOW ( ███ ) - Iran said on Saturday it would retaliate against new sanctions imposed by the United States after President Donald Trump set an ultimatum to fix “ disastrous flaws ” in a deal curbing Tehran ’ s nuclear program . Trump said on Friday he would waive nuclear sanctions on Iran for the last time to give the United States and European allies a final chance to amend the pact . Washington also imposed sanctions on the head of Iran ’ s judiciary and others . Russia - one of the parties to the Iran pact alongside the United States , China , France , Britain , Germany and the European Union - called Trump ’ s comments “ extremely negative . ” The ultimatum puts pressure on Europeans , key backers of the 2015 nuclear deal , to satisfy Trump , who wants the pact strengthened with a separate agreement within 120 days . While approving the waiver on U.S. sanctions related to the nuclear deal , Washington announced other sanctions against 14 Iranian entities and people , including judiciary head Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani , a close ally of Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei . Describing sanctions against Larijani as “ hostile action ” , Iran ’ s Foreign Ministry said the move “ crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic , ” state media reported . Iran ’ s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had earlier said on Twitter that the deal was “ not renegotiable ” and that Trump ’ s move “ amounts to desperate attempts to undermine a solid multilateral agreement . ” Iran says its nuclear program has only peaceful aims and says it will stick to the accord as long as others respect it . But it has said it would “ shred ” the deal if Washington quit . Trump , who has sharply criticized the deal reached in Barack Obama ’ s presidency , had chafed at having to once again waive sanctions on a country he sees as a threat in the Middle East . “ Despite my strong inclination , I have not yet withdrawn the United States from the Iran nuclear deal , ” Trump said in a statement , saying the options were to fix “ the deal ’ s disastrous flaws , or the United States will withdraw . ” “ This is a last chance , ” Trump said , pushing for a separate agreement and saying the United States would not waive sanctions again to keep Iran in the pact without such an agreement . Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called Trump ’ s remarks “ extremely negative ” , RIA state news agency reported . “ Our worst fears are being confirmed , ” he said . FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing a proclamation to honor Martin Luther King Jr. day in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington , U.S. , January 12 , 2018 . ███/Joshua Roberts The EU said in a statement it had taken note of Trump ’ s decision and would assess its implications . “ It ’ s going to be complicated to save the deal after this , ” said one European diplomat , speaking on condition of anonymity . Britain , France and Germany had called on Trump on Thursday to uphold the pact . Senior U.S. administration officials told reporters Trump would work with Europeans on a follow-on deal to enshrine triggers that the Iranian government could not exceed related to ballistic missiles . Republican Senator Bob Corker said “ significant progress ” had been made on bipartisan congressional legislation to address “ flaws in the agreement without violating U.S. commitments . ” Trump laid out conditions to keep Washington in the deal . Iran must allow “ immediate inspections at all sites requested by international inspectors , ” he said , and “ sunset ” provisions imposing limits on Iran ’ s nuclear program must not expire . Trump said U.S. law must tie long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs together , making any missile testing by Iran subject to “ severe sanctions . ” The president wants U.S. Congress to modify a law that reviews U.S. participation in the nuclear deal to include “ trigger points ” that , if violated , would lead to the United States reimposing its sanctions , the official said . This would not entail negotiations with Iran but would be the result of talks with European allies , the official said . A decision to withhold a waiver would have effectively ended the deal between Iran and the other international signatories . The other parties to the agreement would have been unlikely to join the United States in reimposing sanctions . Two EU diplomats said EU foreign ministers would discuss next steps at their next regular meeting on Jan. 22 in Brussels .

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Iran said on Saturday it would retaliate against new sanctions imposed by the United States after President Donald Trump set an ultimatum to fix “disastrous flaws” in a deal curbing Tehran’s nuclear program. Trump said on Friday he would waive nuclear sanctions on Iran for the last time to give the United States and European allies a final chance to amend the pact. Washington also imposed sanctions on the head of Iran’s judiciary and others. Russia - one of the parties to the Iran pact alongside the United States, China, France, Britain, Germany and the European Union - called Trump’s comments “extremely negative.” The ultimatum puts pressure on Europeans, key backers of the 2015 nuclear deal, to satisfy Trump, who wants the pact strengthened with a separate agreement within 120 days. While approving the waiver on U.S. sanctions related to the nuclear deal, Washington announced other sanctions against 14 Iranian entities and people, including judiciary head Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, a close ally of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Describing sanctions against Larijani as “hostile action”, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the move “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic,” state media reported. It did not specify what any retaliation might involve. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had earlier said on Twitter that the deal was “not renegotiable” and that Trump’s move “amounts to desperate attempts to undermine a solid multilateral agreement.” Iran says its nuclear program has only peaceful aims and says it will stick to the accord as long as others respect it. But it has said it would “shred” the deal if Washington quit. “LAST CHANCE” Trump, who has sharply criticized the deal reached in Barack Obama’s presidency, had chafed at having to once again waive sanctions on a country he sees as a threat in the Middle East. “Despite my strong inclination, I have not yet withdrawn the United States from the Iran nuclear deal,” Trump said in a statement, saying the options were to fix “the deal’s disastrous flaws, or the United States will withdraw.” “This is a last chance,” Trump said, pushing for a separate agreement and saying the United States would not waive sanctions again to keep Iran in the pact without such an agreement. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called Trump’s remarks “extremely negative”, RIA state news agency reported. “Our worst fears are being confirmed,” he said. FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before signing a proclamation to honor Martin Luther King Jr. day in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., January 12, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts The EU said in a statement it had taken note of Trump’s decision and would assess its implications. “It’s going to be complicated to save the deal after this,” said one European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. Britain, France and Germany had called on Trump on Thursday to uphold the pact. Senior U.S. administration officials told reporters Trump would work with Europeans on a follow-on deal to enshrine triggers that the Iranian government could not exceed related to ballistic missiles. Republican Senator Bob Corker said “significant progress” had been made on bipartisan congressional legislation to address “flaws in the agreement without violating U.S. commitments.” CONDITIONS Trump laid out conditions to keep Washington in the deal. Iran must allow “immediate inspections at all sites requested by international inspectors,” he said, and “sunset” provisions imposing limits on Iran’s nuclear program must not expire. Trump said U.S. law must tie long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs together, making any missile testing by Iran subject to “severe sanctions.” The president wants U.S. Congress to modify a law that reviews U.S. participation in the nuclear deal to include “trigger points” that, if violated, would lead to the United States reimposing its sanctions, the official said. Slideshow (2 Images) This would not entail negotiations with Iran but would be the result of talks with European allies, the official said. A decision to withhold a waiver would have effectively ended the deal between Iran and the other international signatories. The other parties to the agreement would have been unlikely to join the United States in reimposing sanctions. Two EU diplomats said EU foreign ministers would discuss next steps at their next regular meeting on Jan. 22 in Brussels.

www.reuters.com

center

KcraidT8qGg5BCQm

test

bupRWTYYsgqR6q4T

politics

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-conquering-loser/

The Conquering Loser

George Neumayr, Larry Thornberry, Dov Fischer, Daniel J. Flynn, Melissa Mackenzie, Scott S. Powell, William Murchison

In George Washington ’ s 1796 farewell address , he argued that of “ all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity , religion and morality are indispensable supports. ” In Barack Obama ’ s farewell address , he congratulated himself for undermining them . He identified America ’ s progress in the diminution of its historic religion and morality and urged Americans to embrace greater and greater departures from them . The country ’ s future , he said , depends upon welcoming Islam and the transgendered , among other favored groups , and eschewing “ discrimination , ” his catch-all term for any lingering conservatism in the country . At one point , he even tried to turn George Washington into a fellow progressive , ignoring the aforementioned quote for a dubious paraphrase designed to make Washington sound like a diversity-conscious liberal : “ In his own farewell address , George Washington wrote that self-government is the underpinning of our safety , prosperity , and liberty , but ‘ from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken… to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ’ ; that we should preserve it with ‘ jealous anxiety ’ ; that we should reject ‘ the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties ’ that make us one . ” Actually , Washington argued in his farewell address that self-government is dangerous if disconnected from conservative principles . He feared the intoxicated modern smugness that the spirit of the budding Enlightenment threatened to unleash on the country . He warned that the abandonment of religion and morality , in the name of a self-sufficient humanism , would lead to a vicious and decadent citizenry and tyrannical government . Disorder would replace order , with whoever is in power preying upon those without power . His worst fears have been realized in Obama ’ s “ fundamentally transformed ” America , where judges , bureaucrats , and pols liberated from the constraints of religion and morality invent bogus rights that collide with God-given ones , starting with the right to life of unborn children . The liberalism that Obama espouses is essentially an attempt to construct a society without religion and morality , one that is based not on traditional wisdom but upon the “ enlightenment ” of whoever is in power . Washington smelled a rat in the “ refined ” conceits of the Enlightenment . He asked in his farewell address — “ [ W ] here is the security for property , for reputation , for life , if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths , which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice ? ” — and rejected the idea “ that morality can be maintained without religion. ” He correctly predicted that “ national morality ” would suffer “ in exclusion of religious principle . ” Barack Obama gave his farewell address not in George Washington ’ s capital , but in the friendlier confines of Saul Alinsky ’ s Chicago , though the noise of a protester marred the start of his speech . He described his accomplishments as “ two steps forward one step back , ” but the title of Lenin ’ s pamphlet , “ One Step Forward , Two Steps Back , ” would have been more apt . To the end , he was the Bolshie community organizer , peppering his speech with repeated calls to hit the streets and “ organize . ” He spoke of “ change ” as the glory of America , but the theme of hope got shorter shrift . At times he sounded a bit hopeless , saying bleakly , “ After my election , there was talk of a post-racial America . Such a vision , however well-intended , was never realistic. ” But his spirit revived when he contemplated that today ’ s minorities might be tomorrow ’ s majorities . The implicit treatment of Trump in the speech was passive-aggressive , at once conceding his points and caricaturing them . At one moment , Obama was acknowledging the need for “ fair trade ” ; in the next , he was dismissing it as irrelevant . He worked in a few references to the white working class but quickly followed them up with a demagogic spin on Trumpism : “ After all , if every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and undeserving minorities , then workers of all shades will be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves . If we decline to invest in the children of immigrants , just because they don ’ t look like us , we diminish the prospects of our own children — because those brown kids will represent a larger share of America ’ s workforce . ” The speech was a jumble of platitudes and self-serving tips on how to run a democracy ( get out of your “ bubble , ” talk to people with whom you disagree , and so on ) , ostensibly directed to all Americans but really only intended for Trump and conservatives . The crowd roared when he said that “ reason and science matter , ” as if he had delivered a devastating riposte to the right . He talked about “ facts ” and “ information ” as the hallmarks of sane politics as if liberalism enjoys ownership over them , and “ decency ” of course was equated with support for “ marriage equality , ” a phrase that would have puzzled George Washington . To the extent that the speech descended into specifics , it ignored America ’ s most pressing problems while manufacturing and obsessing over imaginary ones , with climate change topping the list . “ In just eight years , we ’ ve halved our dependence on foreign oil , doubled our renewable energy , and led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet , ” he said . The Greek columns were gone from behind him , but he still sees himself as a demigod who can control the oceans . He continued , “ But without bolder action , our children won ’ t have time to debate the existence of climate change ; they ’ ll be busy dealing with its effects : environmental disasters , economic disruptions , and waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary . ” There was a lot of strutting and fist-pumping , but all of it couldn ’ t conceal that Obama leaves his party in ruins . It was a farewell address as hollow and delusional as his presidency .

In George Washington’s 1796 farewell address, he argued that of “all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” In Barack Obama’s farewell address, he congratulated himself for undermining them. He identified America’s progress in the diminution of its historic religion and morality and urged Americans to embrace greater and greater departures from them. The country’s future, he said, depends upon welcoming Islam and the transgendered, among other favored groups, and eschewing “discrimination,” his catch-all term for any lingering conservatism in the country. At one point, he even tried to turn George Washington into a fellow progressive, ignoring the aforementioned quote for a dubious paraphrase designed to make Washington sound like a diversity-conscious liberal: “In his own farewell address, George Washington wrote that self-government is the underpinning of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but ‘from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken… to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth’; that we should preserve it with ‘jealous anxiety’; that we should reject ‘the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties’ that make us one.” Actually, Washington argued in his farewell address that self-government is dangerous if disconnected from conservative principles. He feared the intoxicated modern smugness that the spirit of the budding Enlightenment threatened to unleash on the country. He warned that the abandonment of religion and morality, in the name of a self-sufficient humanism, would lead to a vicious and decadent citizenry and tyrannical government. Disorder would replace order, with whoever is in power preying upon those without power. His worst fears have been realized in Obama’s “fundamentally transformed” America, where judges, bureaucrats, and pols liberated from the constraints of religion and morality invent bogus rights that collide with God-given ones, starting with the right to life of unborn children. The liberalism that Obama espouses is essentially an attempt to construct a society without religion and morality, one that is based not on traditional wisdom but upon the “enlightenment” of whoever is in power. Washington smelled a rat in the “refined” conceits of the Enlightenment. He asked in his farewell address — “[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?” — and rejected the idea “that morality can be maintained without religion.” He correctly predicted that “national morality” would suffer “in exclusion of religious principle.” Barack Obama gave his farewell address not in George Washington’s capital, but in the friendlier confines of Saul Alinsky’s Chicago, though the noise of a protester marred the start of his speech. He described his accomplishments as “two steps forward one step back,” but the title of Lenin’s pamphlet, “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” would have been more apt. To the end, he was the Bolshie community organizer, peppering his speech with repeated calls to hit the streets and “organize.” He spoke of “change” as the glory of America, but the theme of hope got shorter shrift. At times he sounded a bit hopeless, saying bleakly, “After my election, there was talk of a post-racial America. Such a vision, however well-intended, was never realistic.” But his spirit revived when he contemplated that today’s minorities might be tomorrow’s majorities. The implicit treatment of Trump in the speech was passive-aggressive, at once conceding his points and caricaturing them. At one moment, Obama was acknowledging the need for “fair trade”; in the next, he was dismissing it as irrelevant. He worked in a few references to the white working class but quickly followed them up with a demagogic spin on Trumpism: “After all, if every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and undeserving minorities, then workers of all shades will be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves. If we decline to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don’t look like us, we diminish the prospects of our own children — because those brown kids will represent a larger share of America’s workforce.” The speech was a jumble of platitudes and self-serving tips on how to run a democracy (get out of your “bubble,” talk to people with whom you disagree, and so on), ostensibly directed to all Americans but really only intended for Trump and conservatives. The crowd roared when he said that “reason and science matter,” as if he had delivered a devastating riposte to the right. He talked about “facts” and “information” as the hallmarks of sane politics as if liberalism enjoys ownership over them, and “decency” of course was equated with support for “marriage equality,” a phrase that would have puzzled George Washington. To the extent that the speech descended into specifics, it ignored America’s most pressing problems while manufacturing and obsessing over imaginary ones, with climate change topping the list. “In just eight years, we’ve halved our dependence on foreign oil, doubled our renewable energy, and led the world to an agreement that has the promise to save this planet,” he said. The Greek columns were gone from behind him, but he still sees himself as a demigod who can control the oceans. He continued, “But without bolder action, our children won’t have time to debate the existence of climate change; they’ll be busy dealing with its effects: environmental disasters, economic disruptions, and waves of climate refugees seeking sanctuary.” There was a lot of strutting and fist-pumping, but all of it couldn’t conceal that Obama leaves his party in ruins. It was a farewell address as hollow and delusional as his presidency.

www.spectator.org

right

bupRWTYYsgqR6q4T

test

uEZVJPpTj9LQLw2y

polarization

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-condemns-repugnant-hate-groups-including-kkk-neo/story?id=49208560

Trump calls out KKK and neo-Nazis after backlash to Charlottesville remarks

Adam Kelsey

President Donald Trump condemned hate groups , including white supremacists , in remarks from the White House on Monday , after receiving criticism for his initial statement on the violence in Charlottesville , Virginia , over the weekend . Interested in Charlottesville ? Add Charlottesville as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Charlottesville news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest `` Racism is evil , '' said Trump , two days after a driver rammed a car into a crowd of people in the midst of violent clashes over a white nationalist rally in the city . `` And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs , including the [ Ku Klux Klan ] , neo-Nazis , white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans . '' Trump 's immediate response to the violence , which did not label the ramming an act of terrorism or include a denunciation of white supremacists , was met with bipartisan backlash . In remarks on the rally and subsequent clashes from his golf club in New Jersey on Saturday , he condemned the `` egregious display of hatred , bigotry and violence on many sides . '' A White House official later elaborated on Trump 's comments , indicating that he was opposed to the `` hatred , bigotry and violence from all sources and all sides '' and noting that `` there was violence between protesters and counterprotesters . '' Trump 's address on Monday came after a meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray . Trump noted on Saturday that the Department of Justice opened a federal civil rights investigation into the ramming and addressed those who contributed to the violence in Charlottesville . `` To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend 's racist violence , you will be held fully accountable , '' said Trump . `` Justice will be delivered . '' On Monday morning , Sessions defended Trump 's initial response , telling ███ that `` he explicitly condemned the kind of ideology behind these movements of Nazism , white supremacy , the KKK . '' He added that the attack met `` the definition of domestic terrorism . '' Trump did not use the term `` terrorism '' during his speech on Monday .

President Donald Trump condemned hate groups, including white supremacists, in remarks from the White House on Monday, after receiving criticism for his initial statement on the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend. Interested in Charlottesville? Add Charlottesville as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Charlottesville news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest "Racism is evil," said Trump, two days after a driver rammed a car into a crowd of people in the midst of violent clashes over a white nationalist rally in the city. "And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the [Ku Klux Klan], neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans." Trump's immediate response to the violence, which did not label the ramming an act of terrorism or include a denunciation of white supremacists, was met with bipartisan backlash. In remarks on the rally and subsequent clashes from his golf club in New Jersey on Saturday, he condemned the "egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides." A White House official later elaborated on Trump's comments, indicating that he was opposed to the "hatred, bigotry and violence from all sources and all sides" and noting that "there was violence between protesters and counterprotesters." Trump's address on Monday came after a meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray. Trump noted on Saturday that the Department of Justice opened a federal civil rights investigation into the ramming and addressed those who contributed to the violence in Charlottesville. "To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend's racist violence, you will be held fully accountable," said Trump. "Justice will be delivered." On Monday morning, Sessions defended Trump's initial response, telling ABC News that "he explicitly condemned the kind of ideology behind these movements of Nazism, white supremacy, the KKK." "That is his unequivocal position," said Sessions. He added that the attack met "the definition of domestic terrorism." Trump did not use the term "terrorism" during his speech on Monday.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

uEZVJPpTj9LQLw2y

test

O1FdqWM4lT9E4lBh

politics

CBN

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2017/march/america-is-once-again-ready-to-lead-trump-lays-out-bold-inspirational-vision

'America Is Once Again Ready to Lead': Trump Lays Out Bold, Inspirational Vision

2017-03-01

WASHINGTON -- With one speech President Donald Trump set out to unify a divided nation , inspire the future and assure Americans he intends to keep his promises . What we 're witnessing today , the president says , is a renewal of the American spirit . `` Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead , '' Trump assured the audience . He set the tone with a public commemoration of Black History Month while reflecting on the work that remains to be done . Click here for President Trump 's speech to Congress , the Democratic response , and ███ News analysis from our Washington studio . `` Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries as well as last week 's shooting in Kansas City remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies , we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms , '' Trump stated . He called education the civil rights issue of our day and suggested that allowing school choice will help revitalize urban regions failing minority youths . Despite court delays of his so called travel ban order , the president doubled down on his promise to get tough on illegal immigration . `` We are removing gang members , drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens . Bad ones are going out as I speak , '' said Trump . House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , says the president hit a home run . He succeeded in offering some details congressional Republicans can rally behind as he works to score some badly needed legislative victories . `` We should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges , '' Trump said . In one of the night 's most moving moments , the president recognized Carryn Owens , widow of Senior Chief William `` Ryan '' Owens , who was killed last month in a covert raid against al Qaeda in Yemen . He was the first service member to die under Trump 's watch . `` For as the Bible teaches us , there is no greater active love than to lay down one 's life for one 's friends . Ryan laid down his life for his friends , for his country and for our freedom , '' Trump said . Tears streamed down his widow 's cheeks as members of Congress stood and clapped for several minutes . In an effort to appeal to evangelicals and Rust Belt voters who put Trump in the White House , Democrats chose former Kentucky Gov . Steve Beshear to deliver the party 's response . Beshear recounted his Baptist heritage , patriotism and family values from a diner in Lexington as he criticized the president for rolling back regulations , waging war on immigrants and calling to repeal Obamacare . `` You know , in 2010 , this country made a commitment : that every American deserved health care they could afford and rely on . And we Democrats are going to do everything in our power to keep President Trump and the Republican Congress from reneging on that commitment , '' Beshear warned . Meanwhile , the president asked Congress to dream big and dare bold moves for the nation . `` This is our vision . This is our mission , '' Trump said . `` But we can only get there together . We are one people with one destiny . We all bleed the same blood . We all salute the same great American flag and we are all made by the same God . '' Immediately following the address , congressional members had a lot to say about President Trump 's joint address . `` I thought you saw a bold , positive message , a message that I think resonates with the American people , '' said Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas . Many spoke highly of the president 's unifying speech and statesman-like demeanor . `` I give him an A+ , '' said Congressman Jody Hice , R-Ga. `` I think he knocked it out of the park and went straight to the hearts of the American people , and I think he won the hearts of the American people . '' `` I think it was one of the best speeches I 've heard him give . It was a very powerful speech , '' he said . `` They gave him a teleprompter . He read off the teleprompter . What I 'm curious to see is what is he going to do when he 's speaking extemporaneously because that 's when the presidential character truly comes out , '' warned Congressman Donald McEachin , D-Va . Congressman Bobby Scott , D-Va. , told ███ News he wants more specifics from the president . `` There were a lot of good parts to it and spots of aspiration , but he was very weak on details , '' Scott noted . `` The budget , for example , provided more money for defense , more money for veterans , a trillion dollars for infrastructure , and tax cuts for corporations and middle class , and no indication of how the numbers would actually add up . '' But Republican lawmakers feel encouraged and are ready to work on priorities like immigration reform and repealing and replacing Obamacare . `` We 're going to work together , the Congress with the president , and we 're going to provide the American people the market-driven , competitive-driven healthcare , '' pledged Congressman Robert Pittenger , R-N.C . `` I think we are poised for this to be the most productive Congress in decades , '' Cruz said . Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky , met with President Trump ahead of his speech and told the media they are on board with the president 's bold agenda .

WASHINGTON -- With one speech President Donald Trump set out to unify a divided nation, inspire the future and assure Americans he intends to keep his promises. What we're witnessing today, the president says, is a renewal of the American spirit. "Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead," Trump assured the audience. He set the tone with a public commemoration of Black History Month while reflecting on the work that remains to be done. Click here for President Trump's speech to Congress, the Democratic response, and CBN News analysis from our Washington studio. "Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries as well as last week's shooting in Kansas City remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms," Trump stated. He called education the civil rights issue of our day and suggested that allowing school choice will help revitalize urban regions failing minority youths. Immigration Despite court delays of his so called travel ban order, the president doubled down on his promise to get tough on illegal immigration. "We are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak," said Trump. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., says the president hit a home run. He succeeded in offering some details congressional Republicans can rally behind as he works to score some badly needed legislative victories. "We should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges," Trump said. Honoring a Fallen Hero In one of the night's most moving moments, the president recognized Carryn Owens, widow of Senior Chief William "Ryan" Owens, who was killed last month in a covert raid against al Qaeda in Yemen. He was the first service member to die under Trump's watch. "For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater active love than to lay down one's life for one's friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country and for our freedom," Trump said. Tears streamed down his widow's cheeks as members of Congress stood and clapped for several minutes. The Democratic Response In an effort to appeal to evangelicals and Rust Belt voters who put Trump in the White House, Democrats chose former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to deliver the party's response. Beshear recounted his Baptist heritage, patriotism and family values from a diner in Lexington as he criticized the president for rolling back regulations, waging war on immigrants and calling to repeal Obamacare. "You know, in 2010, this country made a commitment: that every American deserved health care they could afford and rely on. And we Democrats are going to do everything in our power to keep President Trump and the Republican Congress from reneging on that commitment," Beshear warned. Meanwhile, the president asked Congress to dream big and dare bold moves for the nation. "This is our vision. This is our mission," Trump said. "But we can only get there together. We are one people with one destiny. We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same great American flag and we are all made by the same God." Lawmakers Weigh In Immediately following the address, congressional members had a lot to say about President Trump's joint address. "I thought you saw a bold, positive message, a message that I think resonates with the American people," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Many spoke highly of the president's unifying speech and statesman-like demeanor. "I give him an A+," said Congressman Jody Hice, R-Ga. "I think he knocked it out of the park and went straight to the hearts of the American people, and I think he won the hearts of the American people." Congressman Don Bacon, R-Neb., agreed. "I think it was one of the best speeches I've heard him give. It was a very powerful speech," he said. But not all House members were buying it. "They gave him a teleprompter. He read off the teleprompter. What I'm curious to see is what is he going to do when he's speaking extemporaneously because that's when the presidential character truly comes out," warned Congressman Donald McEachin, D-Va. Congressman Bobby Scott, D-Va., told CBN News he wants more specifics from the president. "There were a lot of good parts to it and spots of aspiration, but he was very weak on details," Scott noted. "The budget, for example, provided more money for defense, more money for veterans, a trillion dollars for infrastructure, and tax cuts for corporations and middle class, and no indication of how the numbers would actually add up." But Republican lawmakers feel encouraged and are ready to work on priorities like immigration reform and repealing and replacing Obamacare. "We're going to work together, the Congress with the president, and we're going to provide the American people the market-driven, competitive-driven healthcare," pledged Congressman Robert Pittenger, R-N.C. "I think we are poised for this to be the most productive Congress in decades," Cruz said. Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, met with President Trump ahead of his speech and told the media they are on board with the president's bold agenda.

www1.cbn.com

right

O1FdqWM4lT9E4lBh

test

epgwFgFPpZPR3Y5S

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/US/ralph-reed-biological-parents/2013/03/24/id/496090

Ralph Reed: Two 'Biological Parents' Best for Children

2013-03-24

Greg Richter

Two biological parents are best for children , according to Faith and Freedom Coalition president Ralph Reed . “ And it ’ s not even a close call. ” In a panel discussion on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” today , Reed said , “ The verdict of social science is overwhelming and irrefutable . And that is without regard to straight or gay . In other words , this applies to one-parent households , it applies to foster homes , it applies to the whole panoply – they ’ ve looked at them all – that the enduring , loving , intact , biological mother and father is best for children. ” The discussion came after host David Gregory referenced a poll showing acceptance of same-sex marriage had exactly reversed numbers since 2006 . Seven years ago , 58 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage , 36 percent favored it . Today , 36 percent oppose and 58 percent favor it.Fellow panelist Hilary Rosen took issue with Reed , pointing out that more than 60 percent of evangelical youth support gay marriage – “ unlike a lot of other issues that Ralph works on. ” Twitter lit up after Reed ’ s appearance , with @ LiberalCanuck tweeting , “ Hey bigot @ ralphreed . I live in a single parent household . Straight A student , on student council . Do n't tell me 2 parents is better than 1. ” Reed wrote back , “ Proud of u . Studies show both parents ideal . Never said children raised by single parents ca n't succeed . They can & do. ” @ beewel wrote : “ The teenage father or Drug addicted mom will be a better parent than a gay or lesbian couple ? Very narrow mind ” – to which Reed responded , “ issue not gay/straight . It 's intact , loving biological mom/dad in a durable marriage . Verdict of social science clear. ” BuzzFeed included adoptive parents in its report on Reed ’ s remarks , but it wasn ’ t clear if Reed literally mean biological parents only , or if adoptive parents were included . He didn ’ t actually use the term “ adoptive , ” but did use the phrase , “ the whole panoply. ” Reed has not yet responded to a question from ███ to clarify.The Supreme Court takes up challenges this week to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California ’ s Proposition 8 . Both laws limit the ability of gays to marry .

Two biological parents are best for children, according to Faith and Freedom Coalition president Ralph Reed. “And it’s not even a close call.” In a panel discussion on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today , Reed said, “The verdict of social science is overwhelming and irrefutable. And that is without regard to straight or gay. In other words, this applies to one-parent households, it applies to foster homes, it applies to the whole panoply – they’ve looked at them all – that the enduring, loving, intact, biological mother and father is best for children.”The discussion came after host David Gregory referenced a poll showing acceptance of same-sex marriage had exactly reversed numbers since 2006. Seven years ago, 58 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, 36 percent favored it. Today, 36 percent oppose and 58 percent favor it.Fellow panelist Hilary Rosen took issue with Reed, pointing out that more than 60 percent of evangelical youth support gay marriage – “unlike a lot of other issues that Ralph works on.”Twitter lit up after Reed’s appearance, with @LiberalCanuck tweeting, “Hey bigot @ralphreed. I live in a single parent household. Straight A student, on student council. Don't tell me 2 parents is better than 1.”Reed wrote back, “Proud of u. Studies show both parents ideal. Never said children raised by single parents can't succeed. They can & do.”@beewel wrote: “The teenage father or Drug addicted mom will be a better parent than a gay or lesbian couple? Very narrow mind” – to which Reed responded, “issue not gay/straight. It's intact, loving biological mom/dad in a durable marriage. Verdict of social science clear.”BuzzFeed included adoptive parents in its report on Reed’s remarks, but it wasn’t clear if Reed literally mean biological parents only, or if adoptive parents were included. He didn’t actually use the term “adoptive,” but did use the phrase, “the whole panoply.” Reed has not yet responded to a question from Newsmax to clarify.The Supreme Court takes up challenges this week to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. Both laws limit the ability of gays to marry.

www.newsmax.com

right

epgwFgFPpZPR3Y5S

test

vFmvOX09DxezcCF4

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ruralamerica-poll/trumps-popularity-is-slipping-in-rural-america-poll-idUSKBN1CE162

Trump's popularity is slipping in rural America: poll

2017-10-09

Chris Kahn

( ███ ) - Outside the Morgan County fair in McConnelsville , in a rural swath of Ohio that fervently backed U.S. President Donald Trump in last year ’ s election , ticket seller John Wilson quietly counts off a handful of disappointments with the man he helped elect . John Wilson , 70 , at the Morgan County Fair in McConnelsville , Ohio . ███/Tim Reid The 70-year-old retired banker said he is unhappy with infighting and turnover in the White House . He does not like Trump ’ s penchant for traveling to his personal golf resorts . He wishes the president would do more to fix the healthcare system , and he worries that Trump might back down from his promise to force illegal immigrants out of the country . “ Every president makes mistakes , ” Wilson said . “ But if you add one on top of one , on top of another one , on top of another , there ’ s just a limit . ” Trump , who inspired millions of supporters last year in places like Morgan County , has been losing his grip on rural America . According to the ███/Ipsos daily tracking poll , the Republican president ’ s popularity is eroding in small towns and rural communities where 15 percent of the country ’ s population lives . The poll of more than 15,000 adults in “ non-metro ” areas shows that they are now as likely to disapprove of Trump as they are to approve of him . In September , 47 percent of people in non-metro areas approved of Trump while 47 percent disapproved . That is down from Trump ’ s first four weeks in office , when 55 percent said they approved of the president while 39 percent disapproved . The poll found that Trump has lost support in rural areas among men , whites and people who never went to college . He lost support with rural Republicans and rural voters who supported him on Election Day . And while Trump still gets relatively high marks in the poll for his handling of the economy and national security , rural Americans are increasingly unhappy with Trump ’ s record on immigration , a central part of his presidential campaign . Forty-seven percent of rural Americans said in September they approved of the president ’ s handling of immigration , down from 56 percent during his first month in office . Poll respondents who were interviewed by ███ gave different reasons for their dissatisfaction with the president on immigration . A few said they are tired of waiting for Trump to make good on his promise to build a wall along America ’ s southern border , while others said they were uncomfortable with his administration ’ s efforts to restrict travel into the United States . “ There should be some sort of compromise between a free flow of people over the border and something that ’ s more controlled , ” said Drew Carlson , 19 , of Warrensburg , Missouri , who took the poll . But Trump ’ s “ constant fixation on deportation is a little bit unsettling to me . ” The Trump administration would not comment about the ███/Ipsos poll . To be sure , Trump is still much more popular in rural America than he is elsewhere . Since he took office , “ I like him less , but I support him more , ” said Robert Cody , 87 , a retired chemical engineer from Bartlesville , Oklahoma who took the poll . Cody said that Trump may rankle some people with the way he talks and tweets , but it is a small price to pay for a president who will fight to strip away government regulations and strengthen the border . When Trump called the election a “ last shot ” for the struggling coal industry and when he called for protecting the nation ’ s southern border with a “ big , fat , beautiful wall ” , he was speaking directly to rural America , said David Swenson , an economist at Iowa State University . “ Feelings of resentment and deprivation have pervaded a lot of these places , ” Swenson said . “ And here comes a candidate ( Trump ) who ’ s offering simplistic answers ” to issues that concern them . Rural Americans responded by supporting Trump over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 26 percentage points during the election , an advantage that helped tip the balance in battleground states , such as Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , where Trump won by less than 1 percentage point . But after 10 months , many are still waiting to see concrete changes that could make life easier in rural America , said Karl Stauber , who runs a private economic development agency serving a patchwork of manufacturing communities in south central Virginia . “ Rural people are more cynical about the federal government than people in general are , ” Stauber said . “ They ’ ve heard so many promises , and they ’ ve not seen much done . ” Despite all the talk of bringing manufacturing jobs back , Stauber said he has not seen any companies which have relocated to his region , or anyone expand their workforce , due to new federal policies . “ It just seems like we ’ ve dropped off the screen , ” he said . According to the poll , Trump ’ s overall popularity has dropped gradually , and for different reasons , this year . Rural Americans were increasingly unhappy with Trump ’ s handling of healthcare in March and April after he lobbied for a Republican plan to overhaul Obamacare and cut coverage for millions of Americans . In May and June , they were more critical of Trump ’ s ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy , and they gave him lower marks for “ the way he treats people like me . ” In August , they were increasingly unhappy with “ the effort he ’ s making to unify the country ” after he blamed “ both sides ” for the violence in Charlottesville , Virginia , in which a suspected white nationalist drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist demonstrators . The ███/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English across the United States . It asked people to rate the president ’ s performance and the results were filtered for people who lived in zip codes that fell within counties designated as “ non-metro ” by the federal government . The poll combined the results of “ non-metro ” respondents into nine , four-week periods . Each period included between 1,300 and 2,000 responses and had a credibility interval , a measure of accuracy , of 3 percentage points .

(Reuters) - Outside the Morgan County fair in McConnelsville, in a rural swath of Ohio that fervently backed U.S. President Donald Trump in last year’s election, ticket seller John Wilson quietly counts off a handful of disappointments with the man he helped elect. John Wilson, 70, at the Morgan County Fair in McConnelsville, Ohio. REUTERS/Tim Reid The 70-year-old retired banker said he is unhappy with infighting and turnover in the White House. He does not like Trump’s penchant for traveling to his personal golf resorts. He wishes the president would do more to fix the healthcare system, and he worries that Trump might back down from his promise to force illegal immigrants out of the country. “Every president makes mistakes,” Wilson said. “But if you add one on top of one, on top of another one, on top of another, there’s just a limit.” Trump, who inspired millions of supporters last year in places like Morgan County, has been losing his grip on rural America. According to the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll, the Republican president’s popularity is eroding in small towns and rural communities where 15 percent of the country’s population lives. The poll of more than 15,000 adults in “non-metro” areas shows that they are now as likely to disapprove of Trump as they are to approve of him. In September, 47 percent of people in non-metro areas approved of Trump while 47 percent disapproved. That is down from Trump’s first four weeks in office, when 55 percent said they approved of the president while 39 percent disapproved. The poll found that Trump has lost support in rural areas among men, whites and people who never went to college. He lost support with rural Republicans and rural voters who supported him on Election Day. And while Trump still gets relatively high marks in the poll for his handling of the economy and national security, rural Americans are increasingly unhappy with Trump’s record on immigration, a central part of his presidential campaign. Forty-seven percent of rural Americans said in September they approved of the president’s handling of immigration, down from 56 percent during his first month in office. Poll respondents who were interviewed by Reuters gave different reasons for their dissatisfaction with the president on immigration. A few said they are tired of waiting for Trump to make good on his promise to build a wall along America’s southern border, while others said they were uncomfortable with his administration’s efforts to restrict travel into the United States. “There should be some sort of compromise between a free flow of people over the border and something that’s more controlled,” said Drew Carlson, 19, of Warrensburg, Missouri, who took the poll. But Trump’s “constant fixation on deportation is a little bit unsettling to me.” The Trump administration would not comment about the Reuters/Ipsos poll. To be sure, Trump is still much more popular in rural America than he is elsewhere. Since he took office, “I like him less, but I support him more,” said Robert Cody, 87, a retired chemical engineer from Bartlesville, Oklahoma who took the poll. Cody said that Trump may rankle some people with the way he talks and tweets, but it is a small price to pay for a president who will fight to strip away government regulations and strengthen the border. DROPPING OFF THE SCREEN When Trump called the election a “last shot” for the struggling coal industry and when he called for protecting the nation’s southern border with a “big, fat, beautiful wall”, he was speaking directly to rural America, said David Swenson, an economist at Iowa State University. “Feelings of resentment and deprivation have pervaded a lot of these places,” Swenson said. “And here comes a candidate (Trump) who’s offering simplistic answers” to issues that concern them. Rural Americans responded by supporting Trump over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 26 percentage points during the election, an advantage that helped tip the balance in battleground states, such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump won by less than 1 percentage point. But after 10 months, many are still waiting to see concrete changes that could make life easier in rural America, said Karl Stauber, who runs a private economic development agency serving a patchwork of manufacturing communities in south central Virginia. “Rural people are more cynical about the federal government than people in general are,” Stauber said. “They’ve heard so many promises, and they’ve not seen much done.” Despite all the talk of bringing manufacturing jobs back, Stauber said he has not seen any companies which have relocated to his region, or anyone expand their workforce, due to new federal policies. “It just seems like we’ve dropped off the screen,” he said. According to the poll, Trump’s overall popularity has dropped gradually, and for different reasons, this year. Rural Americans were increasingly unhappy with Trump’s handling of healthcare in March and April after he lobbied for a Republican plan to overhaul Obamacare and cut coverage for millions of Americans. In May and June, they were more critical of Trump’s ability to carry out U.S. foreign policy, and they gave him lower marks for “the way he treats people like me.” In August, they were increasingly unhappy with “the effort he’s making to unify the country” after he blamed “both sides” for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a suspected white nationalist drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist demonstrators. The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online in English across the United States. It asked people to rate the president’s performance and the results were filtered for people who lived in zip codes that fell within counties designated as “non-metro” by the federal government. The poll combined the results of “non-metro” respondents into nine, four-week periods. Each period included between 1,300 and 2,000 responses and had a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of 3 percentage points.

www.reuters.com

center

vFmvOX09DxezcCF4

test

WqwMX0bp6NIQVrNI

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/2020/01/08/is-the-fbi-snooping-on-political-groups-and-ideological-publications/

Is the FBI Snooping on Political Groups and Ideological Publications?

2020-01-08

C.J. Ciaramella, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Peter Suderman, Charles Oliver, Matt Welch, Zuri Davis, Nick Gillespie, Jacob Sullum

The Cato Institute , a libertarian think tank , is calling on Congress to investigate whether the FBI is spying on it and other domestic political groups after public records requests raised the possibility that the Bureau has files on Cato and others . Patrick Eddington , a research fellow at Cato , has submitted more than 200 Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) requests for FBI files on political advocacy groups , civil liberties organizations , think tanks , and publications across the political spectrum . For about two dozen of those requests so far , the FBI said it could neither confirm or deny whether it had collected national security or foreign intelligence records on the groups . Those organizations include the immigrant rights group Kids in Need of Defense ; the Transgender Law Center ; former Rep. Ron Paul 's ( R–Texas ) Campaign for Liberty ; the grassroots Fourth Amendment advocacy group Restore the Fourth ; the Cato Institute ; and the ███ Foundation , which publishes ███ . ( You can see the Justice Department response upholding the FBI 's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of national security or foreign intelligence records on ███ here . ) In a press release issued Tuesday , the Cato Institute said the responses `` reveal the need for Congress to launch an aggressive investigation into FBI domestic surveillance practices . '' The well-worn `` can neither confirm nor deny '' phrase is known as a `` Glomar response . '' The term originated from a 1975 FOIA lawsuit by a Rolling Stone journalist against the CIA seeking records on the Glomar Explorer , a salvage ship the spy agency used in an audacious attempt to recover a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine . A federal judge ruled that the CIA could refuse to acknowledge the existence of such records if doing so would in and of itself compromise national security . The Glomar doctrine has since spread to other federal agencies , and even trickled down to state and local government agencies , such as the NYPD . A Glomar response , by design , obscures any attempt to discern the government 's activities , or lack thereof . The responses Eddington received could mean absolutely nothing . However , Eddington says that , while the Glomar responses do n't prove that the FBI has collected intelligence on these groups , their selective use at least raises the troubling possibility that the groups mentioned above were targeted for unconstitutional surveillance or information gathering . `` We know for a fact that Glomar invocations have been used to conceal actual , ongoing activities , and we also know that they 're not passing out Glomars like candy , '' Eddington , a former CIA analyst , says in an interview with ███ . The FBI has a long and sordid history of spying on dissident political groups , from early 20th century socialists and labor organizers , to civil rights leaders and post-9/11 environmentalists and peace activists , to Black Lives Matter protesters . In 2013 , The Guardian reported that the FBI kept files and created `` threat assessments '' on the co-founders of Antiwar.com for six years because of a mix-up . Last September , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FBI had to expunge its surveillance records on the site . `` We are a post-Edward Snowden organization , and so it is a matter of particular concern to us that we may be under surveillance in some sense by the FBI , '' says Alex Marthews , national chair of Restore the Fourth . `` We would consider it highly inappropriate if we were , because we know our activities to be entirely peaceful and constitutional . '' Eddington says that any such surveillance is inimical to freedom of speech . `` Anytime [ the FBI ] is engaged in gathering that kind of data on news organizations or on domestic groups that are exercising their First Amendment rights , that activity should be expressly prohibited in the absence of a genuine criminal predicate , '' Eddington says . `` It should absolutely be prohibited . ''

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, is calling on Congress to investigate whether the FBI is spying on it and other domestic political groups after public records requests raised the possibility that the Bureau has files on Cato and others. Patrick Eddington, a research fellow at Cato, has submitted more than 200 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for FBI files on political advocacy groups, civil liberties organizations, think tanks, and publications across the political spectrum. For about two dozen of those requests so far, the FBI said it could neither confirm or deny whether it had collected national security or foreign intelligence records on the groups. Those organizations include the immigrant rights group Kids in Need of Defense; the Transgender Law Center; former Rep. Ron Paul's (R–Texas) Campaign for Liberty; the grassroots Fourth Amendment advocacy group Restore the Fourth; the Cato Institute; and the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason. (You can see the Justice Department response upholding the FBI's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of national security or foreign intelligence records on Reason here.) In a press release issued Tuesday, the Cato Institute said the responses "reveal the need for Congress to launch an aggressive investigation into FBI domestic surveillance practices." The well-worn "can neither confirm nor deny" phrase is known as a "Glomar response." The term originated from a 1975 FOIA lawsuit by a Rolling Stone journalist against the CIA seeking records on the Glomar Explorer, a salvage ship the spy agency used in an audacious attempt to recover a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine. A federal judge ruled that the CIA could refuse to acknowledge the existence of such records if doing so would in and of itself compromise national security. The Glomar doctrine has since spread to other federal agencies, and even trickled down to state and local government agencies, such as the NYPD. A Glomar response, by design, obscures any attempt to discern the government's activities, or lack thereof. The responses Eddington received could mean absolutely nothing. However, Eddington says that, while the Glomar responses don't prove that the FBI has collected intelligence on these groups, their selective use at least raises the troubling possibility that the groups mentioned above were targeted for unconstitutional surveillance or information gathering. "We know for a fact that Glomar invocations have been used to conceal actual, ongoing activities, and we also know that they're not passing out Glomars like candy," Eddington, a former CIA analyst, says in an interview with Reason. The FBI declined to comment on this story. The FBI has a long and sordid history of spying on dissident political groups, from early 20th century socialists and labor organizers, to civil rights leaders and post-9/11 environmentalists and peace activists, to Black Lives Matter protesters. In 2013, The Guardian reported that the FBI kept files and created "threat assessments" on the co-founders of Antiwar.com for six years because of a mix-up. Last September, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FBI had to expunge its surveillance records on the site. "We are a post-Edward Snowden organization, and so it is a matter of particular concern to us that we may be under surveillance in some sense by the FBI," says Alex Marthews, national chair of Restore the Fourth. "We would consider it highly inappropriate if we were, because we know our activities to be entirely peaceful and constitutional." Eddington says that any such surveillance is inimical to freedom of speech. "Anytime [the FBI] is engaged in gathering that kind of data on news organizations or on domestic groups that are exercising their First Amendment rights, that activity should be expressly prohibited in the absence of a genuine criminal predicate," Eddington says. "It should absolutely be prohibited."

www.reason.com

right

WqwMX0bp6NIQVrNI

test

cbZndDdysT7Kiolk

media_bias

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/11/new-york-times-proved-trumps-case-firing-comey/

How the New York Times Proved Trump’s Case for Firing James Comey

2017-05-11

Aaron Klein

In an extensive article published last month that included interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement officials , congressional officials and other government employees , the New York Times published a stinging indictment of James B. Comey ’ s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe . The Times made the case that Comey violated FBI tradition , bypassed the Justice Department and went rogue on several occasions in a manner that clearly impacted the 2016 presidential election . In a letter on Tuesday from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein recommending that Comey be fired , Rosenstein specifically cited Comey ’ s alleged mishandling of the Clinton email probe as justification for Comey ’ s removal from office . “ I can not defend the Director ’ s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of secretary Clinton ’ s emails , ” Rosenstein wrote . “ And I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken . Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes ; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives . ” Rosenstein continued : “ The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General ’ s authority on July 5 , 2016 , and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution . It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement . At most , the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors . ” That is precisely the case made by the Times ’ April 22 article , titled , “ Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I . From Politics . Then He Shaped an Election . ” The Times says that for its article it interviewed “ more than 30 current and former law enforcement , congressional and other government officials . ” The newspaper concluded that Comey ’ s decision to inform Congress that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email probe less than two weeks before the presidential election “ violate [ ed ] the policies of an agency that does not reveal its investigations or do anything that may influence an election . ” The article related that Comey decided to plunge the FBI “ into the molten center of a bitter election ” in part because he feared “ the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I . had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret . ” A significant motivating factor for Comey ’ s rogue approach toward the Clinton email probe , the Times revealed , was his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department , especially then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch , whom , the newspaper reported , “ Mr . Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation . ” Indeed , according to the Times , Comey was aware of the existence of a document written by a Democratic operative that allegedly indicated Lynch would have protected Hillary Clinton in the email probe . The FBI had further information that the alleged Lynch document had been hacked by Russian intelligence , leading Comey to fear that Moscow could leak the document to call into question the independence of the U.S. government ’ s Clinton email probe , the Times reported . In his letter from Tuesday , Rosenstein argues that if Comey believed Lynch to be compromised he should have sought her recusal instead of taking matters into his own hands . “ The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Lynch had a conflict , ” Rosenstein wrote . “ But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General . ” Indeed , according to the Times , after it became clear that the F.B.I . did not discover Clinton emails showing intent to mishandle classified information – the agency believed those emails were among the correspondence deleted by Clinton – Comey made the decision to bypass the Justice Department and explain the case to the public . Nine months into the investigation , it became clear to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton was almost certainly not going to face charges . He quietly began work on talking points , toying with the notion that in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign , a Justice Department led by Democrats may not have the credibility to close the case , and that he alone should explain that decision to the public . Comey ’ s decision was further fueled by the alleged document written by a Democratic operative hacked by the Russians , a document that in Comey ’ s view raised “ questions about [ Lynch ’ s ] independence , ” the Times reported . Instead of seeking Lynch ’ s recusal , as Rosenstein would later outline as the proper course of action , Comey decided to go at it alone , take matters into his own hands and make his public pronouncements about Clinton ’ s email case without the Justice Department . The Times cited former Justice officials as “ deeply skeptical ” of Comey ’ s alleged reasoning : Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account . If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised , they say , why did he not seek her recusal ? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general , Sally Q. Yates , former officials said . Mr. Comey ’ s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation , one they say helps explain his decision-making . But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I . never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document ’ s author , and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight . Comey ’ s decision to go rogue was solidified , according to the Times ’ account , after Lynch ’ s infamous tarmac meeting at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in which former President Bill Clinton , the husband of the FBI ’ s main subject in a criminal probe , boarded the attorney general ’ s plane and reportedly stayed there for about twenty minutes . Yet Comey still did not seek Lynch ’ s recusal . The Times article related that after the tarmac episode , Comey “ knew for sure that when there was something to say about the case , he alone would say it . ” Afterwards , Comey held the press conference at which he criticized Clinton ’ s private email server as “ extremely careless ” before finally stating that “ no charges are appropriate in this case . ” With his pronouncements , Comey offered judgments and legal conclusions many argue are out of the purview of the FBI , which is charged with documenting the evidence and handing it over to the Justice Department . The Times cited unnamed “ frustrated ” prosecutors at the Justice Department complaining that Comey should have first consulted with them . Comey ’ s injection into the presidential race did not end there . Less than two weeks before the election , the FBI discovered a trove of Clinton emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner , the estranged husband of long-time top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin . Some of the emails , according to reports , originated on Clinton ’ s old BlackBerry server that she used before setting up her private home server and some believe may have contained the deleted messages . Comey ’ s decision centered on whether to follow FBI tradition and keep quiet about the reopening of the case , or inform Congress about the ongoing investigation , which , the Times related , “ everyone acknowledged would create a political furor . ” Eventually , Comey decided to go rogue again and inform Congress . Lynch was against the decision , the Times reported , and the Justice Department implored the FBI not to impact the presidential campaign in its final days . The Times reported that “ even at the F.B.I. , agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned . ” “ Career prosecutors and political appointees ” at the Justice Department quietly criticized not only Comey but Lynch for failing to stop the FBI director , the Times documented . A chorus of former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general from across the political spectrum publicly criticized Comey ’ s move . For example , Jamie S. Gorelick , who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration , opined that Comey was “ damaging our democracy . ” Writing in the Washington Post on October 29 , Gorelick slammed Comey ’ s decision to so publicly reopen the case just before the election as “ antithetical to the interests of justice , putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy . ” Gorelick co-authored the Washington Post opinion piece , titled , “ James Comey is damaging our democracy , ” with Larry Thompson , who served under the George W. Bush administration as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003 . Gorelick ’ s piece was referenced in Rosenstein ’ s letter on Tuesday recommending that Comey be fired , writing , “ I can not defend the director ’ s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton ’ s emails . ” Rosenstein referenced the criticism of Comey from other former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general . Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey , who served under President George W. Bush , observed that the Director stepped far outside his purview in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion “ because the FBI director doesn ’ t make that decision . ” Alberto Gonzales , who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush , called the decision an error in judgment . Eric Holder , who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama , said that the Director ’ s decision “ was incorrect . It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. ” Holder concluded that the Director broke with these fundamental principles and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI . Donald Ayer , who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W . Bush , along with other former Justice Department officials , was “ astonished and perplexed ” by the decision to “ break with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections . ” Aaron Klein is Breitbart ’ s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter . He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program , “ Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. ” Follow him on Twitter @ AaronKleinShow . Follow him on Facebook .

In an extensive article published last month that included interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement officials, congressional officials and other government employees, the New York Times published a stinging indictment of James B. Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe. The Times made the case that Comey violated FBI tradition, bypassed the Justice Department and went rogue on several occasions in a manner that clearly impacted the 2016 presidential election. In a letter on Tuesday from Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein recommending that Comey be fired, Rosenstein specifically cited Comey’s alleged mishandling of the Clinton email probe as justification for Comey’s removal from office. “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of secretary Clinton’s emails,” Rosenstein wrote. “And I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.” Rosenstein continued: “The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.” That is precisely the case made by the Times’ April 22 article, titled, “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. From Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The Times says that for its article it interviewed “more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials.” The newspaper concluded that Comey’s decision to inform Congress that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email probe less than two weeks before the presidential election “violate[ed] the policies of an agency that does not reveal its investigations or do anything that may influence an election.” The article related that Comey decided to plunge the FBI “into the molten center of a bitter election” in part because he feared “the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret.” Failed to seek Lynch recusal A significant motivating factor for Comey’s rogue approach toward the Clinton email probe, the Times revealed, was his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, especially then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, whom, the newspaper reported, “Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.” Indeed, according to the Times, Comey was aware of the existence of a document written by a Democratic operative that allegedly indicated Lynch would have protected Hillary Clinton in the email probe. The FBI had further information that the alleged Lynch document had been hacked by Russian intelligence, leading Comey to fear that Moscow could leak the document to call into question the independence of the U.S. government’s Clinton email probe, the Times reported. In his letter from Tuesday, Rosenstein argues that if Comey believed Lynch to be compromised he should have sought her recusal instead of taking matters into his own hands. “The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Lynch had a conflict,” Rosenstein wrote. “But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.” Indeed, according to the Times, after it became clear that the F.B.I. did not discover Clinton emails showing intent to mishandle classified information – the agency believed those emails were among the correspondence deleted by Clinton – Comey made the decision to bypass the Justice Department and explain the case to the public. The paper reported: Nine months into the investigation, it became clear to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton was almost certainly not going to face charges. He quietly began work on talking points, toying with the notion that in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign, a Justice Department led by Democrats may not have the credibility to close the case, and that he alone should explain that decision to the public. Comey’s decision was further fueled by the alleged document written by a Democratic operative hacked by the Russians, a document that in Comey’s view raised “questions about [Lynch’s] independence,” the Times reported. Instead of seeking Lynch’s recusal, as Rosenstein would later outline as the proper course of action, Comey decided to go at it alone, take matters into his own hands and make his public pronouncements about Clinton’s email case without the Justice Department. The Times cited former Justice officials as “deeply skeptical” of Comey’s alleged reasoning: Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account. If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised, they say, why did he not seek her recusal? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, former officials said. Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making. But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I. never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document’s author, and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight. Comey’s decision to go rogue was solidified, according to the Times’ account, after Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in which former President Bill Clinton, the husband of the FBI’s main subject in a criminal probe, boarded the attorney general’s plane and reportedly stayed there for about twenty minutes. Yet Comey still did not seek Lynch’s recusal. The Times article related that after the tarmac episode, Comey “knew for sure that when there was something to say about the case, he alone would say it.” Made legal conclusions Afterwards, Comey held the press conference at which he criticized Clinton’s private email server as “extremely careless” before finally stating that “no charges are appropriate in this case.” With his pronouncements, Comey offered judgments and legal conclusions many argue are out of the purview of the FBI, which is charged with documenting the evidence and handing it over to the Justice Department. The Times cited unnamed “frustrated” prosecutors at the Justice Department complaining that Comey should have first consulted with them. Went rogue a second time despite FBI tradition Comey’s injection into the presidential race did not end there. Less than two weeks before the election, the FBI discovered a trove of Clinton emails on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of long-time top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Some of the emails, according to reports, originated on Clinton’s old BlackBerry server that she used before setting up her private home server and some believe may have contained the deleted messages. Comey’s decision centered on whether to follow FBI tradition and keep quiet about the reopening of the case, or inform Congress about the ongoing investigation, which, the Times related, “everyone acknowledged would create a political furor.” Eventually, Comey decided to go rogue again and inform Congress. Lynch was against the decision, the Times reported, and the Justice Department implored the FBI not to impact the presidential campaign in its final days. The Times reported that “even at the F.B.I., agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned.” “Career prosecutors and political appointees” at the Justice Department quietly criticized not only Comey but Lynch for failing to stop the FBI director, the Times documented. A chorus of former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general from across the political spectrum publicly criticized Comey’s move. For example, Jamie S. Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, opined that Comey was “damaging our democracy.” Writing in the Washington Post on October 29, Gorelick slammed Comey’s decision to so publicly reopen the case just before the election as “antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.” Gorelick co-authored the Washington Post opinion piece, titled, “James Comey is damaging our democracy,” with Larry Thompson, who served under the George W. Bush administration as deputy attorney general from 2001 to 2003. Gorelick’s piece was referenced in Rosenstein’s letter on Tuesday recommending that Comey be fired, writing, “I cannot defend the director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” Rosenstein referenced the criticism of Comey from other former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general. Besides Gorelick’s Post piece, Rosenstein’s letter further outlined: Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed that the Director stepped far outside his purview in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion “because the FBI director doesn’t make that decision.” Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision an error in judgment. Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director’s decision “was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions.” Holder concluded that the Director broke with these fundamental principles and negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI. Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush, along with other former Justice Department officials, was “astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook. With additional research by Joshua Klein.

www.breitbart.com

right

cbZndDdysT7Kiolk

test

QlFLITBQQ2rMI0rA

media_bias

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/when-media-foist-false-narratives-to-sow-social-discord-they-indeed-are-the-enemy-of-the-people/

OPINION: When Media Foist False Narratives to Sow Social Discord, They Indeed Are the Enemy of the People

Dov Fischer, Jed Babbin, Geoff Shepard, Roger Kaplan, J.T. Young, Debra J. Saunders, George Neumayr

Jim Acosta of CNN and other media personalities get exercised when the President calls Fake News the “ enemy of the people. ” President Trump does not call all news outlets or personalities by that term — only the Fake News . Certainly , that term is quite an incendiary sobriquet . The President reciprocates with it because he gets attacked with incendiary abuse . No American President in memory has been picked on and lied about with the intensity and frequency that President Trump has had to endure . The media — because it is almost-monolithically Left-Democrat — regularly depicted Ronald Reagan as a moron , occasionally tying him to a movie in which he acted , Bedtime for Bonzo , where he went to bed in one scene alongside a chimpanzee . ( They forget that he was cast in the film as a university professor . ) Reagan endured it , avoided reciprocal name-calling , and history unequivocally has registered that he actually was quite brilliant , understood what so many others could not grasp , revived the moribund Jimmy Carter economy with creative strategies and tax-cutting boldness that George H.W . Bush myopically had called “ Voodoo Economics , ” stared down Mikhail Gorbachev and defeated a century of Communism , and launched an anti-ballistic military focus that his enemies mocked as “ Star Wars ” but that today is central to protecting Western democracies from incoming ballistic missiles . The “ Iron Dome ” missile-defense system that Israel has used so effectively against Gaza Hamas terrorist rockets is the fruit of “ Star Wars . ” The Left Media almost universally depicted the brilliant Reagan as an idiot , and he somehow shrugged it off . Donald Trump is different because we do not manufacture our Presidents with interchangeable parts on an assembly line . It very well may be that the past week ’ s Pittsburgh terrorist attack , and the way the President responded , and the way the Left Media then hit the President viciously anyway is the “ Rosetta Stone ” — the small piece of archaeological evidence historians will need — to decipher that Donald Trump was right to call the Fake News Left Media the “ enemy of the people . ” 1 . “ The People ” Benefit From a Robust and Independent Press — and a Fake News Regime Indeed Is the Enemy of the People “ The People ” indeed benefit from a robust “ press ” — more accurately called “ media ” in this digital age of televised news , digital internet-based news , and so much more than the mere newsprint “ press. ” If Stalin ’ s Soviet Russia had been covered by a robust media ( and if such media could have survived ) , “ The People ” would have learned that Stalin ’ s five-year economic plans disastrously were failing and were leading to mass starvation , moreover that he consciously was perpetrating genocide by starving millions of Ukrainians to death in the Golodomor , that he was putting millions of prisoners to work in tundra prisons to dig through ice manually to build canals and other infrastructure . An honest news media would have alerted the West , too , that Stalin was murdering millions . The New York Times had a sycophantically pro-Stalin liar , Walter Duranty , filing Fake News reports from the Soviet Union for more than ten years . The Times published the lies daily as “ news ” and made him their Moscow bureau chief for fourteen years . As a result , the West was lulled , cheated of the truth , made unaware of the evil . Yes , the Fake News indeed was the enemy of the people . Likewise , the New York Times— and the other mainstream media who took their lead from them — by and large refused to report on the unfolding Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews . Between 1939 and 1945 , the New York Times published more than 23,000 front-page stories . Of those , 11,500 were about World War II . Only twenty-six — in six years — were about the Holocaust . The Times was passively complicit . A robust newsmedia can save lives by exposing and revealing , while a Fake News regime can serve to assist in the despoiling of a people . When media foist false narratives to sow social discord , or when they assist tyranny with falsehoods , they indeed are the enemy of the people . Social discord leads to streets being set on fire — witness Ferguson and Baltimore during the Obama Years . Social discord dispirits potentially valuable citizens who could help build a society , instead turning them against that society and motivating them to work towards its downfall or simply to drop out . In its worst aspect , social discord leads to armed insurrection and civil war . If the problem is that a Stalin is murdering millions by deliberately starving them while incarcerating millions others in slave camps in the Gulag , then insurrection and civil war can be righteous , potentially saving such a despoiled society . But when the society actually is doing quite well , when freedom reigns and people of all colors , creeds , religions , and ethnicities are enjoying remarkable opportunities to succeed and to live wonderfully rich and precious lives alongside their neighbors in respectful diversity , then Fake News media indeed are the enemy of the people when they seek to sow social discord in that welcome environment , aiming to up-end civil harmony . A maniacal dirtbag murdered eleven Jews in Pittsburgh . In time , perhaps after a decade or two of ACLU appeals , he will be electrocuted , injected , hanged , or hopefully all three . The dirtbag hated Jews , and he likewise hated President Trump . President Trump responded to the news immediately with profoundly sensitive and healing words aimed at condemning anti-Semitism and at comforting and consoling the Jewish community . Listen to his words . If the role of a President is to heal and unify , as President Reagan did after the Challenger tragedy , as President Bush did after 9-11 , then this President did so eloquently , sensitively . And then came the sowers of social discord to destroy the moment… . The Left Media would not allow the President that moment to heal and unify . Instantly , they brought in one Left-Democrat anti-Trump “ analyst ” after another to blame Mr. Trump for the attack . They never blamed President Jimmy Carter ’ s anti-Jewish rhetoric for the 1977 Brith Sholom Kneseth Israel synagogue shooting in St. Louis . Nor Bill Clinton for the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shootings of yeshiva students that included the murder of Ari Halberstam . Nor Clinton ’ s rhetoric for the 1999 Granada Hills Jewish Community Center shooting in Los Angeles . Nor Obama for the deadly 2009 Holocaust Museum shooting in Washington , D.C . Nor Obama for the 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center shootings in Kansas City that murdered three . But this time — with the same social dynamics as the others — they tried blaming the President . By sowing social discord with outright absolute falsehoods at a time that called for healing , the Left Media indeed were acting as enemy of the people . Facts are different from opinions . Facts can be discerned and evidenced . There is a reason that as many as 82 percent of Israeli Jews love President Trump , that more than 90 percent of American Orthodox Jews support President Trump . Likewise , a huge majority of British Jews — by more than three-to-one — support England ’ s conservative party and despise the Labour Socialists . Similarly , millions of Jews who have left the former Soviet Union hate Marxism and socialism , are solidly capitalist and conservative , indeed have changed the face of Israeli politics towards the more conservative Likud , now led by Benjamin Netanyahu . Throughout the world , Jews now vote conservative , are conservative — as reflected in our country , too , by American Orthodox Jews . The independent Pew Research Center has found that the Orthodox Jewish community will be the predominant Jewish community in a few decades , as the others disappear . Just as the voting patterns of the American Deep South have changed 180 degrees from Democrat to Republican in the century since the Civil War , so is the American Jewish metamorphosis now on pace to synchronize with every other Jewish community in the world that has moved towards conservatism . But Jews are not monolithic , as witness those in Hollywood and in certain media . So look at what the Fake News Left Media did after President Trump healed and unified : They received a news release from a small , utterly insignificant , nothing of a Radical Leftist group , calling itself “ Bend the Arc , ” which said that they did not want the President of the United States to visit Pittsburgh . The thing is , those Radical Leftists do not want the President to visit anywhere . Just as there are rabid Leftist Catholics ( not to mention the more mainstream Leftist Nancy Pelosi , Joe Biden , and the Kennedys ) and rabid Leftist Protestants , these also are rabid Leftists . Within the normative mainstream American Jewish community , “ Bend the Arc ” is a joke , off the charts . Their CEO started off as a sex-club “ dancer. ” C ’ mon ! As reported : “ Cotler , who identifies as queer , recounted how a lesbian couple invited her to their [ event ] after she did a table dance for them at what she refers to as a ‘ sex club. ’ ” Feh ! So this Leftist fringe group issues their statement — and the Fake News Left Media then falsely report that “ the Jews of Pittsburgh ” ( not “ some Jews ” ) do not want the President to visit . Consider these headlines — and they are a mere sampling : “ ‘ You Are Not Welcome ’ : Jewish Community Leaders Do Not Want President Trump To Come To Pittsburgh ” ( Salon ) “ Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders Tell Trump To Stay Away Unless He Denounces White Nationalism ” ( NY Daily News ) “ Trump ‘ Not Welcome ’ In Pittsburgh After Synagogue Shooting ” ( Al Jazeera ) “ Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders Tell Trump To Denounce White Nationalism ” ( Reuters ) All those stories thereupon cite the same insignificant radical-fringe “ Bend the Arc ” statement . Honestly — if there still is such a thing as honesty — that is outright Fake News . I know the American Jewish community . I have been a Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America , a congregational rabbi for decades , sat for six years during this past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America , have sat on committees of Jewish Federations and Boards of Hillels , have a whole lifetime résumé in this area . My rabbinical colleagues and I were bristling all day , reading and hearing this Fake News . The rabbi of the temple where the murders happened , Rabbi Jeffrey Meyers , explicitly welcomed a visit by the President . To report such lies , at a time of such intense passion , is to stoke flames among the populace . It is not unfair to call such liars “ Enemies of the People . ” They do it similarly to convince Americans of Color that this President hates them . He beams so proudly that he has helped reduce poverty and unemployment in the African-American community . Likewise , in the Latino and Greater Hispanic communities . It is a hallmark of his every speech . How compare him to Hitler , for G-d ’ s sakes ? Why sow social discord between and among races when the President , despite his classical Trumpian gaffes , actually takes so much pride in his being a President for all Americans , in a country where — in his trademark line — “ we all bleed the same red , white , and blue ” ? Why denigrate his outreach to Black Americans , whether via Kanye West and Jim Brown or by speaking to a Young Black Leadership Summit ? Why begin narrating his Presidency on Day One by reporting falsely , as Zeke Miller of Time magazine did , the lie that he had removed a bust of the Rev . Dr. Martin Luther King from the Oval Office ? Why publish falsehoods to sow discord among the Black and Latino communities — if not to aim cynically to peel away their votes — by trying falsely to report that he is a bigot who hates them ? Here is a man who was in the public eye , in the world ’ s media center in the heart of Manhattan , with a weekly network television show , building skyscrapers and hotels , golf courses and casinos — all bearing his name — and no stain of racism or bigotry of such sort ever got attached to him through all those decades in the limelight . Why cause enmity and divide the nation , disillusion African Americans and Latinos from recognizing that this President seeks their advancement alongside that of everyone else ? Only to sow civil discord , to promote tension and unrest in the name of advancing an agenda that assures greater television ratings , higher advertising dollars , and a change in the elected government chosen of The People , by The People , and for The People . 3 . The Proof the Pudding : Tagging the Most Pro-Jewish President in American History as an Anti-Semite . So it comes back to the Rosetta Stone — the way the Left Media falsely portrays this President ’ s relationship with one demographic , the Jews , demonstrating a pattern of Left Media mendacity aimed at sowing social discord throughout . Even before he was elected President , the Left Media was calling him an anti-Semite by clutching at straws to prove the false narrative . Just as they did by propping up “ Bend the Arc ” into a Fake News depiction as “ Jewish Leaders , ” they regularly dig up the most irrelevant and unrepresentative people from the Far Left who are JINOs— Jews In Name Only — as “ experts ” on Trump and anti-Semitism . It does not end . These are lies , damned lies , and more damned lies being perpetuated by enemies of the people . Just consider these facts about the Trump Administration and the Jews : This is an anti-Semite ? If so , may G-d smite us with an abundance of such anti-Semites ! Although his daughter , Ivanka , and son-in-law Jared Kushner are Orthodox Jews — as are their children , his grandchildren — that family connection in itself is not determinative . After all , we are told that George Soros is a Jew , and most every Jew I know would gladly trade Soros for two anti-Semites and a neo-Nazi to be named later . Soros is a major opponent of Israel and secretly funds organizations that oppose critical Israel policies . But the demonstrated life record of President Trump , a lifetime of working closely with Jews , amicably and warmly , makes him someone whom Jews throughout the world appreciate deeply . Again — every survey and poll of Jews who actually live the Jewish observances , the kosher laws , the Sabbath , the Torah demonstrates that he is warmly regarded in that community . The Fake News about Trump and Jews is the Rosetta Stone . Once one cracks that hidden code , everything else becomes clear . The Left Media indeed propound Fake News , lies , and falsehoods . They undertake to stoke anger among African Americans , among Latinos , among women . The People rely on them for the news , the truth — and , yes , for honest reporting when the President is wrong because The People benefit when they are told the truth , even when the truth is not pretty . But to depict him as an agent of Putin , as a man perpetrating treason , a hater ? These are the lies that come only from Enemies of the People .

Jim Acosta of CNN and other media personalities get exercised when the President calls Fake News the “enemy of the people.” President Trump does not call all news outlets or personalities by that term — only the Fake News. Certainly, that term is quite an incendiary sobriquet. The President reciprocates with it because he gets attacked with incendiary abuse. No American President in memory has been picked on and lied about with the intensity and frequency that President Trump has had to endure. The media — because it is almost-monolithically Left-Democrat — regularly depicted Ronald Reagan as a moron, occasionally tying him to a movie in which he acted, Bedtime for Bonzo, where he went to bed in one scene alongside a chimpanzee. (They forget that he was cast in the film as a university professor.) Reagan endured it, avoided reciprocal name-calling, and history unequivocally has registered that he actually was quite brilliant, understood what so many others could not grasp, revived the moribund Jimmy Carter economy with creative strategies and tax-cutting boldness that George H.W. Bush myopically had called “Voodoo Economics,” stared down Mikhail Gorbachev and defeated a century of Communism, and launched an anti-ballistic military focus that his enemies mocked as “Star Wars” but that today is central to protecting Western democracies from incoming ballistic missiles. The “Iron Dome” missile-defense system that Israel has used so effectively against Gaza Hamas terrorist rockets is the fruit of “Star Wars.” The Left Media almost universally depicted the brilliant Reagan as an idiot, and he somehow shrugged it off. Donald Trump is different because we do not manufacture our Presidents with interchangeable parts on an assembly line. It very well may be that the past week’s Pittsburgh terrorist attack, and the way the President responded, and the way the Left Media then hit the President viciously anyway is the “Rosetta Stone” — the small piece of archaeological evidence historians will need — to decipher that Donald Trump was right to call the Fake News Left Media the “enemy of the people.” 1. “The People” Benefit From a Robust and Independent Press — and a Fake News Regime Indeed Is the Enemy of the People “The People” indeed benefit from a robust “press” — more accurately called “media” in this digital age of televised news, digital internet-based news, and so much more than the mere newsprint “press.” If Stalin’s Soviet Russia had been covered by a robust media (and if such media could have survived), “The People” would have learned that Stalin’s five-year economic plans disastrously were failing and were leading to mass starvation, moreover that he consciously was perpetrating genocide by starving millions of Ukrainians to death in the Golodomor, that he was putting millions of prisoners to work in tundra prisons to dig through ice manually to build canals and other infrastructure. An honest news media would have alerted the West, too, that Stalin was murdering millions. The New York Times had a sycophantically pro-Stalin liar, Walter Duranty, filing Fake News reports from the Soviet Union for more than ten years. The Times published the lies daily as “news” and made him their Moscow bureau chief for fourteen years. As a result, the West was lulled, cheated of the truth, made unaware of the evil. Yes, the Fake News indeed was the enemy of the people. Likewise, the New York Times— and the other mainstream media who took their lead from them — by and large refused to report on the unfolding Nazi Holocaust of six million Jews. Between 1939 and 1945, the New York Times published more than 23,000 front-page stories. Of those, 11,500 were about World War II. Only twenty-six — in six years — were about the Holocaust. The Times was passively complicit. A robust newsmedia can save lives by exposing and revealing, while a Fake News regime can serve to assist in the despoiling of a people. When media foist false narratives to sow social discord, or when they assist tyranny with falsehoods, they indeed are the enemy of the people. Social discord leads to streets being set on fire — witness Ferguson and Baltimore during the Obama Years. Social discord dispirits potentially valuable citizens who could help build a society, instead turning them against that society and motivating them to work towards its downfall or simply to drop out. In its worst aspect, social discord leads to armed insurrection and civil war. If the problem is that a Stalin is murdering millions by deliberately starving them while incarcerating millions others in slave camps in the Gulag, then insurrection and civil war can be righteous, potentially saving such a despoiled society. But when the society actually is doing quite well, when freedom reigns and people of all colors, creeds, religions, and ethnicities are enjoying remarkable opportunities to succeed and to live wonderfully rich and precious lives alongside their neighbors in respectful diversity, then Fake News media indeed are the enemy of the people when they seek to sow social discord in that welcome environment, aiming to up-end civil harmony. 2. Pittsburgh: The Rosetta Stone A maniacal dirtbag murdered eleven Jews in Pittsburgh. In time, perhaps after a decade or two of ACLU appeals, he will be electrocuted, injected, hanged, or hopefully all three. The dirtbag hated Jews, and he likewise hated President Trump. President Trump responded to the news immediately with profoundly sensitive and healing words aimed at condemning anti-Semitism and at comforting and consoling the Jewish community. Listen to his words. If the role of a President is to heal and unify, as President Reagan did after the Challenger tragedy, as President Bush did after 9-11, then this President did so eloquently, sensitively. And then came the sowers of social discord to destroy the moment…. The Left Media would not allow the President that moment to heal and unify. Instantly, they brought in one Left-Democrat anti-Trump “analyst” after another to blame Mr. Trump for the attack. They never blamed President Jimmy Carter’s anti-Jewish rhetoric for the 1977 Brith Sholom Kneseth Israel synagogue shooting in St. Louis. Nor Bill Clinton for the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge shootings of yeshiva students that included the murder of Ari Halberstam. Nor Clinton’s rhetoric for the 1999 Granada Hills Jewish Community Center shooting in Los Angeles. Nor Obama for the deadly 2009 Holocaust Museum shooting in Washington, D.C. Nor Obama for the 2014 Overland Park Jewish Community Center shootings in Kansas City that murdered three. But this time — with the same social dynamics as the others — they tried blaming the President. By sowing social discord with outright absolute falsehoods at a time that called for healing, the Left Media indeed were acting as enemy of the people. Facts are different from opinions. Facts can be discerned and evidenced. There is a reason that as many as 82 percent of Israeli Jews love President Trump, that more than 90 percent of American Orthodox Jews support President Trump. Likewise, a huge majority of British Jews — by more than three-to-one — support England’s conservative party and despise the Labour Socialists. Similarly, millions of Jews who have left the former Soviet Union hate Marxism and socialism, are solidly capitalist and conservative, indeed have changed the face of Israeli politics towards the more conservative Likud, now led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Throughout the world, Jews now vote conservative, are conservative — as reflected in our country, too, by American Orthodox Jews. The independent Pew Research Center has found that the Orthodox Jewish community will be the predominant Jewish community in a few decades, as the others disappear. Just as the voting patterns of the American Deep South have changed 180 degrees from Democrat to Republican in the century since the Civil War, so is the American Jewish metamorphosis now on pace to synchronize with every other Jewish community in the world that has moved towards conservatism. But Jews are not monolithic, as witness those in Hollywood and in certain media. So look at what the Fake News Left Media did after President Trump healed and unified: They received a news release from a small, utterly insignificant, nothing of a Radical Leftist group, calling itself “Bend the Arc,” which said that they did not want the President of the United States to visit Pittsburgh. The thing is, those Radical Leftists do not want the President to visit anywhere. Just as there are rabid Leftist Catholics (not to mention the more mainstream Leftist Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and the Kennedys) and rabid Leftist Protestants, these also are rabid Leftists. Within the normative mainstream American Jewish community, “Bend the Arc” is a joke, off the charts. Their CEO started off as a sex-club “dancer.” C’mon! As reported: “Cotler, who identifies as queer, recounted how a lesbian couple invited her to their [event] after she did a table dance for them at what she refers to as a ‘sex club.’” Feh! So this Leftist fringe group issues their statement — and the Fake News Left Media then falsely report that “the Jews of Pittsburgh” (not “some Jews”) do not want the President to visit. Consider these headlines — and they are a mere sampling: “‘You Are Not Welcome’: Jewish Community Leaders Do Not Want President Trump To Come To Pittsburgh” (Salon) “Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders Tell Trump To Stay Away Unless He Denounces White Nationalism” (NY Daily News) “Trump ‘Not Welcome’ In Pittsburgh After Synagogue Shooting” (Al Jazeera) “Pittsburgh Jewish Leaders Tell Trump To Denounce White Nationalism” (Reuters) All those stories thereupon cite the same insignificant radical-fringe “Bend the Arc” statement. Honestly — if there still is such a thing as honesty — that is outright Fake News. I know the American Jewish community. I have been a Vice President of the Zionist Organization of America, a congregational rabbi for decades, sat for six years during this past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, have sat on committees of Jewish Federations and Boards of Hillels, have a whole lifetime résumé in this area. My rabbinical colleagues and I were bristling all day, reading and hearing this Fake News. The rabbi of the temple where the murders happened, Rabbi Jeffrey Meyers, explicitly welcomed a visit by the President. To report such lies, at a time of such intense passion, is to stoke flames among the populace. It is not unfair to call such liars “Enemies of the People.” They do it similarly to convince Americans of Color that this President hates them. He beams so proudly that he has helped reduce poverty and unemployment in the African-American community. Likewise, in the Latino and Greater Hispanic communities. It is a hallmark of his every speech. How compare him to Hitler, for G-d’s sakes? Why sow social discord between and among races when the President, despite his classical Trumpian gaffes, actually takes so much pride in his being a President for all Americans, in a country where — in his trademark line — “we all bleed the same red, white, and blue”? Why denigrate his outreach to Black Americans, whether via Kanye West and Jim Brown or by speaking to a Young Black Leadership Summit? Why begin narrating his Presidency on Day One by reporting falsely, as Zeke Miller of Time magazine did, the lie that he had removed a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King from the Oval Office? Why publish falsehoods to sow discord among the Black and Latino communities — if not to aim cynically to peel away their votes — by trying falsely to report that he is a bigot who hates them? Here is a man who was in the public eye, in the world’s media center in the heart of Manhattan, with a weekly network television show, building skyscrapers and hotels, golf courses and casinos — all bearing his name — and no stain of racism or bigotry of such sort ever got attached to him through all those decades in the limelight. Why cause enmity and divide the nation, disillusion African Americans and Latinos from recognizing that this President seeks their advancement alongside that of everyone else? Only to sow civil discord, to promote tension and unrest in the name of advancing an agenda that assures greater television ratings, higher advertising dollars, and a change in the elected government chosen of The People, by The People, and for The People. 3. The Proof the Pudding: Tagging the Most Pro-Jewish President in American History as an Anti-Semite. So it comes back to the Rosetta Stone — the way the Left Media falsely portrays this President’s relationship with one demographic, the Jews, demonstrating a pattern of Left Media mendacity aimed at sowing social discord throughout. Even before he was elected President, the Left Media was calling him an anti-Semite by clutching at straws to prove the false narrative. Just as they did by propping up “Bend the Arc” into a Fake News depiction as “Jewish Leaders,” they regularly dig up the most irrelevant and unrepresentative people from the Far Left who are JINOs— Jews In Name Only — as “experts” on Trump and anti-Semitism. It does not end. These are lies, damned lies, and more damned lies being perpetuated by enemies of the people. Just consider these facts about the Trump Administration and the Jews: This is an anti-Semite? If so, may G-d smite us with an abundance of such anti-Semites! Although his daughter, Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner are Orthodox Jews — as are their children, his grandchildren — that family connection in itself is not determinative. After all, we are told that George Soros is a Jew, and most every Jew I know would gladly trade Soros for two anti-Semites and a neo-Nazi to be named later. Soros is a major opponent of Israel and secretly funds organizations that oppose critical Israel policies. But the demonstrated life record of President Trump, a lifetime of working closely with Jews, amicably and warmly, makes him someone whom Jews throughout the world appreciate deeply. Again — every survey and poll of Jews who actually live the Jewish observances, the kosher laws, the Sabbath, the Torah demonstrates that he is warmly regarded in that community. The Fake News about Trump and Jews is the Rosetta Stone. Once one cracks that hidden code, everything else becomes clear. The Left Media indeed propound Fake News, lies, and falsehoods. They undertake to stoke anger among African Americans, among Latinos, among women. The People rely on them for the news, the truth — and, yes, for honest reporting when the President is wrong because The People benefit when they are told the truth, even when the truth is not pretty. But to depict him as an agent of Putin, as a man perpetrating treason, a hater? These are the lies that come only from Enemies of the People.

www.spectator.org

right

QlFLITBQQ2rMI0rA

test

9c9KQ0egbuidy5Qi

palestine

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/f7d36b9023309ce4b1e423b02abf52c6

Trump plan calls for Palestinian state, settlement freeze

2020-01-28

Aron Heller, Matthew Lee

President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington , Tuesday , Jan. 28 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington , Tuesday , Jan. 28 , 2020 . ( AP Photo/Susan Walsh ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Mideast peace plan Tuesday alongside a beaming Benjamin Netanyahu , presenting a vision that matched the Israeli leader ’ s hard-line , nationalist views while falling far short of Palestinian ambitions . Trump ’ s plan envisions a disjointed Palestinian state that turns over key parts of the West Bank to Israel . It sides with Israel on key contentious issues that have bedeviled past peace efforts , including borders and the status of Jerusalem and Jewish settlements , and attaches nearly impossible conditions for granting the Palestinians their hoped-for state . Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “ nonsense ” and vowed to resist it . Netanyahu called it a “ historic breakthrough ” equal in significance to the country ’ s declaration of independence in 1948 . “ It ’ s a great plan for Israel . It ’ s a great plan for peace , ” he said . He vowed to immediately press forward with his plans to annex the strategic Jordan Valley and all the Israeli settlements in occupied lands . Netanyahu said he ’ d ask his Cabinet to approve the annexation plans in their next meeting on Sunday , an explosive move that could trigger harsh international reaction and renewed violence with the Palestinians . “ This dictates once and for all the eastern border of Israel , ” Netanyahu told Israeli reporters later . “ Israel is getting an immediate American recognition of Israeli sovereignty on all the settlements , without exceptions . ” Given the Palestinian opposition , the plan seems unlikely to lead to any significant breakthrough . But it could give a powerful boost to both Trump and Netanyahu who are both facing legal problems ahead of tough elections . Trump called his plan a “ win-win ” for both Israel and the Palestinians , and urged the Palestinians not to miss their opportunity for independence . But Abbas , who accuses the U.S. of unfair bias toward Israel , rejected it out of hand . “ We say 1,000 no ’ s to the Deal of the Century , ” Abbas said , using a nickname for Trump ’ s proposal . “ We will not kneel and we will not surrender , ” he said , adding that the Palestinians would resist the plan through “ peaceful , popular means . ” The plan comes amid Trump ’ s impeachment trial and on a U.S. election year , and after Netanyahu was indicted on counts of fraud , breach of trust and bribery in three separate cases . The longtime Israeli leader , who denies any wrongdoing , also faces a March 2 parliamentary election , Israel ’ s third in less than a year . He hopes to use the plan , and his close ties with Trump , to divert attention from his legal troubles . The Palestinians seek all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — for an independent state and the removal of many of the more than 700,000 Israeli settlers from these areas . But as details emerged , it became clear that the plan sides heavily with Netanyahu ’ s hard-line nationalist vision for the region and shunts aside many of the Palestinians ’ core demands . Under the terms of the “ peace vision ” that Trump ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has been working on for nearly three years , all settlers would remain in place , and Israel would retain sovereignty over all of its settlements as well as the strategic Jordan Valley . “ The Israeli military will continue to control the entire territory , ” Netanyahu said . “ No one will be uprooted from their home . ” The proposed Palestinian state would also include more than a dozen Israeli “ enclaves ” with the entity ’ s borders monitored by Israel . It would be demilitarized and give Israel overall security control . In addition , the areas of east Jerusalem offered to the Palestinians consist of poor , crowded neighborhoods located behind a hulking concrete separation barrier . Trump acknowledged that he has done a lot for Israel , but he said he wanted the deal to be a “ great deal for the Palestinians . ” The plan would give the Palestinians limited control over an estimated 70 % of the West Bank , nearly double the amount where they currently have limited self-rule . Trump said it would give them time needed to meet the challenges of statehood . The only concession the plan appears to demand of Israel is a four-year freeze on the establishment of new Israeli settlements in certain areas of the West Bank . But Netanyahu clarified later that this only applied to areas where there are no settlements and Israel has no immediate plans to annex , and that he considered the plan to impose no limitations on construction . Thousands of Palestinians protested in Gaza City ahead of the announcement , burning pictures of Trump and Netanyahu and raising a banner reading “ Palestine is not for sale . ” Trump said he sent a letter to Abbas to tell him that the territory that the plan has set aside for a new Palestinian state will remain open and undeveloped for four years . “ It ’ s going to work , ” Trump said , as he presented the plan at a White House ceremony filled with Israeli officials and allies , including evangelical Christian leaders and wealthy Republican donors . Representatives from the Arab countries of Bahrain , Oman and the United Arab Emirates were present , but there were no Palestinian representatives . “ President Abbas , I want you to know , that if you chose the path to peace , America and many other countries ... we will be there to help you in so many different ways , ” he said . “ And we will be there every step of the way . ” The 50-page plan builds on a 30-page economic plan for the West Bank and Gaza that was unveiled last June and which the Palestinians have also rejected . It envisions a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza , connected by a combination of roads and tunnels . It also would give small areas of southern Israel to the Palestinians as compensation for lost West Bank land . But the many caveats , and ultimate overall Israeli control , made the deal a nonstarter for the Palestinians . Netanyahu and his main political challenger in March elections , Benny Gantz , had signed off on the plan . “ Mr . President , because of this historic recognition and because I believe your peace plan strikes the right balance where other plans have failed , ” Netanyahu said . “ I ’ ve agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan . The Jordan Valley annexation is a big part of Netanyahu ’ s strategy and a key promise meant to appeal to his hard-line nationalist base , which mostly applauded the Trump plan . U.S. officials , speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the plan ’ s release , said they expected negative responses from the Palestinians , but were hopeful that Jordan and Egypt , the only two Arab nations to have peace treaties with Israel , would not reject it outright . Jordan gave the plan a cool reaction , saying it remained committed to a two-state solution based on Israel ’ s pre-1967 lines . It also said it rejected any unilateral move by Israel , referring to the annexation plan . The reaction of Jordan , which would retain its responsibilities over Jerusalem ’ s al-Aqsa Mosque under the plan , is particularly significant . Located next to the West Bank , Jordan also is home to a large Palestinian population . Egypt , the first Arab country to reach a peace deal with Israel , urged Israelis and Palestinians to carefully study the plan . The European Union also said it needed to study it more closely . Saudi Arabia , another key Arab country , said it appreciated the Trump administration ’ s efforts and encouraged the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians “ under the auspices of the United States . ” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the United Nations supports two states living in peace and security within recognized borders , on the basis of the pre-1967 borders , according to his spokesman . The Palestinians see the West Bank as the heartland of a future independent state and east Jerusalem as their capital . Most of the international community supports their position , but Trump has reversed decades of U.S. foreign policy by siding more blatantly with Israel . The centerpiece of his strategy was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital and moving the American Embassy there . He ’ s also closed Palestinian diplomatic offices in Washington and cut funding to Palestinian aid programs . Those policies have proven popular among Trump ’ s evangelical and pro-Israel supporters . But the Palestinians refuse to even speak to Trump and they called on support from Arab leaders . ███ writer Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed .

President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) President Donald Trump speaks during an event with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unveiled his long-awaited Mideast peace plan Tuesday alongside a beaming Benjamin Netanyahu, presenting a vision that matched the Israeli leader’s hard-line, nationalist views while falling far short of Palestinian ambitions. Trump’s plan envisions a disjointed Palestinian state that turns over key parts of the West Bank to Israel. It sides with Israel on key contentious issues that have bedeviled past peace efforts, including borders and the status of Jerusalem and Jewish settlements, and attaches nearly impossible conditions for granting the Palestinians their hoped-for state. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the plan as “nonsense” and vowed to resist it. Netanyahu called it a “historic breakthrough” equal in significance to the country’s declaration of independence in 1948. “It’s a great plan for Israel. It’s a great plan for peace,” he said. He vowed to immediately press forward with his plans to annex the strategic Jordan Valley and all the Israeli settlements in occupied lands. Netanyahu said he’d ask his Cabinet to approve the annexation plans in their next meeting on Sunday, an explosive move that could trigger harsh international reaction and renewed violence with the Palestinians. “This dictates once and for all the eastern border of Israel,” Netanyahu told Israeli reporters later. “Israel is getting an immediate American recognition of Israeli sovereignty on all the settlements, without exceptions.” Given the Palestinian opposition, the plan seems unlikely to lead to any significant breakthrough. But it could give a powerful boost to both Trump and Netanyahu who are both facing legal problems ahead of tough elections. Trump called his plan a “win-win” for both Israel and the Palestinians, and urged the Palestinians not to miss their opportunity for independence. But Abbas, who accuses the U.S. of unfair bias toward Israel, rejected it out of hand. “We say 1,000 no’s to the Deal of the Century,” Abbas said, using a nickname for Trump’s proposal. “We will not kneel and we will not surrender,” he said, adding that the Palestinians would resist the plan through “peaceful, popular means.” The plan comes amid Trump’s impeachment trial and on a U.S. election year, and after Netanyahu was indicted on counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery in three separate cases. The longtime Israeli leader, who denies any wrongdoing, also faces a March 2 parliamentary election, Israel’s third in less than a year. He hopes to use the plan, and his close ties with Trump, to divert attention from his legal troubles. The Palestinians seek all of the West Bank and east Jerusalem — areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — for an independent state and the removal of many of the more than 700,000 Israeli settlers from these areas. But as details emerged, it became clear that the plan sides heavily with Netanyahu’s hard-line nationalist vision for the region and shunts aside many of the Palestinians’ core demands. Under the terms of the “peace vision” that Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has been working on for nearly three years, all settlers would remain in place, and Israel would retain sovereignty over all of its settlements as well as the strategic Jordan Valley. “The Israeli military will continue to control the entire territory,” Netanyahu said. “No one will be uprooted from their home.” The proposed Palestinian state would also include more than a dozen Israeli “enclaves” with the entity’s borders monitored by Israel. It would be demilitarized and give Israel overall security control. In addition, the areas of east Jerusalem offered to the Palestinians consist of poor, crowded neighborhoods located behind a hulking concrete separation barrier. Trump acknowledged that he has done a lot for Israel, but he said he wanted the deal to be a “great deal for the Palestinians.” The plan would give the Palestinians limited control over an estimated 70% of the West Bank, nearly double the amount where they currently have limited self-rule. Trump said it would give them time needed to meet the challenges of statehood. The only concession the plan appears to demand of Israel is a four-year freeze on the establishment of new Israeli settlements in certain areas of the West Bank. But Netanyahu clarified later that this only applied to areas where there are no settlements and Israel has no immediate plans to annex, and that he considered the plan to impose no limitations on construction. Thousands of Palestinians protested in Gaza City ahead of the announcement, burning pictures of Trump and Netanyahu and raising a banner reading “Palestine is not for sale.” Trump said he sent a letter to Abbas to tell him that the territory that the plan has set aside for a new Palestinian state will remain open and undeveloped for four years. “It’s going to work,” Trump said, as he presented the plan at a White House ceremony filled with Israeli officials and allies, including evangelical Christian leaders and wealthy Republican donors. Representatives from the Arab countries of Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates were present, but there were no Palestinian representatives. “President Abbas, I want you to know, that if you chose the path to peace, America and many other countries ... we will be there to help you in so many different ways,” he said. “And we will be there every step of the way.” The 50-page plan builds on a 30-page economic plan for the West Bank and Gaza that was unveiled last June and which the Palestinians have also rejected. It envisions a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza, connected by a combination of roads and tunnels. It also would give small areas of southern Israel to the Palestinians as compensation for lost West Bank land. But the many caveats, and ultimate overall Israeli control, made the deal a nonstarter for the Palestinians. Netanyahu and his main political challenger in March elections, Benny Gantz, had signed off on the plan. “Mr. President, because of this historic recognition and because I believe your peace plan strikes the right balance where other plans have failed,” Netanyahu said. “I’ve agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan. The Jordan Valley annexation is a big part of Netanyahu’s strategy and a key promise meant to appeal to his hard-line nationalist base, which mostly applauded the Trump plan. U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the plan’s release, said they expected negative responses from the Palestinians, but were hopeful that Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab nations to have peace treaties with Israel, would not reject it outright. Jordan gave the plan a cool reaction, saying it remained committed to a two-state solution based on Israel’s pre-1967 lines. It also said it rejected any unilateral move by Israel, referring to the annexation plan. The reaction of Jordan, which would retain its responsibilities over Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque under the plan, is particularly significant. Located next to the West Bank, Jordan also is home to a large Palestinian population. Egypt, the first Arab country to reach a peace deal with Israel, urged Israelis and Palestinians to carefully study the plan. The European Union also said it needed to study it more closely. Saudi Arabia, another key Arab country, said it appreciated the Trump administration’s efforts and encouraged the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians “under the auspices of the United States.” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the United Nations supports two states living in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, according to his spokesman. The Palestinians see the West Bank as the heartland of a future independent state and east Jerusalem as their capital. Most of the international community supports their position, but Trump has reversed decades of U.S. foreign policy by siding more blatantly with Israel. The centerpiece of his strategy was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the American Embassy there. He’s also closed Palestinian diplomatic offices in Washington and cut funding to Palestinian aid programs. Those policies have proven popular among Trump’s evangelical and pro-Israel supporters. But the Palestinians refuse to even speak to Trump and they called on support from Arab leaders. ___ Associated Press writer Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed.

www.apnews.com

center

9c9KQ0egbuidy5Qi

test

mhZgYTiuiTrKZqeW

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/durbin-blasts-nra-for-celebrating-gun-vote/

Durbin blasts NRA for 'celebrating' gun vote

2013-05-05

( CNN ) – The No . 2 Democrat in the Senate criticized the National Rifle Association for cheering the defeat of a recent bipartisan gun control measure and expressed hope that the “ political sentiment ” will change in the upper chamber so the legislation can be brought up again . “ The National Rifle Association can go to Texas and celebrate defeating that measure , but they certainly shouldn ’ t celebrate when they look at the carnage that takes place virtually every day in America because convicted felons have guns , ” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Sunday on CNN ’ s “ State of the Union . ” He was referring to the organization ’ s annual meeting this weekend in Houston , where the recent gun control debate was a key theme among speeches by high-profile conservatives . Speakers praised the audience for lobbying their lawmakers to vote against gun control measures and encouraged them to keep up the fight . `` We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about . We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation , or to lose it forever , '' NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said Saturday . `` We must remain vigilant , ever resolute , and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us , '' he said . One of the main provisions considered the most likely to pass would have expanded the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online . In the April 17 vote , however , the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the measure . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shelved the overall gun control bill to allow more time for negotiations and vowed to bring it up again . The defeat was seen as a major victory among anti-gun control advocates and among those in the gun lobby , who argued that the measure would not have done much to help prevent mass shootings like those seen in Newtown , Connecticut , and Aurora , Colorado , last year . Durbin , the Senate ’ s majority whip , said the legislation needs five more votes in order to pass but said it can be an uphill battle in the Senate . `` What we need to see is a change in political sentiment within the Senate . We need to pick up five more votes , and that 's quite a task , I might add , as whip in the Senate , but we can do this . I hope the American people do n't give up . I know the president has n't given up , '' Durbin told CNN 's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley . Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET . For the latest from State of the Union click here .

6 years ago (CNN) – The No. 2 Democrat in the Senate criticized the National Rifle Association for cheering the defeat of a recent bipartisan gun control measure and expressed hope that the “political sentiment” will change in the upper chamber so the legislation can be brought up again. “The National Rifle Association can go to Texas and celebrate defeating that measure, but they certainly shouldn’t celebrate when they look at the carnage that takes place virtually every day in America because convicted felons have guns,” Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN He was referring to the organization’s annual meeting this weekend in Houston, where the recent gun control debate was a key theme among speeches by high-profile conservatives. Speakers praised the audience for lobbying their lawmakers to vote against gun control measures and encouraged them to keep up the fight. "We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about. We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation, or to lose it forever," NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said Saturday. "We must remain vigilant, ever resolute, and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us," he said. One of the main provisions considered the most likely to pass would have expanded the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online. In the April 17 vote, however, the Senate fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward with the measure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shelved the overall gun control bill to allow more time for negotiations and vowed to bring it up again. The defeat was seen as a major victory among anti-gun control advocates and among those in the gun lobby, who argued that the measure would not have done much to help prevent mass shootings like those seen in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, last year. Durbin, the Senate’s majority whip, said the legislation needs five more votes in order to pass but said it can be an uphill battle in the Senate. "What we need to see is a change in political sentiment within the Senate. We need to pick up five more votes, and that's quite a task, I might add, as whip in the Senate, but we can do this. I hope the American people don't give up. I know the president hasn't given up," Durbin told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. - CNN's Dana Davidsen contributed to this report. Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

mhZgYTiuiTrKZqeW

test

PhUeKZbQHvtnvE33

race_and_racism

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53444752

'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves'

Amid the global debate about race relations , colonialism and slavery , some of the Europeans and Americans who made their fortunes in trading human beings have seen their legacies reassessed , their statues toppled and their names removed from public buildings . Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves , but argues that he should not be judged by today 's standards or values . My great-grandfather , Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku , was what I prefer to call a businessman , from the Igbo ethnic group of south-eastern Nigeria . He dealt in a number of goods , including tobacco and palm produce . He also sold human beings . `` He had agents who captured slaves from different places and brought them to him , '' my father told me . Nwaubani Ogogo 's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria . People from ethnic groups along the coast , such as the Efik and Ijaw , usually acted as stevedores for the white merchants and as middlemen for Igbo traders like my great-grandfather . They loaded and offloaded ships and supplied the foreigners with food and other provisions . They negotiated prices for slaves from the hinterlands , then collected royalties from both the sellers and buyers . About 1.5 million Igbo slaves were shipped across the Atlantic Ocean between the 15th and 19th Centuries . More than 1.5 million Africans were shipped to what was then called the New World - the Americas - through the Calabar port , in the Bight of Bonny , making it one of the largest points of exit during the transatlantic trade . Nwaubani Ogogo lived in a time when the fittest survived and the bravest excelled . The concept of `` all men are created equal '' was completely alien to traditional religion and law in his society . Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani Assessing the people of Africa 's past by today 's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains '' It would be unfair to judge a 19th Century man by 21st Century principles . Assessing the people of Africa 's past by today 's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains , denying us the right to fully celebrate anyone who was not influenced by Western ideology . Igbo slave traders like my great-grandfather did not suffer any crisis of social acceptance or legality . They did not need any religious or scientific justifications for their actions . They were simply living the life into which they were raised . The most popular story I 've heard about my great-grandfather was how he successfully confronted officials of the British colonial government after they seized some of his slaves . Getty My great-grandfather apparently did not consider it fair that his slaves had been seized '' The slaves were being transported by middlemen , along with a consignment of tobacco and palm produce , from Nwaubani Ogogo 's hometown of Umuahia to the coast . My great-grandfather apparently did not consider it fair that his slaves had been seized . Buying and selling of human beings among the Igbo had been going on long before the Europeans arrived . People became slaves as punishment for crime , payment for debts , or prisoners of war . The successful sale of adults was considered an exploit for which a man was hailed by praise singers , akin to exploits in wrestling , war , or in hunting animals like the lion . Igbo slaves served as domestic servants and labourers . They were sometimes also sacrificed in religious ceremonies and buried alive with their masters to attend to them in the next world . Slavery was so ingrained in the culture that a number of popular Igbo proverbs make reference to it : A slave who looks on while a fellow slave is tied up and thrown into the grave with his master should realise that the same thing could be done to him someday It is when the son is being given advice that the slave learns The arrival of European merchants offering guns , mirrors , gin , and other exotic goods in exchange for humans massively increased demand , leading people to kidnap others and sell them . Columns of captives were tied together by ropes around their necks The trade in African people continued until 1888 , when Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish it . Getty We think this trade must go on.That is the verdict of our oracle and our priests '' When the British extended their rule to south-eastern Nigeria in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century , they began to enforce abolition through military action . But by using force rather than persuasion , many local people such as my great-grandfather may not have understood that abolition was about the dignity of humankind and not a mere change in economic policy that affected demand and supply . `` We think this trade must go on , '' one local king in Bonny infamously said in the 19th Century . `` That is the verdict of our oracle and our priests . They say that your country , however great , can never stop a trade ordained by God . '' As far as my great-grandfather was concerned , he had a bona fide trading licence from the Royal Niger Company , a British company that administered commerce in the region in the last quarter of the 19th Century . So when his property was seized , an aggrieved Nwaubani Ogogo boldly went to see the colonial officers responsible and presented them with his licence . They released his goods , and his slaves . Acclaimed Igbo historian Adiele Afigbo described the slave trade in south-eastern Nigeria which lasted until the late 1940s and early 1950s as one of the best kept secrets of the British colonial administration . `` The government was aware of the fact that the coastal chiefs and the major coastal traders had continued to buy slaves from the interior , '' wrote Afigbo in The Abolition of the Slave Trade in Southern Nigeria : 1885 to 1950 . He added that the British tolerated the ongoing trade on political and economic grounds . They needed the slave-trading chiefs for effective local governance , and for the expansion and growth of legitimate trade . Sometimes , they also turned a blind eye rather than jeopardise a useful alliance , as seems to have been the case when they returned Nwaubani Ogogo 's slaves . That incident deified Nwaubani Ogogo among his people . Here was a man who successfully confronted the white powers from overseas . I have heard the story from relatives , and have read about it . It was also the beginning of a relationship of mutual respect with the colonialists that led to Nwaubani Ogogo being appointed a paramount chief by the British administration . He was the government 's representative to the people in his region , in a system known as indirect rule . Getty How the UK abolished slavery 1833 Parliament outlawed slavery in most British colonies Records from the UK 's National Archives at Kew Gardens show how desperately the British struggled to end the internal trade in slaves for almost the entire duration of the colonial period . They promoted legitimate trade , especially in palm produce . They introduced English currency to replace the cumbersome brass rods and cowries that merchants needed slaves to carry . They prosecuted offenders with prison sentences . `` By the 1930s , the colonial establishment had been worn down , '' wrote Afigbo . `` As a result , they had come to place their hope for the extirpation of the trade on the corrosive effect over time of education and general civilisation . '' As a paramount chief , Nwaubani Ogogo collected taxes on behalf of the British and earned a commission for himself in the process . He presided over cases in native courts . He supplied labourers for the construction of rail lines . He also willingly donated land for missionaries to build churches and schools . Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani My great-grandfather is renowned for his business prowess , strong leadership , immense contribution to society , and advancement of Christianity '' The house where I grew up and where my parents still live sits on a piece of land that has been in my family for over a century . It was once the site of Nwaubani Ogogo 's guest house , where he hosted visiting British officials . They sent him envelopes containing snippets of their hair to let him know whenever they were due to arrive . Nwaubani Ogogo died sometime in the early 20th Century . He left behind dozens of wives and children . No photographs exist of him but he was said to have been remarkably light-skinned . In December 2017 , a church in Okaiuga in Abia State of south-eastern Nigeria was celebrating its centenary and invited my family to receive a posthumous award on his behalf . Their records showed that he had provided an armed escort for the first missionaries in the area . My great-grandfather was renowned for his business prowess , outstanding boldness , strong leadership , vast influence , immense contributions to society , and advancement of Christianity . The Igbo do not have a culture of erecting monuments to their heroes - otherwise one dedicated to him might have stood somewhere in the Umuahia region today . `` He was respected by everyone around , '' my father said . `` Even the white people respected him . ''

Image copyright Getty Images Amid the global debate about race relations, colonialism and slavery, some of the Europeans and Americans who made their fortunes in trading human beings have seen their legacies reassessed, their statues toppled and their names removed from public buildings. Nigerian journalist and novelist Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani writes that one of her ancestors sold slaves, but argues that he should not be judged by today's standards or values. My great-grandfather, Nwaubani Ogogo Oriaku, was what I prefer to call a businessman, from the Igbo ethnic group of south-eastern Nigeria. He dealt in a number of goods, including tobacco and palm produce. He also sold human beings. "He had agents who captured slaves from different places and brought them to him," my father told me. Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves were sold through the ports of Calabar and Bonny in the south of what is today known as Nigeria. People from ethnic groups along the coast, such as the Efik and Ijaw, usually acted as stevedores for the white merchants and as middlemen for Igbo traders like my great-grandfather. They loaded and offloaded ships and supplied the foreigners with food and other provisions. They negotiated prices for slaves from the hinterlands, then collected royalties from both the sellers and buyers. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Several European nations had slave compounds in what is now Nigeria About 1.5 million Igbo slaves were shipped across the Atlantic Ocean between the 15th and 19th Centuries. More than 1.5 million Africans were shipped to what was then called the New World - the Americas - through the Calabar port, in the Bight of Bonny, making it one of the largest points of exit during the transatlantic trade. The only life they knew Nwaubani Ogogo lived in a time when the fittest survived and the bravest excelled. The concept of "all men are created equal" was completely alien to traditional religion and law in his society. Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani Assessing the people of Africa's past by today's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains" It would be unfair to judge a 19th Century man by 21st Century principles. Assessing the people of Africa's past by today's standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains, denying us the right to fully celebrate anyone who was not influenced by Western ideology. Igbo slave traders like my great-grandfather did not suffer any crisis of social acceptance or legality. They did not need any religious or scientific justifications for their actions. They were simply living the life into which they were raised. That was all they knew. Slaves buried alive The most popular story I've heard about my great-grandfather was how he successfully confronted officials of the British colonial government after they seized some of his slaves. Getty My great-grandfather apparently did not consider it fair that his slaves had been seized" The slaves were being transported by middlemen, along with a consignment of tobacco and palm produce, from Nwaubani Ogogo's hometown of Umuahia to the coast. My great-grandfather apparently did not consider it fair that his slaves had been seized. Buying and selling of human beings among the Igbo had been going on long before the Europeans arrived. People became slaves as punishment for crime, payment for debts, or prisoners of war. The successful sale of adults was considered an exploit for which a man was hailed by praise singers, akin to exploits in wrestling, war, or in hunting animals like the lion. Igbo slaves served as domestic servants and labourers. They were sometimes also sacrificed in religious ceremonies and buried alive with their masters to attend to them in the next world. Slavery was so ingrained in the culture that a number of popular Igbo proverbs make reference to it: Anyone who has no slave is his own slave A slave who looks on while a fellow slave is tied up and thrown into the grave with his master should realise that the same thing could be done to him someday It is when the son is being given advice that the slave learns The arrival of European merchants offering guns, mirrors, gin, and other exotic goods in exchange for humans massively increased demand, leading people to kidnap others and sell them. How slaves were traded in Africa Image copyright Getty Images European buyers tended to remain on the coast African sellers brought slaves from the interior on foot Journeys could be as long as 485km (300 miles) Two captives were typically chained together at the ankle Columns of captives were tied together by ropes around their necks 10%-15% of captives died on the way Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica Resisting abolition The trade in African people continued until 1888, when Brazil became the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish it. Getty We think this trade must go on.That is the verdict of our oracle and our priests" When the British extended their rule to south-eastern Nigeria in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, they began to enforce abolition through military action. But by using force rather than persuasion, many local people such as my great-grandfather may not have understood that abolition was about the dignity of humankind and not a mere change in economic policy that affected demand and supply. "We think this trade must go on," one local king in Bonny infamously said in the 19th Century. "That is the verdict of our oracle and our priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God." Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Missionary Society was formed in London in 1799 by British anti-slavery campaigners As far as my great-grandfather was concerned, he had a bona fide trading licence from the Royal Niger Company, a British company that administered commerce in the region in the last quarter of the 19th Century. So when his property was seized, an aggrieved Nwaubani Ogogo boldly went to see the colonial officers responsible and presented them with his licence. They released his goods, and his slaves. "The white people apologised to him," my father said. Image copyright Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani Image caption Adaobi's father, Chukwuma Hope Nwaubani, lives on land that was owned by Nwaubani Ogogo Slave trade in the 20th Century Acclaimed Igbo historian Adiele Afigbo described the slave trade in south-eastern Nigeria which lasted until the late 1940s and early 1950s as one of the best kept secrets of the British colonial administration. While the international trade ended, the local trade continued. "The government was aware of the fact that the coastal chiefs and the major coastal traders had continued to buy slaves from the interior," wrote Afigbo in The Abolition of the Slave Trade in Southern Nigeria: 1885 to 1950. He added that the British tolerated the ongoing trade on political and economic grounds. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption British traders were at the heart of the slave trade, before the UK government abolished the trade They needed the slave-trading chiefs for effective local governance, and for the expansion and growth of legitimate trade. Sometimes, they also turned a blind eye rather than jeopardise a useful alliance, as seems to have been the case when they returned Nwaubani Ogogo's slaves. That incident deified Nwaubani Ogogo among his people. Here was a man who successfully confronted the white powers from overseas. I have heard the story from relatives, and have read about it. It was also the beginning of a relationship of mutual respect with the colonialists that led to Nwaubani Ogogo being appointed a paramount chief by the British administration. He was the government's representative to the people in his region, in a system known as indirect rule. Getty How the UK abolished slavery 1833 Parliament outlawed slavery in most British colonies 1834 Law took effect 800,000 slaves were freed £20m allocated to pay for "damages" suffered by owners 0compensation for freed slaves Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica Records from the UK's National Archives at Kew Gardens show how desperately the British struggled to end the internal trade in slaves for almost the entire duration of the colonial period. They promoted legitimate trade, especially in palm produce. They introduced English currency to replace the cumbersome brass rods and cowries that merchants needed slaves to carry. They prosecuted offenders with prison sentences. "By the 1930s, the colonial establishment had been worn down," wrote Afigbo. "As a result, they had come to place their hope for the extirpation of the trade on the corrosive effect over time of education and general civilisation." Working with the British As a paramount chief, Nwaubani Ogogo collected taxes on behalf of the British and earned a commission for himself in the process. He presided over cases in native courts. He supplied labourers for the construction of rail lines. He also willingly donated land for missionaries to build churches and schools. Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani My great-grandfather is renowned for his business prowess, strong leadership, immense contribution to society, and advancement of Christianity" The house where I grew up and where my parents still live sits on a piece of land that has been in my family for over a century. It was once the site of Nwaubani Ogogo's guest house, where he hosted visiting British officials. They sent him envelopes containing snippets of their hair to let him know whenever they were due to arrive. Nwaubani Ogogo died sometime in the early 20th Century. He left behind dozens of wives and children. No photographs exist of him but he was said to have been remarkably light-skinned. In December 2017, a church in Okaiuga in Abia State of south-eastern Nigeria was celebrating its centenary and invited my family to receive a posthumous award on his behalf. Image copyright Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani Image caption Nwaubani Ogogo donated land to Christian missionaries Their records showed that he had provided an armed escort for the first missionaries in the area. My great-grandfather was renowned for his business prowess, outstanding boldness, strong leadership, vast influence, immense contributions to society, and advancement of Christianity. The Igbo do not have a culture of erecting monuments to their heroes - otherwise one dedicated to him might have stood somewhere in the Umuahia region today. "He was respected by everyone around," my father said. "Even the white people respected him."

www.bbc.com

center

PhUeKZbQHvtnvE33

test

obzkfWNK0DZcIJXn

race_and_racism

Newsmax - News

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/andrew-jackson-statues-lafayette-square-monument/2020/06/23/id/973602/

Trump Warns: 10 Years in Prison for Toppling Jackson Statue

2020-06-23

Jason Devaney

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has `` authorized '' federal authorities to arrest people trying to vandalize or destroy monuments , statues , or other federal property , citing a law that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison . `` I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument , statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison , per the Veteran 's Memorial Preservation Act , or such other laws that may be pertinent , '' Trump wrote on Twitter . He added , `` This action is taken effective immediately , but may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused . There will be no exceptions ! '' According to Title 18 , Section 1369 of U.S. code , the `` destruction of veterans ' memorials '' is punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison . Trump 's tweets were posted the morning after protesters tried to take down a statue of former President Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square , a park just north of the White House . The efforts were unsuccessful , but the statue 's base was defaced with the words `` Killer Scum '' in spray paint . Trump tweeted late Monday night , `` Numerous people arrested in D.C. for the disgraceful vandalism , in Lafayette Park , of the magnificent Statue of Andrew Jackson , in addition to the exterior defacing of St. John 's Church across the street . 10 years in prison under the Veteran 's Memorial Preservation Act . Beware ! '' Every sitting president has visited St. John 's Episcopal Church since it was built in 1816 . As part of the George Floyd protests that kicked off last month when Floyd died after a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes , the church was set on fire . The flames were extinguished , and Trump made a controversial walk from the White House to the church after police used force to clear protesters from Lafayette Square the next day . With statues and monuments nationwide being toppled by protesters or removed by authorities , people gathered outside the White House Monday and attempted to tear down the statue of Jackson , who served as the nation 's seventh president from 1829 to 1837 , using ropes and straps . Police eventually moved in to both push them back and form a protective ring around the monument . During a 2017 visit to Jackson 's plantation in Nashville , Tennessee , known as Hermitage , Trump drew comparisons between himself and the late president . `` No wonder why they keep talking about Trump and Jackson , Jackson and Trump ; oh , I know the feeling , Andrew , '' Trump said . `` It was during the revolution that Jackson first confronted and defied an arrogant elite . Does that sound familiar to you ? '' President George W. Bush signed the Veteran 's Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act into law in 2003 .

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he has "authorized" federal authorities to arrest people trying to vandalize or destroy monuments, statues, or other federal property, citing a law that carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. "I have authorized the Federal Government to arrest anyone who vandalizes or destroys any monument, statue or other such Federal property in the U.S. with up to 10 years in prison, per the Veteran's Memorial Preservation Act, or such other laws that may be pertinent," Trump wrote on Twitter. He added, "This action is taken effective immediately, but may also be used retroactively for destruction or vandalism already caused. There will be no exceptions!" According to Title 18, Section 1369 of U.S. code, the "destruction of veterans' memorials" is punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison. Trump's tweets were posted the morning after protesters tried to take down a statue of former President Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square, a park just north of the White House. The efforts were unsuccessful, but the statue's base was defaced with the words "Killer Scum" in spray paint. Trump tweeted late Monday night, "Numerous people arrested in D.C. for the disgraceful vandalism, in Lafayette Park, of the magnificent Statue of Andrew Jackson, in addition to the exterior defacing of St. John's Church across the street. 10 years in prison under the Veteran's Memorial Preservation Act. Beware!" Every sitting president has visited St. John's Episcopal Church since it was built in 1816. As part of the George Floyd protests that kicked off last month when Floyd died after a police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, the church was set on fire. The flames were extinguished, and Trump made a controversial walk from the White House to the church after police used force to clear protesters from Lafayette Square the next day. With statues and monuments nationwide being toppled by protesters or removed by authorities, people gathered outside the White House Monday and attempted to tear down the statue of Jackson, who served as the nation's seventh president from 1829 to 1837, using ropes and straps. Police eventually moved in to both push them back and form a protective ring around the monument. During a 2017 visit to Jackson's plantation in Nashville, Tennessee, known as Hermitage, Trump drew comparisons between himself and the late president. "No wonder why they keep talking about Trump and Jackson, Jackson and Trump; oh, I know the feeling, Andrew," Trump said. "It was during the revolution that Jackson first confronted and defied an arrogant elite. Does that sound familiar to you?" President George W. Bush signed the Veteran's Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act into law in 2003.

www.newsmax.com

right

obzkfWNK0DZcIJXn

test

Fh6XEXWNvXXW2nmI

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ronald-Reagan-Michael-Reagan-GOP-Republican-Party/2015/07/31/id/664921/

Michael Reagan: Trump Has My Dad's 'Passion'

2015-07-31

Cathy Burke

Donald Trump shares an important characteristic with President Ronald Reagan — and it could serve him well in next Thursday 's first GOP debate of presidential candidates , commentator Michael Reagan tellsIn an interview Friday with `` ███ Prime '' host J.D . Hayworth , the son of the late president says the surging Trump speaks with the kind of `` passion '' his father so brilliantly conveyed . `` The best thing that these candidates can do is be themselves , '' Reagan said . `` America wants to see who they are and what they represent and where they want to take America . '' Watch ███ TV on DirecTV Ch . 349 , DISH Ch . 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch . 115 . Get ███ TV on your cable system — Click Here Now Reagan added `` consultants get rich from these campaigns and meanwhile they give us losers . `` `` I want to see , and America wants to see , that campaign that says 'you know something , this is where I want to take America . I am passionate about it . These are my issues . This is what I want to do , ' '' Reagan said . `` That 's why America right now has surrounded Trump , in this case , because he 's off the cuff and he speaks from his own passion . `` Reagan recalled a 1980 debate in which his father showed a rare flash of anger over the order of speakers , exclaiming , `` I am paying for this microphone '' — and helped turn the tide of his campaign in New Hampshire . `` [ T ] hat night my [ late ] sister Maureen and I… looked at each other … and said 'it 's about damn time you lost your temper ' because we had never seen our dad ever lose his temper — ever raise his voice at all to the children , to anybody — and then all of a sudden he comes up with that one and we said 'bravo Dad . It 's about time . You deserve to be able to , in fact , do that , ' '' he recalled.Reagan also teed off on Hillary Clinton 's email scandal , asserting it wo n't topple her from the top of the Democratic heap in the presidential primary because of `` the power that is wheeled by the Clintons '' in the party — but that it might `` eat her alive '' in the general election . `` We 've seen over the years that nothing really sticks to Bill [ Clinton ] but everything sticks to Hillary Clinton , '' he said . `` The one thing that Bill has that Hillary Clinton has never had is likability . She is not likable and she certainly is n't relatable . `` `` Bill Clinton would get elected today again if he were the nominee of the Democrat Party and we had nobody run against him… she 's hoping that just simply being a woman and selling that will bring the women to her table , but I do n't think that 's ever going to happen . `` `` I hope these emails eat her alive but [ that ] she stays at the top of the heap for the Democrats , '' he said . `` [ A ] nyone of our possible candidates out there can beat Hillary Clinton in November of 2016 . ''

Donald Trump shares an important characteristic with President Ronald Reagan — and it could serve him well in next Thursday's first GOP debate of presidential candidates, commentator Michael Reagan tellsIn an interview Friday with "Newsmax Prime" host J.D. Hayworth, the son of the late president says the surging Trump speaks with the kind of "passion" his father so brilliantly conveyed."The best thing that these candidates can do is be themselves," Reagan said. "America wants to see who they are and what they represent and where they want to take America." Watch Newsmax TV on DirecTV Ch. 349, DISH Ch. 223 and Verizon FiOS Ch. 115. Get Newsmax TV on your cable system — Click Here Now Reagan added "consultants get rich from these campaigns and meanwhile they give us losers.""I want to see, and America wants to see, that campaign that says 'you know something, this is where I want to take America. I am passionate about it. These are my issues. This is what I want to do,'" Reagan said."That's why America right now has surrounded Trump, in this case, because he's off the cuff and he speaks from his own passion."Reagan recalled a 1980 debate in which his father showed a rare flash of anger over the order of speakers, exclaiming, "I am paying for this microphone" — and helped turn the tide of his campaign in New Hampshire."[T]hat night my [late] sister Maureen and I… looked at each other … and said 'it's about damn time you lost your temper' because we had never seen our dad ever lose his temper — ever raise his voice at all to the children, to anybody — and then all of a sudden he comes up with that one and we said 'bravo Dad. It's about time. You deserve to be able to, in fact, do that,'" he recalled.Reagan also teed off on Hillary Clinton's email scandal, asserting it won't topple her from the top of the Democratic heap in the presidential primary because of "the power that is wheeled by the Clintons" in the party — but that it might "eat her alive" in the general election."We've seen over the years that nothing really sticks to Bill [Clinton] but everything sticks to Hillary Clinton," he said. "The one thing that Bill has that Hillary Clinton has never had is likability. She is not likable and she certainly isn't relatable.""Bill Clinton would get elected today again if he were the nominee of the Democrat Party and we had nobody run against him… she's hoping that just simply being a woman and selling that will bring the women to her table, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.""I hope these emails eat her alive but [that] she stays at the top of the heap for the Democrats," he said. "[A]nyone of our possible candidates out there can beat Hillary Clinton in November of 2016."

www.newsmax.com

right

Fh6XEXWNvXXW2nmI

test

cFe2UuHQ33z9YCwf

cybersecurity

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/finance/streettalk/equifax-fine-data-breach/2019/07/22/id/925434/

Equifax to Pay up to $700M in Data Breach Settlement

2019-07-22

Equifax will pay up to $ 700 million to settle with the U.S. and states over a 2017 data breach that exposed Social Security numbers and other private information of nearly 150 million people . The settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission , as well as 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico , would provide up to $ 425 million in monetary relief to consumers , a $ 100 million civil money penalty , and other relief . The breach was one of the largest ever to threaten the private information . The consumer reporting agency , based in Atlanta , did not detect the attack for more than six weeks . The compromised data included Social Security numbers , birth dates , addresses , driver license numbers , credit card numbers and in some cases , data from passports . Affected consumers may be eligible to receive money by filing one or more claims for conditions including money spent purchasing credit monitoring or identity theft protection after the breach and the cost of freezing or unfreezing credit reports at any consumer reporting agency . All impacted consumers would be eligible to receive at least 10 years of free credit-monitoring , at least seven years of free identity-restoration services , and , starting on Dec. 31 and extending seven years , all U.S. consumers may request up to six free copies of their Equifax credit report during any 12-month period . If consumers choose not to enroll in the free credit monitoring product available through the settlement , they may seek up to $ 125 as a reimbursement for the cost of a credit-monitoring product of their choice . Consumers must submit a claim in order to receive free credit monitoring or cash reimbursements . `` Companies that profit from personal information have an extra responsibility to protect and secure that data , '' said FTC Chairman Joe Simons . `` Equifax failed to take basic steps that may have prevented the breach that affected approximately 147 million consumers . This settlement requires that the company take steps to improve its data security going forward , and will ensure that consumers harmed by this breach can receive help protecting themselves from identity theft and fraud . '' The announcement Monday confirms a report by The Wall Street Journal that the credit reporting agency had reached a deal with the U.S . The company said earlier this year that it had set aside around $ 700 million to cover anticipated settlements and fines . The settlement must still be approved by the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia . Shares of Equifax Inc. dipped slightly before the opening bell .

Equifax will pay up to $700 million to settle with the U.S. and states over a 2017 data breach that exposed Social Security numbers and other private information of nearly 150 million people. The settlement with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission, as well as 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would provide up to $425 million in monetary relief to consumers, a $100 million civil money penalty, and other relief. The breach was one of the largest ever to threaten the private information. The consumer reporting agency, based in Atlanta, did not detect the attack for more than six weeks. The compromised data included Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver license numbers, credit card numbers and in some cases, data from passports. Affected consumers may be eligible to receive money by filing one or more claims for conditions including money spent purchasing credit monitoring or identity theft protection after the breach and the cost of freezing or unfreezing credit reports at any consumer reporting agency. All impacted consumers would be eligible to receive at least 10 years of free credit-monitoring, at least seven years of free identity-restoration services, and, starting on Dec. 31 and extending seven years, all U.S. consumers may request up to six free copies of their Equifax credit report during any 12-month period. If consumers choose not to enroll in the free credit monitoring product available through the settlement, they may seek up to $125 as a reimbursement for the cost of a credit-monitoring product of their choice. Consumers must submit a claim in order to receive free credit monitoring or cash reimbursements. "Companies that profit from personal information have an extra responsibility to protect and secure that data," said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. "Equifax failed to take basic steps that may have prevented the breach that affected approximately 147 million consumers. This settlement requires that the company take steps to improve its data security going forward, and will ensure that consumers harmed by this breach can receive help protecting themselves from identity theft and fraud." The announcement Monday confirms a report by The Wall Street Journal that the credit reporting agency had reached a deal with the U.S. The company said earlier this year that it had set aside around $700 million to cover anticipated settlements and fines. The settlement must still be approved by the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. Shares of Equifax Inc. dipped slightly before the opening bell.

www.newsmax.com

right

cFe2UuHQ33z9YCwf

test

KLGJutkCemC6wM2P

education

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/16/studies-show-children-not-as-likely-transmit-coronavirus-school-reopening/

Multiple Studies Suggest Children Aren’t As Likely To Transmit Coronavirus, Even In School Settings

2020-07-16

As the fall months approach , many parents and guardians of children that normally would be returning to school are caught in the limbo of reopenings , unsure whether their local school district will resume in-person classes due to the coronavirus pandemic . Some school districts have announced that they will reopen schools with a hybrid model . Seminole County in Florida , for example , will give parents the option of enrolling their students in face-to-face learning , online learning , or a mix of multiple options . Volusia County , Florida expects to give parents multiple options , and emphasizes social distancing if students return to their classrooms . Many school districts have decided to start the upcoming school year entirely online , as is the case with California ’ s two largest school districts , Los Angeles Unified and San Diego Unified . Pressure is being exerted in both directions — while President Donald Trump is urging schools to reopen in the fall , teachers unions have resisted reopening , citing health dangers . The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a guidance in late June urging schools to reopen for in-person learning at the start of their school years , but later softened its stance , calling on public health agencies to be in charge of those decisions , according to Politico . Reopen schools in the fall . Listen to the science . https : //t.co/OwIA41O6ao — Dan Crenshaw ( @ DanCrenshawTX ) July 16 , 2020 Although researchers are continuing to learn about coronavirus , multiple studies have shown that coronavirus may not be easily spread among children , and being in a school setting didn ’ t create an outbreak . “ We don ’ t think our children should be locked up at home ” @ PressSec “ when its perfectly safe for them to go to school ” defending call for schools to fully reopen — Kelly O ’ Donnell ( @ KellyO ) July 16 , 2020 A study by researchers at New South Wales ’ National Centre For Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Australia looked at staff and students at five primary schools and 10 high schools from March to mid-April , and found that of 863 people who were in close contact with someone infected with coronavirus , only 2 people , or 0.23 % , contracted the virus . The study “ found no evidence of children infecting teachers ” and suggested that coronavirus spread in schools is very limited . Similarly , a study published in April found that a 9-year-old who attended three different schools and a skiing class while infected with coronavirus and showing symptoms didn ’ t infect anyone . “ The fact that an infected child did not transmit the disease despite close interactions within schools suggests potential different transmission dynamics in children , ” the study concluded . “ It would be almost unheard of for an adult to be exposed to that many people and not infect anyone else , ” Alasdair Munro , a pediatric infectious-diseases researcher at University Hospital Southampton said according to Nature . While these studies are from the beginning of the pandemic shutdowns in the U.S. , recent reports from Sweden and Germany seem to suggest similar conclusions . Sweden ’ s public health agency found that between February 24 and June 14 , there was no measurable direct impact on the number of coronavirus cases among school-aged children in Finland , which closed schools , and Sweden , which kept schools open . A German study released Monday also found that the virus doesn ’ t spread easily in schools , and children may actually act as a “ brake ” on chains of infection . ( RELATED : Coronavirus Not Spreading Among Students , Swedish And German Health Professionals Say ) “ It is rather the opposite , ” Prof Berner told a press conference according to the Telegraph . “ Children act more as a brake on infection . Not every infection that reaches them is passed on . ” A commentary published in the official peer-review journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics also concluded in July that children infrequently transmit the virus to each other or to adults . A majority of voters oppose schools fully opening in the fall , however , and many people fear the possibility that children could transmit the virus to adults , who are more susceptible to severe symptoms if they are elderly or immunocompromised . Some studies don ’ t agree that children aren ’ t transmiting the virus as easily . A study conducted by Germany ’ s chief virologist found that children may be as infectious as adults and recommended countries “ practice caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools ” in the present situation , according to Advisory . The lead author in the aforementioned study in New South Wales also suggests the results shouldn ’ t be used as a basis for reopening schools , since low transmission didn ’ t mean no transmission . “ I think children can still transmit coronavirus . That ’ s certainly the case . We ’ ve seen that , ” she said according to Advisory . In many states , as virus case loads reach new highs , the situation come August is unpredictable , and many parents may be faced with the quandary of whether to send their children back to school if given the option , or keeping them at home after several months cooped up indoors .

As the fall months approach, many parents and guardians of children that normally would be returning to school are caught in the limbo of reopenings, unsure whether their local school district will resume in-person classes due to the coronavirus pandemic. Some school districts have announced that they will reopen schools with a hybrid model. Seminole County in Florida, for example, will give parents the option of enrolling their students in face-to-face learning, online learning, or a mix of multiple options. Volusia County, Florida expects to give parents multiple options, and emphasizes social distancing if students return to their classrooms. Many school districts have decided to start the upcoming school year entirely online, as is the case with California’s two largest school districts, Los Angeles Unified and San Diego Unified. Pressure is being exerted in both directions — while President Donald Trump is urging schools to reopen in the fall, teachers unions have resisted reopening, citing health dangers. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a guidance in late June urging schools to reopen for in-person learning at the start of their school years, but later softened its stance, calling on public health agencies to be in charge of those decisions, according to Politico. Reopen schools in the fall. Listen to the science. https://t.co/OwIA41O6ao — Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) July 16, 2020 Although researchers are continuing to learn about coronavirus, multiple studies have shown that coronavirus may not be easily spread among children, and being in a school setting didn’t create an outbreak. “We don’t think our children should be locked up at home” @PressSec “when its perfectly safe for them to go to school” defending call for schools to fully reopen — Kelly O’Donnell (@KellyO) July 16, 2020 A study by researchers at New South Wales’ National Centre For Immunisation Research and Surveillance in Australia looked at staff and students at five primary schools and 10 high schools from March to mid-April, and found that of 863 people who were in close contact with someone infected with coronavirus, only 2 people, or 0.23%, contracted the virus. The study “found no evidence of children infecting teachers” and suggested that coronavirus spread in schools is very limited. Similarly, a study published in April found that a 9-year-old who attended three different schools and a skiing class while infected with coronavirus and showing symptoms didn’t infect anyone. “The fact that an infected child did not transmit the disease despite close interactions within schools suggests potential different transmission dynamics in children,” the study concluded. “It would be almost unheard of for an adult to be exposed to that many people and not infect anyone else,” Alasdair Munro, a pediatric infectious-diseases researcher at University Hospital Southampton said according to Nature. While these studies are from the beginning of the pandemic shutdowns in the U.S., recent reports from Sweden and Germany seem to suggest similar conclusions. Sweden’s public health agency found that between February 24 and June 14, there was no measurable direct impact on the number of coronavirus cases among school-aged children in Finland, which closed schools, and Sweden, which kept schools open. A German study released Monday also found that the virus doesn’t spread easily in schools, and children may actually act as a “brake” on chains of infection. (RELATED: Coronavirus Not Spreading Among Students, Swedish And German Health Professionals Say) “It is rather the opposite,” Prof Berner told a press conference according to the Telegraph. “Children act more as a brake on infection. Not every infection that reaches them is passed on.” A commentary published in the official peer-review journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics also concluded in July that children infrequently transmit the virus to each other or to adults. A majority of voters oppose schools fully opening in the fall, however, and many people fear the possibility that children could transmit the virus to adults, who are more susceptible to severe symptoms if they are elderly or immunocompromised. Some studies don’t agree that children aren’t transmiting the virus as easily. A study conducted by Germany’s chief virologist found that children may be as infectious as adults and recommended countries “practice caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools” in the present situation, according to Advisory. The lead author in the aforementioned study in New South Wales also suggests the results shouldn’t be used as a basis for reopening schools, since low transmission didn’t mean no transmission. “I think children can still transmit coronavirus. That’s certainly the case. We’ve seen that,” she said according to Advisory. In many states, as virus case loads reach new highs, the situation come August is unpredictable, and many parents may be faced with the quandary of whether to send their children back to school if given the option, or keeping them at home after several months cooped up indoors.

www.dailycaller.com

right

KLGJutkCemC6wM2P

test

wZvoNeZbZLxlmanI

republican_party

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/a-gop-mess-in-massachusetts-the-note/

A GOP Mess In Massachusetts

Michael Falcone

William `` Mo '' Cowan smiles during a news conference where he was named interim U.S . Senator for the seat vacated by U.S. Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass. , at the Statehouse in Boston on Jan. 30 , 2013 . Charles Krupa/AP Photo ON THE PRESIDENT 'S AGENDA - IMMIGRATION AND THE DEFICIT : President Obama meets separately at the White House today with top labor and business leaders today to discuss `` immigration reform and how it fits into his broader economic agenda , and his efforts to achieve balanced deficit reduction . '' ABC 's Mary Bruce notes that just days after dissolving his Jobs Council , the president has invited several of its former members back to the White House . Progressive and labor leaders invited to the table include the AFL-CIO , SEIU , NAACP and la Raza . CEOs including Goldman 's Lloyd Blankfein , Muhtar Kent from Coca Cola and Yahoo 's Marissa Mayer are among those attending the second meeting . TODAY ON THE HILL : This morning , the House Judiciary committee holds a hearing on immigration reform . San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro , the DNC keynote speaker , is among the witnesses . THE QUOTABLE CANTOR : House Majority Leader Eric Cantor appears at the American Enterprise Institute this afternoon to deliver what is being billed as a major policy address outlining the agenda of House Republicans for the 113th Congress . According to excerpts of his speech , Cantor plans to say : `` We will advance proposals aimed at producing results in areas like education , health care , innovation , and job growth . Our solutions will be based on the conservative principles of self reliance , faith in the individual , trust in the family , and accountability in government . Our goal - to ensure every American has a fair shot at earning their success and achieving their dreams . … Lately , it has become all too common in our country to hear parents fear whether their children will indeed have it better than they . And for all of us parents , that is a scary thought . Our goal should be to eliminate the doubt gripping our nation 's families , and to restore their hope and confidence in being able to protect tomorrow for their children . '' ABC 's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE : Scott Brown ? No . Former State Sen. Richard Tisei ? No . Former Gov . Bill Weld ? No . Tagg Romney ? No . Former Lieutenant Gov . Kerry Healey ? No . So , who exactly is left to run for the GOP in the special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts ? The seat - now available because of John Kerry 's departure to the State Department - may have no credible Republican to run for it after all the big names have said `` no . '' The burden of needing 10,000 signatures in less than four weeks and having to run again in 2014 plus the surprise when Brown decided against jumping in , leaves the state GOP scrambling to find someone to get in the race . The only person still being talked about is former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez , who is meeting with national Republicans this week . The run would be good for his name I.D , if nothing else . We should find out soon because the clock is ticking . ABC 's RICK KLEIN : They 'd take a Karl Rove problem about now . The parade of prominent Republicans taking a pass on the special Senate election in Massachusetts highlights a broader set of concerns facing the GOP than any involving grassroots vs. establishment primary warfare . This is a special election for an open Senate seat , in a state that very famously bucked Democratic tradition to send a message to President Obama early in his first term . The fact that not a single prominent/credible Republican wants a shot at one of the incumbent House members vying for the Democratic bid is nothing short of embarrassing for a party that 's benefited from quirks of timing and circumstance in the past . Democrats will take the easy win , but Republicans should be a little worried about why they were n't able to field a team . ABC 's ELIZABETH HARTFIELD : John Kerry has been gone from the Senate for less than a week , but we 've already seen five Massachusetts Republicans decline to bid for his seat . Why the cold feet ? There are lots of reasons , and they vary from person to person , but one shared reason is timing . The candidate who wins in June will have to run again in 17 months , in November , 2014 ( when Kerry would have been up for re-election . ) And while for Democrats in the state this may not be a huge concern , for Republicans , it is . There 's a strong slate of potential Democrats who could put forth a strong campaign against a Republican incumbent in 2014 , including Rep. Joe Kennedy III and current Gov . Deval Patrick , whose term as Gov . will reach its limit then . And , as was the case w/Elizabeth Warren in 2012 , these candidate would have strong financial backing from national Dems who would see the seat as a prime target for a pick-up , in addition to the sheer advantage of being Democrats in a blue state . It 's this scheduling reality that makes the special election a hard sell for many Republicans . VIDEO OF THE DAY : STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL ON THE ARTICLE THAT ENDED HIS CAREER . Retired General Stanley McChrystal 's military career came to an abrupt end in 2010 after `` Rolling Stone '' published an article showing the general 's close advisers openly criticizing the Obama White House . Now , nearly three years after President Obama accepted his resignation as the U.S . Commander in Afghanistan , McChrystal tells ABC 's Martha Raddatz on `` On the Radar , '' it 's still painful . `` It felt surreal , because my whole career I 'd thought that I could be fired for incompetence , or I could be killed , or I could have any number of things happen , but I never thought I could be painted with any brush of disrespect or disloyalty , because I did n't see myself that way . And I still do n't , '' says McChrystal , who offers a detailed account of his tensions with the Obama administration in his new book `` My Share of the Task : A Memoir . '' In his memoir , the retired general focuses on the lessons in leadership he learned throughout his military career . And leadership , McChrystal says , is essential as the military . http : //yhoo.it/UmH3YW WHY TAGG ROMNEY SAID 'NO ' TO SENATE BID . Ready for another Romney run ? Tagg Romney is not . In an e mail to ███ , Tagg Romney says he is not running for U.S. Senate , ABC 's Shushannah Walshe reports . `` I have been humbled by the outreach I received this weekend encouraging me to become a candidate for the US Senate , '' but the timing just does n't work , Romney said . `` I love my home state and admit it would be an honor to represent the citizens of our great Commonwealth , '' Romney said . `` However , I am currently committed to my business and to spending as much time as I can with my wife and children . The timing is not right for me . '' The Boston Herald reported Monday morning that the eldest son of Mitt and Ann Romney is considering a run in the special Senate election in Massachusetts now that former senator Scott Brown decided against a run last week . But , two sources close to both Tagg and his father Mitt told ███ earlier Monday it was n't going to happen . Another consideration for Tagg Romney may be that his father lost the Bay State in last year 's presidential election by 23 points . http : //abcn.ws/XSgPrN THOUGHT THE TAX FIGHT WAS OVER ? THINK AGAIN . After Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill to allow automatic tax hikes on high incomes , Democrats and Republicans are fighting about taxes yet again . In separate interviews over the weekend , Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both said they will push for more revenue increases as part of another deal to avoid the looming `` sequester '' - automatic budget cuts that will take effect March 1 , barring agreement on other deficit-reduction measures . Both suggested closing tax `` loopholes '' as a way to raise more cash for the government . `` There 's no doubt we need additional revenue , coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit , '' Obama said in an interview with CBS 's Scott Pelley . `` Can we close loopholes and deductions that folks who are well connected , and have a lot of accountants and lawyers , can take advantage of , so they end up paying lower rates than say , a bus driver or a cop ? '' Reid told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos that `` without any question , '' more revenue needs to be part of a follow-up deal . `` The American people are on our side , '' he said . `` The American people do n't believe in these austere things . We believe that the rich should contribute . We believe we should fill those tax loopholes - get rid of them , I should say . And that 's where we need to go . '' With Democrats pressing for revenue increases and Republicans pressing for only spending cuts , it appears both sides are where they were before the last agreement was passed and signed . http : //abcn.ws/XGHDgp JOHN KERRY 'S FIRST DAY : I HAVE 'BIG HEELS TO FILL ' Former Senator John Kerry went to work as Secretary of State for the first time on Monday , greeted by the cheers and applause by hundreds of state department employees . ABC 's Dana Hughes notes that a jovial Kerry peppered his remarks with jokes , eliciting laughter from the crowd in a ten minute talk . He used the same spot that outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did to give her emotional farewell on Friday . `` Here 's the big question before the country and the world and the State Department after the last eight years : Can a man actually run the State Department ? '' joked Kerry as his audience cheered . His most recent predecessors include Clinton and Condoleezza Rice . `` As the saying goes , I have big heels to fill . '' Kerry turned very serious when talking about last September 's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi , resulting in the first death of an American ambassador in over 30 years . Kerry spoke by name of all four of the Americans killed in Libya . `` I know everybody here still mourns that loss , and we will , '' he said . `` So I pledge to you this : I will not let their patriotism and their bravery be obscured by politics . '' http : //abcn.ws/USvtTg SPEAKER BOEHNER , GOP PRESSURE OBAMA ON BUDGET . By law , the president is required to submit a budget request to Congress for the upcoming fiscal year by the first Monday of February . The only time Obama met the deadline during his presidency was in 2011 . House Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio , delivered remarks on the House floor yesterday , declaring that by ignoring the deadline imposed by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 , Obama `` missed a great opportunity '' to help the U.S. economy . `` This was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the Congress , but it 's not coming . It 's gon na be late , '' Boehner said . `` That 's too bad . Our economy could use some presidential leadership right now . '' Explaining the delay , the Office of Management and Budget announced last month that the president 's budget would not be released until Feb. 13 , `` based on the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document . '' The president is also scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress on Feb. 12. http : //abcn.ws/14Nr3AT CHRIS CHRISTIE , DAVID LETTERMAN TELL FAT JOKES . New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie made his first appearance on the `` Late Show with David Letterman '' Monday evening and the chat covered Letterman 's tendency to poke fun at the tough-talking governor 's weight , ABC 's Shushannah Walshe notes . Christie tried to give as good as he got from Letterman , taking out a doughnut and starting to eat it just a few minutes into the segment . Christie recited two of the jokes Letterman had made about his weight , but said he still had a `` deep and abiding love '' for the comedian . Before Letterman responded , Christie took out the doughnut from his suit pocket and started eating it . `` I did n't know this was going to be this long , '' Christie deadpanned . Christie said he thought about `` 40 percent '' of Letterman 's jokes about his weight were funny . `` And this one I thought , I do n't know if it 's one of your best ones , but I think it 's very topical given what went on yesterday , '' Christie said , reciting one of Letterman 's fat jokes . `` A billion dollars will be spent on potato chips for Super Bowl Sunday , and that 's just at Gov . Christie 's house . '' Letterman paused then took his own bite out of Christie 's doughnut . http : //abcn.ws/VFSUle -BRUCE BABBITT AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB . In a 12 noon speech at the National Press Club , former Clinton Administration Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt will announce his proposal to help translate the current oil and gas boom into sustainable economic growth and the creation of more national parks , wilderness , and monuments , according to a source familiar with the speech : `` The speech , which has the backing of former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta , will urge the Obama administration and Congress to place energy development 'on equal ground ' with the conservation of public lands . Babbitt will argue that no energy plan can be called 'comprehensive , ' 'balanced , ' or 'all-of-the-above ' unless it addresses energy , climate , and the protection of land and water . With all the pressure that expanded drilling and climate change is putting on local communities and wildlife habitat , there needs to be renewed focus on protecting places for people to hunt , fish , and get outdoors . '' LIVE WEBCAST : http : //bit.ly/WMD0R4 @ robertcostaNRO : What to watch when Cantor 's full text released : Will immigration remarks , regardless of what he says explicity , increase chances of reform ? @ AmbassadorRice : President Obama : `` Kenya must reject intimidation and violence & allow a free and fair vote . '' # KenyaElections ? @ jimgeraghty : Headline I did not expect to see in the WashPost today : `` Fixation on first lady 's posterior has historical antecedents '' . Style , page C5 . @ aterkel : FreedomWorks ' response to Rove 's new Conservative Victory Project : `` The empire is striking back '' http : //bit.ly/YPcNXU @ BeschlossDC : This day 1858 , 50 members House of Reps brawled when SC pro-slavery man tried choke PA abolitionist , stopped when MS Congman 's wig torn off .

William "Mo" Cowan smiles during a news conference where he was named interim U.S. Senator for the seat vacated by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., at the Statehouse in Boston on Jan. 30, 2013. Charles Krupa/AP Photo By MICHAEL FALCONE ( @michaelpfalcone ) NOTABLES ON THE PRESIDENT'S AGENDA - IMMIGRATION AND THE DEFICIT: President Obama meets separately at the White House today with top labor and business leaders today to discuss "immigration reform and how it fits into his broader economic agenda, and his efforts to achieve balanced deficit reduction." ABC's Mary Bruce notes that just days after dissolving his Jobs Council, the president has invited several of its former members back to the White House. Progressive and labor leaders invited to the table include the AFL-CIO, SEIU, NAACP and la Raza. CEOs including Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein, Muhtar Kent from Coca Cola and Yahoo's Marissa Mayer are among those attending the second meeting. TODAY ON THE HILL: This morning, the House Judiciary committee holds a hearing on immigration reform. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, the DNC keynote speaker, is among the witnesses. THE QUOTABLE CANTOR: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor appears at the American Enterprise Institute this afternoon to deliver what is being billed as a major policy address outlining the agenda of House Republicans for the 113th Congress. According to excerpts of his speech, Cantor plans to say: "We will advance proposals aimed at producing results in areas like education, health care, innovation, and job growth. Our solutions will be based on the conservative principles of self reliance, faith in the individual, trust in the family, and accountability in government. Our goal - to ensure every American has a fair shot at earning their success and achieving their dreams. … Lately, it has become all too common in our country to hear parents fear whether their children will indeed have it better than they. And for all of us parents, that is a scary thought. Our goal should be to eliminate the doubt gripping our nation's families, and to restore their hope and confidence in being able to protect tomorrow for their children." THE ROUNDTABLE ABC's SHUSHANNAH WALSHE: Scott Brown? No. Former State Sen. Richard Tisei? No. Former Gov. Bill Weld? No. Tagg Romney? No. Former Lieutenant Gov. Kerry Healey? No. So, who exactly is left to run for the GOP in the special U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts? The seat - now available because of John Kerry's departure to the State Department - may have no credible Republican to run for it after all the big names have said "no." The burden of needing 10,000 signatures in less than four weeks and having to run again in 2014 plus the surprise when Brown decided against jumping in, leaves the state GOP scrambling to find someone to get in the race. The only person still being talked about is former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez, who is meeting with national Republicans this week. The run would be good for his name I.D, if nothing else. We should find out soon because the clock is ticking. ABC's RICK KLEIN: They'd take a Karl Rove problem about now. The parade of prominent Republicans taking a pass on the special Senate election in Massachusetts highlights a broader set of concerns facing the GOP than any involving grassroots vs. establishment primary warfare. This is a special election for an open Senate seat, in a state that very famously bucked Democratic tradition to send a message to President Obama early in his first term. The fact that not a single prominent/credible Republican wants a shot at one of the incumbent House members vying for the Democratic bid is nothing short of embarrassing for a party that's benefited from quirks of timing and circumstance in the past. Democrats will take the easy win, but Republicans should be a little worried about why they weren't able to field a team. ABC's ELIZABETH HARTFIELD: John Kerry has been gone from the Senate for less than a week, but we've already seen five Massachusetts Republicans decline to bid for his seat. Why the cold feet? There are lots of reasons, and they vary from person to person, but one shared reason is timing. The candidate who wins in June will have to run again in 17 months, in November, 2014 (when Kerry would have been up for re-election.) And while for Democrats in the state this may not be a huge concern, for Republicans, it is. There's a strong slate of potential Democrats who could put forth a strong campaign against a Republican incumbent in 2014, including Rep. Joe Kennedy III and current Gov. Deval Patrick, whose term as Gov. will reach its limit then. And, as was the case w/Elizabeth Warren in 2012, these candidate would have strong financial backing from national Dems who would see the seat as a prime target for a pick-up, in addition to the sheer advantage of being Democrats in a blue state. It's this scheduling reality that makes the special election a hard sell for many Republicans. VIDEO OF THE DAY: STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL ON THE ARTICLE THAT ENDED HIS CAREER. Retired General Stanley McChrystal's military career came to an abrupt end in 2010 after "Rolling Stone" published an article showing the general's close advisers openly criticizing the Obama White House. Now, nearly three years after President Obama accepted his resignation as the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, McChrystal tells ABC's Martha Raddatz on "On the Radar," it's still painful. "It felt surreal, because my whole career I'd thought that I could be fired for incompetence, or I could be killed, or I could have any number of things happen, but I never thought I could be painted with any brush of disrespect or disloyalty, because I didn't see myself that way. And I still don't," says McChrystal, who offers a detailed account of his tensions with the Obama administration in his new book "My Share of the Task: A Memoir." In his memoir, the retired general focuses on the lessons in leadership he learned throughout his military career. And leadership, McChrystal says, is essential as the military. http://yhoo.it/UmH3YW BUZZ WHY TAGG ROMNEY SAID 'NO' TO SENATE BID. Ready for another Romney run? Tagg Romney is not. In an e mail to ABC News, Tagg Romney says he is not running for U.S. Senate, ABC's Shushannah Walshe reports. "I have been humbled by the outreach I received this weekend encouraging me to become a candidate for the US Senate," but the timing just doesn't work, Romney said. "I love my home state and admit it would be an honor to represent the citizens of our great Commonwealth," Romney said. "However, I am currently committed to my business and to spending as much time as I can with my wife and children. The timing is not right for me." The Boston Herald reported Monday morning that the eldest son of Mitt and Ann Romney is considering a run in the special Senate election in Massachusetts now that former senator Scott Brown decided against a run last week. But, two sources close to both Tagg and his father Mitt told ABC News earlier Monday it wasn't going to happen. Another consideration for Tagg Romney may be that his father lost the Bay State in last year's presidential election by 23 points. http://abcn.ws/XSgPrN THOUGHT THE TAX FIGHT WAS OVER? THINK AGAIN. After Congress passed and President Obama signed a bill to allow automatic tax hikes on high incomes, Democrats and Republicans are fighting about taxes yet again. In separate interviews over the weekend, Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both said they will push for more revenue increases as part of another deal to avoid the looming "sequester" - automatic budget cuts that will take effect March 1, barring agreement on other deficit-reduction measures. Both suggested closing tax "loopholes" as a way to raise more cash for the government. "There's no doubt we need additional revenue, coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit," Obama said in an interview with CBS's Scott Pelley. "Can we close loopholes and deductions that folks who are well connected, and have a lot of accountants and lawyers, can take advantage of, so they end up paying lower rates than say, a bus driver or a cop?" Reid told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "without any question," more revenue needs to be part of a follow-up deal. "The American people are on our side," he said. "The American people don't believe in these austere things. We believe that the rich should contribute. We believe we should fill those tax loopholes - get rid of them, I should say. And that's where we need to go." With Democrats pressing for revenue increases and Republicans pressing for only spending cuts, it appears both sides are where they were before the last agreement was passed and signed. http://abcn.ws/XGHDgp JOHN KERRY'S FIRST DAY: I HAVE 'BIG HEELS TO FILL' Former Senator John Kerry went to work as Secretary of State for the first time on Monday, greeted by the cheers and applause by hundreds of state department employees. ABC's Dana Hughes notes that a jovial Kerry peppered his remarks with jokes, eliciting laughter from the crowd in a ten minute talk. He used the same spot that outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did to give her emotional farewell on Friday. "Here's the big question before the country and the world and the State Department after the last eight years: Can a man actually run the State Department?" joked Kerry as his audience cheered. His most recent predecessors include Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. "As the saying goes, I have big heels to fill." Kerry turned very serious when talking about last September's attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, resulting in the first death of an American ambassador in over 30 years. Kerry spoke by name of all four of the Americans killed in Libya. "I know everybody here still mourns that loss, and we will," he said. "So I pledge to you this: I will not let their patriotism and their bravery be obscured by politics." http://abcn.ws/USvtTg SPEAKER BOEHNER, GOP PRESSURE OBAMA ON BUDGET. By law, the president is required to submit a budget request to Congress for the upcoming fiscal year by the first Monday of February. The only time Obama met the deadline during his presidency was in 2011. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, delivered remarks on the House floor yesterday, declaring that by ignoring the deadline imposed by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Obama "missed a great opportunity" to help the U.S. economy. "This was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the Congress, but it's not coming. It's gonna be late," Boehner said. "That's too bad. Our economy could use some presidential leadership right now." Explaining the delay, the Office of Management and Budget announced last month that the president's budget would not be released until Feb. 13, "based on the need to finalize decisions and technical details of the document." The president is also scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress on Feb. 12. http://abcn.ws/14Nr3AT CHRIS CHRISTIE, DAVID LETTERMAN TELL FAT JOKES. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made his first appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman" Monday evening and the chat covered Letterman's tendency to poke fun at the tough-talking governor's weight, ABC's Shushannah Walshe notes. Christie tried to give as good as he got from Letterman, taking out a doughnut and starting to eat it just a few minutes into the segment. Christie recited two of the jokes Letterman had made about his weight, but said he still had a "deep and abiding love" for the comedian. Before Letterman responded, Christie took out the doughnut from his suit pocket and started eating it. "I didn't know this was going to be this long," Christie deadpanned. Christie said he thought about "40 percent" of Letterman's jokes about his weight were funny. "And this one I thought, I don't know if it's one of your best ones, but I think it's very topical given what went on yesterday," Christie said, reciting one of Letterman's fat jokes. "A billion dollars will be spent on potato chips for Super Bowl Sunday, and that's just at Gov. Christie's house." Letterman paused then took his own bite out of Christie's doughnut. http://abcn.ws/VFSUle IN THE NOTE'S INBOX: -BRUCE BABBITT AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB. In a 12 noon speech at the National Press Club, former Clinton Administration Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt will announce his proposal to help translate the current oil and gas boom into sustainable economic growth and the creation of more national parks, wilderness, and monuments, according to a source familiar with the speech: "The speech, which has the backing of former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, will urge the Obama administration and Congress to place energy development 'on equal ground' with the conservation of public lands. Babbitt will argue that no energy plan can be called 'comprehensive,' 'balanced,' or 'all-of-the-above' unless it addresses energy, climate, and the protection of land and water. With all the pressure that expanded drilling and climate change is putting on local communities and wildlife habitat, there needs to be renewed focus on protecting places for people to hunt, fish, and get outdoors." LIVE WEBCAST: http://bit.ly/WMD0R4 -PROGRESSIVE GROUP LAUNCHES ADS AGAINST MITCH MCCONELL. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee unveiled a new television ad aimed at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., featuring a local gun owner shaming McConnell for opposing gun reform while taking money from the gun industry. "As a gun owner and a veteran, I support the plan to ban assault weapons and keep guns out of the wrong hands, because I know these guns," says Rodney Kendrick of Berea, Kentucky in the ad. "I know what they can do. Senator Mitch McConnell has taken thousands of dollars from gun manufacturers, and he opposes common sense reforms. Senator McConnell, whose side are you on?" WATCH: http://bit.ly/11n5dp2 WHO'S TWEETING? @robertcostaNRO: What to watch when Cantor's full text released: Will immigration remarks, regardless of what he says explicity, increase chances of reform? @AmbassadorRice: President Obama: "Kenya must reject intimidation and violence & allow a free and fair vote." #KenyaElections ?@jimgeraghty: Headline I did not expect to see in the WashPost today: "Fixation on first lady's posterior has historical antecedents". Style, page C5. @aterkel: FreedomWorks' response to Rove's new Conservative Victory Project: "The empire is striking back" http://bit.ly/YPcNXU @BeschlossDC: This day 1858, 50 members House of Reps brawled when SC pro-slavery man tried choke PA abolitionist, stopped when MS Congman's wig torn off.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

wZvoNeZbZLxlmanI

test

iLp5yYleqvNjL0YA

politics

ABC News

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/ag-barr-blasts-trumps-tweets-abc-news-exclusive-68971790

AG Barr blasts Trump's tweets: ABC News Exclusive

Transcript for AG Barr blasts Trump 's tweets : ███ Exclusive US attorney . For the dish of Colombia signed off on his name is on the recommendation that went in there yeah how 'd that happen . On Monday . He came . Two briefly chat with me and say that . The team very much wanted to recommend . The seven to nine year to judge . And but he thought that there was away . Satisfying . Everybody fighting more flexibility . And there was a brief discussion that I was under the impression . What was going to happen was . Very much and I it suggestion which is deferring to the judge and then pointing at various factors and circumstances . On Monday . Night . 11 for the news reports said gee that news is spending this this is not what we look . Going to do you were surprised I was very surprised . And once I eight confirmed that that 's actually what we filed I said that night . To my staff that we had to get ready as we had to do something in the morning two men having clarify our position us I had made decisions Philip was fair and reasonable . In this particular case . And what 's the tweed occurred the question as well . Now our elected and do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or be pulled back because of the tweet that just sort of illustrates had disrupted these tweets . So you 're saying of a problem with tweets . Yes well I have a I have a problem . With some of some of this that we unhappiness day in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in the criminal case . However . To have public statements and tweets made about the department . About . People in the department are armed men and women here but back case is pending in the department . And about judges before whom we have cases . Make it impossible . For me to do my job to assure the courts . And the prosecutors in this in the department . That we 're doing our work with integrity . This of our . And president . Does not like to be told what to do he may not like what you 're sick you prepared for those ramifications . Could of course as I said during my confirmation . I came in to serve as attorney general . I am responsible for everything that happens in the department but the thing I have most responsibility for a the issues that are brought to me . For decision . And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do and I 'm not going to be bullied or influenced by . Anybody and I said it I 'm whether it 's congress newspaper editorial boards for the president I 'm gon na do what I think is right . And you know . The I think the V I can not do my job here at the department . We will have constant background commentary . At that undercuts . So just to be clear here . Did you talk to the president at all about your decision regarding the recommendations . The recommendations on that this case never . Anybody from the White House call you to try to if you should know . So I have not had n't I have not discussed the Roger Stone case at the White House . Does the president have the authority to just direct you to open an investigation and you have to do it . Can you help people that own home understand can he do that I think in it in them in many kept in many areas such as . Did that do n't affect is . Personal interest terrorism terrorism or . Fraud by a bank or her or something like that . Where there he 's concerned about something . He he can certainly say you know I think someone should look and that 's that 's perfectly appropriate . If he were to say you know go investigate somebody because . And and you sense it because their political opponent . Then attorney general should n't carry that would n't carry that . Having known here in covered you for years you 're not a person that response a lot to criticism . But I am wondering in this version of the job you would n't and when you hear people on Capitol Hill saying . Bars acting more like the personal attorney the president rather than the chief law enforcement officer . How irritated does that make you what do you say those people . Well they can . This goes back to the fact we are in very polarized situation and and so in that kind of situation I expect a line of low blows and thorough . Search by . I do n't respond to that as you say . But I do think that in the current situation . As as I 've said . You know the fact that the tweets are out there and car respond to things we 're doing at the department . Sort of give grist for the mill and that 's why I think it 's time to stop the tweeting about it Department of Justice criminal case . This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100 % accurate .

Transcript for AG Barr blasts Trump's tweets: ABC News Exclusive US attorney. For the dish of Colombia signed off on his name is on the recommendation that went in there yeah how'd that happen. On Monday. He came. Two briefly chat with me and say that. The team very much wanted to recommend. The seven to nine year to judge. And but he thought that there was away. Satisfying. Everybody fighting more flexibility. And there was a brief discussion that I was under the impression. What was going to happen was. Very much and I it suggestion which is deferring to the judge and then pointing at various factors and circumstances. On Monday. Night. 11 for the news reports said gee that news is spending this this is not what we look. Going to do you were surprised I was very surprised. And once I eight confirmed that that's actually what we filed I said that night. To my staff that we had to get ready as we had to do something in the morning two men having clarify our position us I had made decisions Philip was fair and reasonable. In this particular case. And what's the tweed occurred the question as well. Now our elected and do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or be pulled back because of the tweet that just sort of illustrates had disrupted these tweets. So you're saying of a problem with tweets. Yes well I have a I have a problem. With some of some of this that we unhappiness day in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in the criminal case. However. To have public statements and tweets made about the department. About. People in the department are armed men and women here but back case is pending in the department. And about judges before whom we have cases. Make it impossible. For me to do my job to assure the courts. And the prosecutors in this in the department. That we're doing our work with integrity. This of our. And president. Does not like to be told what to do he may not like what you're sick you prepared for those ramifications. Could of course as I said during my confirmation. I came in to serve as attorney general. I am responsible for everything that happens in the department but the thing I have most responsibility for a the issues that are brought to me. For decision. And I will make those decisions based on what I think is the right thing to do and I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by. Anybody and I said it I'm whether it's congress newspaper editorial boards for the president I'm gonna do what I think is right. And you know. The I think the V I cannot do my job here at the department. We will have constant background commentary. At that undercuts. So just to be clear here. Did you talk to the president at all about your decision regarding the recommendations. The recommendations on that this case never. Anybody from the White House call you to try to if you should know. So I have not hadn't I have not discussed the Roger Stone case at the White House. Does the president have the authority to just direct you to open an investigation and you have to do it. Can you help people that own home understand can he do that I think in it in them in many kept in many areas such as. Did that don't affect is. Personal interest terrorism terrorism or. Fraud by a bank or her or something like that. Where there he's concerned about something. He he can certainly say you know I think someone should look and that's that's perfectly appropriate. If he were to say you know go investigate somebody because. And and you sense it because their political opponent. Then attorney general shouldn't carry that wouldn't carry that. Having known here in covered you for years you're not a person that response a lot to criticism. But I am wondering in this version of the job you wouldn't and when you hear people on Capitol Hill saying. Bars acting more like the personal attorney the president rather than the chief law enforcement officer. How irritated does that make you what do you say those people. Well they can. This goes back to the fact we are in very polarized situation and and so in that kind of situation I expect a line of low blows and thorough. Search by. I don't respond to that as you say. But I do think that in the current situation. As as I've said. You know the fact that the tweets are out there and car respond to things we're doing at the department. Sort of give grist for the mill and that's why I think it's time to stop the tweeting about it Department of Justice criminal case. This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

iLp5yYleqvNjL0YA

test

PqFnMnMOQwCtBZky

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/christie-bill-clinton-warm-latest-bipartisan-presidential-bromance/story?id=19400253#.UbtsxZzAFQ8

Christie, Bill Clinton Warm to Latest Bipartisan Presidential 'Bromance'

Josh Margolin

First , the Republican governor from New Jersey surprised his party by embracing -- both figuratively and literally -- President Obama . Now , Christie 's headlining the closing ceremonies of Bill Clinton 's annual international forum in Chicago . Today 's session , called `` Cooperation and Collaboration : A Conversation on Leadership , '' is the product of an odd-couple pairing of Clinton and Christie that has developed in the four years since the popular former president tried unsuccessfully to end Christie 's political career before it really took off , sources close to both Clinton and Christie said . `` They 're both similar in a lot of ways , '' one Clinton insider told ███ . Clinton `` respects him and his nature and he likes him as a person . Clinton likes the straightforward style . They have similar backgrounds , they were both prosecutors , Clinton as an attorney general in Arkansas . They 're both normal guys from humble beginnings . '' The unpredictable Christie was a key fundraiser and campaigner last year for Obama 's GOP challenger , Mitt Romney . In return , the first-term Republican governor got to deliver the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa . Then , Superstorm Sandy destroyed much of the Jersey Shore . In the hurricane 's aftermath , Christie looked to the federal government to help and , in the process , established a bipartisan working relationship with Obama that infuriated GOP stalwarts . Now , as Christie faces re-election and is touted as a possible contender for Clinton 's old office on Pennsylvania Avenue , Christie is sharing the spotlight with him , a man who was once impeached because of Christie 's own GOP . Representatives of both men declined to comment for this story , saying Clinton and Christie will say what needs to be said when they take the stage at today 's Clinton Global Initiative event . Intimates of both men say the real story behind today 's event is the private friendship that has developed between the ex-president and a governor who would like to be president . The two have met , traded war stories , talked on the phone , all inside the four years since Clinton campaigned hard on behalf of then-Gov . Jon Corzine , the incumbent Christie beat in 2009 . People familiar with the private conversations between the governor and the former president said this is the second time Clinton invited Christie to play a starring role at the Clinton Global Initiative in Chicago . Christie had been tentatively scheduled to attend last year but was scrubbed from the final agenda . In other words , this particular `` bromance , '' they said , has been going on longer than Christie 's new , high-profile attachment to the latest inhabitant of the White House , Obama . Insiders say the unlikely pair of Clinton and Christie started with Clinton 's taking note of Christie 's political acumen even as the ex-president was working against Christie . At the time , Clinton was crisscrossing New Jersey to aid Corzine 's floundering re-election bid . As he worked crowds across the Garden State , Clinton painted Christie , 50 , as hostile toward women , the middle class and working people while he openly questioning `` why are we having an election ? '' Clinton , 66 , insisted that the poor economy was making people think ill of Corzine , and that he needed to travel New Jersey because `` It matters what the governors do , it matters what the states do , '' so voters needed to send Corzine back to Trenton . Despite the speeches , Clinton had started noticing Christie 's tough talk and skill at sparring with reporters , sources said . Soon afterward , Christie again impressed the always-a-politician Clinton as the rookie governor battled New Jersey 's powerful teachers unions . So , later in 2010 , when the two wound up a few rows away from each other at the Big East basketball tournament at Madison Square Garden , Clinton had his people arrange for a quick chat with Christie . That led to a summit of sorts at Clinton 's post-presidential office in Harlem , where Clinton and Christie talked politics and public policy . `` It was very good , long Clintonesque conversation , '' one Clinton person said . What was clear during that meeting and the subsequent opportunities for the two pols to talk is how much alike Clinton and Christie are . `` Christie is like Clinton , '' the insider said . `` You could n't be in a room with Chris Christie and not come away thinking , 'Christie is a neat guy to be around . He 's normal . He grabs a room . Like Clinton . ' '' Never a darling of the Republican right-wing , Christie and his aides are well aware that a trip to the Clinton conference is more than just a pleasant diversion to Chicago . It can , in fact , provide potential opponents with more ammunition to demonstrate how disloyal Christie is to the conservative electorate that turns out in presidential primaries . For a governor who constantly reminds people he can work with leaders of all stripes , the appearance today and the friendship with Clinton are worth the political risks . `` This is a stature thing , '' a Christie source said . `` It burnishes his [ Christie 's ] bipartisan credentials and it shows the governor is a serious guy . He 's talking about leadership with Clinton . That 's a big deal . '' As for Clinton 's efforts to destroy Christie last time around : Christie , the source said , `` understands the game as well as anybody . The campaign 's over . ''

What is it with Chris Christie and Democratic presidents? First, the Republican governor from New Jersey surprised his party by embracing -- both figuratively and literally -- President Obama. Now, Christie's headlining the closing ceremonies of Bill Clinton's annual international forum in Chicago. Today's session, called "Cooperation and Collaboration: A Conversation on Leadership," is the product of an odd-couple pairing of Clinton and Christie that has developed in the four years since the popular former president tried unsuccessfully to end Christie's political career before it really took off, sources close to both Clinton and Christie said. "They're both similar in a lot of ways," one Clinton insider told ABC News. Clinton "respects him and his nature and he likes him as a person. Clinton likes the straightforward style. They have similar backgrounds, they were both prosecutors, Clinton as an attorney general in Arkansas. They're both normal guys from humble beginnings." The unpredictable Christie was a key fundraiser and campaigner last year for Obama's GOP challenger, Mitt Romney. In return, the first-term Republican governor got to deliver the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Read more at ABC News Politics. Then, Superstorm Sandy destroyed much of the Jersey Shore. In the hurricane's aftermath, Christie looked to the federal government to help and, in the process, established a bipartisan working relationship with Obama that infuriated GOP stalwarts. Now, as Christie faces re-election and is touted as a possible contender for Clinton's old office on Pennsylvania Avenue, Christie is sharing the spotlight with him, a man who was once impeached because of Christie's own GOP. Representatives of both men declined to comment for this story, saying Clinton and Christie will say what needs to be said when they take the stage at today's Clinton Global Initiative event. Intimates of both men say the real story behind today's event is the private friendship that has developed between the ex-president and a governor who would like to be president. The two have met, traded war stories, talked on the phone, all inside the four years since Clinton campaigned hard on behalf of then-Gov. Jon Corzine, the incumbent Christie beat in 2009. People familiar with the private conversations between the governor and the former president said this is the second time Clinton invited Christie to play a starring role at the Clinton Global Initiative in Chicago. Christie had been tentatively scheduled to attend last year but was scrubbed from the final agenda. In other words, this particular "bromance," they said, has been going on longer than Christie's new, high-profile attachment to the latest inhabitant of the White House, Obama. Insiders say the unlikely pair of Clinton and Christie started with Clinton's taking note of Christie's political acumen even as the ex-president was working against Christie. At the time, Clinton was crisscrossing New Jersey to aid Corzine's floundering re-election bid. As he worked crowds across the Garden State, Clinton painted Christie, 50, as hostile toward women, the middle class and working people while he openly questioning "why are we having an election?" Clinton, 66, insisted that the poor economy was making people think ill of Corzine, and that he needed to travel New Jersey because "It matters what the governors do, it matters what the states do," so voters needed to send Corzine back to Trenton. Despite the speeches, Clinton had started noticing Christie's tough talk and skill at sparring with reporters, sources said. Soon afterward, Christie again impressed the always-a-politician Clinton as the rookie governor battled New Jersey's powerful teachers unions. So, later in 2010, when the two wound up a few rows away from each other at the Big East basketball tournament at Madison Square Garden, Clinton had his people arrange for a quick chat with Christie. That led to a summit of sorts at Clinton's post-presidential office in Harlem, where Clinton and Christie talked politics and public policy. "It was very good, long Clintonesque conversation," one Clinton person said. What was clear during that meeting and the subsequent opportunities for the two pols to talk is how much alike Clinton and Christie are. "Christie is like Clinton," the insider said. "You couldn't be in a room with Chris Christie and not come away thinking, 'Christie is a neat guy to be around. He's normal. He grabs a room. Like Clinton.'" Never a darling of the Republican right-wing, Christie and his aides are well aware that a trip to the Clinton conference is more than just a pleasant diversion to Chicago. It can, in fact, provide potential opponents with more ammunition to demonstrate how disloyal Christie is to the conservative electorate that turns out in presidential primaries. For a governor who constantly reminds people he can work with leaders of all stripes, the appearance today and the friendship with Clinton are worth the political risks. "This is a stature thing," a Christie source said. "It burnishes his [Christie's] bipartisan credentials and it shows the governor is a serious guy. He's talking about leadership with Clinton. That's a big deal." As for Clinton's efforts to destroy Christie last time around: Christie, the source said, "understands the game as well as anybody. The campaign's over."

www.abcnews.go.com

left

PqFnMnMOQwCtBZky

test

S1mSxHPWVySpigJB

politics

BBC News

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40718076

Trump savages 'very weak' Attorney General Jeff Sessions

The White House says it will decide `` soon '' on the fate of Attorney General Jeff Sessions , after a barrage of criticism from President Donald Trump . In a Twitter onslaught , Mr Trump called the country 's top prosecutor `` weak '' , a day after labelling him `` beleaguered '' . At the White House later , Mr Trump said he was `` disappointed '' with Mr Sessions . The former Alabama senator should not have recused himself from an FBI inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the election , said the president . Allies of Mr Sessions have indicated that he intends to stay in his post . `` Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes ( where are E-mails & DNC server ) & Intel leakers ! '' Mr Trump tweeted on Tuesday . Anthony Scaramucci , the president 's new communications director , fanned speculation on Tuesday that the attorney general 's days could be numbered . `` We 'll come to a resolution soon , '' he said when asked by reporters about the tensions between the Republican president and top prosecutor . An interviewer put it to Mr Scaramucci that it was pretty clear Mr Trump wants Mr Sessions gone . `` If there 's this level of tension in the relationship that 's public , you 're probably right , '' Mr Scaramucci said . Mr Sessions was in the West Wing on Monday , but did not meet the president , according to deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders . The attorney general has recently asked White House aides if he can see Mr Trump to patch things up , reports AP news agency . But Mr Scaramucci said on Tuesday : `` My guess is the president does n't want to do that . '' Another day , another 24 hours of Jeff Sessions gently fluttering in the breeze . Although Donald Trump denied it on Tuesday afternoon , it 's hard to read his `` we 'll see what happens '' and `` time will tell '' comments - when asked if he would fire Mr Sessions - as anything but ominous . Even more concerning for the attorney general were the president 's remarks to the Wall Street Journal earlier in the day , essentially shrugging off the then-senator 's early endorsement of his presidential candidacy . Mr Sessions was more than just a Trump bandwagoner . He was a Trump trailblazer . He staked out anti-immigration positions long before the New York mogul took the presidential dive . He was an animated advocate for Mr Trump on the campaign trail , sticking by him when other national politicians ran for cover . The prospect that even Mr Sessions is n't above attack is sending a chill throughout conservative ranks . His former Senate colleagues , currently debating healthcare reform , have to wonder whether the president has their back . Conservative media - even reliably pro-Trump Breitbart.com - are balking at the president 's barbs . Within the executive branch , unease grows . If Cabinet secretaries are n't safe from the president 's sting , who is ? Last week , Mr Trump expressed regret about appointing the former Alabama senator , telling the New York Times Mr Sessions `` should have never recused himself '' . Mr Sessions , known for his hardline anti-immigration stance , was one of then-candidate Mr Trump 's earliest supporters in Washington . But in March he recused himself from the Russia inquiry after failing during his confirmation hearing to disclose a meeting with the Kremlin 's envoy . The most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill , House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan , has made clear he would have no problem if Mr Sessions is dismissed . Mr Ryan told reporters on Tuesday : `` He [ President Trump ] determines who is hired and fired in the executive branch - that 's his prerogative . '' But Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham defended Mr Sessions . `` President Trump 's tweet today suggesting Attorney General Sessions pursue prosecution of a former political rival is highly inappropriate , '' tweeted Mr Graham . Some suspect Mr Trump 's ultimate target is Robert Mueller , the special counsel who is leading the Russia investigation . Representative Adam Schiff tweeted on Tuesday that Mr Trump `` wants to force Sessions to resign so he can appoint someone to curb Mueller probe '' . Mr Schiff is ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee , one of several congressional panels investigating whether Trump election campaign officials colluded with Moscow . It was reported on Monday that the president is considering former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the job . But Mr Giuliani told CNN on Monday that Mr Sessions had `` made the right decision under the rules of the justice department '' in recusing himself from the inquiry . If Mr Trump were to fire Mr Sessions , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be next in line to take over the job on an acting basis . However , Mr Trump has been critical of Mr Rosenstein for his handling of the Russia inquiry . During the election , Mr Trump suggested the Democratic candidate would be in jail if he were elected . Chants of `` lock her up '' were routine at his rallies as he stoked voter mistrust over Mrs Clinton 's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state . But it was Mr Trump who dropped the issue once he was elected . In an interview with the New York Times , he said : `` I do n't want to hurt the Clintons , I really do n't . `` She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways . ''

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Trump says he's not letting Sessions twist in the wind The White House says it will decide "soon" on the fate of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, after a barrage of criticism from President Donald Trump. In a Twitter onslaught, Mr Trump called the country's top prosecutor "weak", a day after labelling him "beleaguered". At the White House later, Mr Trump said he was "disappointed" with Mr Sessions. The former Alabama senator should not have recused himself from an FBI inquiry into alleged Russian meddling in the election, said the president. Allies of Mr Sessions have indicated that he intends to stay in his post. "Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!" Mr Trump tweeted on Tuesday. Will Sessions get fired? Anthony Scaramucci, the president's new communications director, fanned speculation on Tuesday that the attorney general's days could be numbered. "We'll come to a resolution soon," he said when asked by reporters about the tensions between the Republican president and top prosecutor. An interviewer put it to Mr Scaramucci that it was pretty clear Mr Trump wants Mr Sessions gone. "If there's this level of tension in the relationship that's public, you're probably right," Mr Scaramucci said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Mr Trump's supporters in Ohio say it's time for Mr Sessions to step aside Mr Sessions was in the West Wing on Monday, but did not meet the president, according to deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The attorney general has recently asked White House aides if he can see Mr Trump to patch things up, reports AP news agency. But Mr Scaramucci said on Tuesday: "My guess is the president doesn't want to do that." Analysis: No one is safe Anthony Zurcher, BBC North America reporter Another day, another 24 hours of Jeff Sessions gently fluttering in the breeze. Although Donald Trump denied it on Tuesday afternoon, it's hard to read his "we'll see what happens" and "time will tell" comments - when asked if he would fire Mr Sessions - as anything but ominous. Even more concerning for the attorney general were the president's remarks to the Wall Street Journal earlier in the day, essentially shrugging off the then-senator's early endorsement of his presidential candidacy. Mr Sessions was more than just a Trump bandwagoner. He was a Trump trailblazer. He staked out anti-immigration positions long before the New York mogul took the presidential dive. He was an animated advocate for Mr Trump on the campaign trail, sticking by him when other national politicians ran for cover. Now the president is turning on his loyal ally. The prospect that even Mr Sessions isn't above attack is sending a chill throughout conservative ranks. His former Senate colleagues, currently debating healthcare reform, have to wonder whether the president has their back. Conservative media - even reliably pro-Trump Breitbart.com - are balking at the president's barbs. Within the executive branch, unease grows. If Cabinet secretaries aren't safe from the president's sting, who is? Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Donald Trump delivered a speech to remember to the Boy Scouts of America Why is Trump unhappy with Sessions? Last week, Mr Trump expressed regret about appointing the former Alabama senator, telling the New York Times Mr Sessions "should have never recused himself". Mr Sessions, known for his hardline anti-immigration stance, was one of then-candidate Mr Trump's earliest supporters in Washington. But in March he recused himself from the Russia inquiry after failing during his confirmation hearing to disclose a meeting with the Kremlin's envoy. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption All you need to know about the Trump-Russia investigation What's the reaction from Congress? The most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, has made clear he would have no problem if Mr Sessions is dismissed. Mr Ryan told reporters on Tuesday: "He [President Trump] determines who is hired and fired in the executive branch - that's his prerogative." But Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham defended Mr Sessions. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Ben Cardin tells the World Tonight Trump has been inconsistent with his constitutional responsibilities "President Trump's tweet today suggesting Attorney General Sessions pursue prosecution of a former political rival is highly inappropriate," tweeted Mr Graham. Some suspect Mr Trump's ultimate target is Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is leading the Russia investigation. Representative Adam Schiff tweeted on Tuesday that Mr Trump "wants to force Sessions to resign so he can appoint someone to curb Mueller probe". Mr Schiff is ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, one of several congressional panels investigating whether Trump election campaign officials colluded with Moscow. What next if Sessions is axed? It was reported on Monday that the president is considering former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the job. But Mr Giuliani told CNN on Monday that Mr Sessions had "made the right decision under the rules of the justice department" in recusing himself from the inquiry. If Mr Trump were to fire Mr Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would be next in line to take over the job on an acting basis. However, Mr Trump has been critical of Mr Rosenstein for his handling of the Russia inquiry. Why does Trump want Clinton investigated? During the election, Mr Trump suggested the Democratic candidate would be in jail if he were elected. Chants of "lock her up" were routine at his rallies as he stoked voter mistrust over Mrs Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. But it was Mr Trump who dropped the issue once he was elected. In an interview with the New York Times, he said: "I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways."

www.bbc.com

center

S1mSxHPWVySpigJB

test

YtpeRZLB29A0XLrK

politics

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rand-paul-obama-surveillance-big-deal/2017/04/04/id/782413/

Rand Paul: Obama Surveillance of Trump 'Big Deal'

2017-04-04

Sandy Fitzgerald

If former President Barack Obama ordered or knew about names of incoming President Donald Trump 's transition staff being unmasked after they were gathered during surveillance activities , that is a `` big deal , '' Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday . `` If the outgoing administration was actually , literally sifting through things , and if part of the administration said [ it was ] going to scatter and get as much information , scatter it out there publicly to try to harm the Trump administration , this was a witch hunt that began with the Obama administration , '' the Kentucky Republican told MSNBC 's `` Morning Joe . '' Bloomberg 's Eli Lake reported on Monday that according to officials familiar with the situation , lawyers at the White House discovered in March that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice had asked for the names of people captured during surveillance in several incidents in connection with Trump 's transition and campaign . Paul on Tuesday described the use of intelligence apparatus to attack Trump as `` sour grapes on the way out the door . '' The problem with `` back door searches '' has been going on for years , Paul said . `` For years , both progressives and libertarians complained about the back door searches , '' said Paul . `` It 's not that we are searching maybe one foreign leader who they talked to , but we search everything in the whole world . '' For example , it was reported years ago that all of Italy 's phone calls were absorbed during a one-month period of time , said Paul . `` We were getting [ German Chancellor Angela ] Merkel 's phone calls , everybody 's phone calls , and by rebound , we collect Americans ' phone calls , '' said Paul . In an `` old-fashioned way , '' a warrant is needed to listen to what is gathered during such surveillance , said Paul , but if a secret warrant is issued , that is different . `` A secret warrant by a secret court with a lower standard level because we 're afraid of terrorism is one thing for foreigners , '' said Paul , noting that he and progressives have been warning for years that back-door searches could be politicized . `` [ Susan Rice ] should be under subpoena , '' said Paul . `` Did President Obama know about this ? This is similar for political reasons . '' Civil libertarians have had concerns for years about federal spying programs , Paul continued . `` The objections that civil libertarians had to the program is that you lowered the standard , '' said the senator . `` We 'll spy on foreigners at the drop of a hat . We have no standard of the Fourth Amendment at all , and some of that I can agree to , but by rebound , we 're collecting millions of conversations of Americans that should be protected by the Fourth Amendment . '' It 's `` simply a mistake to downgrade '' the surveillance that captured Trump 's associates and call it `` incidental ; it 's no big deal , '' said Paul .

If former President Barack Obama ordered or knew about names of incoming President Donald Trump's transition staff being unmasked after they were gathered during surveillance activities, that is a "big deal," Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday. "If the outgoing administration was actually, literally sifting through things, and if part of the administration said [it was] going to scatter and get as much information, scatter it out there publicly to try to harm the Trump administration, this was a witch hunt that began with the Obama administration," the Kentucky Republican told MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Bloomberg's Eli Lake reported on Monday that according to officials familiar with the situation, lawyers at the White House discovered in March that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice had asked for the names of people captured during surveillance in several incidents in connection with Trump's transition and campaign. Paul on Tuesday described the use of intelligence apparatus to attack Trump as "sour grapes on the way out the door." The problem with "back door searches" has been going on for years, Paul said. "For years, both progressives and libertarians complained about the back door searches," said Paul. "It's not that we are searching maybe one foreign leader who they talked to, but we search everything in the whole world." For example, it was reported years ago that all of Italy's phone calls were absorbed during a one-month period of time, said Paul. "We were getting [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel's phone calls, everybody's phone calls, and by rebound, we collect Americans' phone calls," said Paul. In an "old-fashioned way," a warrant is needed to listen to what is gathered during such surveillance, said Paul, but if a secret warrant is issued, that is different. "A secret warrant by a secret court with a lower standard level because we're afraid of terrorism is one thing for foreigners," said Paul, noting that he and progressives have been warning for years that back-door searches could be politicized. "[Susan Rice] should be under subpoena," said Paul. "Did President Obama know about this? This is similar for political reasons." Civil libertarians have had concerns for years about federal spying programs, Paul continued. "The objections that civil libertarians had to the program is that you lowered the standard," said the senator. "We'll spy on foreigners at the drop of a hat. We have no standard of the Fourth Amendment at all, and some of that I can agree to, but by rebound, we're collecting millions of conversations of Americans that should be protected by the Fourth Amendment." It's "simply a mistake to downgrade" the surveillance that captured Trump's associates and call it "incidental; it's no big deal," said Paul.

www.newsmax.com

right

YtpeRZLB29A0XLrK

test

jhmXeJ2Gdp4vTIWQ

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/02/trump-twitter-account-offline

Trump Twitter account shut down by employee on last day of work

2017-11-02

Olivia Solon

Company initially blamed human error for @ realdonaldtrump account ’ s 11-minute outage but then revealed it was done by worker on final day in job A Twitter employee deactivated Donald Trump ’ s personal account on their last day of work , the company said on Thursday , likely meaning the action was deliberate . The move by the employee – who has not been named – meant that the president ’ s @ realdonaldtrump account was down for 11 minutes . During the brief period of downtime , shortly before 4pm Pacific time ( 11pm GMT ) , anyone going to the @ realDonaldTrump Twitter page would see the message “ Sorry , that page doesn ’ t exist ! ” 'You 're hired ! ' : Internet salutes Twitter employee who pulled plug on Trump Read more After widespread speculation about what had happened , Twitter initially said the account had been inadvertently deactivated “ due to human error by a Twitter employee ” . “ The account was down for 11 minutes , and has since been restored . We are continuing to investigate and are taking steps to prevent this from happening again , ” the company said in a statement . But soon after the company ’ s @ Twittergov account posted another statement revealing the outage was due to an employee ’ s action on their final day in the job . “ Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee ’ s last day . We are conducting a full internal review , ” the new statement said . The company did not immediately reply to Guardian requests to clarify the process . Trump tweeted about the incident on Friday morning , hailing it as vindication that his tweeting was “ having an impact ” : Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) My Twitter account was taken down for 11 minutes by a rogue employee . I guess the word must finally be getting out-and having an impact . There have been continuing calls for Twitter to suspend Trump ’ s account , particularly when he made threats to North Korea . However , when Twitter does this it typically marks the profile with the message “ account suspended ” . Before Twitter ’ s statement , some speculated that Trump himself may have deactivated his account or he may have been hacked . He has been criticized in the past for having poor security standards , continuing to use an old , unsecured Android phone when he moved into the White House instead of trading it for a secure , encrypted device approved by the Secret Service . Twitter suspends accounts if they engage in abusive behavior , if they ’ ve been hacked or if they are fake or promote spam . The San Francisco-based company has in the past suspended high-profile individuals including the rightwing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos , after his sustained hate campaign against the actor Leslie Jones , and the rapper Azealia Banks , who spouted racist venom at the pop singer Zayn Malik . Trump , who has more than 40 million followers on Twitter , is known for his love of the medium . “ It ’ s like owning your own newspaper – without the losses , ” Trump said of the social media tool in 2012 . Ascending to the highest office in the United States hasn ’ t reined in his 140-character outpourings , despite his promise in November 2016 to be “ very restrained , if I use it at all ” in his social media use once he became president . In the last year , he ’ s used the platform to hint about changing decades of policy on nuclear weapons ; praised Vladimir Putin as “ very smart ” , even after intelligence agencies said Russia tried to influence the US election ; sent abusive tweets to a female journalist and made veiled threats about nuclear war .

Company initially blamed human error for @realdonaldtrump account’s 11-minute outage but then revealed it was done by worker on final day in job This article is more than 2 years old This article is more than 2 years old A Twitter employee deactivated Donald Trump’s personal account on their last day of work, the company said on Thursday, likely meaning the action was deliberate. The move by the employee – who has not been named – meant that the president’s @realdonaldtrump account was down for 11 minutes. During the brief period of downtime, shortly before 4pm Pacific time (11pm GMT), anyone going to the @realDonaldTrump Twitter page would see the message “Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!” 'You're hired!': Internet salutes Twitter employee who pulled plug on Trump Read more After widespread speculation about what had happened, Twitter initially said the account had been inadvertently deactivated “due to human error by a Twitter employee”. “The account was down for 11 minutes, and has since been restored. We are continuing to investigate and are taking steps to prevent this from happening again,” the company said in a statement. But soon after the company’s @Twittergov account posted another statement revealing the outage was due to an employee’s action on their final day in the job . “Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee’s last day. We are conducting a full internal review,” the new statement said. The company did not immediately reply to Guardian requests to clarify the process. Trump tweeted about the incident on Friday morning, hailing it as vindication that his tweeting was “having an impact”: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) My Twitter account was taken down for 11 minutes by a rogue employee. I guess the word must finally be getting out-and having an impact. There have been continuing calls for Twitter to suspend Trump’s account, particularly when he made threats to North Korea. However, when Twitter does this it typically marks the profile with the message “account suspended”. Before Twitter’s statement, some speculated that Trump himself may have deactivated his account or he may have been hacked. He has been criticized in the past for having poor security standards, continuing to use an old, unsecured Android phone when he moved into the White House instead of trading it for a secure, encrypted device approved by the Secret Service. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A screenshot of the missing account. Photograph: Twitter Twitter suspends accounts if they engage in abusive behavior, if they’ve been hacked or if they are fake or promote spam. The San Francisco-based company has in the past suspended high-profile individuals including the rightwing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, after his sustained hate campaign against the actor Leslie Jones, and the rapper Azealia Banks, who spouted racist venom at the pop singer Zayn Malik. Trump, who has more than 40 million followers on Twitter, is known for his love of the medium. “It’s like owning your own newspaper – without the losses,” Trump said of the social media tool in 2012. Ascending to the highest office in the United States hasn’t reined in his 140-character outpourings, despite his promise in November 2016 to be “very restrained, if I use it at all” in his social media use once he became president. In the last year, he’s used the platform to hint about changing decades of policy on nuclear weapons; praised Vladimir Putin as “very smart”, even after intelligence agencies said Russia tried to influence the US election; sent abusive tweets to a female journalist and made veiled threats about nuclear war.

www.theguardian.com

left

jhmXeJ2Gdp4vTIWQ

test

btnggZ5RVNBhBFt7

nuclear_weapons

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/27/obama-hiroshima-every-religion-claims-faith-license-kill/

Obama at Hiroshima: Every Religion Claims ‘License to Kill’

2016-05-27

Charlie Spiering

President Barack Obama delivered a pious anti-war address in Hiroshima highlighting “ humanity ’ s core contradiction ” of war , lamenting that humanity tried to justify war because of religion . “ How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause , ” he said . “ Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness , and yet no religion has been spared from believers that have claimed their faith has a license to kill . ” Obama blamed “ religious zeal ” or “ nationalist fervor ” for inspiring humankind to war throughout history , but urged the world to seek a future filled with peace . The president did not explicitly apologize for America using the nuclear bomb to end World War II but rhetorically painted a vivid scene of the bomb that wasted the entire city . “ Death fell from the sky and the world was changed , ” he said , pointing to the “ wall of fire ” that ended the lives of thousands of people . “ Their souls speak to us , they ask us to look inward , to take stock of who we are and what we might become , ” he said . The president delivered his speech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima after he laid a wreath of memorial at the and met with survivors of the nuclear attack . Obama wrestled with mankind history of using science and technological innovation to destroy each other , asserted that the nuclear bombs that ended World War II proved the horror that “ mankind possessed the means to destroy itself . ” “ Yet , in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies we are most starkly reminded of humanity ’ s core contradiction , ” he said . He argued that it was time for the United States and other countries with nuclear weapons to disarm their stockpiles . “ We must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them , ” he said . Obama called not only for a future without nuclear weapons , but without war . “ We must change our mindset about war itself , to prevent conflict with diplomacy , ” he said . He urged the world to rediscover their common humanity and extend peace to the entire world . “ That is a future we can choose , ” he said , “ A future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare , but the start of our own moral awakening . ”

President Barack Obama delivered a pious anti-war address in Hiroshima highlighting “humanity’s core contradiction” of war, lamenting that humanity tried to justify war because of religion. “How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause,” he said. “Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers that have claimed their faith has a license to kill.” Obama blamed “religious zeal” or “nationalist fervor” for inspiring humankind to war throughout history, but urged the world to seek a future filled with peace. The president did not explicitly apologize for America using the nuclear bomb to end World War II but rhetorically painted a vivid scene of the bomb that wasted the entire city. “Death fell from the sky and the world was changed,” he said, pointing to the “wall of fire” that ended the lives of thousands of people. “Their souls speak to us, they ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become,” he said. The president delivered his speech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima after he laid a wreath of memorial at the and met with survivors of the nuclear attack. Obama wrestled with mankind history of using science and technological innovation to destroy each other, asserted that the nuclear bombs that ended World War II proved the horror that “mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.” “Yet, in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction,” he said. He argued that it was time for the United States and other countries with nuclear weapons to disarm their stockpiles. “We must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without them,” he said. Obama called not only for a future without nuclear weapons, but without war. “We must change our mindset about war itself, to prevent conflict with diplomacy,” he said. He urged the world to rediscover their common humanity and extend peace to the entire world. “That is a future we can choose,” he said, “A future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare, but the start of our own moral awakening.”

www.breitbart.com

right

btnggZ5RVNBhBFt7

test

X9eiW8RUohqm1nSS

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/07/19/as-politics-get-shaken-up-a-peace-coalition-emerges/

As Politics Get Shaken Up, a Peace Coalition Emerges

2019-07-19

Steven Greenhut, Eugene Volokh, C.J. Ciaramella, Zuri Davis, Jacob Sullum, Ronald Bailey, Matt Welch, Peter Suderman

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 turned into a mess that led to an immense loss of life and years of violent havoc in the Middle East , the war 's backers flippantly declared that `` everyone '' agreed on the war . The invasion 's evolving justifications—Saddam 's supposed amassing of `` weapons of mass destruction '' to his alleged ties to Al-Qaeda—were overblown , but if everyone was in agreement then who could possibly second-guess the military effort ? At the Editorial Board of the Orange County Register , we produced one piece after another questioning the war . We even got in a spat with one Fox News personality , who took umbrage at criticism of the war while the fighting was going on . That was somehow unpatriotic . But the United States has been involved in endless conflicts . If Americans held their tongues while bombs are dropping , then when could they ever feel free to air their concerns ? `` There is no real threat to the United States , only a theoretical one based on faulty premises , '' I opined at the time . `` It is unjust , in that it is not a war of last resort . It will run up tens of billions of dollars in costs , and it will lead to the limiting of civil liberties at home . Furthermore , America will be managing Iraq for years , perhaps decades , and our presence there is more likely to destabilize than democratize the region . '' Those points largely were correct . ( This column is n't about `` I told you so , '' by the way , but about `` look how far we 've come . '' ) Even the current GOP president has lamented that war . When Donald Trump recently called off airstrikes on Iran at the last minute , almost everyone expressed relief . It 's a new world ideologically and our long-standing foreign policy consensus is , finally , up for debate again . It 's taken long enough , but better late than never . Many of us have serious concerns about our increasingly fractious political discourse , but it 's great that old coalitions are falling apart , new ideas are flourishing , and we 're seeing a rethinking of age-old international policies that have been off-limits to debate . It 's refreshing to see many conservatives abandon their kneejerk support for militarism—and nice to watch a prominent Democratic presidential candidate , former Sen. Joe Biden , held accountable for his support for the Iraq blunder . One recent Boston Globe column highlights how much the ground has shifted . Both sides have their billionaire bogeymen . Conservatives dislike George Soros and liberals dislike the Koch brothers . But Soros and the Kochs are `` uniting to revive the fading vision of a peaceable United States , '' according to the article . They are working to end our `` forever war '' policies and `` promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats , sanctions , and bombing . '' Bring it on . The founding fathers were skeptical of empire . In his oft-quoted farewell address , George Washington warned against `` the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which , under any form of government , are inauspicious to liberty , and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty . '' This has been a constant thread even in modern times . We all know that President Dwight D. Eisenhower , a celebrated general , warned about the `` military-industrial complex . '' During World War I—another costly , unnecessary conflict that led to horrific unforeseen consequences—progressive writer Randolph Bourne warned that `` war is the health of the state . '' Indeed it is . During wartime , the public becomes part of `` the herd , '' he wrote . It is reluctant to criticize its own government , which always is the main threat to our liberties . These days , many of Trump 's supporters are paleo-conservatives , who have always looked askance at military adventurism . Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard , a member of Congress from Hawaii who served in the U.S. military in the Middle East and is a major in the Army National Guard , has been the most thoughtful Democrat on the subject . She complained to National Public Radio about `` leaders in this country from both political parties looking around the world and picking and choosing which bad dictator they want to overthrow . '' She opposes `` sending our military into harm 's way and then trying to export some American model of democracy that may or may not be welcome by the people in those countries . '' These are unusual political times . We 've got many evangelical Christians celebrating the `` miracle '' of a president who , let 's just say , has a spotty moral background . We 've got `` limited government '' conservatives championing government control of the economy through tariffs and `` big government '' Democrats espousing free trade . And yikes—we 're even debating socialism again . But the good news is things have gotten weird enough that Americans appear ready to consider a foreign policy based on peace and diplomacy . I did n't believe that was possible in 2003 when the United States was invading Iraq , but it 's possible now—and that 's heartening even if everyone is n't on board with it yet . This column was first published in the Orange County Register .

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 turned into a mess that led to an immense loss of life and years of violent havoc in the Middle East, the war's backers flippantly declared that "everyone" agreed on the war. The invasion's evolving justifications—Saddam's supposed amassing of "weapons of mass destruction" to his alleged ties to Al-Qaeda—were overblown, but if everyone was in agreement then who could possibly second-guess the military effort? At the Editorial Board of the Orange County Register, we produced one piece after another questioning the war. We even got in a spat with one Fox News personality, who took umbrage at criticism of the war while the fighting was going on. That was somehow unpatriotic. But the United States has been involved in endless conflicts. If Americans held their tongues while bombs are dropping, then when could they ever feel free to air their concerns? "There is no real threat to the United States, only a theoretical one based on faulty premises," I opined at the time. "It is unjust, in that it is not a war of last resort. It will run up tens of billions of dollars in costs, and it will lead to the limiting of civil liberties at home. Furthermore, America will be managing Iraq for years, perhaps decades, and our presence there is more likely to destabilize than democratize the region." Those points largely were correct. (This column isn't about "I told you so," by the way, but about "look how far we've come.") Even the current GOP president has lamented that war. When Donald Trump recently called off airstrikes on Iran at the last minute, almost everyone expressed relief. It's a new world ideologically and our long-standing foreign policy consensus is, finally, up for debate again. It's taken long enough, but better late than never. Many of us have serious concerns about our increasingly fractious political discourse, but it's great that old coalitions are falling apart, new ideas are flourishing, and we're seeing a rethinking of age-old international policies that have been off-limits to debate. It's refreshing to see many conservatives abandon their kneejerk support for militarism—and nice to watch a prominent Democratic presidential candidate, former Sen. Joe Biden, held accountable for his support for the Iraq blunder. One recent Boston Globe column highlights how much the ground has shifted. Both sides have their billionaire bogeymen. Conservatives dislike George Soros and liberals dislike the Koch brothers. But Soros and the Kochs are "uniting to revive the fading vision of a peaceable United States," according to the article. They are working to end our "forever war" policies and "promote an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing." Bring it on. The founding fathers were skeptical of empire. In his oft-quoted farewell address, George Washington warned against "the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." This has been a constant thread even in modern times. We all know that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a celebrated general, warned about the "military-industrial complex." During World War I—another costly, unnecessary conflict that led to horrific unforeseen consequences—progressive writer Randolph Bourne warned that "war is the health of the state." Indeed it is. During wartime, the public becomes part of "the herd," he wrote. It is reluctant to criticize its own government, which always is the main threat to our liberties. These days, many of Trump's supporters are paleo-conservatives, who have always looked askance at military adventurism. Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a member of Congress from Hawaii who served in the U.S. military in the Middle East and is a major in the Army National Guard, has been the most thoughtful Democrat on the subject. She complained to National Public Radio about "leaders in this country from both political parties looking around the world and picking and choosing which bad dictator they want to overthrow." She opposes "sending our military into harm's way and then trying to export some American model of democracy that may or may not be welcome by the people in those countries." These are unusual political times. We've got many evangelical Christians celebrating the "miracle" of a president who, let's just say, has a spotty moral background. We've got "limited government" conservatives championing government control of the economy through tariffs and "big government" Democrats espousing free trade. And yikes—we're even debating socialism again. But the good news is things have gotten weird enough that Americans appear ready to consider a foreign policy based on peace and diplomacy. I didn't believe that was possible in 2003 when the United States was invading Iraq, but it's possible now—and that's heartening even if everyone isn't on board with it yet. This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

www.reason.com

right

X9eiW8RUohqm1nSS

test

IgqMf5uPzHryNhRE

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/more-is-less-for-the-anti-trump-media/

More Is Less for the Anti-Trump Media

George Neumayr, Mark Hyman, Hunt Lawrence, Daniel J. Flynn, Jeffrey Lord, Mary Wishing, R. Emmett Tyrrell, John Glynn

Hillary famously shouted during the throes of the campaign , “ Why am I not up by 50 points ? ” No doubt the media feels similar rage as it pores over Trump ’ s latest job approval numbers , which have actually gone up since February , according to CNN : “ 42 % approve of Trump , highest in 11 months. ” The CNN correspondent , grudgingly reporting these numbers , chalked Trump ’ s staying power up to the “ economy . ” But in a reversal of the Clintonian adage , it is not the economy , stupid , around CNN these days . It is the sex scandal . Womanizing pundits and louche-living hosts profess shock at Trump ’ s behavior . They act like it is all so incomprehensible to them . Jeffrey Toobin likes to crank up his wind machine about Trump ’ s lack of integrity , but not so long ago Toobin ’ s squalid personal life was tabloid fodder . He was cheating on his wife with former CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield ’ s daughter , impregnated her , then ( unsuccessfully ) put pressure on her to get an abortion , according to the New York Daily News in 2010 . “ Jeff and Casey [ Greenfield ] saw each other off and on over the years , ” says one source . “ She was married to someone else for two years . After her divorce , she started seeing Jeff again . He said he was going to leave his wife for her . But , by then , Casey had begun to distrust him . She suspected he had several other mistresses. ” In 2008 , when Greenfield became pregnant , and when she told Toobin the news , he offered her “ money if she ’ d have an abortion , ” says a source . He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor . “ When Casey wouldn ’ t have an abortion , Jeff told her she was going to regret it , that she shouldn ’ t expect any help from him , ” claims another source . Greenfield underwent a risky DNA test while pregnant , but Toobin didn ’ t provide his sample and stopped talking to her , according to sources . On the day she gave birth , Greenfield e-mailed Toobin , inviting him to meet his son , Rory . A source says Toobin didn ’ t reply . The restoration of Lizza to his punditry duties marks quite a turnabout from December , when his employer issued this statement : “ The New Yorker recently learned that Ryan Lizza engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct . We have reviewed the matter and , as a result , have severed ties with Lizza . Due to a request for privacy , we are not commenting further. ” Lizza ’ s name popped up in the controversial and once-privately circulated “ Sh—y Media Men ” list with the cryptic allegation of being “ creepy af in the dms , ” apparently a reference to unwanted direct messages on Twitter . But why should any of this stop CNN from providing near-hourly coverage of whatever Trump was up to eleven years ago ? It is still not clear what exactly that entails . Maybe Toobin could enlighten us on whether or not a single consensual act qualifies as an “ affair ” to be enumerated among feminism ’ s index of patriarchal offenses . It was humorous to see the greasy lawyer of Stormy Daniels insisting on the relevance of her story while simultaneously describing his opposition research for Rahm Emanuel as old news . Why , he hadn ’ t talked to Emanuel “ since 2007 , ” he said . In other words , the year after Stormy Daniels said she trysted with Trump . Naturally , he wasn ’ t pressed on the matter . But what about the non-disclosure payment ? Surely , we can get Trump on that , salivated the media — the same media that has been doling those payments out for years . How many non-disclosure agreements has Jeff Zucker overseen ? And isn ’ t this the same media that yawned at the news of Bill Clinton giving Gennifer Flowers state jobs down in Arkansas ? The same media that pooh-poohed the significance of Clinton ’ s boon companion Vernon Jordan generating job interviews for Monica Lewinsky ? The media ’ s coverage of Trump is like a nuisance suit that never ends . But instead of finishing Trump off , it wins him enduring sympathy . People turn on CNN and see correspondents who have divorced each other ( John King and Dana Bash ) reporting with such gravity about Trump ’ s broken vows and what all of that means for poor Melania , right before , of course , they humiliate her anew by whipping up yet another report on Stormy Daniels . How can anybody take these frauds seriously ? Watching a decadent ruling class ’ s shunning of Trump , the American public finds itself in the position of Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby . They can see at once Trump ’ s flaws and his supposed betters ’ even greater ones .

Hillary famously shouted during the throes of the campaign, “Why am I not up by 50 points?” No doubt the media feels similar rage as it pores over Trump’s latest job approval numbers, which have actually gone up since February, according to CNN: “42% approve of Trump, highest in 11 months.” The CNN correspondent, grudgingly reporting these numbers, chalked Trump’s staying power up to the “economy.” But in a reversal of the Clintonian adage, it is not the economy, stupid, around CNN these days. It is the sex scandal. Womanizing pundits and louche-living hosts profess shock at Trump’s behavior. They act like it is all so incomprehensible to them. Jeffrey Toobin likes to crank up his wind machine about Trump’s lack of integrity, but not so long ago Toobin’s squalid personal life was tabloid fodder. He was cheating on his wife with former CNN correspondent Jeff Greenfield’s daughter, impregnated her, then (unsuccessfully) put pressure on her to get an abortion, according to the New York Daily News in 2010. “Jeff and Casey [Greenfield] saw each other off and on over the years,” says one source. “She was married to someone else for two years. After her divorce, she started seeing Jeff again. He said he was going to leave his wife for her. But, by then, Casey had begun to distrust him. She suspected he had several other mistresses.” In 2008, when Greenfield became pregnant, and when she told Toobin the news, he offered her “money if she’d have an abortion,” says a source. He also allegedly offered to pay for her to have another child later via a sperm donor. “When Casey wouldn’t have an abortion, Jeff told her she was going to regret it, that she shouldn’t expect any help from him,” claims another source. Greenfield underwent a risky DNA test while pregnant, but Toobin didn’t provide his sample and stopped talking to her, according to sources. On the day she gave birth, Greenfield e-mailed Toobin, inviting him to meet his son, Rory. A source says Toobin didn’t reply. How come the angry gods of me-too feminism haven’t gotten around to smiting Toobin? Oh, that’s right. He works for CNN. He enjoys that special immunity accorded members of the self-appointed ruling class. The Toobins look out for each other. Just ask Ryan Lizza, who resurfaced at CNN after the New Yorker sacked him for alleged goatishness, prompting the Washington Post to note: The restoration of Lizza to his punditry duties marks quite a turnabout from December, when his employer issued this statement: “The New Yorker recently learned that Ryan Lizza engaged in what we believe was improper sexual conduct. We have reviewed the matter and, as a result, have severed ties with Lizza. Due to a request for privacy, we are not commenting further.” Lizza’s name popped up in the controversial and once-privately circulated “Sh—y Media Men” list with the cryptic allegation of being “creepy af in the dms,” apparently a reference to unwanted direct messages on Twitter. But why should any of this stop CNN from providing near-hourly coverage of whatever Trump was up to eleven years ago? It is still not clear what exactly that entails. Maybe Toobin could enlighten us on whether or not a single consensual act qualifies as an “affair” to be enumerated among feminism’s index of patriarchal offenses. It was humorous to see the greasy lawyer of Stormy Daniels insisting on the relevance of her story while simultaneously describing his opposition research for Rahm Emanuel as old news. Why, he hadn’t talked to Emanuel “since 2007,” he said. In other words, the year after Stormy Daniels said she trysted with Trump. Naturally, he wasn’t pressed on the matter. But what about the non-disclosure payment? Surely, we can get Trump on that, salivated the media — the same media that has been doling those payments out for years. How many non-disclosure agreements has Jeff Zucker overseen? And isn’t this the same media that yawned at the news of Bill Clinton giving Gennifer Flowers state jobs down in Arkansas? The same media that pooh-poohed the significance of Clinton’s boon companion Vernon Jordan generating job interviews for Monica Lewinsky? The media’s coverage of Trump is like a nuisance suit that never ends. But instead of finishing Trump off, it wins him enduring sympathy. People turn on CNN and see correspondents who have divorced each other (John King and Dana Bash) reporting with such gravity about Trump’s broken vows and what all of that means for poor Melania, right before, of course, they humiliate her anew by whipping up yet another report on Stormy Daniels. How can anybody take these frauds seriously? Watching a decadent ruling class’s shunning of Trump, the American public finds itself in the position of Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby. They can see at once Trump’s flaws and his supposed betters’ even greater ones.

www.spectator.org

right

IgqMf5uPzHryNhRE

test

Jv1ls50207sECuXM

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/president-donald-trump-nunes-memo-russia-probe/2018/02/03/id/841263/

Trump: 'Memo Totally Vindicates' Me in Russia Probe

2018-02-03

Wanda Carruthers

President Donald Trump said on Saturday the release of a previously classified Republican memo that alleges abuse by the FBI and Department of Justice `` totally vindicates '' him in the Russia probe . `` This memo totally vindicates “ Trump ” in probe . But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on . Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction ( the word now used because , after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING , collusion is dead ) . This is an American disgrace ! '' Trump tweeted Saturday . This memo totally vindicates “ Trump ” in probe . But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on . Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction ( the word now used because , after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING , collusion is dead ) . This is an American disgrace ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 3 , 2018 House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes , R-Calif. , released the memo Friday that alleges officials at the FBI and DOJ used bias against Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign , ultimately leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate charges of collusion between aides working for then-candidate Trump and Russian officials . Trump approved the memo 's release on Friday and said its revelations were a `` disgrace , '' adding , `` A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves . '' Reaction among lawmakers was swift . Rep. Pete King , R-N.Y. , also on the House Intelligence Committee , called for public hearings about the FBI and Justice Department actions that led to FISA warrants allowing the surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page . However , fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona blasted the memo 's release , saying it served `` no American interests '' to make the information public . Democrats were mainly in unison in their condemnation of the Nunes memo , including House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Adam Schiff of California who said it was `` deeply misleading and factually inaccurate . '' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also criticized the memo , releasing a statement on Friday calling it a `` desperate attempt to distract the American people from the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal . '' Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are pushing to release their own memo and in a statement on Friday said the Nunes document failed to provide `` vital context . '' Trump said Friday he `` would be inclined '' to allow a Democratic rebuttal if it passed a `` security and legal review , '' according to a White House statement . Democrats contend the four-page memo mischaracterizes highly sensitive classified information and was intended to undermine the Mueller criminal probe that was launched in May 2017 as an outgrowth an earlier FBI investigation . Jerrold Nadler , the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee , said in a statement that Trump 's decision to allow the release of the memo was `` part of a coordinated propaganda effort to discredit , disable and defeat the Russia investigation . '' On Saturday , Nadler circulated a memo to House Democrats disputing the conclusions of the Nunes memo and arguing that Page was a lawful target of surveillance , according to NBC News . `` Carter Page was , more likely than not , an agent of a foreign power . The Department of Justice thought so . A federal judge agreed , '' Nadler wrote in the memo .

President Donald Trump said on Saturday the release of a previously classified Republican memo that alleges abuse by the FBI and Department of Justice "totally vindicates" him in the Russia probe. "This memo totally vindicates “Trump” in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!" Trump tweeted Saturday. This memo totally vindicates “Trump” in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2018 House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released the memo Friday that alleges officials at the FBI and DOJ used bias against Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, ultimately leading to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate charges of collusion between aides working for then-candidate Trump and Russian officials. Trump approved the memo's release on Friday and said its revelations were a "disgrace," adding, "A lot of people should be ashamed of themselves." Reaction among lawmakers was swift. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., also on the House Intelligence Committee, called for public hearings about the FBI and Justice Department actions that led to FISA warrants allowing the surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page. However, fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona blasted the memo's release, saying it served "no American interests" to make the information public. Democrats were mainly in unison in their condemnation of the Nunes memo, including House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Adam Schiff of California who said it was "deeply misleading and factually inaccurate." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also criticized the memo, releasing a statement on Friday calling it a "desperate attempt to distract the American people from the truth about the Trump-Russia scandal." Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are pushing to release their own memo and in a statement on Friday said the Nunes document failed to provide "vital context." Trump said Friday he "would be inclined" to allow a Democratic rebuttal if it passed a "security and legal review," according to a White House statement. Democrats contend the four-page memo mischaracterizes highly sensitive classified information and was intended to undermine the Mueller criminal probe that was launched in May 2017 as an outgrowth an earlier FBI investigation. Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump's decision to allow the release of the memo was "part of a coordinated propaganda effort to discredit, disable and defeat the Russia investigation." On Saturday, Nadler circulated a memo to House Democrats disputing the conclusions of the Nunes memo and arguing that Page was a lawful target of surveillance, according to NBC News. "Carter Page was, more likely than not, an agent of a foreign power. The Department of Justice thought so. A federal judge agreed," Nadler wrote in the memo.

www.newsmax.com

right

Jv1ls50207sECuXM

test

kcx6dXdy8KgP4Er4

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-how-impeachment-works-and-why-trump-is-unlikely-to-be-removed-idUSKBN1Y91TP

How impeachment works and why Trump is unlikely to be removed

2019-12-05

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday instructed the House Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival . [ nL1N28F0C8 ] What happens next and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office are both explained here . The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers , so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office . The president , under the Constitution , can be removed from office for “ Treason , Bribery , or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors . ” High crimes and misdemeanors have historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust , as opposed to indictable violations of criminal statutes . Former President Gerald Ford , while in Congress , famously said : “ An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history . ” No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment . One , Richard Nixon , resigned before he could be removed . Two , Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton , were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate . Impeachment begins in the House , the lower chamber , which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution , or “ articles of impeachment , ” by a simple majority of the body ’ s members . The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings , legal experts said . The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically , holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings before issuing a formal evidence report . The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December . If the House approves articles of impeachment , a trial is then held in the Senate . House members act as the prosecutors ; the senators as jurors ; the chief justice of the United States presides . Historically , the president has been allowed to have defense lawyers call witnesses and request documents . There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial . But Senate rules in effect require a trial , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed . Republicans could seek to amend those rules , but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely , legal experts said . The Senate rules allow members to file , before the conclusion of the trial , motions to dismiss the charges against the president . If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end . Clinton ’ s Senate impeachment trial , which did not end in a conviction , lasted five weeks . Halfway through the proceedings , a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss , which was voted down . Democrats control the House . The House comprises 431 members at present , 233 of whom are Democrats . As a result , the Democrats could impeach the Republican Trump with no Republican support . In 1998 , when Republicans had a House majority , the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton , a Democrat . The Senate now has 53 Republicans , 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats . Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority . A conviction seems unlikely . Should all 100 senators vote , at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him . In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump , Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump ’ s term , which ends on Jan. 20 , 2021 .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday instructed the House Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival. [nL1N28F0C8] FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump attends the NATO leaders summit in Watford, Britain December 4, 2019. REUTERS/Toby Melville What happens next and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office are both explained here. WHY IMPEACHMENT? The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” High crimes and misdemeanors have historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to indictable violations of criminal statutes. Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. HOW DOES IT WORK? Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or “articles of impeachment,” by a simple majority of the body’s members. The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said. The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings before issuing a formal evidence report. The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December. If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the United States presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defense lawyers call witnesses and request documents. CAN THE SENATE REFUSE TO HOLD A TRIAL? There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed. Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said. WHAT ABOUT OPENING A TRIAL AND QUICKLY ENDING IT? The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end. Clinton’s Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down. WHAT’S THE PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS? Democrats control the House. The House comprises 431 members at present, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach the Republican Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. A conviction seems unlikely. Should all 100 senators vote, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

www.reuters.com

center

kcx6dXdy8KgP4Er4

test

Bb7CHvHweg1nEc8b

politics

The Daily Caller

https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/26/unspeakably-cruel-morning-joe-donald-trump-joe-scarborough-intern-lori-klausutis/

‘Unspeakably Cruel’: ‘Morning Joe’ Co-Hosts Call Out Trump For Continuing To Tweet Conspiracy About Scarborough’s Dead Intern

2020-05-26

MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe ” co-hosts addressed President Donald Trump ’ s tweets about Joe Scarborough ’ s dead intern Tuesday morning , calling it “ unspeakably cruel . ” Scarborough and his co-hosts pointed to a New York Times op-ed written by contributing opinion writer Kara Swisher . In the Tuesday op-ed , Swisher called for Twitter to remove Trump ’ s tweets about Lori Klausutis – who was found dead at her desk while working as an intern for Scarborough ’ s congressional office in 2001 . It was determined that Klausutis died of natural causes . Swisher pointed out “ the very serious collateral damage ” of the apparent war between Scarborough and Trump , which often results in the president bringing up Klausutis . The op-ed included a letter sent by Klausutis ’ husband to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey urging the platform to remove the president ’ s tweets , where he has pushed a theory suggesting Scarborough had something to do with the 28-year-old ’ s death . Co-host Mika Brzezinski began the segment by reading widower Timothy J. Klausutis ’ letter to Dorsey in full . Timothy noted that as the intern ’ s husband , he has “ struggled to move forward ” and called the theories pushed by the president “ horrifying lies . ” “ My request is simple : Please delete these tweets , ” he wrote to Dorsey . ( RELATED : Resurfaced Clip Shows MSNBC ’ s Joe Scarborough Joking With Don Imus About Dead Intern ) Scarborough joined in and pointed out parallels that Swisher noted in her op-ed , such as conspiracy theories relating to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting . The MSNBC host appeared to agree with Swisher that this particular theory could be worse because it has been pushed along by the president . “ It ’ s unspeakably cruel , whether it ’ s the president or whether it ’ s people following the president . It is unspeakably cruel , ” Scarborough said . “ These are not public figures , nor have they ever been public figures . ” Tuesday ’ s lengthy segment came after Trump tweeted about Scarborough ’ s dead intern Sunday . The president pushed the theory that Scarborough had something to do with her death . Co-host Willie Geist continued on by reading much of Swisher ’ s op-ed . Geist skipped over the paragraph where Swisher disagreed that “ a Trump ban would be pointless and too drastic. ” Brzezinski begged for Trump to be banned from the platform during a segment on “ Morning Joe ” May 20 and on Twitter afterwards . “ Yes , Twitter , Lori Klausutis certainly does deserve better , nearly two decades after she died in a tragic accident that has morphed into a macabre and continuing nightmare for her husband , Timothy Klausutis , ” Swisher wrote in the op-ed . Geist ’ s reading included Swisher ’ s suggestion that Trump ’ s tweets about Scarborough ’ s dead intern be labeled as misinformation . The segment ended with another quote from Timothy Klausutis ’ letter to Dorsey :

MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-hosts addressed President Donald Trump’s tweets about Joe Scarborough’s dead intern Tuesday morning, calling it “unspeakably cruel.” Scarborough and his co-hosts pointed to a New York Times op-ed written by contributing opinion writer Kara Swisher. In the Tuesday op-ed, Swisher called for Twitter to remove Trump’s tweets about Lori Klausutis – who was found dead at her desk while working as an intern for Scarborough’s congressional office in 2001. It was determined that Klausutis died of natural causes. Swisher pointed out “the very serious collateral damage” of the apparent war between Scarborough and Trump, which often results in the president bringing up Klausutis. The op-ed included a letter sent by Klausutis’ husband to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey urging the platform to remove the president’s tweets, where he has pushed a theory suggesting Scarborough had something to do with the 28-year-old’s death. Co-host Mika Brzezinski began the segment by reading widower Timothy J. Klausutis’ letter to Dorsey in full. Timothy noted that as the intern’s husband, he has “struggled to move forward” and called the theories pushed by the president “horrifying lies.” “My request is simple: Please delete these tweets,” he wrote to Dorsey. (RELATED: Resurfaced Clip Shows MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Joking With Don Imus About Dead Intern) WATCH: Scarborough joined in and pointed out parallels that Swisher noted in her op-ed, such as conspiracy theories relating to the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting. The MSNBC host appeared to agree with Swisher that this particular theory could be worse because it has been pushed along by the president. “It’s unspeakably cruel, whether it’s the president or whether it’s people following the president. It is unspeakably cruel,” Scarborough said. “These are not public figures, nor have they ever been public figures.” Tuesday’s lengthy segment came after Trump tweeted about Scarborough’s dead intern Sunday. The president pushed the theory that Scarborough had something to do with her death. WATCH: Co-host Willie Geist continued on by reading much of Swisher’s op-ed. Geist skipped over the paragraph where Swisher disagreed that “a Trump ban would be pointless and too drastic.” Brzezinski begged for Trump to be banned from the platform during a segment on “Morning Joe” May 20 and on Twitter afterwards. “Yes, Twitter, Lori Klausutis certainly does deserve better, nearly two decades after she died in a tragic accident that has morphed into a macabre and continuing nightmare for her husband, Timothy Klausutis,” Swisher wrote in the op-ed. Geist’s reading included Swisher’s suggestion that Trump’s tweets about Scarborough’s dead intern be labeled as misinformation. The segment ended with another quote from Timothy Klausutis’ letter to Dorsey:

www.dailycaller.com

right

Bb7CHvHweg1nEc8b

test

hhmzoxdq2hGvcDAu

education

Reason

https://reason.com/2019/12/27/kindergarten-test-standards-reading-math-teachers/

Government Standards Are Making 5-Year-Olds and Kindergarten Teachers Miserable

2019-12-27

Lenore Skenazy, Eugene Volokh, Josh Blackman, Mike Riggs, Charles Oliver, Veronique De Rugy, Zuri Davis, Eric Boehm

Increased academic pressure and testing in kindergarten is bringing everyone to tears—including the teachers . When Dr. Peter Gray wrote a piece for his Psychology Today blog about kindergarten teachers in Brookline , Massachusetts , protesting dwindling recess time and mandated 90-minute reading and writing blocks , he received a virtual cubby full of comments from kindergarten teachers across the country at just about the end of their jump rope . `` I had to retire in 2017 because I could not take the pressure of having to force my 5- and 6-year-old students to sit with books…no talking allowed , '' wrote one . `` I taught for 18 years and in the last three years…I heard students cry , talk about how they did n't understand , say they hated reading time . '' Gray is a professor of psychology at Boston College and a co-founder , along with me , of Let Grow , a nonprofit promoting childhood independence . He writes often about how kids need to play—that this is how they learn how to get along , be creative , make things happen , and grow up . Playtime is n't wasted time : It 's intensely educational , just not in a standardized test kind of way . When administrators replace play with academics , the gains are short-lived , but the damage is not . The teachers writing Gray were in heated agreement—and despair . He curated about a dozen comments , which could almost be used to illustrate Elizabeth Kubler-Ross 's five stages of grief . `` I have taught kindergarten for nearly 40 years , '' wrote one . `` Common Core expectations for kindergarten seem to have trickled down from the top , and the people who wrote it thought that they could legislate quicker child development . '' Another teacher wrote that she was appalled to hear these words coming out of her own mouth : `` 'We do NOT play in kindergarten . Do not do that again ! ' ( to a student building a very cool 3D scorpion with the math blocks instead of completing his assigned task to practice addition . ) '' Despite the requirements and testing , `` I foolishly thought I could sneak art and play in , but I was wrong , '' wrote another disillusioned educator . `` The Curriculum Cops showed up in the class I was doing my student teaching in , and that was the beginning of the end for me . Now I just sub and sneak in fun for the kids whenever I can . '' The problem is that kindergarten has been dumbed up to first grade . That is , the kids are being taught a curriculum once reserved for older kids . This is n't making them smarter . It 's just making them more miserable . You too would be ready to throw in the towel ( and perhaps a couple of stuffed animals ) , if you were being prepped with materials like this teacher describes : `` Last week I gave my 5-year-olds a reading assessment that required them to infer the meaning of 'bifocals ' after hearing a 5-paragraph story about Ben Franklin ( the story had no pictures ) . This is the kind of madness that permeates curriculum design for kindergarten . I 'm retiring earlier than I had planned because I just ca n't be a part of this any longer . '' The teachers can quit . The students have a 12-year-stretch ahead of them .

Increased academic pressure and testing in kindergarten is bringing everyone to tears—including the teachers. When Dr. Peter Gray wrote a piece for his Psychology Today blog about kindergarten teachers in Brookline, Massachusetts, protesting dwindling recess time and mandated 90-minute reading and writing blocks, he received a virtual cubby full of comments from kindergarten teachers across the country at just about the end of their jump rope. "I had to retire in 2017 because I could not take the pressure of having to force my 5- and 6-year-old students to sit with books…no talking allowed," wrote one. "I taught for 18 years and in the last three years…I heard students cry, talk about how they didn't understand, say they hated reading time." Gray is a professor of psychology at Boston College and a co-founder, along with me, of Let Grow, a nonprofit promoting childhood independence. He writes often about how kids need to play—that this is how they learn how to get along, be creative, make things happen, and grow up. Playtime isn't wasted time: It's intensely educational, just not in a standardized test kind of way. When administrators replace play with academics, the gains are short-lived, but the damage is not. The teachers writing Gray were in heated agreement—and despair. He curated about a dozen comments, which could almost be used to illustrate Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief. "I have taught kindergarten for nearly 40 years," wrote one. "Common Core expectations for kindergarten seem to have trickled down from the top, and the people who wrote it thought that they could legislate quicker child development." Another teacher wrote that she was appalled to hear these words coming out of her own mouth: "'We do NOT play in kindergarten. Do not do that again!' (to a student building a very cool 3D scorpion with the math blocks instead of completing his assigned task to practice addition.)" Despite the requirements and testing, "I foolishly thought I could sneak art and play in, but I was wrong," wrote another disillusioned educator. "The Curriculum Cops showed up in the class I was doing my student teaching in, and that was the beginning of the end for me. Now I just sub and sneak in fun for the kids whenever I can." The problem is that kindergarten has been dumbed up to first grade. That is, the kids are being taught a curriculum once reserved for older kids. This isn't making them smarter. It's just making them more miserable. You too would be ready to throw in the towel (and perhaps a couple of stuffed animals), if you were being prepped with materials like this teacher describes: "Last week I gave my 5-year-olds a reading assessment that required them to infer the meaning of 'bifocals' after hearing a 5-paragraph story about Ben Franklin (the story had no pictures). This is the kind of madness that permeates curriculum design for kindergarten. I'm retiring earlier than I had planned because I just can't be a part of this any longer." The teachers can quit. The students have a 12-year-stretch ahead of them.

www.reason.com

right

hhmzoxdq2hGvcDAu

test

E4NX9d0cfTw9IDns

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/0f8813ff34ac85bb4ce928ffd2265c96

Biden: If you can’t choose me over Trump, ‘you ain’t black’

2020-05-22

Bill Barrow, Kat Stafford

FILE - In this Sunday , March 15 , 2020 , file photo , former Vice President Joe Biden participates in a Democratic presidential primary debate at CNN Studios in Washington . Biden won Oregon ’ s Democratic presidential primary , outpacing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who both suspended their campaigns earlier in the year . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci , File ) FILE - In this Sunday , March 15 , 2020 , file photo , former Vice President Joe Biden participates in a Democratic presidential primary debate at CNN Studios in Washington . Biden won Oregon ’ s Democratic presidential primary , outpacing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who both suspended their campaigns earlier in the year . ( AP Photo/Evan Vucci , File ) ATLANTA ( AP ) — Joe Biden declared he “ should not have been so cavalier ” on Friday after he told a prominent black radio host that African Americans who back President Donald Trump “ ain ’ t black . ” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee quickly moved to address the fallout from his remark , which was interpreted by some as presuming black Americans would vote for him . In a call with the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce that was added to his public schedule , Biden said he would never “ take the African American community for granted . ” “ I shouldn ’ t have been such a wise guy , ” Biden said . “ No one should have to vote for any party based on their race or religion or background . ” That was an acknowledgement of the stinging criticism he received in response to his comments , which he made earlier in the day on “ The Breakfast Club , ” a radio program that is popular in the black community . The rebukes included allies of Trump ’ s reelection campaign — anxious to go on the offense after weeks of defending the Republican president ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic — and some activists who warned that Biden must still court black voters , even if African Americans overwhelmingly oppose the president . “ None of us can afford for the party or for this campaign to mess this election up , and comments like these are the kinds that frankly either make black voters feel like we ’ re not really valued and people don ’ t care if we show up or not , ” said Alicia Garza , a Black Lives Matter co-founder and principal of Black Futures Lab . Near the end of Biden ’ s appearance on the radio program , host Charlamagne Tha God pressed him on reports that he is considering Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar , who is white , to be his vice presidential running mate . The host told Biden that black voters “ saved your political life in the primaries ” and “ have things they want from you . ” Biden said that “ I guarantee you there are multiple black women being considered . Multiple . ” A Biden aide then sought to end the interview , prompting the host to say , “ You can ’ t do that to black media . ” Biden responded , “ I do that to black media and white media , ” and said his wife needed to use the television studio . He then added : “ If you ’ ve got a problem figuring out whether you ’ re for me or for Trump , then you ain ’ t black . ” Trump ’ s campaign and his allies immediately seized on Biden ’ s comments . South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott , a Trump supporter and the Senate ’ s sole black Republican , said he was “ shocked and surprised ” by Biden ’ s remarks . “ I was struck by the condescension and the arrogance in his comments , ” Scott said in a conference call arranged by the Trump campaign . “ I could not believe my ears that he would stoop so low to tell folks what they should do , how they should think and what it means to be black . ” Charlamagne Tha God later said on CNN , “ A black woman running mate is necessary , especially after today. ” He added that the question of “ what makes somebody black ” is a discussion for black people , not for “ a white man . ” Trump himself has a history of incendiary rhetoric related to race . When he launched his presidential campaign in 2015 , Trump called many Mexican immigrants “ rapists. ” Campaigning in 2016 , he asked black voters , “ What the hell do you have to lose ? ” In 2017 , he said there are good people on “ both sides ” of the clash in Charlottesville , Virginia , between white supremacists and anti-racist demonstrators that left one counterprotester dead . In 2018 , during a private White House meeting on immigration , Trump wondered why the United States was admitting so many immigrants from “ shithole countries ” like African nations . He also blasted four Democratic congresswomen of color , saying they hate America and should “ go back ” to where they come from , even though all are U.S. citizens and three were born in the U.S . Black voters helped resurrect Biden ’ s campaign in this year ’ s primaries with a second-place finish in the Nevada caucuses and a resounding win in the South Carolina primary after he ’ d started with embarrassing finishes in overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire . Sixty-one percent of black voters supported Biden during the primary season , according to AP VoteCast surveys across 17 states that voted in February and March . Biden is now seeking to maintain his standing with black voters while building the type of multiracial and multigenerational coalition that twice elected Barack Obama , whom he served as vice president . He has already committed to picking a woman as his running mate and is considering several African American contenders who could energize black voters . But Biden is also considering candidates such as Klobuchar , who could appeal to white moderates . There is little chance of a sudden shift in support for Trump among black voters . A recent Fox News poll shows just 14 % of African Americans who are registered to vote have a favorable opinion of Trump , compared with 84 % who view him unfavorably . Seventy-five percent of African American registered voters say they have a favorable view of Biden ; 21 % hold an unfavorable opinion . There is a risk , however , of black voters , especially those who are younger , staying home in November , which could complicate Biden ’ s path to victory in a tight election . The Breakfast Club is a particularly notable venue for Biden ’ s comments because the program is popular among younger African Americans . Adrianne Shropshire , executive director of BlackPAC , a national organization that works to mobilize black voters , said many black Americans are loyal Biden supporters . But she said his comments make it harder to attract people who are on the fence about voting . “ The first thing I thought about was to what degree did this just turn off those voters and how much more work the rest of us are going to have to do to convince people that it is worth their time and their efforts , ” she said . Biden ’ s selection of a running mate , along with his pledge to appoint the first black female Supreme Court justice , could help motivate voters . He ’ s begun vetting vice presidential contenders , a process he ’ s said will likely last through July . Several black women are among those under consideration , including California Sen. Kamala Harris , Georgia voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms , Florida Rep. Val Demings , Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge and Susan Rice , Obama ’ s former U.S. ambassador to the U.N .

FILE - In this Sunday, March 15, 2020, file photo, former Vice President Joe Biden participates in a Democratic presidential primary debate at CNN Studios in Washington. Biden won Oregon’s Democratic presidential primary, outpacing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who both suspended their campaigns earlier in the year. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) FILE - In this Sunday, March 15, 2020, file photo, former Vice President Joe Biden participates in a Democratic presidential primary debate at CNN Studios in Washington. Biden won Oregon’s Democratic presidential primary, outpacing Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who both suspended their campaigns earlier in the year. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) ATLANTA (AP) — Joe Biden declared he “should not have been so cavalier” on Friday after he told a prominent black radio host that African Americans who back President Donald Trump “ain’t black.” The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee quickly moved to address the fallout from his remark, which was interpreted by some as presuming black Americans would vote for him. In a call with the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce that was added to his public schedule, Biden said he would never “take the African American community for granted.” “I shouldn’t have been such a wise guy,” Biden said. “No one should have to vote for any party based on their race or religion or background.” That was an acknowledgement of the stinging criticism he received in response to his comments, which he made earlier in the day on “The Breakfast Club,” a radio program that is popular in the black community. The rebukes included allies of Trump’s reelection campaign — anxious to go on the offense after weeks of defending the Republican president’s response to the coronavirus pandemic — and some activists who warned that Biden must still court black voters, even if African Americans overwhelmingly oppose the president. “None of us can afford for the party or for this campaign to mess this election up, and comments like these are the kinds that frankly either make black voters feel like we’re not really valued and people don’t care if we show up or not,” said Alicia Garza, a Black Lives Matter co-founder and principal of Black Futures Lab. Near the end of Biden’s appearance on the radio program, host Charlamagne Tha God pressed him on reports that he is considering Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is white, to be his vice presidential running mate. The host told Biden that black voters “saved your political life in the primaries” and “have things they want from you.” Biden said that “I guarantee you there are multiple black women being considered. Multiple.” A Biden aide then sought to end the interview, prompting the host to say, “You can’t do that to black media.” Biden responded, “I do that to black media and white media,” and said his wife needed to use the television studio. He then added: “If you’ve got a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t black.” Trump’s campaign and his allies immediately seized on Biden’s comments. South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a Trump supporter and the Senate’s sole black Republican, said he was “shocked and surprised” by Biden’s remarks. “I was struck by the condescension and the arrogance in his comments,” Scott said in a conference call arranged by the Trump campaign. “I could not believe my ears that he would stoop so low to tell folks what they should do, how they should think and what it means to be black.” Charlamagne Tha God later said on CNN, “A black woman running mate is necessary, especially after today.” He added that the question of “what makes somebody black” is a discussion for black people, not for “a white man.” Trump himself has a history of incendiary rhetoric related to race. When he launched his presidential campaign in 2015, Trump called many Mexican immigrants “rapists.” Campaigning in 2016, he asked black voters, “What the hell do you have to lose?” In 2017, he said there are good people on “both sides” of the clash in Charlottesville, Virginia, between white supremacists and anti-racist demonstrators that left one counterprotester dead. In 2018, during a private White House meeting on immigration, Trump wondered why the United States was admitting so many immigrants from “shithole countries” like African nations. He also blasted four Democratic congresswomen of color, saying they hate America and should “go back” to where they come from, even though all are U.S. citizens and three were born in the U.S. Black voters helped resurrect Biden’s campaign in this year’s primaries with a second-place finish in the Nevada caucuses and a resounding win in the South Carolina primary after he’d started with embarrassing finishes in overwhelmingly white Iowa and New Hampshire. Sixty-one percent of black voters supported Biden during the primary season, according to AP VoteCast surveys across 17 states that voted in February and March. Full Coverage: Election 2020 Biden is now seeking to maintain his standing with black voters while building the type of multiracial and multigenerational coalition that twice elected Barack Obama, whom he served as vice president. He has already committed to picking a woman as his running mate and is considering several African American contenders who could energize black voters. But Biden is also considering candidates such as Klobuchar, who could appeal to white moderates. There is little chance of a sudden shift in support for Trump among black voters. A recent Fox News poll shows just 14% of African Americans who are registered to vote have a favorable opinion of Trump, compared with 84% who view him unfavorably. Seventy-five percent of African American registered voters say they have a favorable view of Biden; 21% hold an unfavorable opinion. There is a risk, however, of black voters, especially those who are younger, staying home in November, which could complicate Biden’s path to victory in a tight election. The Breakfast Club is a particularly notable venue for Biden’s comments because the program is popular among younger African Americans. Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, a national organization that works to mobilize black voters, said many black Americans are loyal Biden supporters. But she said his comments make it harder to attract people who are on the fence about voting. “The first thing I thought about was to what degree did this just turn off those voters and how much more work the rest of us are going to have to do to convince people that it is worth their time and their efforts,” she said. Biden’s selection of a running mate, along with his pledge to appoint the first black female Supreme Court justice, could help motivate voters. He’s begun vetting vice presidential contenders, a process he’s said will likely last through July. Several black women are among those under consideration, including California Sen. Kamala Harris, Georgia voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Florida Rep. Val Demings, Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge and Susan Rice, Obama’s former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. ___ Stafford reported from Detroit. Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Hannah Fingerhut and Will Weissert in Washington contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

E4NX9d0cfTw9IDns

test

aZ9amDYl71U1cNxf

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/23/cpac-uninspiring-vision-for-millennials

CPAC Offers Utterly Uninspiring Vision for Millennials

2017-02-23

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eugene Volokh, Noah Shepardson, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman, Billy Binion, Joe Setyon

The one millennial-focused panel on the Conservative Political Action Conference ( CPAC ) main-stage Thursday was titled `` FREE stuff vs FREE-dom : Millennials ' Love Affair with Bernie Sanders ? '' It got worse from there . While the panelists—only one of whom was a millennial—had a lot to say against socialism of the Venezuelan or Sanders sort , they failed to so much as mention the socialist tendencies rising in their own ranks . The Donald Trump administration , Trump voters , and the `` alt right '' have all expressed support for socialism-lite policies , from trade restrictions to mandated maternal leave . Why the new `` conservatism '' looks so much like the old socialism might have made for an interesting conversation , but instead we heard the same tired tirades about Obamacare and socialized medicine , ignorant kids lionizing Che Guevara , the Marxism found in academia , and how Democrats are `` normalizing socialism . '' When asked why young people might express nominal support for socialism , only Florida state Rep. Ron DeSantis offered any structural critique , citing the economic mess millennials inherited as one not-ridiculous ███ they might be wary of capitalism . For the other panelists—Ana Quintana of the Heritage Foundation , Greg Dolin of the American Conservative Union Foundation , and Mercedes Schlapp of The Washington Times—it was simply a sign that millennials `` have absolutely no concept of reality , '' as Quintana put it . Asked what might bring Bernie-loving millennials around to Republicans or capitalism , the panelists continued to bash Democratic policies such as the Affordable Care Act and the socialist policies that wrecked Venezuela . But they still failed to offer any positive visions of their own . It served as a stark reminder why the Republican Party does so dismally with young folks—in polls , just around 20 percent of millennials tend to identify as Republican—and why provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopolous and others of his ilk are able to command such a share of young , right-of-center attention . For all the things establishment conservatives think millennials should be against , they have a hard time articulating what young people should be for , how that relates to the Republican Party , and how conservatism and capitalism can help young people accomplish the things that they think big government is needed for . Meanwhile , at CPAC 's millennial session , the panelists pondered instead how to make millennials more patriotic . They concluded that it might help them to visit Washington monuments and the Arlington Cemetery . When policy ideas and politics fail , there are always dead soldiers , I guess .

The one millennial-focused panel on the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) main-stage Thursday was titled "FREE stuff vs FREE-dom: Millennials' Love Affair with Bernie Sanders?" It got worse from there. While the panelists—only one of whom was a millennial—had a lot to say against socialism of the Venezuelan or Sanders sort, they failed to so much as mention the socialist tendencies rising in their own ranks. The Donald Trump administration, Trump voters, and the "alt right" have all expressed support for socialism-lite policies, from trade restrictions to mandated maternal leave. Why the new "conservatism" looks so much like the old socialism might have made for an interesting conversation, but instead we heard the same tired tirades about Obamacare and socialized medicine, ignorant kids lionizing Che Guevara, the Marxism found in academia, and how Democrats are "normalizing socialism." When asked why young people might express nominal support for socialism, only Florida state Rep. Ron DeSantis offered any structural critique, citing the economic mess millennials inherited as one not-ridiculous reason they might be wary of capitalism. For the other panelists—Ana Quintana of the Heritage Foundation, Greg Dolin of the American Conservative Union Foundation, and Mercedes Schlapp of The Washington Times—it was simply a sign that millennials "have absolutely no concept of reality," as Quintana put it. Asked what might bring Bernie-loving millennials around to Republicans or capitalism, the panelists continued to bash Democratic policies such as the Affordable Care Act and the socialist policies that wrecked Venezuela. But they still failed to offer any positive visions of their own. It served as a stark reminder why the Republican Party does so dismally with young folks—in polls, just around 20 percent of millennials tend to identify as Republican—and why provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopolous and others of his ilk are able to command such a share of young, right-of-center attention. For all the things establishment conservatives think millennials should be against, they have a hard time articulating what young people should be for, how that relates to the Republican Party, and how conservatism and capitalism can help young people accomplish the things that they think big government is needed for. Meanwhile, at CPAC's millennial session, the panelists pondered instead how to make millennials more patriotic. They concluded that it might help them to visit Washington monuments and the Arlington Cemetery. When policy ideas and politics fail, there are always dead soldiers, I guess. For more on millennials, socialism, and capitalism, see:

www.reason.com

right

aZ9amDYl71U1cNxf

test

sU16gusJS8vBWnCZ

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/donald_sterlings_mind_blowing_rich_old_racist_white_guy_syndrome/

Donald Sterling's interview disaster: Rich old racist self-destructs to Anderson Cooper

2014-05-13

Joan Walsh

Donald Sterling , in all his reprehensible anti-glory , is officially representative of only one person , Donald Sterling . But it was hard not to think about the insularity and cossetting the super-wealthy enjoy , once they get super-wealthy , watching the maligned Los Angeles Clippers owner self-destruct with Anderson Cooper Monday night . Sterling is a man who is obviously used to holding forth on his mind-blowingly prejudiced views without challenge . He wants us to think V. Stiviano entrapped him with her magic lady parts -- “ I don ’ t know why the girl had me say those things , ” he told Cooper -- and got him to launch a paranoid racist rant out of lust . But clearly that is not true , unless he ’ s lusting after Anderson Cooper . “ I ’ m not a racist , ” Sterling told Cooper . “ I made a terrible , terrible mistake . And I ’ m here with you today to apologize and to ask for forgiveness for all the people that I ’ ve hurt . When I listen to that tape , I do n't even know how I can say words like that .... I mean , that 's not the way I talk. ” Actually , it seems to be exactly the way Sterling talks . It ’ s hard to know where to start with the NBA franchise owner ’ s outrageous remarks . He called Stiviano “ a street person ” and said Magic Johnson “ ought to be ashamed of himself. ” No , that doesn ’ t do Sterling justice . This is what he said about Johnson : Here is a man , he acts so holy . He made love to every girl in America in every city and he had AIDS . When he had those AIDS , I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him . “ Those AIDS ” ? ( For the record , Johnson has HIV , not AIDS ) . But it got worse : What has Magic Johnson done ? He 's got AIDS . Did he do any business ? Did he help anybody in south L.A. ? I think he should be ashamed of himself . What does he do for the black people ? I 'm telling you he does nothing . It 's all talk . I spent millions on giving away and helping minorities . Does he do that ? That 's one problem I have . Jews , when they get successful , they will help their people . And some of the African-Americans , maybe I 'll get in trouble again . They do n't want to help anybody . What has Magic Johnson really done for Children 's Hospital which kids are lying in the hallways . They are sick . They need a bed . What has he done for any hospital ? What has he done for any group ? For the record , Magic Johnson has a foundation that gives away almost $ 2 million a year and got a four-star rating by Charity Navigator last year . A recent Los Angeles Times investigation found little evidence of the Donald Sterling Foundation ’ s good work . He does reportedly give a lot of money to women he ’ s trying to bed . For his part , Johnson replied an hour after the interview aired : Maybe Sterling thought his sit-down with Cooper would help him rehabilitate himself , but at one point he even turned on Cooper . When the CNN anchor suggested that Sterling ’ s paternalistic comments about his players , that “ I support them and give them food , and clothes , and cars , and houses , ” had been criticized as reflecting a plantation mentality , Sterling turned on his host : “ I think you have more of a plantation mentality than I do . And I think you 're more of a racist than I am . Because I 'm not a racist , and I 've never been a racist . ” “ I know you are but what am I ” rarely turns out well on national television . It ’ s said that Sterling ’ s sit-down with Cooper was a message to other NBA owners , some of whom he claimed support his crusade to keep his team . ( Oh , and he said his players “ love ” him too . ) If Sterling was sending the owners a message in the interview , it had to be : “ I want to sell my team right now . Help me . ” NBA commissioner Adam Silver was unimpressed . He apologized to Magic Johnson “ that he continues to be dragged into this situation and be degraded by such a malicious and personal attack. ” The NBA Board of Governors — Sterling ’ s fellow owners — “ is continuing with its process to remove Mr. Sterling as expeditiously as possible. ” It can ’ t happen soon enough .

Donald Sterling, in all his reprehensible anti-glory, is officially representative of only one person, Donald Sterling. But it was hard not to think about the insularity and cossetting the super-wealthy enjoy, once they get super-wealthy, watching the maligned Los Angeles Clippers owner self-destruct with Anderson Cooper Monday night. Sterling is a man who is obviously used to holding forth on his mind-blowingly prejudiced views without challenge. He wants us to think V. Stiviano entrapped him with her magic lady parts -- “I don’t know why the girl had me say those things,” he told Cooper -- and got him to launch a paranoid racist rant out of lust. But clearly that is not true, unless he’s lusting after Anderson Cooper. Advertisement: “I’m not a racist,” Sterling told Cooper. “I made a terrible, terrible mistake. And I’m here with you today to apologize and to ask for forgiveness for all the people that I’ve hurt. When I listen to that tape, I don't even know how I can say words like that.... I mean, that's not the way I talk.” Actually, it seems to be exactly the way Sterling talks. It’s hard to know where to start with the NBA franchise owner’s outrageous remarks. He called Stiviano “a street person” and said Magic Johnson “ought to be ashamed of himself.” No, that doesn’t do Sterling justice. This is what he said about Johnson: Here is a man, he acts so holy. He made love to every girl in America in every city and he had AIDS. When he had those AIDS, I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him. “Those AIDS”? (For the record, Johnson has HIV, not AIDS). But it got worse: Advertisement: What has Magic Johnson done? He's got AIDS. Did he do any business? Did he help anybody in south L.A.? I think he should be ashamed of himself. What does he do for the black people? I'm telling you he does nothing. It's all talk. I spent millions on giving away and helping minorities. Does he do that? That's one problem I have. Jews, when they get successful, they will help their people. And some of the African-Americans, maybe I'll get in trouble again. They don't want to help anybody. What has Magic Johnson really done for Children's Hospital which kids are lying in the hallways. They are sick. They need a bed. What has he done for any hospital? What has he done for any group? For the record, Magic Johnson has a foundation that gives away almost $2 million a year and got a four-star rating by Charity Navigator last year. A recent Los Angeles Times investigation found little evidence of the Donald Sterling Foundation’s good work. He does reportedly give a lot of money to women he’s trying to bed. For his part, Johnson replied an hour after the interview aired: [embedtweet id="466050776914477057"] Advertisement: Maybe Sterling thought his sit-down with Cooper would help him rehabilitate himself, but at one point he even turned on Cooper. When the CNN anchor suggested that Sterling’s paternalistic comments about his players, that “I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses,” had been criticized as reflecting a plantation mentality, Sterling turned on his host: “I think you have more of a plantation mentality than I do. And I think you're more of a racist than I am. Because I'm not a racist, and I've never been a racist.” “I know you are but what am I” rarely turns out well on national television. Advertisement: It’s said that Sterling’s sit-down with Cooper was a message to other NBA owners, some of whom he claimed support his crusade to keep his team. (Oh, and he said his players “love” him too.) If Sterling was sending the owners a message in the interview, it had to be: “I want to sell my team right now. Help me.” NBA commissioner Adam Silver was unimpressed. He apologized to Magic Johnson “that he continues to be dragged into this situation and be degraded by such a malicious and personal attack.” The NBA Board of Governors — Sterling’s fellow owners — “is continuing with its process to remove Mr. Sterling as expeditiously as possible.” It can’t happen soon enough. Advertisement: More on Donald Sterling:

www.salon.com

left

sU16gusJS8vBWnCZ

test

ZQcKqYeVcYsQ2Jwa

politics

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/elizabeth_warren_causes_dc_freakout_why_the_liberal_hero_has_elite_washington_in_hysterics/

Elizabeth Warren causes DC freakout: Why the liberal hero has elite Washington in hysterics

2015-03-06

Elias Isquith

Let ’ s play a little compare and contrast , shall we ? I ’ m going to share two quotes from two different speakers . Your mission in this game , should you choose to accept it , will be to determine each quote ’ s original speaker . With all that being said , let ’ s begin . Here ’ s the first quote . Let ’ s call it Quote 1 ( or Q1 , for short ) : [ I ] n this situation , the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people 's enemies by terror . If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue , the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror : virtue , without which terror is fatal ; terror , without which virtue is powerless . Terror is nothing other than justice , prompt , severe , inflexible ; it is therefore an emanation of virtue ; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country 's most urgent needs . Got it ? Okay , now here ’ s the second quote . Let ’ s call it Quote 2 ( or Q2 , for short ) : You built a factory out there ? Good for you . But I want to be clear : you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for ; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate ; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for . You did n't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory , and hire someone to protect against this , because of the work the rest of us did . Now look , you built a factory and it turned into something terrific , or a great idea ? God bless . Keep a big hunk of it . But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along . Now that you ’ ve familiarized yourself with both Q1 and Q2 , let ’ s introduce the two speakers . One is Elizabeth Warren , a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate from the state of Massachusetts and the intellectual founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . The other is Maximilien Robespierre , the French revolutionary , leading member of the Jacobin Club , and most-famous member of Committee of Public Safety , the small executive body that governed the First French Republic during the Reign of Terror . Can you guess which quote came from which speaker ? Assuming you ’ re not currently suffering from aphasia , the answer is rather obviously yes — because the two quotes sound nothing alike . And while you ’ d think this to be self-evident , it is apparently not . Or at least it ’ s not to Matt Bai , the star pundit-reporter and longtime communicator of whatever the conventional wisdom of the political elite happens to be at any given time . Because in his latest piece for Yahoo ! , a rather strained call for Vice President Joe Biden to run for president , Bai refers to Warren as someone “ who sounds more like a Jacobin ” than a serious candidate for president . In fairness to Bai , it seems pretty unlikely that his comment was intended to be anything more than a withering quip . Calling Warren a Bolshevik or communist would sound too much like something a Tea Partyer might say ; so it ’ s much less gauche to go with the less-politically-charged “ Jacobin ” instead . But Bai ’ s wisecrack is still representative of a bigger phenomenon ( and problem ) within the Washington mainstream , which still mostly regards Warren with fear and suspicion , and still wonders if she ’ s “ serious ” enough to appreciate Larry Summers ’ warning that you can ’ t be influential in D.C. if you ’ re known for rocking the boat . As the Democratic caucuses in Congress have shrunk , and as Warren ’ s influence has grown , the elite ’ s anxiety over her rise has become almost palpable . I ’ ve lost track of the number of times one centrist pundit or another has called her the Ted Cruz of the left ( which is never intended as a compliment ) . It was just this week , in fact , that a new group of “ centrist ” Democrats , “ The New Democrat Coalition , ” announced its plans to keep control of the party out of Warren ’ s hands . It ’ s all very predictable ; but if you ’ re familiar with Warren ’ s views and her record , it simply doesn ’ t make sense . By way of illustration , take a look at the new profile of Warren published this week in Politico Magazine , which is hardly a hotbed of doctrinaire liberalism . Written by Glenn Thrush and Manu Raju , the piece bears most of the hallmarks of the Politico style , for better and worse . At no point during its thousands of words do Warren ’ s policy views get any more than the most cursory attention , and the only new information it provides is essentially gossip . ( Former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Warren during her 2012 Senate bid because she has been mean to his banker buddies , for example . ) But what ’ s most interesting about the piece is that even here , in the unofficial flagship magazine of elite Washington , the fundamentally non-radical approach Warren takes to politics is crystal clear . Indeed , what we see Warren doing in the piece more than anything else is playing politics by the traditional means . Before her star-making performance as an overseer of the Wall Street bailouts , she spends years quietly but consistently building contacts in Washington and making powerful friends . When the White House decides it won ’ t go to bat for her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she largely created , she doesn ’ t rail against them in the press or demand it appoint a radical in her stead . When Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offers her a spot on the leadership team , she happily takes it , hoping to prove to anybody watching that she ’ s a “ team player. ” Hell , according to Politico , she ’ s even trying to find ways to compromise with Republicans in the Senate ! Given all of the above , a reasonable person might ask why Matt Bai ’ s Washington finds Warren so threatening nevertheless . I ’ m not a mind-reader , of course , but I can offer two theories . The first and most obvious reason is that Washington is , to put it gently , a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably — thanks to Wall Street . Maybe they ’ re lobbyists ; maybe they work in free-market think tanks ; maybe they ’ re employed by the defense industry , which benefits greatly from Wall Street ’ s largesse . Or maybe they ’ re government bureaucrats who find Warren ’ s opposition to the `` revolving door '' to be in profound conflict with their future plans . My second theory is less political and more prosaic . Another reason Bai and his ilk find Warren discomfiting may be her glaring lack of false modesty and her disinterest in keeping her head down and paying her dues . Because despite being the capital of what is nominally the greatest liberal democracy on Earth , Washington is in truth a deeply conformist and hierarchical milieu , one where new arrivals are expected to be neither seen nor heard until they ’ ve been deemed to have earned their place . And while Warren may want to be seen as a team player , what she cares most about is reining in Wall Street . If she deems it necessary to accomplish her primary goal , she ’ s willing to step on some toes and lose a few fair-weather friends . To my eyes , this still leaves an expansive distance between Warren and the 18th century Frenchmen who so vigorously wielded the “ National Razor. ” But I can ’ t entirely blame Bai and company for worrying that the ascension of this law professor from Oklahoma portends an October Revolution yet to come . As defenders of the Ancien Régime once warned King Louis XVI , the moment when you have the most to lose is exactly when you must tighten your grip .

Let’s play a little compare and contrast, shall we? I’m going to share two quotes from two different speakers. Your mission in this game, should you choose to accept it, will be to determine each quote’s original speaker. With all that being said, let’s begin. Here’s the first quote. Let’s call it Quote 1 (or Q1, for short): Advertisement: [I]n this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror. If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs. Got it? Okay, now here’s the second quote. Let’s call it Quote 2 (or Q2, for short): You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Now that you’ve familiarized yourself with both Q1 and Q2, let’s introduce the two speakers. One is Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate from the state of Massachusetts and the intellectual founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The other is Maximilien Robespierre, the French revolutionary, leading member of the Jacobin Club, and most-famous member of Committee of Public Safety, the small executive body that governed the First French Republic during the Reign of Terror. Can you guess which quote came from which speaker? Assuming you’re not currently suffering from aphasia, the answer is rather obviously yes — because the two quotes sound nothing alike. And while you’d think this to be self-evident, it is apparently not. Or at least it’s not to Matt Bai, the star pundit-reporter and longtime communicator of whatever the conventional wisdom of the political elite happens to be at any given time. Because in his latest piece for Yahoo!, a rather strained call for Vice President Joe Biden to run for president, Bai refers to Warren as someone “who sounds more like a Jacobin” than a serious candidate for president. Advertisement: In fairness to Bai, it seems pretty unlikely that his comment was intended to be anything more than a withering quip. Calling Warren a Bolshevik or communist would sound too much like something a Tea Partyer might say; so it’s much less gauche to go with the less-politically-charged “Jacobin” instead. But Bai’s wisecrack is still representative of a bigger phenomenon (and problem) within the Washington mainstream, which still mostly regards Warren with fear and suspicion, and still wonders if she’s “serious” enough to appreciate Larry Summers’ warning that you can’t be influential in D.C. if you’re known for rocking the boat. As the Democratic caucuses in Congress have shrunk, and as Warren’s influence has grown, the elite’s anxiety over her rise has become almost palpable. I’ve lost track of the number of times one centrist pundit or another has called her the Ted Cruz of the left (which is never intended as a compliment). It was just this week, in fact, that a new group of “centrist” Democrats, “The New Democrat Coalition,” announced its plans to keep control of the party out of Warren’s hands. It’s all very predictable; but if you’re familiar with Warren’s views and her record, it simply doesn’t make sense. By way of illustration, take a look at the new profile of Warren published this week in Politico Magazine, which is hardly a hotbed of doctrinaire liberalism. Written by Glenn Thrush and Manu Raju, the piece bears most of the hallmarks of the Politico style, for better and worse. At no point during its thousands of words do Warren’s policy views get any more than the most cursory attention, and the only new information it provides is essentially gossip. (Former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Warren during her 2012 Senate bid because she has been mean to his banker buddies, for example.) But what’s most interesting about the piece is that even here, in the unofficial flagship magazine of elite Washington, the fundamentally non-radical approach Warren takes to politics is crystal clear. Advertisement: Indeed, what we see Warren doing in the piece more than anything else is playing politics by the traditional means. Before her star-making performance as an overseer of the Wall Street bailouts, she spends years quietly but consistently building contacts in Washington and making powerful friends. When the White House decides it won’t go to bat for her to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she largely created, she doesn’t rail against them in the press or demand it appoint a radical in her stead. When Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offers her a spot on the leadership team, she happily takes it, hoping to prove to anybody watching that she’s a “team player.” Hell, according to Politico, she’s even trying to find ways to compromise with Republicans in the Senate! Given all of the above, a reasonable person might ask why Matt Bai’s Washington finds Warren so threatening nevertheless. I’m not a mind-reader, of course, but I can offer two theories. The first and most obvious reason is that Washington is, to put it gently, a swamp of corruption where many influential people live comfortably — thanks to Wall Street. Maybe they’re lobbyists; maybe they work in free-market think tanks; maybe they’re employed by the defense industry, which benefits greatly from Wall Street’s largesse. Or maybe they’re government bureaucrats who find Warren’s opposition to the "revolving door" to be in profound conflict with their future plans. Advertisement: My second theory is less political and more prosaic. Another reason Bai and his ilk find Warren discomfiting may be her glaring lack of false modesty and her disinterest in keeping her head down and paying her dues. Because despite being the capital of what is nominally the greatest liberal democracy on Earth, Washington is in truth a deeply conformist and hierarchical milieu, one where new arrivals are expected to be neither seen nor heard until they’ve been deemed to have earned their place. And while Warren may want to be seen as a team player, what she cares most about is reining in Wall Street. If she deems it necessary to accomplish her primary goal, she’s willing to step on some toes and lose a few fair-weather friends. To my eyes, this still leaves an expansive distance between Warren and the 18th century Frenchmen who so vigorously wielded the “National Razor.” But I can’t entirely blame Bai and company for worrying that the ascension of this law professor from Oklahoma portends an October Revolution yet to come. As defenders of the Ancien Régime once warned King Louis XVI, the moment when you have the most to lose is exactly when you must tighten your grip.

www.salon.com

left

ZQcKqYeVcYsQ2Jwa

test

2wMHI81Dp5NRxYtI

media_bias

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/the-medias-climate-of-hate-myth/

The Media’s ‘Climate of Hate’ Myth

Robert Stacy Mccain, Jed Babbin, Geoff Shepard, Roger Kaplan, J.T. Young, Debra J. Saunders, Greg Jones

After 24-year-old De ’ janay Lenorra Stanton was found fatally wounded last August on the South Side of Chicago , the story received nationwide attention . This was not because homicide is rare in Chicago , where 589 people were murdered in 2018 , nor was the method of Stanton ’ s death — a single gunshot to the head — newsworthy in a city notorious for armed violence . Rather , what made this crime a subject of national attention was a matter of identity and presumed motive . Stanton ’ s murder highlighted “ the urgent need to address the epidemic of violence against the transgender community across the U.S. , ” declared Helen Parshall of the LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign . “ Stanton ’ s death marks the 18th known killing of a transgender or non-binary person this year , ” Parshall wrote , bemoaning “ this tragic epidemic ” of anti-transgender violence . This theme was reiterated in other coverage of Stanton ’ s death . “ Transgender women face considerably high rates of violence in comparison to cisgender women , though that risk is even higher for trans women of color like De ’ janay , ” Leila Ettachfini wrote on the feminist site Broadly , citing research by activist groups : “ For many transgender women of color , the threat of violence is constant . ” Every time such a murder is reported , the media repeats and elaborates this message , as in the case of the recent murder of Dana Martin in Montgomery , Alabama , which was reported by the New York Times : “ At least 26 transgender people were killed in 2018 , the majority of them black transgender women , according to the Human Rights Campaign . In 2017 , advocates reported at least 29 transgender people fatally shot or killed by other violent means . ” Police in Montgomery say they have no suspects in the murder of Martin , who was found shot death in a car Jan. 6 , thus becoming “ the first known transgender person killed this year in the United States. ” A local LGBT activist told the Times that murders of “ trans people of color are just happening more and more often and very little is being done about it. ” This is self-evidently false , as even the statistics cited by activist groups indicate that the number of such crimes declined about 10 % in the past year , despite the rhetoric about an “ epidemic ” of anti-transgender violence . As to the question of what is “ being done about it , ” the police in Montgomery , as in other cities , say they ’ re doing their best . There were more than 17,000 homicides in the United States in 2017 , the most recent year for which Justice Department figures are available , and the reported number of transgender victims was a minuscule fraction of a single percentage point of those murders . No one should imagine , of course , that the liberal media and activist organizations have suddenly taken an interest in supporting the law enforcement community and urging them to bring criminals to justice . No , all the noise about an alleged “ epidemic ” of anti-transgender violence is about blaming President Trump . Last year , Beverly Tillery , executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project , declared in a Huffington Post column : “ Many people have asked if the current regressive political climate legitimized by the language and policies of the Trump administration and others could be contributing to the rise of hate violence . Our answer is yes.… Over and over , President Donald Trump and his administration have attempted to erase , demonize and discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. ” Tillery was one of the sources quoted this week by CNN ’ s Jen Christensen parroting the claims of transgender activists that “ violence against the community is getting worse , ” and pointing the finger of blame directly at the White House : Activists say anti-trans rhetoric stigmatizes the community and raises the risk of violence . … Tillery , of the New York City Anti-Violence Project , feels that Trump has created a “ really scary time for the whole LGBTQ community. ” “ Every week , there is another news event that is equally triggering and terrifying , that leaves people not knowing where they can be safe . They are left with an uncertain future in this country , ” Tillery said . “ When you dehumanize people and try to erase them completely from existence , it emboldens those who hate this community , and no one is really stopping them , aside from the community rising up . ” Of course , we must keep in mind the fact that the reported number of transgender homicides has actually decreased since Trump became president , but also note that the national media didn ’ t bother paying attention to such crimes until after he was elected . We don ’ t actually know how many transgender people were murdered during Barack Obama ’ s eight years in the White House , because it wasn ’ t until Trump was elected that liberal journalists started hunting for evidence of a “ climate of hate ” they could blame on the Republican president . Even if one were willing to stipulate , arguendo , that Trump is guilty of “ anti-trans rhetoric ” or otherwise responsible for creating a “ really scary time for the whole LGBTQ community , ” however , such claims are a non sequitur when we examine the motives and circumstances in cases that constitute the alleged evidence of a “ climate of hate. ” Consider an October 2017 murder that occurred in Nueces County , Texas . Sheriff ’ s officers responded to a call and found the body of 47-year-old Juan Montes , also known as “ Stephanie Montez. ” According to the initial report in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper , “ Medical examiner Heraldo Pena said authorities initially believed the person was a woman ; the person was wearing a dress and make up . They discovered later the person was male and that he had been shot in the chest , abdomen and a shoulder . ” That report inspired indignation among activists who complained “ Stephanie ” had been “ deadnamed ” and “ misgendered , ” as if this were worse than being shot to death . However , Juan/ “ Stephanie ” had not undergone sex-change surgery and had male genitalia , and he had not legally changed his name , but such facts mean nothing to activists whose lives are apparently organized around being perpetually outraged over perceived anti-transgender prejudice . The national media eagerly pander to these activists and their counter-factual ideology , which explains why the death of “ Stephanie Montez ” was featured in a Nov. 10 , 2017 , New York Times article headlined , “ Violence Against Transgender People Is on the Rise , Advocates Say. ” The article quoted the ubiquitous Beverly Tillery as an authority for the assertion that there had been “ a spike in incidents of hate violence ” since Trump ’ s election : “ There is an increased climate of hate that is , in some cases , being allowed to grow . ” Unfortunately for the climate-of-hate theorists , the facts in the Nueces County murder of Juan/ “ Stephanie ” contradicted their theory . Four people — Cedric Green , 39 , Randy Dorsey , 41 , Chloe Huehlefeld , 36 , and Jace Montange , 22 — were charged in connection with the shooting . Prosecutors say Green had previously sold drugs to Juan/ “ Stephanie ” and that Green organized the murder plot because he suspected Juan/ “ Stephanie ” of having stolen $ 20 — four rolls of dimes — from his girlfriend , Huehlefeld . Both Green and Huehlefeld were subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison ; Dorsey was sentenced to 10 years ’ probation after accepting a plea bargain in return for testifying against his co-defendants ; the trial of Montange has been delayed . Anyone who cares to research this crime must conclude it had nothing to do with “ anti-trans rhetoric ” or a “ climate of hate , ” nor is there any reason to believe Cedric Green and his crew were Trump supporters . Of course , the New York Times never followed up to inform its readers of the outcome of the “ Stephanie Montez ” case . This is a discernible pattern in national media coverage of such cases . A transgender victim is murdered , activists draw attention to the crime , national media report it with quotes from activists decrying the “ epidemic of violence ” supposedly inspired by “ hate ” and then… silence . You can hear the crickets chirping while you wait for the national media to report on the outcomes of these cases , once police put the cuffs on a suspect . Over and over , these crimes become strictly local news after it is determined that the murdered transgender person was killed for something as squalid as the stolen $ 20 in dimes that led to the murder of Juan/ “ Stephanie ” in Nueces County . For example , in June 2017 , it was reported that 17-year-old Rayquann Deonte Jernigan , a/k/a “ Ava Le ’ Ray Barrin , ” had become the “ Youngest Trans Murder Victim In The U.S . This Year. ” Was this murder caused by a Trump-inspired “ climate of hate ” ? No , according to police in Athens , Georgia , this fatal shooting was “ the culmination of a feud between two transgender groups. ” A judge dismissed a murder charge against the accused shooter , ruling that Jalen Breon Brown , 21 , acted in self-defense during a fight with Jernigan . Or what about the March 2018 murder of Darrel “ Amia Tyrae ” Berryman in Louisiana ? The Human Rights Campaign reported that Berryman , “ a transgender woman of color , ” had become “ the seventh known homicide of a transgender person this year. ” Was Berryman killed by a Republican voter ? No , the police charged Dedrick Butler , a 22-year-old convicted felon , with murdering Berryman in a $ 55-a-night East Baton Rouge motel room where “ Amia Tyrae ” was working as a prostitute . Quite frankly , many of these murder victims seem to spend a lot of time in bad neighborhoods hanging around bad people who do bad things . If it weren ’ t for activists promoting the “ climate of hate ” narrative , and a liberal media establishment eager to seize on these crimes for anti-Trump propaganda purposes , homicides like these would never be more than local news . But the activists have their agenda , and so when police found De ’ janay Lenorra Stanton shot in the head last August , the victim ’ s name was added to the roll honored on the “ Transgender Day of Remembrance ” in November . When police arrested a suspect last week , however , it was strictly local news . According to police , Stanton had been having sex with a 17-year-old named Tremon Hill , “ a lanky Phillips High School student who… played on the school ’ s basketball team. ” Hill was concerned about some photos he had sent to Stanton and was reportedly suicidal over his involvement with Stanton , who worked as a prostitute . The Chicago Sun-Times reported Sunday : “ Stanton received a text from Hill the morning of her killing asking her to meet him ” in a parking lot , according to the prosecutor . “ Just after 11 a.m. , Hill is alleged to have shot Stanton in the head and left her lying on the ground outside of her car . ” Not a Trump voter . Just a high-school kid distraught about his involvement with a 24-year-old transvestite prostitute . This doesn ’ t fit the media ’ s “ climate of hate ” myth , of course , and so it ’ s strictly local news . Tune in to CNN and you can hear the crickets chirping .

After 24-year-old De’janay Lenorra Stanton was found fatally wounded last August on the South Side of Chicago, the story received nationwide attention. This was not because homicide is rare in Chicago, where 589 people were murdered in 2018, nor was the method of Stanton’s death — a single gunshot to the head — newsworthy in a city notorious for armed violence. Rather, what made this crime a subject of national attention was a matter of identity and presumed motive. Stanton’s murder highlighted “the urgent need to address the epidemic of violence against the transgender community across the U.S.,” declared Helen Parshall of the LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign. “Stanton’s death marks the 18th known killing of a transgender or non-binary person this year,” Parshall wrote, bemoaning “this tragic epidemic” of anti-transgender violence. This theme was reiterated in other coverage of Stanton’s death. “Transgender women face considerably high rates of violence in comparison to cisgender women, though that risk is even higher for trans women of color like De’janay,” Leila Ettachfini wrote on the feminist site Broadly, citing research by activist groups: “For many transgender women of color, the threat of violence is constant.” Every time such a murder is reported, the media repeats and elaborates this message, as in the case of the recent murder of Dana Martin in Montgomery, Alabama, which was reported by the New York Times: “At least 26 transgender people were killed in 2018, the majority of them black transgender women, according to the Human Rights Campaign. In 2017, advocates reported at least 29 transgender people fatally shot or killed by other violent means.” Police in Montgomery say they have no suspects in the murder of Martin, who was found shot death in a car Jan. 6, thus becoming “the first known transgender person killed this year in the United States.” A local LGBT activist told the Times that murders of “trans people of color are just happening more and more often and very little is being done about it.” This is self-evidently false, as even the statistics cited by activist groups indicate that the number of such crimes declined about 10% in the past year, despite the rhetoric about an “epidemic” of anti-transgender violence. As to the question of what is “being done about it,” the police in Montgomery, as in other cities, say they’re doing their best. There were more than 17,000 homicides in the United States in 2017, the most recent year for which Justice Department figures are available, and the reported number of transgender victims was a minuscule fraction of a single percentage point of those murders. No one should imagine, of course, that the liberal media and activist organizations have suddenly taken an interest in supporting the law enforcement community and urging them to bring criminals to justice. No, all the noise about an alleged “epidemic” of anti-transgender violence is about blaming President Trump. Last year, Beverly Tillery, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, declared in a Huffington Post column: “Many people have asked if the current regressive political climate legitimized by the language and policies of the Trump administration and others could be contributing to the rise of hate violence. Our answer is yes.… Over and over, President Donald Trump and his administration have attempted to erase, demonize and discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community.” Tillery was one of the sources quoted this week by CNN’s Jen Christensen parroting the claims of transgender activists that “violence against the community is getting worse,” and pointing the finger of blame directly at the White House: Activists say anti-trans rhetoric stigmatizes the community and raises the risk of violence. … Tillery, of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, feels that Trump has created a “really scary time for the whole LGBTQ community.” “Every week, there is another news event that is equally triggering and terrifying, that leaves people not knowing where they can be safe. They are left with an uncertain future in this country,” Tillery said. “When you dehumanize people and try to erase them completely from existence, it emboldens those who hate this community, and no one is really stopping them, aside from the community rising up.” Of course, we must keep in mind the fact that the reported number of transgender homicides has actually decreased since Trump became president, but also note that the national media didn’t bother paying attention to such crimes until after he was elected. We don’t actually know how many transgender people were murdered during Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, because it wasn’t until Trump was elected that liberal journalists started hunting for evidence of a “climate of hate” they could blame on the Republican president. Even if one were willing to stipulate, arguendo, that Trump is guilty of “anti-trans rhetoric” or otherwise responsible for creating a “really scary time for the whole LGBTQ community,” however, such claims are a non sequitur when we examine the motives and circumstances in cases that constitute the alleged evidence of a “climate of hate.” Consider an October 2017 murder that occurred in Nueces County, Texas. Sheriff’s officers responded to a call and found the body of 47-year-old Juan Montes, also known as “Stephanie Montez.” According to the initial report in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper, “Medical examiner Heraldo Pena said authorities initially believed the person was a woman; the person was wearing a dress and make up. They discovered later the person was male and that he had been shot in the chest, abdomen and a shoulder.” That report inspired indignation among activists who complained “Stephanie” had been “deadnamed” and “misgendered,” as if this were worse than being shot to death. However, Juan/“Stephanie” had not undergone sex-change surgery and had male genitalia, and he had not legally changed his name, but such facts mean nothing to activists whose lives are apparently organized around being perpetually outraged over perceived anti-transgender prejudice. The national media eagerly pander to these activists and their counter-factual ideology, which explains why the death of “Stephanie Montez” was featured in a Nov. 10, 2017, New York Times article headlined, “Violence Against Transgender People Is on the Rise, Advocates Say.” The article quoted the ubiquitous Beverly Tillery as an authority for the assertion that there had been “a spike in incidents of hate violence” since Trump’s election: “There is an increased climate of hate that is, in some cases, being allowed to grow.” Unfortunately for the climate-of-hate theorists, the facts in the Nueces County murder of Juan/“Stephanie” contradicted their theory. Four people — Cedric Green, 39, Randy Dorsey, 41, Chloe Huehlefeld, 36, and Jace Montange, 22 — were charged in connection with the shooting. Prosecutors say Green had previously sold drugs to Juan/“Stephanie” and that Green organized the murder plot because he suspected Juan/“Stephanie” of having stolen $20 — four rolls of dimes — from his girlfriend, Huehlefeld. Both Green and Huehlefeld were subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison; Dorsey was sentenced to 10 years’ probation after accepting a plea bargain in return for testifying against his co-defendants; the trial of Montange has been delayed. Anyone who cares to research this crime must conclude it had nothing to do with “anti-trans rhetoric” or a “climate of hate,” nor is there any reason to believe Cedric Green and his crew were Trump supporters. Of course, the New York Times never followed up to inform its readers of the outcome of the “Stephanie Montez” case. This is a discernible pattern in national media coverage of such cases. A transgender victim is murdered, activists draw attention to the crime, national media report it with quotes from activists decrying the “epidemic of violence” supposedly inspired by “hate” and then… silence. You can hear the crickets chirping while you wait for the national media to report on the outcomes of these cases, once police put the cuffs on a suspect. Over and over, these crimes become strictly local news after it is determined that the murdered transgender person was killed for something as squalid as the stolen $20 in dimes that led to the murder of Juan/“Stephanie” in Nueces County. For example, in June 2017, it was reported that 17-year-old Rayquann Deonte Jernigan, a/k/a “Ava Le’Ray Barrin,” had become the “Youngest Trans Murder Victim In The U.S. This Year.” Was this murder caused by a Trump-inspired “climate of hate”? No, according to police in Athens, Georgia, this fatal shooting was “the culmination of a feud between two transgender groups.” A judge dismissed a murder charge against the accused shooter, ruling that Jalen Breon Brown, 21, acted in self-defense during a fight with Jernigan. Or what about the March 2018 murder of Darrel “Amia Tyrae” Berryman in Louisiana? The Human Rights Campaign reported that Berryman, “a transgender woman of color,” had become “the seventh known homicide of a transgender person this year.” Was Berryman killed by a Republican voter? No, the police charged Dedrick Butler, a 22-year-old convicted felon, with murdering Berryman in a $55-a-night East Baton Rouge motel room where “Amia Tyrae” was working as a prostitute. Quite frankly, many of these murder victims seem to spend a lot of time in bad neighborhoods hanging around bad people who do bad things. If it weren’t for activists promoting the “climate of hate” narrative, and a liberal media establishment eager to seize on these crimes for anti-Trump propaganda purposes, homicides like these would never be more than local news. But the activists have their agenda, and so when police found De’janay Lenorra Stanton shot in the head last August, the victim’s name was added to the roll honored on the “Transgender Day of Remembrance” in November. When police arrested a suspect last week, however, it was strictly local news. According to police, Stanton had been having sex with a 17-year-old named Tremon Hill, “a lanky Phillips High School student who… played on the school’s basketball team.” Hill was concerned about some photos he had sent to Stanton and was reportedly suicidal over his involvement with Stanton, who worked as a prostitute. The Chicago Sun-Times reported Sunday: “Stanton received a text from Hill the morning of her killing asking her to meet him” in a parking lot, according to the prosecutor. “Just after 11 a.m., Hill is alleged to have shot Stanton in the head and left her lying on the ground outside of her car.” Not a Trump voter. Just a high-school kid distraught about his involvement with a 24-year-old transvestite prostitute. This doesn’t fit the media’s “climate of hate” myth, of course, and so it’s strictly local news. Tune in to CNN and you can hear the crickets chirping.

www.spectator.org

right

2wMHI81Dp5NRxYtI

test

MoX06ZopKhGrRCsd

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48651131

Donald Trump attacks Sadiq Khan over London violence

US President Donald Trump has once again criticised London Mayor Sadiq Khan , calling him a `` national disgrace '' who is destroying the UK 's capital . His comments came after five violent attacks in London in less than 24 hours left three men dead and three injured . Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said it was `` absolutely awful '' Mr Trump was using the `` tragedy of people being murdered to attack the mayor '' . Police have increased patrols in the capital following the attacks . Retweeting a post by right-wing commentator Katie Hopkins about this weekend 's violence in London , the president said Mr Khan was `` a disaster '' and the capital needed a new mayor . Mr Trump later followed it up with another post saying : `` He is a national disgrace who is destroying the city of London ! '' In response , Mr Khan 's spokesman said the mayor 's thoughts were with the victims ' families and he `` is not going to waste his time responding to this sort of tweet '' . The mayor was focused on supporting the city 's communities and `` over-stretched '' emergency services , he added . Mr Khan later tweeted : `` Violent crime has no place in our city , and there 's no higher priority for me than Londoners ' safety . '' Mr Corbyn tweeted in defence of Mr Khan , saying he was `` rightly supporting the police to do their job while Katie Hopkins spreads hateful and divisive rhetoric '' . These three deaths take the total number of homicides in London in 2019 to 56 . Official data shows that this time last year there had been 82 deaths - and 2018 was ultimately the worst year on record in the city for a decade . How do these figures compare to other places ? Donald Trump 's home city of New York is often regarded as a comparable city because it has a similar population and shares other characteristics too . Figures from the Metropolitan Police show 136 homicides were recorded in Greater London in 2018 . That works out as a rate of approximately 1.5 killings for every 100,000 people who live in the capital . New York Police Department statistics show its per capita murder rate was twice as high . Month-by-month statistics can mislead because crimes do n't occur at regular intervals - but this year 's rate for New York is , so far , also double London 's . New York is by no means the US 's most dangerous city - there are many others which have far higher murder rates . Police have made 17 arrests - including several boys and a girl - following the five separate attacks . The first attack was on Friday afternoon in Wandsworth , south London , where an 18-year-old man was stabbed to death . Ten minutes later 19-year-old Eniola Aluko was shot dead in Plumstead , south-east London . Two teenagers have since been charged with the murder of the man in Wandsworth , while five people have been arrested on suspicion of Mr Aluko 's murder . A man in his 30s died after he was stabbed in Tower Hamlets on Saturday afternoon . In the early hours of Saturday two men were stabbed in Clapham and another was stabbed in Brixton . Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matthew Twist , from the Metropolitan Police , said : `` The circumstances , causes and motives for any homicide or serious violence incident are different and unique , and require different investigative strategies and approaches . `` But we are taking a service-wide response and all officers right across London continue to be relentless in our pursuit of those who bring violence to our communities . '' President Trump and Mr Khan have clashed many times in the past . The president called Mr Khan a `` stone cold loser who should focus on crime in London '' shortly before landing in Stansted ahead of his three-day state visit to the UK earlier this month . It followed comments from the mayor of London that the UK should not be `` rolling out the red carpet '' for Mr Trump during his visit . In the past Mr Trump has challenged Mr Khan to an IQ test and been critical of his response to the London Bridge attack in 2017 .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The US president and London mayor Sadiq Khan have been in a "political grudge match" for years US President Donald Trump has once again criticised London Mayor Sadiq Khan, calling him a "national disgrace" who is destroying the UK's capital. His comments came after five violent attacks in London in less than 24 hours left three men dead and three injured. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said it was "absolutely awful" Mr Trump was using the "tragedy of people being murdered to attack the mayor". Police have increased patrols in the capital following the attacks. President Trump's tweets follow a long-running feud with Khan. Retweeting a post by right-wing commentator Katie Hopkins about this weekend's violence in London, the president said Mr Khan was "a disaster" and the capital needed a new mayor. Mr Trump later followed it up with another post saying: "He is a national disgrace who is destroying the city of London!" In response, Mr Khan's spokesman said the mayor's thoughts were with the victims' families and he "is not going to waste his time responding to this sort of tweet". The mayor was focused on supporting the city's communities and "over-stretched" emergency services, he added. Mr Khan later tweeted: "Violent crime has no place in our city, and there's no higher priority for me than Londoners' safety." Mr Corbyn tweeted in defence of Mr Khan, saying he was "rightly supporting the police to do their job while Katie Hopkins spreads hateful and divisive rhetoric". These three deaths take the total number of homicides in London in 2019 to 56. Official data shows that this time last year there had been 82 deaths - and 2018 was ultimately the worst year on record in the city for a decade. How do these figures compare to other places? Donald Trump's home city of New York is often regarded as a comparable city because it has a similar population and shares other characteristics too. Figures from the Metropolitan Police show 136 homicides were recorded in Greater London in 2018. That works out as a rate of approximately 1.5 killings for every 100,000 people who live in the capital. New York Police Department statistics show its per capita murder rate was twice as high. Month-by-month statistics can mislead because crimes don't occur at regular intervals - but this year's rate for New York is, so far, also double London's. New York is by no means the US's most dangerous city - there are many others which have far higher murder rates. Police have made 17 arrests - including several boys and a girl - following the five separate attacks. The first attack was on Friday afternoon in Wandsworth, south London, where an 18-year-old man was stabbed to death. Ten minutes later 19-year-old Eniola Aluko was shot dead in Plumstead, south-east London. Two teenagers have since been charged with the murder of the man in Wandsworth, while five people have been arrested on suspicion of Mr Aluko's murder. A man in his 30s died after he was stabbed in Tower Hamlets on Saturday afternoon. In the early hours of Saturday two men were stabbed in Clapham and another was stabbed in Brixton. Image copyright Met Police Image caption Eniola Aluko, from Thamesmead, was the second of three killings in London in the space of 24 hours Deputy Assistant Commissioner Matthew Twist, from the Metropolitan Police, said: "The circumstances, causes and motives for any homicide or serious violence incident are different and unique, and require different investigative strategies and approaches. "But we are taking a service-wide response and all officers right across London continue to be relentless in our pursuit of those who bring violence to our communities." Image copyright Yui Mok/PA Image caption Police at the scene of a fatal stabbing in Tower Hamlets President Trump and Mr Khan have clashed many times in the past. The president called Mr Khan a "stone cold loser who should focus on crime in London" shortly before landing in Stansted ahead of his three-day state visit to the UK earlier this month. It followed comments from the mayor of London that the UK should not be "rolling out the red carpet" for Mr Trump during his visit. In the past Mr Trump has challenged Mr Khan to an IQ test and been critical of his response to the London Bridge attack in 2017.

www.bbc.com

center

MoX06ZopKhGrRCsd

test

38e0as5DA6MWvtlG

federal_budget

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/edd230801c0e181169915e67b1fd64c6

Senate unanimously passes massive coronavirus aid plan

2020-03-25

Andrew Taylor, Alan Fram

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The House will give final approval Friday to the massive $ 2.2 trillion economic rescue bill with robust backing from both parties , Speaker Nancy Pelosi said , a vote that would cap Congress ’ tumultuous effort to rush the relief to a nation battered by the coronavirus . Pelosi spoke Thursday morning , just hours after the Senate used an overnight vote to approve the measure 96-0 . With House members dispersed around the country , Pelosi and Republican leaders were planning to bless the measure by a voice vote , probably with just a sprinkling of lawmakers present in the chamber . “ It will pass with strong bipartisan support , ” said Pelosi , D-Calif. President Donald Trump has implored lawmakers to finish with the package so he can sign it into law . The package comes to the House as fresh evidence emerges that the economy is in a recession . The government reported 3.3 million new weekly unemployment claims , four times the previous record . Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in a TV interview the economy “ may well be in a recession . ” Pelosi praised the bill ’ s expansion of unemployment benefits and provisions that encourage companies hit by the pandemic to keep paying their workers , even those who are furloughed . “ We will have a victory tomorrow for America ’ s workers , ” she said . “ If somebody has a different point of view , they can put it in the record , but we ’ re not worried about that . ” The package would give direct payments to most Americans , expand unemployment benefits and provide a $ 367 billion program for small businesses to keep making payroll while workers are forced to stay home . It would steer substantial aid to larger industries , too . The unanimous Senate vote late Wednesday came despite misgivings on both sides about whether it goes too far or not far enough and capped days of difficult negotiations as Washington confronted a national challenge unlike any it has faced . The 880-page measure is the largest economic relief bill in U.S. history . Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared somber and exhausted as he announced the vote — and he released senators from Washington until April 20 , though he promised to recall them if needed . “ Pray for one another , for all of our families and for our country , ” said McConnell , R-Ky . “ The legislation now before us now is historic because it is meant to match a historic crisis , ” said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. “ Our health care system is not prepared to care for the sick . Our workers are without work . Our businesses can not do business . Our factories lie idle . The gears of the American economy have ground to a halt . ” The package is intended as relief for a sinking economy and a nation facing a grim toll from an infection that ’ s killed more than 21,000 people worldwide . The U.S. death toll has surpassed 1,000 people . “ This is a unique situation , ” Powell told NBC ’ s “ Today ” show . “ This is not a typical downturn . ” The Fed chief went on : “ What ’ s happening here is people are being asked to close their businesses , to stay home from work and to not engage in certain kinds of economic activity and so they ’ re pulling back . And at a certain point , we will get the spread of the virus under control and at that time confidence will return , businesses will open again , people will come back to work . ” Underscoring the effort ’ s sheer magnitude , the bill finances a response with a price tag that equals half the size of the entire $ 4 trillion-plus annual federal budget . The $ 2.2 trillion estimate is the White House ’ s best guess . The drive by leaders to speed the bill through the Senate on Wednesday slowed as four conservative Republican senators from states whose economies are dominated by low-wage jobs demanded changes . They said the legislation as written was so generous that workers like store clerks might opt to stay on unemployment rather than return to their jobs . They settled for a failed vote to modify the provision . Wednesday ’ s delays followed Democratic stalling tactics earlier in the week as Schumer held out for additional money for states and hospitals and other provisions . The sprawling measure is the third coronavirus response bill produced by Congress and by far the largest . It builds on efforts focused on vaccines and emergency response , sick and family medical leave for workers and food aid . House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , D-Md. , said earlier he expected the measure to pass by a voice vote without lawmakers having to return to Washington . House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said Thursday his members were on board with that . “ We ’ ll have a debate , and then we ’ ll have a voice vote to bring it up and move it to the president ’ s desk , ” McCarthy told Fox News . He said that while Democrats inserted things in the bill that didn ’ t deal with coronavirus , ” we will still get this package done for hospitals , workers , small businesses . ” “ Every day matters , so we want to get this done quickly , ” McCarthy said . The package has a heavily negotiated $ 500 billion program for guaranteed , subsidized loans to larger industries , including airlines . Hospitals would get significant help as well . The bill would provide one-time direct payments to Americans of $ 1,200 per adult making up to $ 75,000 a year and $ 2,400 to a married couple making up to $ 150,000 , with $ 500 payments per child . A huge cash infusion for hospitals expecting a flood of COVID-19 patients grew during the talks to an estimated $ 130 billion . Another $ 45 billion would fund additional relief through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for local response efforts and community services . Democrats said the package would help replace the salaries of furloughed workers for four months , rather than the three months first proposed . Furloughed workers would get whatever amount a state usually provides for unemployment , plus a $ 600-per-week add-on , with gig workers like Uber drivers covered for the first time . Businesses controlled by members of Congress and top administration officials , including Trump and his immediate family members , would be ineligible for the bill ’ s business assistance . State and local authorities would receive up to $ 150 billion in grants to fight the virus , care for their residents and provide basic services . Republicans won inclusion of an employee retention tax credit that ’ s estimated to provide $ 50 billion to companies that retain employees on payroll and cover 50 % of workers ’ paycheck up to $ 10,000 . Companies would also be able to defer payment of the 6.2 % Social Security payroll tax . Pelosi was a force behind $ 400 million in grants to states to expand voting by mail and other steps that Democrats billed as making voting safer but Republican critics called political opportunism . The package also contains $ 15.5 billion more for a surge in demand for food stamps as part of a massive $ 330 billion title for agency operations . Most people who contract the new coronavirus have mild or moderate symptoms , such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks . For some , especially older adults and people with existing health problems , it can cause more severe illness , including pneumonia , or death . In the United States , more than 69,000 people have been sickened by the virus .

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House will give final approval Friday to the massive $2.2 trillion economic rescue bill with robust backing from both parties, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, a vote that would cap Congress’ tumultuous effort to rush the relief to a nation battered by the coronavirus. Pelosi spoke Thursday morning, just hours after the Senate used an overnight vote to approve the measure 96-0. With House members dispersed around the country, Pelosi and Republican leaders were planning to bless the measure by a voice vote, probably with just a sprinkling of lawmakers present in the chamber. “It will pass with strong bipartisan support,” said Pelosi, D-Calif. President Donald Trump has implored lawmakers to finish with the package so he can sign it into law. The package comes to the House as fresh evidence emerges that the economy is in a recession. The government reported 3.3 million new weekly unemployment claims, four times the previous record. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in a TV interview the economy “may well be in a recession.” Pelosi praised the bill’s expansion of unemployment benefits and provisions that encourage companies hit by the pandemic to keep paying their workers, even those who are furloughed. “We will have a victory tomorrow for America’s workers,” she said. “If somebody has a different point of view, they can put it in the record, but we’re not worried about that.” The package would give direct payments to most Americans, expand unemployment benefits and provide a $367 billion program for small businesses to keep making payroll while workers are forced to stay home. It would steer substantial aid to larger industries, too. The unanimous Senate vote late Wednesday came despite misgivings on both sides about whether it goes too far or not far enough and capped days of difficult negotiations as Washington confronted a national challenge unlike any it has faced. The 880-page measure is the largest economic relief bill in U.S. history. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared somber and exhausted as he announced the vote — and he released senators from Washington until April 20, though he promised to recall them if needed. “Pray for one another, for all of our families and for our country,” said McConnell, R-Ky. “The legislation now before us now is historic because it is meant to match a historic crisis,” said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “Our health care system is not prepared to care for the sick. Our workers are without work. Our businesses cannot do business. Our factories lie idle. The gears of the American economy have ground to a halt.” The package is intended as relief for a sinking economy and a nation facing a grim toll from an infection that’s killed more than 21,000 people worldwide. The U.S. death toll has surpassed 1,000 people. “This is a unique situation,” Powell told NBC’s “Today” show. “This is not a typical downturn.” The Fed chief went on: “What’s happening here is people are being asked to close their businesses, to stay home from work and to not engage in certain kinds of economic activity and so they’re pulling back. And at a certain point, we will get the spread of the virus under control and at that time confidence will return, businesses will open again, people will come back to work.” Underscoring the effort’s sheer magnitude, the bill finances a response with a price tag that equals half the size of the entire $4 trillion-plus annual federal budget. The $2.2 trillion estimate is the White House’s best guess. The drive by leaders to speed the bill through the Senate on Wednesday slowed as four conservative Republican senators from states whose economies are dominated by low-wage jobs demanded changes. They said the legislation as written was so generous that workers like store clerks might opt to stay on unemployment rather than return to their jobs. They settled for a failed vote to modify the provision. Wednesday’s delays followed Democratic stalling tactics earlier in the week as Schumer held out for additional money for states and hospitals and other provisions. The sprawling measure is the third coronavirus response bill produced by Congress and by far the largest. It builds on efforts focused on vaccines and emergency response, sick and family medical leave for workers and food aid. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said earlier he expected the measure to pass by a voice vote without lawmakers having to return to Washington. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy said Thursday his members were on board with that. “We’ll have a debate, and then we’ll have a voice vote to bring it up and move it to the president’s desk,” McCarthy told Fox News. He said that while Democrats inserted things in the bill that didn’t deal with coronavirus, ”we will still get this package done for hospitals, workers, small businesses.” “Every day matters, so we want to get this done quickly,” McCarthy said. The package has a heavily negotiated $500 billion program for guaranteed, subsidized loans to larger industries, including airlines. Hospitals would get significant help as well. The bill would provide one-time direct payments to Americans of $1,200 per adult making up to $75,000 a year and $2,400 to a married couple making up to $150,000, with $500 payments per child. A huge cash infusion for hospitals expecting a flood of COVID-19 patients grew during the talks to an estimated $130 billion. Another $45 billion would fund additional relief through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for local response efforts and community services. Democrats said the package would help replace the salaries of furloughed workers for four months, rather than the three months first proposed. Furloughed workers would get whatever amount a state usually provides for unemployment, plus a $600-per-week add-on, with gig workers like Uber drivers covered for the first time. Businesses controlled by members of Congress and top administration officials, including Trump and his immediate family members, would be ineligible for the bill’s business assistance. State and local authorities would receive up to $150 billion in grants to fight the virus, care for their residents and provide basic services. Full Coverage: Virus Outbreak Republicans won inclusion of an employee retention tax credit that’s estimated to provide $50 billion to companies that retain employees on payroll and cover 50% of workers’ paycheck up to $10,000. Companies would also be able to defer payment of the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax. Pelosi was a force behind $400 million in grants to states to expand voting by mail and other steps that Democrats billed as making voting safer but Republican critics called political opportunism. The package also contains $15.5 billion more for a surge in demand for food stamps as part of a massive $330 billion title for agency operations. Most people who contract the new coronavirus have mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, or death. In the United States, more than 69,000 people have been sickened by the virus. ___ Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Mary Clare Jalonick, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.

www.apnews.com

center

38e0as5DA6MWvtlG

test

EHAhlgvwQ8U2ZvGB

race_and_racism

Matt Welch

http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/30/its-not-just-msnbc-making-flip-assumptio

It’s Not Just MSNBC Making Flip Assumptions About Non-Liberal Racism

2014-01-30

Josh Blackman, Scott Shackford, Shikha Dalmia, Peter Suderman, Jacob Sullum, Jonathan H. Adler, Ira Stoll, Christian Britschgi

Last night , the official Twitter feed of MSNBC used a Cheerios Super Bowl commercial to make a crack about non-lefties being uncomfortable with race-mixing : After an eruption of outrage on Twitter , including a volley of colorful family snapshots under the hashtag # MyRightWingBiracialFamily , MSNBC online chief Richard Wolffe withdrew the Tweet : The Cheerios tweet from @ msnbc was dumb , offensive and we 've taken it down . That 's not who we are at msnbc . The `` that 's not who we are '' claim generated a flurry of LOLs , and not just from conservatives . New York magazine put the issue succinctly in a headline : `` MSNBC Is Very Sorry for Suggesting Conservatives Are Racist ( Again ) . '' But making broad and essentially pejorative generalizations about giant swaths of non-Democrats is hardly the exclusive domain of the racist-chasers at MSNBC and Salon.com . Journalistic outlets at the highest levels have been making non-jokey versions of the same accusation throughout the Obama presidency , ever since the twin ascension in 2009 of the Tea Party and opposition to the Affordable Care Act . For an example , check out this passage in New Yorker Editor David Remnick 's extraordinarily long and often insightful recent profile of the president . In the electoral realm , ironically , the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation . Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history . The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened , underemployed , overlooked , and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country . Obama 's drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters . Italics mine , to underscore what one of the nation 's most decorated journalists felt zero need to substantiate in a 16,000-word article . Do older white voters really feel more `` threatened '' and `` disdained '' by a `` globalized economy '' and `` increasingly diverse country '' than other age and ethnic/pigmentation cohorts ? I 'm sure there 's plenty of interesting poll data out there , but Remnick ( a 55-year-old white guy , FWIW ) does n't need to cite any : He knows it 's true , his readers know it 's true , and the only real question is how much you can respectably pin opposition to this twice-elected black president on racism . This is n't just bad journalism , it 's bad tolerance . Attributing a single set of personality traits to scores of millions of people whose only commonality is age and race is the opposite of judging people not by the color of their skin , but by the content of their character . It 's also a cheap way to wave off the substance of anti-Obama criticism—why bother figuring out why a majority of Americans have consistently disliked the flawed Affordable Care Act when you can just roll your eyes and assert that the real reason is white anxiety and worse ? There is nothing tolerant about assuming that those who have different ideas than you about the size and scope of government are motivated largely by base ethnic tribalism . MSNBC , on whose shows I have happily participated * ( see update below ) , engages daily in the othering business , of making conservatism itself ( and sometimes libertarianism , and other non-Progressive ideological strains ) a disreputable condition , explicable in terms of pathology . That this is done in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to punitive stereotypes is one of the ironies of our age . To his credit , Barack Obama himself seems to have a more nuanced understanding of race and his own popularity than many of his supporters and interlocutors . Here he is in the Remnick piece : `` There 's no doubt that there 's some folks who just really dislike me because they do n't like the idea of a black President , '' Obama said . `` Now , the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I 'm a black President . '' [ … ] `` There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country , and sometimes it 's hard to disentangle those issues , '' he went on . `` You can be somebody who , for very legitimate reasons , worries about the power of the federal government—that it 's distant , that it 's bureaucratic , that it 's not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments . But what 's also true , obviously , is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states ' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun . There 's a pretty long history there . And so I think it 's important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there 's some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans . The flip side is I think it 's important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history , so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states ' rights but , rather , because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy . '' There is plenty to disagree with here—not least of which is Obama 's asymmetrical desire to have federalists answer for racism while Progressivism 's nasty history of same gets a pass , and also his inability to process the substance of anti-Medicaid complaints . But the president 's broad framing offers the modern left a useful alternative for talking about race in 2014 America . Namely , that it 's complicated , and that reducing entire population blocs to caricatures does not necessarily improve the conversation . * UPDATE : To clear up a possible misconception : I am not remotely complaining about my treatment on MSNBC , which has typically been very generous and open-minded , particularly on the longer discussion shows like those hosted by Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry . These are not the only shows on the network , however , and even in those thoughtful venues ( as in , it should be said , plenty of shows on Fox and CNN ) you can see evidence of othering .

Last night, the official Twitter feed of MSNBC used a Cheerios Super Bowl commercial to make a crack about non-lefties being uncomfortable with race-mixing: After an eruption of outrage on Twitter, including a volley of colorful family snapshots under the hashtag #MyRightWingBiracialFamily, MSNBC online chief Richard Wolffe withdrew the Tweet: The Cheerios tweet from @msnbc was dumb, offensive and we've taken it down. That's not who we are at msnbc. The "that's not who we are" claim generated a flurry of LOLs, and not just from conservatives. New York magazine put the issue succinctly in a headline: "MSNBC Is Very Sorry for Suggesting Conservatives Are Racist (Again)." But making broad and essentially pejorative generalizations about giant swaths of non-Democrats is hardly the exclusive domain of the racist-chasers at MSNBC and Salon.com. Journalistic outlets at the highest levels have been making non-jokey versions of the same accusation throughout the Obama presidency, ever since the twin ascension in 2009 of the Tea Party and opposition to the Affordable Care Act. For an example, check out this passage in New Yorker Editor David Remnick's extraordinarily long and often insightful recent profile of the president. In the electoral realm, ironically, the country may be more racially divided than it has been in a generation. Obama lost among white voters in 2012 by a margin greater than any victor in American history. The popular opposition to the Administration comes largely from older whites who feel threatened, underemployed, overlooked, and disdained in a globalized economy and in an increasingly diverse country. Obama's drop in the polls in 2013 was especially grave among white voters. Italics mine, to underscore what one of the nation's most decorated journalists felt zero need to substantiate in a 16,000-word article. Do older white voters really feel more "threatened" and "disdained" by a "globalized economy" and "increasingly diverse country" than other age and ethnic/pigmentation cohorts? I'm sure there's plenty of interesting poll data out there, but Remnick (a 55-year-old white guy, FWIW) doesn't need to cite any: He knows it's true, his readers know it's true, and the only real question is how much you can respectably pin opposition to this twice-elected black president on racism. This isn't just bad journalism, it's bad tolerance. Attributing a single set of personality traits to scores of millions of people whose only commonality is age and race is the opposite of judging people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. It's also a cheap way to wave off the substance of anti-Obama criticism—why bother figuring out why a majority of Americans have consistently disliked the flawed Affordable Care Act when you can just roll your eyes and assert that the real reason is white anxiety and worse? There is nothing tolerant about assuming that those who have different ideas than you about the size and scope of government are motivated largely by base ethnic tribalism. MSNBC, on whose shows I have happily participated* (see update below), engages daily in the othering business, of making conservatism itself (and sometimes libertarianism, and other non-Progressive ideological strains) a disreputable condition, explicable in terms of pathology. That this is done in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to punitive stereotypes is one of the ironies of our age. To his credit, Barack Obama himself seems to have a more nuanced understanding of race and his own popularity than many of his supporters and interlocutors. Here he is in the Remnick piece: "There's no doubt that there's some folks who just really dislike me because they don't like the idea of a black President," Obama said. "Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I'm a black President." […] "There is a historic connection between some of the arguments that we have politically and the history of race in our country, and sometimes it's hard to disentangle those issues," he went on. "You can be somebody who, for very legitimate reasons, worries about the power of the federal government—that it's distant, that it's bureaucratic, that it's not accountable—and as a consequence you think that more power should reside in the hands of state governments. But what's also true, obviously, is that philosophy is wrapped up in the history of states' rights in the context of the civil-rights movement and the Civil War and Calhoun. There's a pretty long history there. And so I think it's important for progressives not to dismiss out of hand arguments against my Presidency or the Democratic Party or Bill Clinton or anybody just because there's some overlap between those criticisms and the criticisms that traditionally were directed against those who were trying to bring about greater equality for African-Americans. The flip side is I think it's important for conservatives to recognize and answer some of the problems that are posed by that history, so that they understand if I am concerned about leaving it up to states to expand Medicaid that it may not simply be because I am this power-hungry guy in Washington who wants to crush states' rights but, rather, because we are one country and I think it is going to be important for the entire country to make sure that poor folks in Mississippi and not just Massachusetts are healthy." There is plenty to disagree with here—not least of which is Obama's asymmetrical desire to have federalists answer for racism while Progressivism's nasty history of same gets a pass, and also his inability to process the substance of anti-Medicaid complaints. But the president's broad framing offers the modern left a useful alternative for talking about race in 2014 America. Namely, that it's complicated, and that reducing entire population blocs to caricatures does not necessarily improve the conversation. * UPDATE: To clear up a possible misconception: I am not remotely complaining about my treatment on MSNBC, which has typically been very generous and open-minded, particularly on the longer discussion shows like those hosted by Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry. These are not the only shows on the network, however, and even in those thoughtful venues (as in, it should be said, plenty of shows on Fox and CNN) you can see evidence of othering.

www.reason.com

right

EHAhlgvwQ8U2ZvGB

test

aZ9A3Fhp7ExnVAPK

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/13/united-nations-human-rights-nearly-impossible-to-defend-zeid-raad-al-hussein

UN human rights chief: Trump's attacks on press 'close to incitement of violence'

2018-08-13

Julian Borger

Exclusive : Zeid Ra ’ ad al-Hussein , who steps down this month , says US president ’ s rhetoric echoes that of the worst eras of the 20th century Donald Trump ’ s anti-press rhetoric is “ very close to incitement to violence ” that would lead to journalists censoring themselves or being attacked , the outgoing UN human rights commissioner has said . Zeid Ra ’ ad al-Hussein , a Jordanian prince and diplomat , is stepping down this month as UN high commissioner for human rights after deciding not to stand for a second four-year term , in the face of a waning commitment among world powers to fighting abuses . Zeid said the Trump administration ’ s lack of concern about human rights marked a distinct break with previous administrations , and that Trump ’ s own rhetoric aimed at minorities and at the press was redolent of two of the worst eras of the 20th century , the run-up to the two world wars . In an interview with ███ , he singled out the US president ’ s repeated designation of the press as “ the enemy of the people ” . “ We began to see a campaign against the media … that could have potentially , and still can , set in motion a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship , ” Zeid said . “ And in that context , it ’ s getting very close to incitement to violence . ” He said it would be up to a court but determine whether Trump was actually guilty of incitement depending on the circumstances , if say , a journalist was stabbed while covering a rally . He said Trump ’ s example was already being followed elsewhere , giving license to authoritarian leaders to crack down on the media in ways they had not previously dared to . Zeid pointed to the Cambodian leader , Hun Sen , who he said had used similar language when he closed down independent media organisations . In the 20th century … feelings were stoked , directed at a vulnerable group for the sake of political gain Zeid Ra ’ ad al-Hussein “ The US creates a demonstration effect , which then is picked up by other countries where the leadership tends to to be more authoritarian [ in ] character or aspires to be authoritarian , ” he said . Zeid has also taken on the Trump administration over its policy of separating children from their parents in migrant families arrested at the border , and Trump ’ s own long history of rhetoric aimed at minorities . “ When language is used in a way that focuses on groups of people who have traditionally suffered a great deal from bigotry and prejudice and chauvinism , it harked back to a period not too long ago in the 20th century when feelings were stoked , directed at a vulnerable group for the sake of political gain , ” he said , adding that he was referring in particular to the 1930s and the period before the first world war . Zeid began his tenure as UN human rights commissioner in 2014 during the Obama administration and said his contacts with the state department dropped off significantly after Trump took office in January 2017 . “ The Trump administration seems to have separated itself from previous administrations in its upholding of human rights globally , ” Zeid said . The administration ’ s failure to appoint an ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva , before withdrawing from the council altogether , he added , was “ illustrative of the lack of any deep commitment to the human rights ” . Timeline The Syrian war Show Hide Unprecedented protests demand civil liberties and the release of political prisoners after four decades of repressive rule by the Assad family . The regime represses demonstrations in Damascus and the southern city of Deraa but protests continue . Defecting army colonel Riad al-Asaad sets up the Turkey-based rebel Free Syrian Army . Islamist groups join the revolt . Regime forces take control of the rebel stronghold in Homs after a month of bombardment . Other bloody operations are carried out , notably in the central city of Hama , after massive anti-regime protests . More than 1,400 people die in a chemical weapon attack on rebel-held districts near Damascus . The US and Assad ally Russia agree a plan to eliminate Syria 's chemical weapons , averting punitive US strikes against the regime . Hostilities between jihadists and rebel groups turn into an open war in the north . The group that will become known as Islamic State takes Raqqa – the first provincial capital to fall out of regime control – from rebel forces . A US-led coalition launches airstrikes against Isis in Syria . The strikes benefit Kurdish groups , which since 2013 have run autonomous administrations in Kurdish-majority areas . Russia launches airstrikes in support of Assad 's troops , who are on the back foot . Russian firepower helps turn the tables for the regime , which begins to retake rebel-held territory . The regime retakes Syria 's second city , Aleppo . Russia and Iran , as backers of the Syrian regime , and Turkey , a supporter of the rebels , organise talks in Kazakhstan , between representatives of both sides . The process leads to the creation of four `` de-escalation zones '' . A sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun kills more than 80 people , prompting Washington to attack a regime airbase . Further complicating an already drawn-out conflict , Turkey launches an operation against the Kurdish People 's Protection Units which , with US support , played a key role in beating back Isis . Regime launches a ferocious assault on the remaining rebel-held enclave near Damascus , eastern Ghouta . In under four weeks , the Russian-backed onslaught kills more than 1,200 civilians . US president Donald Trump surprises advisors and allies alike by declaring victory over the Islamic State and promising to withdraw US troops from the conflict . The Syrian Democratic Forces ( SDF ) announce that they have driven Isis out of their final stronghold of Baghuz . At least 11,000 SDF fighters , a Kurdish-led militia which includes Arab , Syriac and Turkmen units , have died in the four-year military campaign against the group in Syria . Britain and France agree to deploy additional special forces in Syria to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the fight against remaining Isis forces in the country . Rebels withdraw from Khan Sheikhun in north-west Syria , clearing the way for pro-government forces to enter the town – a key moment in the war for Idlib province , the country ’ s last major rebel stronghold . Zeid has been an outspoken critic of governments around the world for their human rights records , but his tenure as high commissioner has coincided with the catastrophic failure of the UN Security Council to halt mass killings in Syria or Yemen , and the relegation of human rights as a priority at the UN in general , where it accounts for just 3 % of overall spending . A pivotal moment came in March when Zeid was blocked from even addressing the Security Council on human rights in Syria , where more than half a million people have been killed in seven years of violence . Russia and China were adamantly opposed but the French delegation was confident it had the nine votes necessary for the session to go ahead . However , with less than a minute to go and Zeid primed to speak , the ambassador from the Ivory Coast informed his French counterpart he had changed his mind and would abstain . The session was called off . The Ivorean government insisted that its diplomat , Bernard Tanoh-Boutchoue , had acted without its permission . Western diplomats became convinced that Tanoh-Boutchoue , who had previously served as ambassador to Moscow , had come under pressure from Russia to switch his vote , but the mystery was never resolved . The 67-year-old diplomat died in New York of a sudden illness , said to be a heart attack , a month after his controversial abstention . Zeid said he never understood the machinations behind the vote , but said it reflected a broader trend . I would be very suspicious of any commissioner seeking a second term because I ’ d wonder what deals are being struck Zeid Ra ’ ad al-Hussein “ It tells me more about the weakening influence of the western powers that they could not secure nine votes for a briefing on human rights in Syria , ” he said . “ If you are discussing Syria in the security council and you are not discussing gross human rights violations , what are you discussing ? The latest arts and crafts fair in Damascus ? It ’ s ridiculous . ” Zeid ’ s has often been a lonely voice . Hopes that the current secretary general , Antonio Guterres , would be more outspoken on human rights than his predecessor , have been dashed , a western diplomat at the UN said . “ There is a complete separation of what Zeid said and what the secretary general says , and his impact has been reduced because of that , ” the diplomat said . “ And there a broader problem of the ability of human rights abuses to shock and lead to a change of policy . That link has been broken . Actors who should have listened to Zeid , have not . ” Zeid said he came to the decision early on in his tenure to speak out on human rights abuses irrespective of the political circumstances . He attributed his approach in part to his first major foreign mission as a UN official in his early 30s , when he witnessed first hand UN dithering and timidity during the fall of the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica , and the subsequent slaughter of some 8,000 men and boys by Bosnian Serb troops . “ We felt that there were periods of silence and that was painful for the UN and the UN was not respected ultimately by the parties to the conflict and therefore we saw the disasters that came from it , ” Zeid said . “ And … if the UN is not respected , the UN is rolled over to my mind . You don ’ t earn anyone ’ s respect by being silent . ” Zeid ’ s advice to his successor , Michele Bachelet , who has been both a political prisoner and president in her native Chile , is to stay courageous and not to run for a second term . “ I would be very suspicious of any commissioner seeking a second term because I ’ d wonder what deals are being struck and if they ’ d been struck they ’ ve been struck on the back of victims , ” he said . The job of bearing witness to crimes against humanity also takes an emotional toll . Zeid recalled a trip to Mexico to speak to the families of 43 students who were abducted and presumed murdered by a criminal gang in 2014 . “ I was listening to mothers and fathers , siblings , speak of those who were disappeared and presumably killed . After that , I had a series of interviews and I wasn ’ t in the right emotional state to actually give the interview because there was something deep within me where I felt I was a fraud , ” Zeid said . “ That given the enormity , the colossal nature of their suffering … with us they wanted salvation … they want an end to suffering . They want us to do something that is many respects almost impossible to do . That is where most of the pressure comes from in this job . ”

Exclusive: Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, who steps down this month, says US president’s rhetoric echoes that of the worst eras of the 20th century Donald Trump’s anti-press rhetoric is “very close to incitement to violence” that would lead to journalists censoring themselves or being attacked, the outgoing UN human rights commissioner has said. Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, a Jordanian prince and diplomat, is stepping down this month as UN high commissioner for human rights after deciding not to stand for a second four-year term, in the face of a waning commitment among world powers to fighting abuses. Zeid said the Trump administration’s lack of concern about human rights marked a distinct break with previous administrations, and that Trump’s own rhetoric aimed at minorities and at the press was redolent of two of the worst eras of the 20th century, the run-up to the two world wars. In an interview with the Guardian, he singled out the US president’s repeated designation of the press as “the enemy of the people”. “We began to see a campaign against the media … that could have potentially, and still can, set in motion a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship,” Zeid said. “And in that context, it’s getting very close to incitement to violence.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein. Photograph: Henry Romero/Reuters He said it would be up to a court but determine whether Trump was actually guilty of incitement depending on the circumstances, if say, a journalist was stabbed while covering a rally. He said Trump’s example was already being followed elsewhere, giving license to authoritarian leaders to crack down on the media in ways they had not previously dared to. Zeid pointed to the Cambodian leader, Hun Sen, who he said had used similar language when he closed down independent media organisations. In the 20th century … feelings were stoked, directed at a vulnerable group for the sake of political gain Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein “The US creates a demonstration effect, which then is picked up by other countries where the leadership tends to to be more authoritarian [in] character or aspires to be authoritarian,” he said. Zeid has also taken on the Trump administration over its policy of separating children from their parents in migrant families arrested at the border, and Trump’s own long history of rhetoric aimed at minorities. “When language is used in a way that focuses on groups of people who have traditionally suffered a great deal from bigotry and prejudice and chauvinism, it harked back to a period not too long ago in the 20th century when feelings were stoked, directed at a vulnerable group for the sake of political gain,” he said, adding that he was referring in particular to the 1930s and the period before the first world war. Zeid began his tenure as UN human rights commissioner in 2014 during the Obama administration and said his contacts with the state department dropped off significantly after Trump took office in January 2017. Facebook Twitter Pinterest A Syrian regime airstrike on the besieged Eastern Ghouta region of its capital, Damascus in February. Zeid has criticised the catastrophic failure of the UN Security Council to halt mass killings in Syria. Photograph: Ammar Suleiman/AFP/Getty “The Trump administration seems to have separated itself from previous administrations in its upholding of human rights globally,” Zeid said. The administration’s failure to appoint an ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva, before withdrawing from the council altogether, he added, was “illustrative of the lack of any deep commitment to the human rights”. Timeline The Syrian war Show Hide Unprecedented protests demand civil liberties and the release of political prisoners after four decades of repressive rule by the Assad family. The regime represses demonstrations in Damascus and the southern city of Deraa but protests continue. Defecting army colonel Riad al-Asaad sets up the Turkey-based rebel Free Syrian Army. Islamist groups join the revolt. Regime forces take control of the rebel stronghold in Homs after a month of bombardment. Other bloody operations are carried out, notably in the central city of Hama, after massive anti-regime protests. More than 1,400 people die in a chemical weapon attack on rebel-held districts near Damascus. The US and Assad ally Russia agree a plan to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, averting punitive US strikes against the regime. Hostilities between jihadists and rebel groups turn into an open war in the north. The group that will become known as Islamic State takes Raqqa – the first provincial capital to fall out of regime control – from rebel forces. A US-led coalition launches airstrikes against Isis in Syria. The strikes benefit Kurdish groups, which since 2013 have run autonomous administrations in Kurdish-majority areas. Russia launches airstrikes in support of Assad's troops, who are on the back foot. Russian firepower helps turn the tables for the regime, which begins to retake rebel-held territory. The regime retakes Syria's second city, Aleppo. Russia and Iran, as backers of the Syrian regime, and Turkey, a supporter of the rebels, organise talks in Kazakhstan, between representatives of both sides. The process leads to the creation of four "de-escalation zones". A sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun kills more than 80 people, prompting Washington to attack a regime airbase. Further complicating an already drawn-out conflict, Turkey launches an operation against the Kurdish People's Protection Units which, with US support, played a key role in beating back Isis. Regime launches a ferocious assault on the remaining rebel-held enclave near Damascus, eastern Ghouta. In under four weeks, the Russian-backed onslaught kills more than 1,200 civilians. US president Donald Trump surprises advisors and allies alike by declaring victory over the Islamic State and promising to withdraw US troops from the conflict. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) announce that they have driven Isis out of their final stronghold of Baghuz. At least 11,000 SDF fighters, a Kurdish-led militia which includes Arab, Syriac and Turkmen units, have died in the four-year military campaign against the group in Syria. Britain and France agree to deploy additional special forces in Syria to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the fight against remaining Isis forces in the country. Rebels withdraw from Khan Sheikhun in north-west Syria, clearing the way for pro-government forces to enter the town – a key moment in the war for Idlib province, the country’s last major rebel stronghold. Zeid has been an outspoken critic of governments around the world for their human rights records, but his tenure as high commissioner has coincided with the catastrophic failure of the UN Security Council to halt mass killings in Syria or Yemen, and the relegation of human rights as a priority at the UN in general, where it accounts for just 3% of overall spending. A pivotal moment came in March when Zeid was blocked from even addressing the Security Council on human rights in Syria, where more than half a million people have been killed in seven years of violence. Russia and China were adamantly opposed but the French delegation was confident it had the nine votes necessary for the session to go ahead. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The late Ivory Coast ambassador to the United Nations Bernard Tanoh-Boutchoue, previously posted in Russia, died one month after a last-minute change to his vote that then vetoed a Security Council meeting to discuss the war in Syria. Photograph: Alamy However, with less than a minute to go and Zeid primed to speak, the ambassador from the Ivory Coast informed his French counterpart he had changed his mind and would abstain. The session was called off. The Ivorean government insisted that its diplomat, Bernard Tanoh-Boutchoue, had acted without its permission. Western diplomats became convinced that Tanoh-Boutchoue, who had previously served as ambassador to Moscow, had come under pressure from Russia to switch his vote, but the mystery was never resolved. The 67-year-old diplomat died in New York of a sudden illness, said to be a heart attack, a month after his controversial abstention. Zeid said he never understood the machinations behind the vote, but said it reflected a broader trend. I would be very suspicious of any commissioner seeking a second term because I’d wonder what deals are being struck Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein “It tells me more about the weakening influence of the western powers that they could not secure nine votes for a briefing on human rights in Syria,” he said. “If you are discussing Syria in the security council and you are not discussing gross human rights violations, what are you discussing? The latest arts and crafts fair in Damascus? It’s ridiculous.” Zeid’s has often been a lonely voice. Hopes that the current secretary general, Antonio Guterres, would be more outspoken on human rights than his predecessor, have been dashed, a western diplomat at the UN said. “There is a complete separation of what Zeid said and what the secretary general says, and his impact has been reduced because of that,” the diplomat said. “And there a broader problem of the ability of human rights abuses to shock and lead to a change of policy. That link has been broken. Actors who should have listened to Zeid, have not.” Zeid said he came to the decision early on in his tenure to speak out on human rights abuses irrespective of the political circumstances. He attributed his approach in part to his first major foreign mission as a UN official in his early 30s, when he witnessed first hand UN dithering and timidity during the fall of the Muslim enclave of Srebrenica, and the subsequent slaughter of some 8,000 men and boys by Bosnian Serb troops. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bosnian Muslim women pray near the coffin of a relative, one of 520 newly identified victims of the massacres at Srebrenica of Muslim men and boys. Photograph: Amel Emric/AP “We felt that there were periods of silence and that was painful for the UN and the UN was not respected ultimately by the parties to the conflict and therefore we saw the disasters that came from it,” Zeid said. “And … if the UN is not respected, the UN is rolled over to my mind. You don’t earn anyone’s respect by being silent.” Zeid’s advice to his successor, Michele Bachelet, who has been both a political prisoner and president in her native Chile, is to stay courageous and not to run for a second term. “I would be very suspicious of any commissioner seeking a second term because I’d wonder what deals are being struck and if they’d been struck they’ve been struck on the back of victims,” he said. The job of bearing witness to crimes against humanity also takes an emotional toll. Zeid recalled a trip to Mexico to speak to the families of 43 students who were abducted and presumed murdered by a criminal gang in 2014. “I was listening to mothers and fathers, siblings, speak of those who were disappeared and presumably killed. After that, I had a series of interviews and I wasn’t in the right emotional state to actually give the interview because there was something deep within me where I felt I was a fraud,” Zeid said. “That given the enormity, the colossal nature of their suffering … with us they wanted salvation … they want an end to suffering. They want us to do something that is many respects almost impossible to do. That is where most of the pressure comes from in this job.”

www.theguardian.com

left

aZ9A3Fhp7ExnVAPK

test

s6Y1MQP7rYO4g5yM

lgbt_rights

Newsmax

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-marriage-fight-states/2014/02/16/id/553057

Conservatives Mull New Strategy to Fight Gay Marriage After Court Setbacks

2014-02-16

David A. Lieb

Opponents of same-sex marriage are scrambling to find effective responses , in Congress and state legislatures , to a rash of court rulings that would force some of America 's most conservative states to accept gay nuptials . Some gay-marriage foes are backing a bill recently introduced in both chambers of Congress that would leave states fully in charge of their marriage policies , though the measure stands little chance of passage . In the states , they are endorsing a multitude of bills — some intended to protect gay-marriage bans , others to assert a right , based on religious freedom , to have nothing to do with gay marriages should those bans be struck down . In Utah , Oklahoma , Kentucky and Virginia , federal judges have voided part or all of the bans on same-sex marriage that voters approved between 2004 and 2006 . Each of the rulings has been stayed pending appeals , and a final nationwide resolution may be a few years away in the U.S. Supreme Court . The trend is unsettling to the activists who oppose gay marriage , and some have called for extraordinary measures in response . Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore , known for fighting to display the Ten Commandments in a judicial building , has written to all 50 governors urging them to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman . In Missouri , where voters approved a gay-marriage ban in 2004 , eight Republican House members filed articles of impeachment against Democratic Gov . Jay Nixon after he ordered his administration to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couples who were legally married in other states . The Republican House leader has yet to schedule the matter for public hearings , but some GOP sponsors insist they are serious . `` The people put it in the constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman — the issue is the governor has absolutely ignored the constitution and the people 's will , '' said Rep. Ron Schieber , a Republican from Kansas City . The demand for religious exemptions , meanwhile , is widespread . Gay marriage opponents have fought for strong exemptions in every state where lawmakers have already decided the issue . In New York , for example , gay marriage was recognized only after Gov . Andrew Cuomo and the state 's top two legislators struck an 11th-hour compromise on religious accommodations . However , the resulting exemptions have generally been limited in scope — and have n't come anywhere near to what gay marriage opponents sought . In Massachusetts and Iowa , where same-sex marriage won recognition through the courts , there are no religious exemptions related to the rulings . In light of this track record , opponents in red states have been proposing pre-emptive bills with broad accommodations for religious objectors . Most of the bills aim to protect individuals or businesses who , for religious reasons , do n't want to serve same-sex couples . Bills in Ohio , Mississippi , Arizona , Idaho and Oklahoma would allow a person or company to assert a religious freedom defense against a lawsuit from another private party . For example , a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple could defend his decision as a legally protected religious right . The Kansas House passed a measure last week providing a faith-based legal shield for people who refuse to provide services to gays and lesbians . It details which services would be exempted — ranging from bakeries to adoption agencies to government clerks — and allows faith-based refusal of services to gay couples in any domestic partnership . But the top Republican in the state Senate put a quick stop to the bill 's momentum , declaring that a majority of GOP lawmakers in that chamber do n't support it . `` A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage , '' said Senate President Susan Wagle . `` However , my members also do n't condone discrimination . '' In South Dakota , a Republican-led Senate committee narrowly defeated a similar bill that would have barred lawsuits or criminal charges against clergy who refuse to perform same-sex weddings . Critics of the bill said it was unnecessary because the U.S. Constitution already guarantees religious freedom . One of the sponsors of that measure was Rep. Steve Hickey , pastor of a Sioux Falls church that opposes gay marriage . `` I 'm saying keep the state out of my church , '' Hickey said at a committee hearing . `` I only promote and perform traditional marriages . ... It 's is not because there is any bigotry . It 's because I deeply care about people . '' In Indiana , the battle over gay marriage has revealed rifts among Republicans . GOP Gov . Mike Pence urged lawmakers to refer a constitutional ban on gay marriage to the November ballot , but the measure suffered a significant setback last week that could delay a vote until 2016 . Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved twice by the Indiana Legislature — unchanged and in consecutive biennial sessions — before making the ballot . The proposed gay-marriage ban cleared the Republican-led Legislature two years ago but was changed recently to remove a ban on civil unions , thus preventing it from going to the 2014 ballot . Peter Sprigg , a senior fellow with the conservative Family Research Council , expressed disappointment with the Indiana development . `` That was our best hope for a victory at the ballot box this year , '' he said . Overall , Sprigg said he remained hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court — if it takes up appeals of any of the recent federal court cases — would not rush to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide . Last June , the high court did order the federal government to recognize valid same-sex marriages , which are allowed in 17 states and the District of Columbia . But the court declined to go further and require all states to allow them . John Eastman , an opponent of same-sex marriage who chairs the National Organization for Marriage , said he and his allies were battling to challenge a growing perception that nationwide gay marriage is inevitable . In particular , he derided Republican political consultants who were advising the party — which officially opposes same-sex marriage — to tone its rhetoric on the issue . `` The consultant class of the GOP has been stupid , '' Eastman said . Eastman 's organization has praised a bill recently introduced in Congress by conservative Republicans titled the State Marriage Defense Act . It would require the federal government to respect state determinations of the marital status of their residents when applying federal law . However , the bill is considered to have no chance of passage in the Democratic-led Senate , and its prospects in the GOP-controlled House are uncertain . `` The bill is so tortured by hypocrisy that it falls of its own weight , '' said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign , a national gay-rights group . He noted that only a few years ago , many social conservatives sought a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide , overriding the wishes of the states that had legalized it . But opponents of same-sex marriage insist on the right to take their cause to the statehouses . `` We support the right of people in the country to disagree on the policy of marriage , '' said Jim Campbell of the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom . `` We as a people , state by state , need to decide what the future of marriage is going to be . ''

Opponents of same-sex marriage are scrambling to find effective responses, in Congress and state legislatures, to a rash of court rulings that would force some of America's most conservative states to accept gay nuptials. Some gay-marriage foes are backing a bill recently introduced in both chambers of Congress that would leave states fully in charge of their marriage policies, though the measure stands little chance of passage. In the states, they are endorsing a multitude of bills — some intended to protect gay-marriage bans, others to assert a right, based on religious freedom, to have nothing to do with gay marriages should those bans be struck down. In Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia, federal judges have voided part or all of the bans on same-sex marriage that voters approved between 2004 and 2006. Each of the rulings has been stayed pending appeals, and a final nationwide resolution may be a few years away in the U.S. Supreme Court. Editor’s Note: Secret ‘250% Calendar’ Exposed — Free Video The trend is unsettling to the activists who oppose gay marriage, and some have called for extraordinary measures in response. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for fighting to display the Ten Commandments in a judicial building, has written to all 50 governors urging them to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman. In Missouri, where voters approved a gay-marriage ban in 2004, eight Republican House members filed articles of impeachment against Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon after he ordered his administration to accept joint tax returns from same-sex couples who were legally married in other states. The Republican House leader has yet to schedule the matter for public hearings, but some GOP sponsors insist they are serious. "The people put it in the constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman — the issue is the governor has absolutely ignored the constitution and the people's will," said Rep. Ron Schieber, a Republican from Kansas City. The demand for religious exemptions, meanwhile, is widespread. Gay marriage opponents have fought for strong exemptions in every state where lawmakers have already decided the issue. In New York, for example, gay marriage was recognized only after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state's top two legislators struck an 11th-hour compromise on religious accommodations. However, the resulting exemptions have generally been limited in scope — and haven't come anywhere near to what gay marriage opponents sought. In Massachusetts and Iowa, where same-sex marriage won recognition through the courts, there are no religious exemptions related to the rulings. In light of this track record, opponents in red states have been proposing pre-emptive bills with broad accommodations for religious objectors. Most of the bills aim to protect individuals or businesses who, for religious reasons, don't want to serve same-sex couples. Bills in Ohio, Mississippi, Arizona, Idaho and Oklahoma would allow a person or company to assert a religious freedom defense against a lawsuit from another private party. For example, a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple could defend his decision as a legally protected religious right. In some states, they have suffered setbacks. The Kansas House passed a measure last week providing a faith-based legal shield for people who refuse to provide services to gays and lesbians. It details which services would be exempted — ranging from bakeries to adoption agencies to government clerks — and allows faith-based refusal of services to gay couples in any domestic partnership. But the top Republican in the state Senate put a quick stop to the bill's momentum, declaring that a majority of GOP lawmakers in that chamber don't support it. "A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage," said Senate President Susan Wagle. "However, my members also don't condone discrimination." In South Dakota, a Republican-led Senate committee narrowly defeated a similar bill that would have barred lawsuits or criminal charges against clergy who refuse to perform same-sex weddings. Critics of the bill said it was unnecessary because the U.S. Constitution already guarantees religious freedom. One of the sponsors of that measure was Rep. Steve Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church that opposes gay marriage. "I'm saying keep the state out of my church," Hickey said at a committee hearing. "I only promote and perform traditional marriages. ... It's is not because there is any bigotry. It's because I deeply care about people." In Indiana, the battle over gay marriage has revealed rifts among Republicans. GOP Gov. Mike Pence urged lawmakers to refer a constitutional ban on gay marriage to the November ballot, but the measure suffered a significant setback last week that could delay a vote until 2016. Proposed constitutional amendments must be approved twice by the Indiana Legislature — unchanged and in consecutive biennial sessions — before making the ballot. The proposed gay-marriage ban cleared the Republican-led Legislature two years ago but was changed recently to remove a ban on civil unions, thus preventing it from going to the 2014 ballot. Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow with the conservative Family Research Council, expressed disappointment with the Indiana development. "That was our best hope for a victory at the ballot box this year," he said. Overall, Sprigg said he remained hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court — if it takes up appeals of any of the recent federal court cases — would not rush to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Last June, the high court did order the federal government to recognize valid same-sex marriages, which are allowed in 17 states and the District of Columbia. But the court declined to go further and require all states to allow them. John Eastman, an opponent of same-sex marriage who chairs the National Organization for Marriage, said he and his allies were battling to challenge a growing perception that nationwide gay marriage is inevitable. In particular, he derided Republican political consultants who were advising the party — which officially opposes same-sex marriage — to tone its rhetoric on the issue. "The consultant class of the GOP has been stupid," Eastman said. Eastman's organization has praised a bill recently introduced in Congress by conservative Republicans titled the State Marriage Defense Act. It would require the federal government to respect state determinations of the marital status of their residents when applying federal law. However, the bill is considered to have no chance of passage in the Democratic-led Senate, and its prospects in the GOP-controlled House are uncertain. "The bill is so tortured by hypocrisy that it falls of its own weight," said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. He noted that only a few years ago, many social conservatives sought a federal amendment that would ban gay marriage nationwide, overriding the wishes of the states that had legalized it. But opponents of same-sex marriage insist on the right to take their cause to the statehouses. "We support the right of people in the country to disagree on the policy of marriage," said Jim Campbell of the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. "We as a people, state by state, need to decide what the future of marriage is going to be." Editor’s Note: Secret ‘250% Calendar’ Exposed — Free Video

www.newsmax.com

right

s6Y1MQP7rYO4g5yM

test

ZfID0CqVZ2x8Umpz

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/11/buzzfeed-could-be-in-legal-trouble-for-publishing-trump-doc/

BuzzFeed Could Be In Legal Trouble For Publishing Trump Doc

2017-01-11

While BuzzFeed weathers criticism for publishing a document cache containing unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations about President-elect Donald Trump and his confidantes , they also could face legal consequences . The organization elected to publish a 35-page dossier claiming Russian operatives had compromising personal and financial information about the president-elect and others in his orbit . The documents were compiled by a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence firm in London at the behest of Trump ’ s political opponents . They were later shared with Democratic political operatives and members of Congress . If the salacious allegations in the document cache prove false , an individual named in the documents may have cause to bring a libel lawsuit against BuzzFeed . Though the prospect of a sitting president bringing a civil suit against a media organization seems far-fetched , Trump aides outside the administration who are implicated in the documents could move forward with their own actions . Michael Cohen , counsel for the Trump Organization and an individual named in the documents , is a likely candidate in this regard . ( RELATED : The NYT Probably Didn ’ t Break The Law Publishing Trump ’ s Tax Return ) ███ News Foundation spoke with Kathleen Bartzen Culver , assistant professor and director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison , about the relevant legal standards in defamation lawsuits . Culver is a media ethicist who teaches a course in media law , but is not a legal expert . She cautioned that it is far too early to make reasonable assumptions about what the outcome of a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed would be . “ Given that we don ’ t yet know … the veracity of the information in [ the dossier ] , it ’ s really far too early to be making educated guesses at what would happen if someone endeavored to prove [ defamation ] , ” she said . Culver explains that , for purposes of a defamation lawsuit , courts draw distinctions between public and private figures . There are several kinds of public figure : all-purpose public figures ( like celebrities ) , limited-purpose public figures ( who chose to involve themselves in matters of general concern ) , and public officials ( meaning politicians and some policy makers ) . It is more likely than not that most individuals named in the dossier would be treated as public figures , given their proximity to and influence with the president-elect . Culver says it ’ s still possible a court could find a campaign staffer named in the documents is a private figure . The libel standard for public figures is considerably higher than that of private figures ( Culver notes this is one of the reasons Trump has promised to “ open up ” libel laws ) . In a libel case , public figures must demonstrate a press outfit made false statements with actual malice . In this instance , it would require the plaintiff to prove that the allegations in the dossier are false and published with malice . In the defamation context , actual malice means that a statement is published a ) with the knowledge the information is false or b ) with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information . Culver added that news organizations will occasionally publish information they have not yet confirmed , in order to allow an informed public to reach its own decision , as BuzzFeed did in this instance . “ That ’ s rare , ” she said . “ And I have to say , I ’ m grateful it ’ s rare . I would not have made the decision that BuzzFeed made to publish this at this point . It left a lot of questions unanswered . ” BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith declined ███ News Foundation ’ s requests for comment . TheDCNF sought to ascertain the extent of counsel ’ s involvement in Smith ’ s decision to publish the dossier , and his concerns about legal consequences . He shared the following statement with his staff :

While BuzzFeed weathers criticism for publishing a document cache containing unsubstantiated and scandalous allegations about President-elect Donald Trump and his confidantes, they also could face legal consequences. The organization elected to publish a 35-page dossier claiming Russian operatives had compromising personal and financial information about the president-elect and others in his orbit. The documents were compiled by a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence firm in London at the behest of Trump’s political opponents. They were later shared with Democratic political operatives and members of Congress. If the salacious allegations in the document cache prove false, an individual named in the documents may have cause to bring a libel lawsuit against BuzzFeed. Though the prospect of a sitting president bringing a civil suit against a media organization seems far-fetched, Trump aides outside the administration who are implicated in the documents could move forward with their own actions. Michael Cohen, counsel for the Trump Organization and an individual named in the documents, is a likely candidate in this regard. (RELATED: The NYT Probably Didn’t Break The Law Publishing Trump’s Tax Return) The Daily Caller News Foundation spoke with Kathleen Bartzen Culver, assistant professor and director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, about the relevant legal standards in defamation lawsuits. Culver is a media ethicist who teaches a course in media law, but is not a legal expert. She cautioned that it is far too early to make reasonable assumptions about what the outcome of a defamation lawsuit against BuzzFeed would be. “Given that we don’t yet know … the veracity of the information in [the dossier], it’s really far too early to be making educated guesses at what would happen if someone endeavored to prove [defamation],” she said. Culver explains that, for purposes of a defamation lawsuit, courts draw distinctions between public and private figures. There are several kinds of public figure: all-purpose public figures (like celebrities), limited-purpose public figures (who chose to involve themselves in matters of general concern), and public officials (meaning politicians and some policy makers). It is more likely than not that most individuals named in the dossier would be treated as public figures, given their proximity to and influence with the president-elect. Culver says it’s still possible a court could find a campaign staffer named in the documents is a private figure. The libel standard for public figures is considerably higher than that of private figures (Culver notes this is one of the reasons Trump has promised to “open up” libel laws). In a libel case, public figures must demonstrate a press outfit made false statements with actual malice. In this instance, it would require the plaintiff to prove that the allegations in the dossier are false and published with malice. In the defamation context, actual malice means that a statement is published a) with the knowledge the information is false or b) with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information. Culver added that news organizations will occasionally publish information they have not yet confirmed, in order to allow an informed public to reach its own decision, as BuzzFeed did in this instance. “That’s rare,” she said. “And I have to say, I’m grateful it’s rare. I would not have made the decision that BuzzFeed made to publish this at this point. It left a lot of questions unanswered.” BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith declined The Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment. TheDCNF sought to ascertain the extent of counsel’s involvement in Smith’s decision to publish the dossier, and his concerns about legal consequences. He shared the following statement with his staff: 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

ZfID0CqVZ2x8Umpz

test

a9rxccQfaYfq0vZa

politics

Newsmax

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/larry-klayman-president-donald-trump-michael-cohen-rudy-giuliani/2018/07/20/id/872941/

Larry Klayman: Unethical for Cohen to Secretly Tape Trump

2018-07-20

Jason Devaney

Attorney Michael Cohen went against ethics guidelines by allegedly making a secret recording of a conversation he had with then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016 , Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman told ███ TV . During an appearance on `` America Talks Live , '' Klayman — a former federal prosecutor — said if The New York Times report is true , Cohen made an unethical decision . Important : ███ TV is available on DIRECTV Ch . 349 , U-Verse 1220 , DISH 216 and Fios 615 . If your cable operator doesn ’ t have ███ TV just call and ask them to put us on – Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we ’ ll connect you right away to your cable operator ! For more places to Find ███ TV – Click Here Now `` He 's always struck me as kind of a slippery character , '' Klayman said of Cohen . `` And even though there 's one party consent in the state of New York — you can record telephone conversations — it 's not the ethical thing to do with your client . `` To be recording him and then turning it over , even it was under court order , to a federal prosecutor , they should 've been resistant . They should have taken this up the line to the Appellate Court , the Supreme Court , if necessary . '' The Times reported that Cohen made the tape two months before the 2016 presidential election . The two men allegedly had a conversation about a payment to a former Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump years earlier . The conversation was confirmed by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani , who said it was less than two minutes in length . American Media Inc. , the parent company of the National Enquirer , made a $ 150,000 payment to the Playboy model for her story but never ran the piece , which effectively served to keep her quiet before the election . Trump has maintained that he was unaware of that payment and others at the time . `` Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance , '' Giuliani said . The recording was taken from Cohen when federal agents raided two offices , a hotel room and an apartment connected to him earlier this year . According to CNN , Trump became aware of the tape this week . Klayman was asked whether it 's commonplace for the wealthy to pay money to keep people quiet about allegations whether or not they are true . `` It 's commonplace and it 's not illegal , but it 's something that I would not do because it 's like dealing with terrorists . Once you make that kind of entertainment they 're gon na come back , '' Klayman said . `` I would n't recommend it to a client to pay extortion money . I would n't . I 'd fight it . ''

Attorney Michael Cohen went against ethics guidelines by allegedly making a secret recording of a conversation he had with then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman told Newsmax TV. During an appearance on "America Talks Live," Klayman — a former federal prosecutor — said if The New York Times report is true, Cohen made an unethical decision. Important: Newsmax TV is available on DIRECTV Ch. 349, U-Verse 1220, DISH 216 and Fios 615. If your cable operator doesn’t have Newsmax TV just call and ask them to put us on – Call toll-free 1-844-500-6397 and we’ll connect you right away to your cable operator! For more places to Find Newsmax TV – Click Here Now "He's always struck me as kind of a slippery character," Klayman said of Cohen. "And even though there's one party consent in the state of New York — you can record telephone conversations — it's not the ethical thing to do with your client. "To be recording him and then turning it over, even it was under court order, to a federal prosecutor, they should've been resistant. They should have taken this up the line to the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court, if necessary." The Times reported that Cohen made the tape two months before the 2016 presidential election. The two men allegedly had a conversation about a payment to a former Playboy model who claimed to have had an affair with Trump years earlier. The conversation was confirmed by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said it was less than two minutes in length. American Media Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, made a $150,000 payment to the Playboy model for her story but never ran the piece, which effectively served to keep her quiet before the election. Trump has maintained that he was unaware of that payment and others at the time. "Nothing in that conversation suggests that he had any knowledge of it in advance," Giuliani said. The recording was taken from Cohen when federal agents raided two offices, a hotel room and an apartment connected to him earlier this year. According to CNN, Trump became aware of the tape this week. Klayman was asked whether it's commonplace for the wealthy to pay money to keep people quiet about allegations whether or not they are true. "It's commonplace and it's not illegal, but it's something that I would not do because it's like dealing with terrorists. Once you make that kind of entertainment they're gonna come back," Klayman said. "I wouldn't recommend it to a client to pay extortion money. I wouldn't. I'd fight it."

www.newsmax.com

right

a9rxccQfaYfq0vZa

test

KP0MPH36siscPX9h

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/03/25/it-begins-new-yorker-describes-hispanic-cruz-as-uppity/

‘New Yorker' Describes Hispanic Ted Cruz as 'Uppity'

2015-03-25

John Nolte

Apparently it is again okay to use the pejorative “ uppity ” against Americans who are members of a racial minority group . Ted Cruz is a historic Senator and presidential candidate , the first Cuban-American to join either club , and for that reason ( and his unapologetic conservatism ) the media is out for blood . The New Yorker went so far as to describe Cruz with the racial pejorative “ uppity . ” The conventional wisdom is that Cruz hasn ’ t got a chance , and , as far as the Presidency goes , it ’ s probably accurate . To many Americans , he is the uppity loudmouth who , in the fall of 2013 , less than a year into his first term as a senator , helped bring the federal government to a halt . “ Uppity ” is widely seen as a term used against minorities who “ don ’ t know their place. ” Throughout the Obama Administration , conservatives have been attacked in the mainstream media for using the word . The use of the word in the New Yorker warrants special scrutiny because its use is written , not verbal . Thoughtlessly using a word in conversation is something entirely different than the deliberative word choices that come with any form of writing , especially in the New Yorker . A quick look at an online Thesaurus reveals at least a half-dozen words that work just as well if not better than the racially-coded “ uppity . ” The mainstream media has a long and sordid history of “ othering ” all conservatives , but most especially those they see as apostates — outspoken women , gays , blacks , Hispanics . From Clarence Thomas straight through to Sarah Palin , Michele Bachmann , Herman Cain , and Columba Bush , we see this again and again . The dogwhistle in these venomous media attacks is of course that these conservative apostates “ do not know their place. ” They are supposed to be Democrats , feminists , victicrats , and their apostasy is an affront and threat to the Democrat Establishment . Barack Obama can launch his political career in the home of a domestic terrorist and spend 20 years in a racist church . His mentors were outright communists and horrifying anti-Semites . That is not only okay with the left-leaning mainstream media , anyone who says it isn ’ t is attacked as racist . Nothing in Cruz ’ s 44 year history is anywhere near as troubling as Obama ’ s Nevertheless , the media presents Cruz as the “ uppity ” freak — not because he is but because in the long-held tradition of the Democrat Party ( see : KKK , Jim Crow ) , minorities who pose a threat to the Democrat Party must be destroyed .

Apparently it is again okay to use the pejorative “uppity” against Americans who are members of a racial minority group. Ted Cruz is a historic Senator and presidential candidate, the first Cuban-American to join either club, and for that reason (and his unapologetic conservatism) the media is out for blood. The New Yorker went so far as to describe Cruz with the racial pejorative “uppity.” The conventional wisdom is that Cruz hasn’t got a chance, and, as far as the Presidency goes, it’s probably accurate. To many Americans, he is the uppity loudmouth who, in the fall of 2013, less than a year into his first term as a senator, helped bring the federal government to a halt. “Uppity” is widely seen as a term used against minorities who “don’t know their place.” Throughout the Obama Administration, conservatives have been attacked in the mainstream media for using the word. The use of the word in the New Yorker warrants special scrutiny because its use is written, not verbal. Thoughtlessly using a word in conversation is something entirely different than the deliberative word choices that come with any form of writing, especially in the New Yorker. A quick look at an online Thesaurus reveals at least a half-dozen words that work just as well if not better than the racially-coded “uppity.” The mainstream media has a long and sordid history of “othering” all conservatives, but most especially those they see as apostates — outspoken women, gays, blacks, Hispanics. From Clarence Thomas straight through to Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Columba Bush, we see this again and again. The dogwhistle in these venomous media attacks is of course that these conservative apostates “do not know their place.” They are supposed to be Democrats, feminists, victicrats, and their apostasy is an affront and threat to the Democrat Establishment. Barack Obama can launch his political career in the home of a domestic terrorist and spend 20 years in a racist church. His mentors were outright communists and horrifying anti-Semites. That is not only okay with the left-leaning mainstream media, anyone who says it isn’t is attacked as racist. Nothing in Cruz’s 44 year history is anywhere near as troubling as Obama’s Nevertheless, the media presents Cruz as the “uppity” freak — not because he is but because in the long-held tradition of the Democrat Party (see: KKK, Jim Crow), minorities who pose a threat to the Democrat Party must be destroyed. UPDATE: The New Yorker has removed the word “uppity.” Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

www.breitbart.com

right

KP0MPH36siscPX9h

test

UMtfZyM0HEhF3kEW

politics

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2016/12/19/trumps-two-good-cabinet-choices

Trump's Two Good Cabinet Choices

2016-12-19

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

Judging from the reaction to some of Donald Trump 's Cabinet choices , there are two types of businesspeople Democrats distrust : those who behave as you would expect businesspeople to behave and those who do n't . Neither Andrew Puzder nor Rex Tillerson has found many champions in the opposition party . Puzder , chosen to head the Department of Labor , is head of CKE Restaurants , parent company of the Hardee 's and Carl 's Jr. fast-food chains . In that job , he has learned a lot about hiring and managing employees—the `` labor '' that is the focus of the department 's activities . For some ███ , it comes as a shock to many people that Trump would nominate someone who opposes big increases in the minimum wage . `` Instead of creating a living wage , '' Puzder wrote last year , `` the fight for dramatic minimum-wage increases could leave millions with no wage at all . '' This happens to be standard economic theory . No less a liberal authority than Nobel laureate Paul Krugman , in 1998 , mocked those `` who very much want to believe that the price of labor—unlike that of gasoline , or of Manhattan apartments—can be set based on considerations of justice , not supply and demand . '' Puzder deserves credit for creating jobs : CKE and its franchisees employ some 90,000 people . Not surprisingly , he does n't like government dictates that raise his outlets ' costs and reduce their profitability . He is candid about the advantages of machines , which , he has pointed out , never show up late or file lawsuits . His background gives him a different perspective than a labor activist would offer . But union champions rarely join Republican Cabinets . Unlike some Trump appointees—I 'm looking at you , Ben Carson—Puzder wo n't need a crash course on the issues his department handles . Nor is he hostile to compromise . Based on an interview in March , the Los Angeles Times reported that `` he 's not against a minimum wage higher than today 's federal level of $ 7.25 an hour , or even to indexing the minimum to inflation . '' Puzder could mitigate some of Trump 's worst impulses . During the presidential campaign , he argued that `` every candidate should support a path to legal status—short of citizenship—for illegal immigrants . '' Tillerson , picked for secretary of state , is not a cartoon version of the Texas oilman . As president of the Boy Scouts of America , he pushed to allow gay troop leaders . Exxon Mobil has donated to Planned Parenthood . The right-wing Family Research Council warns that Tillerson `` may be the greatest ally liberals have in the Cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas . '' Most notably , he endorsed a carbon tax to combat global warming—and Exxon Mobil has lobbied Congress to pass one . Having someone with that viewpoint in the most important foreign policy job could be helpful to the planet . Critics think he will put the interests of big oil above those of the American public . But CEOs are not free agents . They are used to serving the interests of shareholders while catering to customers . As head of Exxon Mobil , Tillerson profited from high oil prices . But had he gone to Ford , he would have acquired a new preference for cheap fuel . There 's no obvious ███ that Tillerson ca n't similarly shift his allegiance to serving the public interest ( to the extent his boss allows ) . Besides , his background invites merciless scrutiny of any decision that affects his old industry . He can expect to be held to a tougher standard on such matters than anyone else would be . Tillerson came to the president-elect 's attention at the suggestion of Robert Gates , who served ably as defense secretary under George W. Bush and Barack Obama and endorsed Hillary Clinton . Gates ' recommendation ought to carry bipartisan weight , even if his consulting firm has done work for Exxon Mobil . Tillerson has n't been a diplomat , something he has in common with John Kerry , Clinton and Condoleezza Rice . But like diplomats , he has spent a lot of time working with ( and around ) regimes he did n't necessarily approve of . Gates says he is `` a hard-eyed realist . '' Those who fear he 's too fond of Vladimir Putin can take heart that Dick Cheney , no starry-eyed appeaser , has endorsed Tillerson . Business executives can bring assets that make for better government . These two offer relevant experience and seasoned judgment , which may be scarce in the Trump administration . After weeks of hearing about scary candidates for important jobs—Rudy Giuliani , Sarah Palin , Newt Gingrich—Puzder and Tillerson come as a relief . Senate Democrats should rush to approve them before Trump can change his mind .

Judging from the reaction to some of Donald Trump's Cabinet choices, there are two types of businesspeople Democrats distrust: those who behave as you would expect businesspeople to behave and those who don't. Neither Andrew Puzder nor Rex Tillerson has found many champions in the opposition party. Puzder, chosen to head the Department of Labor, is head of CKE Restaurants, parent company of the Hardee's and Carl's Jr. fast-food chains. In that job, he has learned a lot about hiring and managing employees—the "labor" that is the focus of the department's activities. For some reason, it comes as a shock to many people that Trump would nominate someone who opposes big increases in the minimum wage. "Instead of creating a living wage," Puzder wrote last year, "the fight for dramatic minimum-wage increases could leave millions with no wage at all." This happens to be standard economic theory. No less a liberal authority than Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, in 1998, mocked those "who very much want to believe that the price of labor—unlike that of gasoline, or of Manhattan apartments—can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand." Puzder deserves credit for creating jobs: CKE and its franchisees employ some 90,000 people. Not surprisingly, he doesn't like government dictates that raise his outlets' costs and reduce their profitability. He is candid about the advantages of machines, which, he has pointed out, never show up late or file lawsuits. His background gives him a different perspective than a labor activist would offer. But union champions rarely join Republican Cabinets. Unlike some Trump appointees—I'm looking at you, Ben Carson—Puzder won't need a crash course on the issues his department handles. Nor is he hostile to compromise. Based on an interview in March, the Los Angeles Times reported that "he's not against a minimum wage higher than today's federal level of $7.25 an hour, or even to indexing the minimum to inflation." Puzder could mitigate some of Trump's worst impulses. During the presidential campaign, he argued that "every candidate should support a path to legal status—short of citizenship—for illegal immigrants." Tillerson, picked for secretary of state, is not a cartoon version of the Texas oilman. As president of the Boy Scouts of America, he pushed to allow gay troop leaders. Exxon Mobil has donated to Planned Parenthood. The right-wing Family Research Council warns that Tillerson "may be the greatest ally liberals have in the Cabinet for their abortion and LGBT agendas." Most notably, he endorsed a carbon tax to combat global warming—and Exxon Mobil has lobbied Congress to pass one. Having someone with that viewpoint in the most important foreign policy job could be helpful to the planet. Critics think he will put the interests of big oil above those of the American public. But CEOs are not free agents. They are used to serving the interests of shareholders while catering to customers. As head of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson profited from high oil prices. But had he gone to Ford, he would have acquired a new preference for cheap fuel. There's no obvious reason that Tillerson can't similarly shift his allegiance to serving the public interest (to the extent his boss allows). Besides, his background invites merciless scrutiny of any decision that affects his old industry. He can expect to be held to a tougher standard on such matters than anyone else would be. Tillerson came to the president-elect's attention at the suggestion of Robert Gates, who served ably as defense secretary under George W. Bush and Barack Obama and endorsed Hillary Clinton. Gates' recommendation ought to carry bipartisan weight, even if his consulting firm has done work for Exxon Mobil. Tillerson hasn't been a diplomat, something he has in common with John Kerry, Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. But like diplomats, he has spent a lot of time working with (and around) regimes he didn't necessarily approve of. Gates says he is "a hard-eyed realist." Those who fear he's too fond of Vladimir Putin can take heart that Dick Cheney, no starry-eyed appeaser, has endorsed Tillerson. Business executives can bring assets that make for better government. These two offer relevant experience and seasoned judgment, which may be scarce in the Trump administration. After weeks of hearing about scary candidates for important jobs—Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich—Puzder and Tillerson come as a relief. Senate Democrats should rush to approve them before Trump can change his mind. © Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

www.reason.com

right

UMtfZyM0HEhF3kEW

test

76nBWG2pKpDTYamB

politics

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/manafort-trial-focus-shifts-to-bank-fraud-as-prosecutors-near-end-of-case-idUSKBN1KU14D

Manafort trial focus shifts to bank fraud as prosecutors near end of case

2018-08-09

Nathan Layne

ALEXANDRIA , Va. ( ███ ) - The trial of Paul Manafort , U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s former campaign chairman , is expected to shift focus on Thursday from his alleged tax evasion to bank fraud as the prosecution ’ s case heads into its final two days . Prosecutors are expected to call a series of bankers to the stand to question them about Manafort ’ s alleged efforts to mislead them with doctored financial statements in a scramble in 2015 and 2016 to borrow against real estate . Of the 18 felony charges Manafort faces , nine relate to bank fraud and involve mortgages from Citizens Bank , Banc of California , Genesis Capital , and the Federal Savings Bank , a small Chicago lender whose chief executive was named to an economic advisory panel to the Trump campaign . Greg Andres , a prosecutor working for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller , told the court on Wednesday that the prosecution would call eight more witnesses , question each for roughly an hour , and was on track to wrap up its case by week ’ s end . Manafort ’ s lawyers have not yet indicated whether they plan to call witnesses as part of his defense . Their legal strategy so far has hinged on attacking the credibility of the prosecution ’ s star witness , former Manafort business partner Rick Gates . The trial in federal court , which finished its seventh day on Wednesday , is the first stemming from Mueller ’ s probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election . Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank fraud , tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts . According to trial testimony , he used the accounts to receive millions of dollars in payments for his work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine . Prosecutors allege that the Federal Savings Bank lent Manafort money based on fraudulent documents . As part of a quid pro quo , they allege bank Chief Executive Steve Calk was named an adviser to Trump ’ s 2016 campaign and that Manafort pushed for him to get a senior post once Trump was elected . During questioning by prosecutors on Tuesday , Gates said that Manafort had emailed him in late 2016 asking for the incoming Trump administration to consider tapping Calk for Secretary of the Army . Calk and Federal have not replied to requests for comment . Manafort ’ s defense attorneys have attempted to pin responsibility on Gates for the wrongdoing Manafort is charged with . Gates , in turn , has said he engaged in financial maneuverings involving their business activities at Manafort ’ s direction . Gates ended three days of testimony on Wednesday , after admitting he lied , stole money and cheated on his wife . Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing got in a final shot , raising the possibility Gates had not one , but four extramarital affairs . Prosecutors objected and Gates never answered the question .

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - The trial of Paul Manafort, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, is expected to shift focus on Thursday from his alleged tax evasion to bank fraud as the prosecution’s case heads into its final two days. Prosecutors are expected to call a series of bankers to the stand to question them about Manafort’s alleged efforts to mislead them with doctored financial statements in a scramble in 2015 and 2016 to borrow against real estate. Of the 18 felony charges Manafort faces, nine relate to bank fraud and involve mortgages from Citizens Bank, Banc of California, Genesis Capital, and the Federal Savings Bank, a small Chicago lender whose chief executive was named to an economic advisory panel to the Trump campaign. Greg Andres, a prosecutor working for U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller, told the court on Wednesday that the prosecution would call eight more witnesses, question each for roughly an hour, and was on track to wrap up its case by week’s end. Manafort’s lawyers have not yet indicated whether they plan to call witnesses as part of his defense. Their legal strategy so far has hinged on attacking the credibility of the prosecution’s star witness, former Manafort business partner Rick Gates. The trial in federal court, which finished its seventh day on Wednesday, is the first stemming from Mueller’s probe into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud and failing to disclose foreign bank accounts. According to trial testimony, he used the accounts to receive millions of dollars in payments for his work for pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Prosecutors allege that the Federal Savings Bank lent Manafort money based on fraudulent documents. As part of a quid pro quo, they allege bank Chief Executive Steve Calk was named an adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign and that Manafort pushed for him to get a senior post once Trump was elected. During questioning by prosecutors on Tuesday, Gates said that Manafort had emailed him in late 2016 asking for the incoming Trump administration to consider tapping Calk for Secretary of the Army. Calk and Federal have not replied to requests for comment. Manafort’s defense attorneys have attempted to pin responsibility on Gates for the wrongdoing Manafort is charged with. FILE PHOTO: Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort departs from U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, U.S., February 28, 2018. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo Gates, in turn, has said he engaged in financial maneuverings involving their business activities at Manafort’s direction. Gates ended three days of testimony on Wednesday, after admitting he lied, stole money and cheated on his wife. Manafort lawyer Kevin Downing got in a final shot, raising the possibility Gates had not one, but four extramarital affairs. Prosecutors objected and Gates never answered the question.

www.reuters.com

center

76nBWG2pKpDTYamB

test

BrysXPT7tmklcIOU

supreme_court

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/13/white-house-faces-off-against-congress-in-supreme-court/?hpt=po_c2

White House faces off against Congress in Supreme Court

2014-01-13

( CNN ) - Supreme Court appeared on Monday to lean toward Congress in the fight over presidential recess appointments – those placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval . It ’ s a high-stakes constitutional and political confrontation over a practice that has accelerated in recent years due to partisan gridlock in Congress . Moreover , a ruling by the court against the Obama administration could invalidate hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency at the center of this legal storm . At issue is whether three people named by President Barack Obama to NRLB were ineligible to serve because their appointments were made while Senators were out of town on a holiday recess two years ago , but the chamber remained technically in a “ pro forma ” session . The Constitution allows a President to make appointments during a recess . But more recently , lawmakers have sought to thwart certain appointments by never technically shutting down the Senate . The labor board fight is also “ ground-zero ” in the pitched partisan battle over issues related to organized labor , a major constituent of Democrats . A federal appeals court one year ago determined the labor board `` could not lawfully act ” because it did not have a quorum . Enter Obama and his three appointments – two Democrats and one Republican . The justices appeared to agree the Senate has the last word deciding when it is and is not in session , but struggled for a solution that would blunt the practical impact nullifying the Board 's decisions might have . `` You are making a very , very aggressive argument in favor of executive power now and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Senate is in session or not , '' Justice Samuel Alito told U.S . Solicitor General Donald Verrilli , representing the administration in oral arguments . `` You 're just saying when the Senate acts - in your view - irresponsibly and refuses to confirm nominations , then the President must be able to fill those positions , '' Aliton said . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said things have changed from two centuries ago when Congress often went seven months or more without meeting because of the difficulty of travel . `` I think to be candid , the Senate is always available . They can be called back on very short notice , '' to confirm any emergency appointments , she said . `` So what is it that 's the constitutional flaw here ? It is n't that the Senate is n't available . The Senate is available . It can easily be convened . '' Republicans claimed the appointments to the labor board created a panel that was overly pro-union , and an eventual high court ruling could invalidate hundreds of findings issued over a period of months . A lawyer for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 44 other Republicans were among those making the case directly before the justices . McConnell and Senators Jeff Sessions and Mike Lee , along with Obama 's chief spokesman , Jay Carney , were in attendance at the high court . The Democrat-controlled Senate changed its rules late last year to make it easier to overcome filibusters and approve presidential appointments . Obama may now have an easier time of it on his nominees at least , so long as the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in next November ’ s midterms . What the high court decides could also put in jeopardy some decisions made by Richard Cordray , appointed at the same time to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , a move also being challenged in a separate lawsuit . He served 18 months under a recess appointment before being confirmed to the post by the Senate last July . In a fascinating 95 minutes of public discussion , the justices debated the competing views of raw power , what it means to have a `` recess , '' and ultimately who gets to decide how the vacancy is filled . Verrilli began by criticizing the view of Senate Republicans and others , saying they would `` repudiate the constitutional legitimacy of thousands of appointments by presidents going back to George Washington , and going forward , it would diminish presidential authority . '' But members of the bench of both ideological stripes raised serious concerns . `` You 're asking us to peg this on a formality that the Senate could easily evade , and that suggests that it really is the Senate 's job to determine whether they 're in recess or whether they 're not , '' said Justice Elena Kagan , one of Obama 's two appointees to the high court . Verrilli replied : `` The President has got to make the determination of when there 's a recess . '' `` But why ? You 're making an assumption , which is that the Senate has to take a recess , '' followed Justice Sonia Sotomayor . `` But the Senate could choose , if it wanted to , and I think there might be some citizens that would encourage it to , to never recess . '' Sotoamyor , Obama ’ s first nominee to the high court added those lawmakers could `` work every day , which lots of other people do , '' which brought laughter to the courtroom . The Senate last year worked only 99 days on legislative business , the lowest non-election year total since 1991 . Some on the court suggested the President 's moves were more about politics than moving ahead when a key vacancy suddenly occurs , or in the national interest during a crisis . Chief Justice John Roberts told Verrilli the framers of the Constitution provided the `` President will nominate and the Senate , if it so chooses , can confirm a nominee . You spoke of the intransigence of the Senate . Well , they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees . `` You 're latching on to the Recess Appointment Clause as a way to combat that intransigence rather than to deal with the happenstance that the Senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open . '' The high court has never before addressed the recess appointment issue , and Justice Stephen Breyer , in researching the history , said , `` I ca n't find anything that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the President . To the contrary , [ Alexander ] Hamilton says that the way we 're going to appoint people in this country is Congress and the President have to agree . `` Now , that 's a political problem , not a constitutional problem , that agreement . And it was just as much true of President George [ W. ] Bush ... as it is with President Obama . '' Much of the argument centered on whether the President or the Senate could abuse its competing powers . Both sides offered worse-case scenarios , which some on the court tried to temper . `` Your argument would destroy the recess clause , '' Ginsburg told Noel Francisco , lawyer for a private company challenging the NLRB appointments . `` Under your argument , it is totally within the hands of the Senate to abolish any and all recess appointments . '' Presidents Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments , George H. W. Bush made 77 , Bill Clinton made 139 , George W. Bush made 171 , and Obama had made 32 so far . Gen. ( later President ) Dwight Eisenhower , Judge ( later Justice ) Thurgood Marshall , Chief Justice Earl Warren , and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan were all recess appointments . Some GOP lawmakers also accused the President of flip-flopping on the issue . When he was a senator , Obama criticized then-President Bush 's recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations . Cordray was named the same day as the three NLRB appointments , which gave the board a full panel for the first time in a year . The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning , a family-owned Yakima , Washington , bottling company , which complained the NLRB improperly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations . Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal . Since May 2011 , Republicans have been relying on a little-known procedure to keep the Senate in session , even when it was not really conducting any business - in order to stop the president from making those recess appointments . The legal basis comes from a 1993 Department of Justice brief saying the president should act only if the Senate is in official recess more than three days . So , party leaders had arranged for a single Republican lawmaker to show up every three days and gavel the Senate to order , wait around for a while , gavel it to a close , then leave . Legal experts have disagreed on both the tactical and timing procedures by the Senate , and whether the president has unilateral authority to override those legislative tactics . The case to be decided by the high court is NLRB v. Noel Canning ( 12-1281 ) . A ruling is expected by early summer .

6 years ago Updated 6:04 p.m. ET, 1/13/2014 (CNN) - Supreme Court appeared on Monday to lean toward Congress in the fight over presidential recess appointments – those placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval. It’s a high-stakes constitutional and political confrontation over a practice that has accelerated in recent years due to partisan gridlock in Congress. Follow @politicalticker Moreover, a ruling by the court against the Obama administration could invalidate hundreds of decisions by the National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency at the center of this legal storm. At issue is whether three people named by President Barack Obama to NRLB were ineligible to serve because their appointments were made while Senators were out of town on a holiday recess two years ago, but the chamber remained technically in a “pro forma” session. The Constitution allows a President to make appointments during a recess. But more recently, lawmakers have sought to thwart certain appointments by never technically shutting down the Senate. The labor board fight is also “ground-zero” in the pitched partisan battle over issues related to organized labor, a major constituent of Democrats. A federal appeals court one year ago determined the labor board "could not lawfully act” because it did not have a quorum. Enter Obama and his three appointments – two Democrats and one Republican. The justices appeared to agree the Senate has the last word deciding when it is and is not in session, but struggled for a solution that would blunt the practical impact nullifying the Board's decisions might have. "You are making a very, very aggressive argument in favor of executive power now and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Senate is in session or not," Justice Samuel Alito told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the administration in oral arguments. "You're just saying when the Senate acts - in your view - irresponsibly and refuses to confirm nominations, then the President must be able to fill those positions," Aliton said. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said things have changed from two centuries ago when Congress often went seven months or more without meeting because of the difficulty of travel. "I think to be candid, the Senate is always available. They can be called back on very short notice," to confirm any emergency appointments, she said. "So what is it that's the constitutional flaw here? It isn't that the Senate isn't available. The Senate is available. It can easily be convened." Republicans claimed the appointments to the labor board created a panel that was overly pro-union, and an eventual high court ruling could invalidate hundreds of findings issued over a period of months. A lawyer for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 44 other Republicans were among those making the case directly before the justices. McConnell and Senators Jeff Sessions and Mike Lee, along with Obama's chief spokesman, Jay Carney, were in attendance at the high court. The Democrat-controlled Senate changed its rules late last year to make it easier to overcome filibusters and approve presidential appointments. Obama may now have an easier time of it on his nominees at least, so long as the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in next November’s midterms. What the high court decides could also put in jeopardy some decisions made by Richard Cordray, appointed at the same time to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a move also being challenged in a separate lawsuit. He served 18 months under a recess appointment before being confirmed to the post by the Senate last July. In a fascinating 95 minutes of public discussion, the justices debated the competing views of raw power, what it means to have a "recess," and ultimately who gets to decide how the vacancy is filled. Verrilli began by criticizing the view of Senate Republicans and others, saying they would "repudiate the constitutional legitimacy of thousands of appointments by presidents going back to George Washington, and going forward, it would diminish presidential authority." But members of the bench of both ideological stripes raised serious concerns. "You're asking us to peg this on a formality that the Senate could easily evade, and that suggests that it really is the Senate's job to determine whether they're in recess or whether they're not," said Justice Elena Kagan, one of Obama's two appointees to the high court. Verrilli replied: "The President has got to make the determination of when there's a recess." "But why? You're making an assumption, which is that the Senate has to take a recess," followed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "But the Senate could choose, if it wanted to, and I think there might be some citizens that would encourage it to, to never recess." Sotoamyor, Obama’s first nominee to the high court added those lawmakers could "work every day, which lots of other people do," which brought laughter to the courtroom. The Senate last year worked only 99 days on legislative business, the lowest non-election year total since 1991. Some on the court suggested the President's moves were more about politics than moving ahead when a key vacancy suddenly occurs, or in the national interest during a crisis. Chief Justice John Roberts told Verrilli the framers of the Constitution provided the "President will nominate and the Senate, if it so chooses, can confirm a nominee. You spoke of the intransigence of the Senate. Well, they have an absolute right not to confirm nominees. "You're latching on to the Recess Appointment Clause as a way to combat that intransigence rather than to deal with the happenstance that the Senate is not in session when a vacancy becomes open." The high court has never before addressed the recess appointment issue, and Justice Stephen Breyer, in researching the history, said, "I can't find anything that says the purpose of this clause has anything at all to do with political fights between Congress and the President. To the contrary, [Alexander] Hamilton says that the way we're going to appoint people in this country is Congress and the President have to agree. "Now, that's a political problem, not a constitutional problem, that agreement. And it was just as much true of President George [W.] Bush ... as it is with President Obama." Much of the argument centered on whether the President or the Senate could abuse its competing powers. Both sides offered worse-case scenarios, which some on the court tried to temper. "Your argument would destroy the recess clause," Ginsburg told Noel Francisco, lawyer for a private company challenging the NLRB appointments. "Under your argument, it is totally within the hands of the Senate to abolish any and all recess appointments." Presidents Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments, George H. W. Bush made 77, Bill Clinton made 139, George W. Bush made 171, and Obama had made 32 so far. Gen. (later President) Dwight Eisenhower, Judge (later Justice) Thurgood Marshall, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan were all recess appointments. Some GOP lawmakers also accused the President of flip-flopping on the issue. When he was a senator, Obama criticized then-President Bush's recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Cordray was named the same day as the three NLRB appointments, which gave the board a full panel for the first time in a year. The lawsuit was brought by Noel Canning, a family-owned Yakima, Washington, bottling company, which complained the NLRB improperly ruled in favor of Teamsters Local 760 during contract negotiations. Company executives said the board lacked a binding quorum because the recess appointments made by Obama were not legal. Since May 2011, Republicans have been relying on a little-known procedure to keep the Senate in session, even when it was not really conducting any business - in order to stop the president from making those recess appointments. The legal basis comes from a 1993 Department of Justice brief saying the president should act only if the Senate is in official recess more than three days. So, party leaders had arranged for a single Republican lawmaker to show up every three days and gavel the Senate to order, wait around for a while, gavel it to a close, then leave. Legal experts have disagreed on both the tactical and timing procedures by the Senate, and whether the president has unilateral authority to override those legislative tactics. The case to be decided by the high court is NLRB v. Noel Canning (12-1281). A ruling is expected by early summer.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

BrysXPT7tmklcIOU

test

V6bQ8w4urHH4740M

supreme_court

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/719de432f53c9c9f53fc28b7191103ce

Supreme Court divided in 1st big abortion case of Trump era

2020-03-04

Mark Sherman

Anti-abortion demonstrators rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington , Wednesday , March 4 , 2020 . The Supreme Court is taking up the first major abortion case of the Trump era Wednesday , an election-year look at a Louisiana dispute that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights . ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana ) Anti-abortion demonstrators rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington , Wednesday , March 4 , 2020 . The Supreme Court is taking up the first major abortion case of the Trump era Wednesday , an election-year look at a Louisiana dispute that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights . ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with its first major abortion case of the Trump era , leaving Chief Justice John Roberts as the likely deciding vote . Roberts did not say enough to tip his hand in an hour of spirited arguments at the high court . The court ’ s election-year look at a Louisiana dispute could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights . A decision should come by late June . The outcome could have huge consequences at a time when several states have passed laws , being challenged in the courts , that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected , as early as six weeks . The justices are weighing a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital . A federal judge found that just one of Louisiana ’ s three abortion clinics would remain open if the law is allowed to take effect . The federal appeals court in New Orleans , though , upheld the law , setting up the Supreme Court case . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted , as she had before , that “ among medical procedures , first trimester abortion is among the safest , far safer than childbirth. ” The abortion clinic in Shreveport at the heart of the case reported transferring just four patients to a hospital out of roughly 70,000 it has treated over 23 years , Justice Elena Kagan noted . Justice Samuel Alito said the clinic had once had its license suspended , in 2010 . Perhaps the biggest question is whether the court will overrule a 2016 decision in which it struck down a similar law in Texas . Since then , Donald Trump was elected president and he appointed two justices , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , who have shifted the court to the right . Even with those two additions to the court , Roberts almost certainly holds the deciding vote . When the justices temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect a year ago , 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 . In more than 14 years as chief justice , Roberts has generally voted to uphold abortion restrictions , including in the Texas case four years ago . It is for now unclear whether Roberts ’ outlook on the Louisiana case has been affected by his new role as the court ’ s swing justice since Justice Anthony Kennedy ’ s retirement , his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and his respect for a prior decision of the court , even one he disagreed with . One possible outcome is that Roberts and the other conservative justices could find a way to allow Louisiana to enforce the law , without overruling the decision from 2016 in which the court struck down a similar law in Texas . One avenue raised by lawyers for the state and the Trump administration is that the doctors didn ’ t try hard enough to work out arrangements with the hospitals , even though the trial court found that doctors failed to secure admitting privileges at 15 hospitals over an 18-month period . That result would be a defeat for abortion rights advocates who have argued that the laws are virtually indistinguishable . But it would allow Roberts something of a middle ground between taking a big step to limit abortion access and reaffirming the court ’ s abortion rulings . Roberts asked the same question , in slightly different form , to each of the three lawyers who argued before the court . The court in the Texas case found there was no benefit to the women the law was ostensibly intended to help and struck it down as an “ undue burden ” on women ’ s right to an abortion in violation of the Constitution . “ I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places , but as far as the benefits of the law , that ’ s going to be the same in each state , isn ’ t it ? ” Roberts asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill . The Louisiana and Texas situations are not identical , Murrill told the court . “ The laws are different , the facts are different , the regulatory structures are different , ” Murrill said . Roberts ’ inquiry seemed to dovetail with questions from Kavanaugh , whose interest was in discerning whether admitting privileges laws would still impose an “ ” undue burden ” in a state that made it easy for abortion providers to get them . “ Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose , in your view ? ” Kavanaugh asked lawyer Julie Rikelman , representing the Shreveport clinic . Rikelman replied : “ No , Your Honor . The medical consensus against these laws is clear . ” The court also has agreed to review whether abortion providers have the right to go into court to represent the interests of women seeking abortions . A ruling in favor of the state ’ s argument that the providers lack the right to sue in these circumstances , known as third-party standing , would be a devastating blow to abortion rights advocates since doctors and clinics , not individual women who want abortions , file most challenges to abortion restrictions . But apart from Alito , the justices did not seem especially interested in resolving the case on the standing issue . Outside the court , protesters on both sides filled the sidewalks just as they have for earlier high court cases on abortion . Inside , Justice Stephen Breyer sought to capture searing debate over the issue . “ I understand there are good arguments on both sides . Indeed , in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it ’ s wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong , ” Breyer said , though he left little doubt he would vote in favor of abortion rights .

Anti-abortion demonstrators rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 4, 2020. The Supreme Court is taking up the first major abortion case of the Trump era Wednesday, an election-year look at a Louisiana dispute that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) Anti-abortion demonstrators rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 4, 2020. The Supreme Court is taking up the first major abortion case of the Trump era Wednesday, an election-year look at a Louisiana dispute that could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) WASHINGTON (AP) — A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with its first major abortion case of the Trump era, leaving Chief Justice John Roberts as the likely deciding vote. Roberts did not say enough to tip his hand in an hour of spirited arguments at the high court. The court’s election-year look at a Louisiana dispute could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights. A decision should come by late June. The outcome could have huge consequences at a time when several states have passed laws, being challenged in the courts, that would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks. The justices are weighing a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. A federal judge found that just one of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics would remain open if the law is allowed to take effect. The federal appeals court in New Orleans, though, upheld the law, setting up the Supreme Court case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, as she had before, that “among medical procedures, first trimester abortion is among the safest, far safer than childbirth.” The abortion clinic in Shreveport at the heart of the case reported transferring just four patients to a hospital out of roughly 70,000 it has treated over 23 years, Justice Elena Kagan noted. Justice Samuel Alito said the clinic had once had its license suspended, in 2010. Perhaps the biggest question is whether the court will overrule a 2016 decision in which it struck down a similar law in Texas. Since then, Donald Trump was elected president and he appointed two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , who have shifted the court to the right. Even with those two additions to the court, Roberts almost certainly holds the deciding vote. When the justices temporarily blocked the Louisiana law from taking effect a year ago, 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. In more than 14 years as chief justice, Roberts has generally voted to uphold abortion restrictions, including in the Texas case four years ago. It is for now unclear whether Roberts’ outlook on the Louisiana case has been affected by his new role as the court’s swing justice since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, his concern about the court being perceived as a partisan institution and his respect for a prior decision of the court, even one he disagreed with. One possible outcome is that Roberts and the other conservative justices could find a way to allow Louisiana to enforce the law, without overruling the decision from 2016 in which the court struck down a similar law in Texas. One avenue raised by lawyers for the state and the Trump administration is that the doctors didn’t try hard enough to work out arrangements with the hospitals, even though the trial court found that doctors failed to secure admitting privileges at 15 hospitals over an 18-month period. That result would be a defeat for abortion rights advocates who have argued that the laws are virtually indistinguishable. But it would allow Roberts something of a middle ground between taking a big step to limit abortion access and reaffirming the court’s abortion rulings. Roberts asked the same question, in slightly different form, to each of the three lawyers who argued before the court. The court in the Texas case found there was no benefit to the women the law was ostensibly intended to help and struck it down as an “undue burden” on women’s right to an abortion in violation of the Constitution. “I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places, but as far as the benefits of the law, that’s going to be the same in each state, isn’t it?” Roberts asked Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill. The Louisiana and Texas situations are not identical, Murrill told the court. “The laws are different, the facts are different, the regulatory structures are different,” Murrill said. Roberts’ inquiry seemed to dovetail with questions from Kavanaugh, whose interest was in discerning whether admitting privileges laws would still impose an “”undue burden” in a state that made it easy for abortion providers to get them. “Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?” Kavanaugh asked lawyer Julie Rikelman, representing the Shreveport clinic. Rikelman replied: “No, Your Honor. The medical consensus against these laws is clear.” The court also has agreed to review whether abortion providers have the right to go into court to represent the interests of women seeking abortions. A ruling in favor of the state’s argument that the providers lack the right to sue in these circumstances, known as third-party standing, would be a devastating blow to abortion rights advocates since doctors and clinics, not individual women who want abortions, file most challenges to abortion restrictions. But apart from Alito, the justices did not seem especially interested in resolving the case on the standing issue. Outside the court, protesters on both sides filled the sidewalks just as they have for earlier high court cases on abortion. Inside, Justice Stephen Breyer sought to capture searing debate over the issue. “I understand there are good arguments on both sides. Indeed, in the country people have very strong feelings and a lot of people morally think it’s wrong and a lot of people morally think the opposite is wrong,” Breyer said, though he left little doubt he would vote in favor of abortion rights.

www.apnews.com

center

V6bQ8w4urHH4740M

test

rZuUblPrzlexh0WS

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/03/nra-gears-up-for-big-weekend/?hpt=po_c1

NRA gears up for big weekend

2013-05-03

( CNN ) - The National Rifle Association 's annual meeting will surely be in the spotlight this weekend , as it comes just weeks after the Senate voted down a controversial gun control measure–a major blow to the months-long push for tougher firearm laws in the wake of the Newtown elementary school massacre . As thousands meet in Houston for the NRA gathering , anti-gun control advocates are poised to celebrate their victory over the legislation 's recent defeat in Congress , while those fighting for tougher gun laws could target the event as a way to shed light on their cause . Retired astronaut Mark Kelly–gun control advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords–addressed the group in advance of the conference Wednesday . He penned an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle , welcoming NRA members to the city but cautioning them against their group 's leadership . `` The NRA used to be a great organization , and you can still get practical value out of it as a member – everything from insurance to gun safety courses , '' he wrote . `` But those services are small potatoes compared to where the NRA 's leadership makes the really big money . The NRA leadership 's top priority is to make sure the corporations that make guns and ammunition continue to turn huge profits . Their top priority is n't you , the NRA member . '' He pointed to the NRA 's big fundraising months in the past year–both of which came after the shootings in Aurora , Colorado and Newtown , Connecticut . He singled out Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and gun manufacturers , saying they `` exploit people 's fears '' in return for a more profitable gun industry . LaPierre also wrote an op-ed for the Chronicle last week , thanking NRA members for their commitment to the organization . `` If you 're an NRA member , you deserve to be proud , '' he wrote , adding the group 's followers were `` doing the thankless and heroic work of standing up for freedom . And it 's NRA members who are demanding proven solutions – instead of empty soundbites and slogans – that will make Americans safer . '' Kelly and Giffords , who was wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson , have been vocal advocates in Washington for tougher gun laws following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting . In an April 17 vote , the Senate voted against moving forward with a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to cover private sales at gun shows and online . A ban on assault weapons also went down in defeat . Opponents of the legislation argued it would infringe on Second Amendment rights , and the background check law would not have prevented a tragedy like the one in Newtown . The shooter , Adam Lanza , did n't get a background check for those weapons ; they were legally purchased and registered to his mother , Nancy Lanza , who was his first victim . James Holmes and Jared Loughner , the shooters in Aurora and Tucson , respectively , also passed background checks when they purchased guns . Regardless , Erica Lafferty , daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung , still wants Washington to take action . She 's traveling to Houston to try to reach out to NRA members and share her viewpoint . `` I just want to make my mom human to them instead of just another name on a list of people who were murdered . She was a person . She was a great person . They need to know that , '' she said on CNN 's `` Starting Point . '' Asked if she was nervous about heading to a convention led by people who passionately disagree with her views on gun laws , Lafferty said `` No . '' `` I mean , they are people too , and I am trusting that they are going to be respectful as I am , '' she said . Earlier this week , Lafferty confronted Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire at a town hall , asking `` why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school is n't as important '' as inconveniencing gun sellers . Ayotte was one of the 41 Republicans who voted against the background check measure . Lafferty was sent to Ayotte 's event by the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns , one of several gun control groups using this week 's Congressional recess to bring the gun control message to the states . That group said Friday they would air an ad in the Houston market during the convention featuring a gun owner and NRA member whose sister was shot and killed by her husband , who should have been prohibited from buying guns but was able to purchase a firearm online without a background check . A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday indicated 71 % of voters were either dissatisfied or angry that the Senate voted down the background check measure , which had wide public support heading into the vote . While 17 % want President Barack Obama to continue pursuing background check legislation , 30 % want him to move on to other issues . Fifty-one percent want him to do both . Whether or not Lafferty will get much access to NRA members is unclear . The convention certainly has a tightly-packed schedule with multiple events and seminars taking place across the three-day event . On this year 's docket are classes on handgun retention , defensive shooting , competition shooting tips , firearm law , and wild game cooking . The schedule also includes concerts , a rally with Glenn Beck , a prayer breakfast and an antique guns show . At last year 's meeting in St. Louis , 81 % of attendees were male , and 62 % described themselves as hunters , according to an informal survey taken at the convention . Nearly eight in 10 said they participate in NRA activities six or more times a year , and two-thirds said they spend more than $ 500 a year on shooting/hunting equipment . Just over half–53 % –traveled more than 200 miles to attend the convention and see the exhibits . LaPierre will be among the most closely-watched speakers Saturday . As the face of the organization , LaPierre is viewed as both a reviled and heralded figure in the gun lobby , depending on who you talk to . One elephant in the room : Will he address recent controversial comments made by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey ? The senator from Pennsylvania told a local newspaper this week that Republicans voted against the background check bill to prevent the president from winning a legislative victory . `` In the end , it did n't pass because we 're so politicized . There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done , just because the president wanted to do it , '' Toomey said . His comments seemed to suggest that many in the GOP actually favored an expanded background check system but voted against it for political purposes . `` The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else , '' he added . If not LaPierre , perhaps other speakers may attempt to knock down Toomey 's argument . Several potential contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination will take the stage , including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal , Texas Gov . Rick Perry , former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin Gov . Scott Walker . Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin will also speak Friday . The former Alaska governor is well known for her love of hunting and the outdoors . Delivering a rousing speech at a major conservative gathering in March , Palin shared an anecdote about her husband buying her a rifle rack for Christmas , while she bought him a gun . `` This go-around , he 's got the rifle , I 've got the rack , '' she joked . Also on the schedule this weekend will be the installment of the group 's new president . As part of its formal rotation , Alabama attorney Jim Porter will take the top spot beginning Monday , replacing current President David Keene , whose two-year term concludes at this weekend 's gathering . Porter has been serving as the NRA 's first vice president , and before that he served as the group 's second vice president . The presidency , an unpaid position , is the next stop in the NRA 's leadership rotation .

6 years ago (CNN) - The National Rifle Association's annual meeting will surely be in the spotlight this weekend, as it comes just weeks after the Senate voted down a controversial gun control measure–a major blow to the months-long push for tougher firearm laws in the wake of the Newtown elementary school massacre. As thousands meet in Houston for the NRA gathering, anti-gun control advocates are poised to celebrate their victory over the legislation's recent defeat in Congress, while those fighting for tougher gun laws could target the event as a way to shed light on their cause. Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN Retired astronaut Mark Kelly–gun control advocate and husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords–addressed the group in advance of the conference Wednesday. He penned an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle, welcoming NRA members to the city but cautioning them against their group's leadership. "The NRA used to be a great organization, and you can still get practical value out of it as a member – everything from insurance to gun safety courses," he wrote. "But those services are small potatoes compared to where the NRA's leadership makes the really big money. The NRA leadership's top priority is to make sure the corporations that make guns and ammunition continue to turn huge profits. Their top priority isn't you, the NRA member." He pointed to the NRA's big fundraising months in the past year–both of which came after the shootings in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut. He singled out Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and gun manufacturers, saying they "exploit people's fears" in return for a more profitable gun industry. LaPierre also wrote an op-ed for the Chronicle last week, thanking NRA members for their commitment to the organization. "If you're an NRA member, you deserve to be proud," he wrote, adding the group's followers were "doing the thankless and heroic work of standing up for freedom. And it's NRA members who are demanding proven solutions – instead of empty soundbites and slogans – that will make Americans safer." Kelly and Giffords, who was wounded in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, have been vocal advocates in Washington for tougher gun laws following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. In an April 17 vote, the Senate voted against moving forward with a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to cover private sales at gun shows and online. A ban on assault weapons also went down in defeat. Opponents of the legislation argued it would infringe on Second Amendment rights, and the background check law would not have prevented a tragedy like the one in Newtown. The shooter, Adam Lanza, didn't get a background check for those weapons; they were legally purchased and registered to his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was his first victim. James Holmes and Jared Loughner, the shooters in Aurora and Tucson, respectively, also passed background checks when they purchased guns. Regardless, Erica Lafferty, daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung, still wants Washington to take action. She's traveling to Houston to try to reach out to NRA members and share her viewpoint. "I just want to make my mom human to them instead of just another name on a list of people who were murdered. She was a person. She was a great person. They need to know that," she said on CNN's "Starting Point." Asked if she was nervous about heading to a convention led by people who passionately disagree with her views on gun laws, Lafferty said "No." "I mean, they are people too, and I am trusting that they are going to be respectful as I am," she said. Earlier this week, Lafferty confronted Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire at a town hall, asking "why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn't as important" as inconveniencing gun sellers. Ayotte was one of the 41 Republicans who voted against the background check measure. Lafferty was sent to Ayotte's event by the organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, one of several gun control groups using this week's Congressional recess to bring the gun control message to the states. That group said Friday they would air an ad in the Houston market during the convention featuring a gun owner and NRA member whose sister was shot and killed by her husband, who should have been prohibited from buying guns but was able to purchase a firearm online without a background check. A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday indicated 71% of voters were either dissatisfied or angry that the Senate voted down the background check measure, which had wide public support heading into the vote. While 17% want President Barack Obama to continue pursuing background check legislation, 30% want him to move on to other issues. Fifty-one percent want him to do both. Whether or not Lafferty will get much access to NRA members is unclear. The convention certainly has a tightly-packed schedule with multiple events and seminars taking place across the three-day event. On this year's docket are classes on handgun retention, defensive shooting, competition shooting tips, firearm law, and wild game cooking. The schedule also includes concerts, a rally with Glenn Beck, a prayer breakfast and an antique guns show. At last year's meeting in St. Louis, 81% of attendees were male, and 62% described themselves as hunters, according to an informal survey taken at the convention. Nearly eight in 10 said they participate in NRA activities six or more times a year, and two-thirds said they spend more than $500 a year on shooting/hunting equipment. Just over half–53%–traveled more than 200 miles to attend the convention and see the exhibits. LaPierre will be among the most closely-watched speakers Saturday. As the face of the organization, LaPierre is viewed as both a reviled and heralded figure in the gun lobby, depending on who you talk to. One elephant in the room: Will he address recent controversial comments made by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey? The senator from Pennsylvania told a local newspaper this week that Republicans voted against the background check bill to prevent the president from winning a legislative victory. "In the end, it didn't pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey said. His comments seemed to suggest that many in the GOP actually favored an expanded background check system but voted against it for political purposes. "The toughest thing to do in politics is to do the right thing when your supporters think the right thing is something else," he added. If not LaPierre, perhaps other speakers may attempt to knock down Toomey's argument. Several potential contenders for the 2016 GOP nomination will take the stage, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin will also speak Friday. The former Alaska governor is well known for her love of hunting and the outdoors. Delivering a rousing speech at a major conservative gathering in March, Palin shared an anecdote about her husband buying her a rifle rack for Christmas, while she bought him a gun. "This go-around, he's got the rifle, I've got the rack," she joked. Also on the schedule this weekend will be the installment of the group's new president. As part of its formal rotation, Alabama attorney Jim Porter will take the top spot beginning Monday, replacing current President David Keene, whose two-year term concludes at this weekend's gathering. Porter has been serving as the NRA's first vice president, and before that he served as the group's second vice president. The presidency, an unpaid position, is the next stop in the NRA's leadership rotation. - CNN's Todd Sperry, Kevin Liptak and Joe Johns contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

rZuUblPrzlexh0WS

test

E7Bk9FeVIsUfNmCU

race_and_racism

Salon

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/23/the_curious_case_of_nikki_haley_what_the_republican_governor_can_tell_us_about_american_racial_identity/

The curious case of Nikki Haley: What the Republican governor can tell us about American racial identity

2015-06-23

Eesha Pandit

In the wake of an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated against nine black worshipers of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston , South Carolina , the governor of South Carolina is making the news . The day after the racially motivated shooting at the 199-year-old black church steeped in American history , the Confederate flag flew high and proud in front of the South Carolina statehouse . In 1822 , one of the church 's co-founders , a free black man named Denmark Vesey , attempted to start a slave rebellion in Charleston . Word of the rebellion leaked , Vesey and five others were judged guilty by the secret proceedings of a city-appointed court and condemned to death . They were executed by hanging on July 2 , 1822 . In total , the city killed 35 people who were deemed connected to the rebellion planning . The gruesome and violent history of chattel slavery in the U.S. is wrapped in the Confederate flag . It is flown by supporters of racially motivated crimes , white supremacists ( historically and today ) . A jarring number of people claim its historical significance outweighs its symbolism , and the terror and anxiety that rise in the throats of black Americans and people of color throughout the country when they see it fly . Consequently , many called for the governor of South Carolina to take down this flag in the wake of the murder of nine Black South Carolinians . At a tearful press conference that same day , Haley denounced the tragedy , though declined to recognize it as a racially motivated hate-crime , despite the killer ’ s confession of it as such . Yesterday , she finally responded to the thousands of calls to remove the flag and recommend that it be taken down and placed in a museum , stating “ The events of the past week call on us to look at this in a different way , ” and adding that now is the time “ to remove the flag from the capitol grounds. ” She affirmed her commitment to freedom of expression , and said , “ for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property , no one will stop them. ” In her remarks , she straddled a line – acknowledging that the flag as a symbol of history , ancestry and respect and how many others find it offensive . Not once in her remarks did she name that the offense in question is systemic racism , chattel slavery and state-sanctioned violence against Black Americans . She plans to call a special session of the state legislature so that they may vote on removing the flag from the statehouse grounds . In this moment , Nikki Haley ’ s ethnicity and heritage are back in the news , and a 2011 story that discovered that Haley identified herself as “ white ” on her voter registration card in 2001 is circulating again . But Nikki Haley is not white . Born Nimrata Randhawa and called “ Nikki , ” meaning “ small one , ” by her family , she was elected South Carolina ’ s first female governor in November by the largest margin of victory for a South Carolina gubernatorial candidate in 24 years . She is the nation 's second Indian-American chief executive and the first Sikh governor in the U.S . Her parents emigrated to the U.S. from India and Haley was born in Bamberg County , South Carolina . In September of 1996 , she married Michael Haley -- a captain in the Army National Guard and combat veteran who was deployed to Afghanistan -- in both a Methodist church ceremony and a Sikh gurdwara . Today , she identifies as a Christian . In 2001 she identified as `` white '' on her voter registration card . And in 2011 Haley was an outspoken champion of legislation designed to prevent voter registration fraud . The day after the massacre in Charleston , in addition to an emotional press conference , she posted on Facebook , “ While we do not yet know all of the details , we do know that we ’ ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another . ” Surely , she does . As all of us knew , even before all the facts confirmed it , that this was racist violence . Nikki Haley is not a stranger to racism , herself , and at the hands of elected officials of her own party . Nikki Haley is not white , but her own political party touts xenophobic , anti-immigrant and racist policies and practices . Some of her colleagues are directly funded by white supremacists . Given the racism inside her party , and the hostility toward non-white immigrants in so many places in the U.S. , it ’ s no wonder that Nimrata Randhawa would find it easier to maneuver the political terrain as Nikki Haley , that the Sikhism she was born into would be much more difficult to navigate than a conversion to Christianity . As the voter registration story broke for the second time last week , we were reminded of how some South Carolina Democrats questioned Haley 's use of `` Nikki '' as her first name and whether she had changed her first name legally from her birth name . Dick Harpootlian , the party chairman , reminded us that , `` Haley has been appearing on television interviews where she calls herself a minority — when it suits her , '' adding , `` When she registers to vote she says she is white . She has developed a pattern of saying whatever is beneficial to her at the moment. ” Whether it ’ s coming in the form of racist slurs from the members of her own party , or the DNC chairman reminding us not to trust her because she flip-flops on race , Nikki Haley has not been able to outrun the racial hierarchy . Haley is not the first Indian American Republican politician to make such accommodations to her identity . Bobby Jindal , the Republican governor of Louisiana , converted from Hinduism to Christianity and rarely uses his full name , Piyush Jindal . These politicians serve to remind us that the forces for assimilation and eradication of our immigrant heritage are strong here in the United States , but whitewashing isn ’ t quite what Nikki and Bobby might hope . Aside from skin color , and other physical markers of race , which some of us don ’ t have the ability to forgo , race in America is anchored to white supremacy . Assimilating into whiteness , by changing our names , our religion and in some cases even our physical appearance ( for those who can ) , may allow some of us to pass for another race , but it does nothing to challenge the very systems of structural inequity that ensure that while we may “ pass ” we are never far from the consequences of being brought right back into the racial hierarchy . And even if one of us is able to do it successfully , motivated by internalized racism , or as a strategic means to survive , or simply to try to escape racial inequality in our society , it is an effort focused on an individual attempt to navigate a terrible system , and it does nothing for those who can not pass , or would never wish to . It leaves everyone else to fend for themselves , and elides the responsibility of challenging racism simply by trying to skirt it . It ’ s difficult not to think of Rachel Dolezal , whose passing as a black woman has filled headline after headline in recent weeks . Dolezal ’ s case is particularly instructive , because it demonstrates white supremacy acutely . Dolezal , as a white woman , has been able to don some of the physical markers of blackness and “ pass. ” But for many black Americans and people of color marked by race , there is no ability to “ pass ” for white . Whether or not she ever does , Rachel Dolezal can return to the refuge of whiteness , should she choose . And the incessant racism faced by Nikki Haley , from inside and outside her own party , proves that she can not simply become white , despite what she checked on her voter registration card . This is why Haley ’ s failure to acknowledge the racism at play in the Charleston shooting is important . Her own brownness , or attempts at whiteness , mean very little in the face of her words and actions , which consistently downplay racism -- racism that she herself has experienced , and which perhaps have informed her own attempts at assimilation . Her identity as a person of color means very little if she ’ s unable to articulate it in a way that names and addresses structural racism . She knows the significance of the Confederate flag , and to dismiss that history is an act of willful ignorance , regardless of her race .

In the wake of an act of domestic terrorism perpetrated against nine black worshipers of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the governor of South Carolina is making the news. The day after the racially motivated shooting at the 199-year-old black church steeped in American history, the Confederate flag flew high and proud in front of the South Carolina statehouse. In 1822, one of the church's co-founders, a free black man named Denmark Vesey, attempted to start a slave rebellion in Charleston. Word of the rebellion leaked, Vesey and five others were judged guilty by the secret proceedings of a city-appointed court and condemned to death. They were executed by hanging on July 2, 1822. In total, the city killed 35 people who were deemed connected to the rebellion planning. The gruesome and violent history of chattel slavery in the U.S. is wrapped in the Confederate flag. It is flown by supporters of racially motivated crimes, white supremacists (historically and today). A jarring number of people claim its historical significance outweighs its symbolism, and the terror and anxiety that rise in the throats of black Americans and people of color throughout the country when they see it fly. Advertisement: Consequently, many called for the governor of South Carolina to take down this flag in the wake of the murder of nine Black South Carolinians. At a tearful press conference that same day, Haley denounced the tragedy, though declined to recognize it as a racially motivated hate-crime, despite the killer’s confession of it as such. Yesterday, she finally responded to the thousands of calls to remove the flag and recommend that it be taken down and placed in a museum, stating “The events of the past week call on us to look at this in a different way,” and adding that now is the time “to remove the flag from the capitol grounds.” She affirmed her commitment to freedom of expression, and said, “for those who wish to show their respect for the flag on their private property, no one will stop them.” In her remarks, she straddled a line – acknowledging that the flag as a symbol of history, ancestry and respect and how many others find it offensive. Not once in her remarks did she name that the offense in question is systemic racism, chattel slavery and state-sanctioned violence against Black Americans. She plans to call a special session of the state legislature so that they may vote on removing the flag from the statehouse grounds. In this moment, Nikki Haley’s ethnicity and heritage are back in the news, and a 2011 story that discovered that Haley identified herself as “white” on her voter registration card in 2001 is circulating again. But Nikki Haley is not white. Born Nimrata Randhawa and called “Nikki,” meaning “small one,” by her family, she was elected South Carolina’s first female governor in November by the largest margin of victory for a South Carolina gubernatorial candidate in 24 years. Advertisement: She is the nation's second Indian-American chief executive and the first Sikh governor in the U.S. Her parents emigrated to the U.S. from India and Haley was born in Bamberg County, South Carolina. In September of 1996, she married Michael Haley -- a captain in the Army National Guard and combat veteran who was deployed to Afghanistan -- in both a Methodist church ceremony and a Sikh gurdwara. Today, she identifies as a Christian. In 2001 she identified as "white" on her voter registration card. And in 2011 Haley was an outspoken champion of legislation designed to prevent voter registration fraud. The day after the massacre in Charleston, in addition to an emotional press conference, she posted on Facebook, “While we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.” Surely, she does. As all of us knew, even before all the facts confirmed it, that this was racist violence. Nikki Haley is not a stranger to racism, herself, and at the hands of elected officials of her own party. Advertisement: Nikki Haley is not white, but her own political party touts xenophobic, anti-immigrant and racist policies and practices. Some of her colleagues are directly funded by white supremacists. Given the racism inside her party, and the hostility toward non-white immigrants in so many places in the U.S., it’s no wonder that Nimrata Randhawa would find it easier to maneuver the political terrain as Nikki Haley, that the Sikhism she was born into would be much more difficult to navigate than a conversion to Christianity. As the voter registration story broke for the second time last week, we were reminded of how some South Carolina Democrats questioned Haley's use of "Nikki" as her first name and whether she had changed her first name legally from her birth name. Dick Harpootlian, the party chairman, reminded us that, "Haley has been appearing on television interviews where she calls herself a minority — when it suits her," adding, "When she registers to vote she says she is white. She has developed a pattern of saying whatever is beneficial to her at the moment.” Whether it’s coming in the form of racist slurs from the members of her own party, or the DNC chairman reminding us not to trust her because she flip-flops on race, Nikki Haley has not been able to outrun the racial hierarchy. Advertisement: Haley is not the first Indian American Republican politician to make such accommodations to her identity. Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, converted from Hinduism to Christianity and rarely uses his full name, Piyush Jindal. These politicians serve to remind us that the forces for assimilation and eradication of our immigrant heritage are strong here in the United States, but whitewashing isn’t quite what Nikki and Bobby might hope. Aside from skin color, and other physical markers of race, which some of us don’t have the ability to forgo, race in America is anchored to white supremacy. Assimilating into whiteness, by changing our names, our religion and in some cases even our physical appearance (for those who can), may allow some of us to pass for another race, but it does nothing to challenge the very systems of structural inequity that ensure that while we may “pass” we are never far from the consequences of being brought right back into the racial hierarchy. And even if one of us is able to do it successfully, motivated by internalized racism, or as a strategic means to survive, or simply to try to escape racial inequality in our society, it is an effort focused on an individual attempt to navigate a terrible system, and it does nothing for those who cannot pass, or would never wish to. It leaves everyone else to fend for themselves, and elides the responsibility of challenging racism simply by trying to skirt it. It’s difficult not to think of Rachel Dolezal, whose passing as a black woman has filled headline after headline in recent weeks. Dolezal’s case is particularly instructive, because it demonstrates white supremacy acutely. Dolezal, as a white woman, has been able to don some of the physical markers of blackness and “pass.” But for many black Americans and people of color marked by race, there is no ability to “pass” for white. Whether or not she ever does, Rachel Dolezal can return to the refuge of whiteness, should she choose. And the incessant racism faced by Nikki Haley, from inside and outside her own party, proves that she cannot simply become white, despite what she checked on her voter registration card. This is why Haley’s failure to acknowledge the racism at play in the Charleston shooting is important. Her own brownness, or attempts at whiteness, mean very little in the face of her words and actions, which consistently downplay racism -- racism that she herself has experienced, and which perhaps have informed her own attempts at assimilation. Her identity as a person of color means very little if she’s unable to articulate it in a way that names and addresses structural racism. She knows the significance of the Confederate flag, and to dismiss that history is an act of willful ignorance, regardless of her race.

www.salon.com

left

E7Bk9FeVIsUfNmCU

test

sSGxwHLJrH7lGfFf

supreme_court

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/10/winning-supreme-court-tosses-case-trumps-travel-ban/

Winning: Supreme Court Tosses Case Against Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’

2017-10-10

Joel B. Pollak

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case against President Donald Trump ’ s controversial executive order restricting travel and immigration from several terror-prone states on Tuesday . The reason : the president issued a new version of the order last month that replaces the older version that had been the subject of litigation in the Fourth Circuit , rendering the case moot . Though many lower federal courts in liberal circuits ruled against the executive order , the Trump administration was set for victory in June , when the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the enforcement of the so-called “ travel ban , ” leaving the case to be argued in the fall . As ███ noted at the time ( original link ) : Monday ’ s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction against most of President Donald Trump ’ s “ travel ban ” is a major victory — and not just because he will be able to implement the policy , but because the case is only scheduled to be heard in the fall , i.e . in October at the earliest . Because most of the controversial provisions of the executive order only last 90 days , Trump it could be fully implemented before the Court hears the case . The Court is prevented from hearing disputes that are already moot . There must be an active case or controversy in order for challenges to the executive order to be heard . … Trump can “ win ” simply by following through on the executive order , then declaring it fulfilled before the Court hears the various challenges to the case , cutting the Gordian Knot of legal theories and advancing his policies . The president went even further , issuing an executive order that includes two non-Muslim countries — North Korea and Venezuela — among the seven that are subject to the new restrictions . That fact would make any claim of religious discrimination less likely to prevail . The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the arguments in the lower courts — though , as USA Today points out , Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have preferred that the case be dismissed without vacating the lower court ’ s decision . Another case that is pending from the Ninth Circuit is also likely to be vacated . There are already lawsuits in both circuits against the new executive order , but the fight is largely over , and Trump has won . Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at ███ . He was named one of the “ most influential ” people in news media in 2016 . He is the co-author of How Trump Won : The Inside Story of a Revolution , is available from Regnery . Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .

The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a case against President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order restricting travel and immigration from several terror-prone states on Tuesday. The reason: the president issued a new version of the order last month that replaces the older version that had been the subject of litigation in the Fourth Circuit, rendering the case moot. Though many lower federal courts in liberal circuits ruled against the executive order, the Trump administration was set for victory in June, when the Supreme Court lifted an injunction against the enforcement of the so-called “travel ban,” leaving the case to be argued in the fall. As Breitbart News noted at the time (original link): Monday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction against most of President Donald Trump’s “travel ban” is a major victory — and not just because he will be able to implement the policy, but because the case is only scheduled to be heard in the fall, i.e. in October at the earliest. Because most of the controversial provisions of the executive order only last 90 days, Trump it could be fully implemented before the Court hears the case. The Court is prevented from hearing disputes that are already moot. There must be an active case or controversy in order for challenges to the executive order to be heard. … Trump can “win” simply by following through on the executive order, then declaring it fulfilled before the Court hears the various challenges to the case, cutting the Gordian Knot of legal theories and advancing his policies. The president went even further, issuing an executive order that includes two non-Muslim countries — North Korea and Venezuela — among the seven that are subject to the new restrictions. That fact would make any claim of religious discrimination less likely to prevail. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the arguments in the lower courts — though, as USA Today points out, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have preferred that the case be dismissed without vacating the lower court’s decision. Another case that is pending from the Ninth Circuit is also likely to be vacated. There are already lawsuits in both circuits against the new executive order, but the fight is largely over, and Trump has won. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

www.breitbart.com

right

sSGxwHLJrH7lGfFf

test

zUCsjV6VRu3rR4uw

politics

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/trumps-first-100-days-establishment-goes-to-war-to-halt-presidents-agenda/

Trump’s First 100 Days: Establishment Goes to War to Halt President’s Agenda

2017-04-28

Aaron Klein

Donald Trump ’ s first one hundred days in office have been clouded by an unprecedented obfuscation campaign by Democrats , some Republicans , the establishment news media and a coalition of outside agitators attempting to disrupt the billionaire ’ s presidential agenda , smear top administration officials , sow seeds of chaos , and delegitimize his already historic presidency . A review of events is instructive . Even before Trump took office , the attempts to delegitimize the billionaire kicked into high gear when Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign joined the improbable recount efforts led by Green Party candidate Jill Stein . When those efforts failed miserably , the Clinton campaign turned to an outlandish attempt to usurp Trump ’ s Electoral College victory . John Podesta , Hillary Clinton ’ s top political adviser who served as chairman of her presidential campaign , expressed his support in December for a petition calling for Electoral College voters to receive an intelligence briefing on claims of Russian intervention in the presidential election . Around the same time , a Democratic presidential elector from California filed a lawsuit aiming to overturn a California statute that requires him and the states ’ other electors to support the winner of the popular vote in the state . The lawsuit was clearly part of an effort to set a legal precedent to free any rogue Republican electors in other states to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump . In addition , Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig announced that he was teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “ free and confidential ” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who would vote against Trump in violation of state law . Trump ’ s inauguration was marred by threats of mass protest by a movement dubbed DisruptJ20 , which ███ exposed as being made up of professional left-wing activists with ties to groups financed by George Soros . And as Michael Goodwin correctly noted in the New York Post on Wednesday , Trump ’ s inauguration was followed 24-hours later by a so-called Women ’ s March seeking to taint the newly installed president . That protest group was a coalition that reportedly consisted of more than 50 “ partners ” tied to Soros . This journalist first reported on the march leaders ’ own close associations with Soros . Trump was also welcomed to office by Soros-financed advocacy groups openly working for the new president ’ s impeachment . Some of the basis for the many attempts to delegitimize Trump center on unsubstantiated Russian intervention claims that began after Trump was elected and have since been repeatedly utilized to delegitimize the president . Only last week , it was revealed that the controversial , partially discredited 35-page dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer served as the FBI ’ s justification for seeking court approval to clandestinely monitor Carter Page , who has been identified as a foreign policy adviser to Trump . This is not the FBI ’ s only use of the dossier . Last month , the BBC reported the document served as a “ roadmap ” for the FBI ’ s investigation into claims of coordination between Moscow and members of Trump ’ s presidential campaign . The dossier , which contains wild and unproven claims about Trump and sordid sexual acts , including the widely-mocked claim that Trump hired prostitutes and had them urinate on a hotel room bed , was compiled by former intelligence agent Christopher Steele , who was reportedly paid by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans to investigate Trump . The credibility of the document has been called into question by current and former U.S officials . Even before he took office , Trump ’ s future presidency was mired in multiple attempts to smear his incoming administration with numerous trumped up charges , from falsified claims of anti-Semitism to comparisons to murderous leader Adolf Hitler to questions surrounding his emotional health . ███ reported on the talking point theme in which numerous Democratic Party operatives and establishment pundits began to increasingly use the word “ treason ” in a seeming attempt to smear Trump over the unproven Russia collusion claims . Many of the arguments mirrored each other in specific ways . In February , another establishment echo-chamber trend emerged in which news media outlets featured articles quoting health care professionals who questioned the billionaire ’ s mental stability . Following those reports , some Democratic politicians – and at least one Republican – called for Trump to be subjected to a psychiatric examination to determine whether he was fit for office . Some commentators have even suggested invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution , which allows for the commander-in-chief ’ s removal from office if the “ president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office . ” The health care professionals quoted in recent months attempting to diagnose Trump seem to be violating the so-called Goldwater Rule , established by the American Psychiatric Association after similar unsupported attacks against Senator Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign , which was widely considered a threat to the political establishment . The APA ’ s Goldwater Rule forbids psychiatrists from commenting on someone ’ s mental status unless they first carry out an examination and the doctor is authorized by the patient to speak to the public . Trump has been the target of numerous major protests depicted as grassroots by some news media outlets . Last Saturday , for example , an anti-Trump Tax Day March was held in Washington and at least 60 other locations . Unreported by the news media is that most of the listed partners and support organizers of the anti-Trump tax march were openly financed by Soros or have close links to Soros financing , as this reporter exposed . One group that has been organizing mass protests is the Indivisible Project . ███ extensively reported that Indivisible leaders are openly associated with groups financed by Soros . In February , ███ reported that a Soros-financed group distributed an actual script with anti-Trump talking points for citizens to use in town hall meetings , including during that month ’ s Congressional recess . The script provided word-for-word language suggestions that accuse the Trump administration of “ xenophobia , racism and Islamophobia. ” It asked activists to use the descriptors to petition their representatives to “ forcefully condemn ” and support legislation opposing Trump ’ s immigration and border security agendas . Meanwhile , Soros groups are not limiting themselves to protests . Numerous progressive , Soros-financed organizations have used the courts to stop Trump policies – at times successfully – especially his immigration actions . In January , immigration lawyers from groups financed by Soros , a champion of open border policies , were signatories to a lawsuit that successfully blocked Trump ’ s original executive order halting visas for 90 days to “ immigrants and non-immigrants ” from Syria , Somalia , Sudan , Libya , Yemen , Iran and Iraq . Earlier this month , Soros-funded organizations banded together to sue the Department of Homeland Security for the release of visitor logs to the White House and President Trump ’ s homes in both New York and Florida . As Trump plans a slew of policies that could dismantle key parts of Barack Obama ’ s presidential legacy , the former president seems to be returning to his roots as a Saul Alinsky-style radical community organizer . This time , Obama and his associates ’ objective is to stop Trump ’ s domestic and foreign policy agendas on virtually all fronts – immigration reform , border security , the roll back of the controversial Obamacare system and more . According to some accounts , Obama and his associates may be seeking no less than Trump ’ s impeachment . The latest sign of Obama ’ s fingerprints on Trump disruption plots comes from recent reports that former Obama administration staffers have formed a group to closely monitor the Trump administration . Last month , the Daily Mail reported that Obama ’ s top adviser , Valerie Jarrett , had moved into Obama ’ s multi-million dollar rental home in the nation ’ s capital . The newspaper claimed Obama is turning his home “ into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against ” Trump . “ Obama ’ s goal , according to a close family friend , is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment , ” reported the Daily Mail . Evidence of Obama ’ s close associations with efforts to oppose Trump emerged when a group of former top lawyers for the Obama administration last month formed their own organization aimed at utilizing legal advocacy methods to target Trump ’ s policies . In February , it was reported that Organizing for Action , the activist group that emerged from Obama ’ s first presidential campaign , partnered with the Indivisible Project for “ online trainings ” on how to protest Trump ’ s agenda . Aaron Klein is Breitbart ’ s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter . He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program , “ Aaron Klein Investigative Radio. ” Follow him on Twitter @ AaronKleinShow . Follow him on Facebook .

Donald Trump’s first one hundred days in office have been clouded by an unprecedented obfuscation campaign by Democrats, some Republicans, the establishment news media and a coalition of outside agitators attempting to disrupt the billionaire’s presidential agenda, smear top administration officials, sow seeds of chaos, and delegitimize his already historic presidency. Pre-Inauguration A review of events is instructive. Even before Trump took office, the attempts to delegitimize the billionaire kicked into high gear when Hillary Clinton’s campaign joined the improbable recount efforts led by Green Party candidate Jill Stein. When those efforts failed miserably, the Clinton campaign turned to an outlandish attempt to usurp Trump’s Electoral College victory. John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s top political adviser who served as chairman of her presidential campaign, expressed his support in December for a petition calling for Electoral College voters to receive an intelligence briefing on claims of Russian intervention in the presidential election. Around the same time, a Democratic presidential elector from California filed a lawsuit aiming to overturn a California statute that requires him and the states’ other electors to support the winner of the popular vote in the state. The lawsuit was clearly part of an effort to set a legal precedent to free any rogue Republican electors in other states to cast their ballots for someone other than Trump. In addition, Harvard law professor and progressive activist Larry Lessig announced that he was teaming up with a California-based law firm to offer “free and confidential” legal services to any members of the Electoral College who would vote against Trump in violation of state law. Trump’s inauguration was marred by threats of mass protest by a movement dubbed DisruptJ20, which Breitbart News exposed as being made up of professional left-wing activists with ties to groups financed by George Soros. And as Michael Goodwin correctly noted in the New York Post on Wednesday, Trump’s inauguration was followed 24-hours later by a so-called Women’s March seeking to taint the newly installed president. That protest group was a coalition that reportedly consisted of more than 50 “partners” tied to Soros. This journalist first reported on the march leaders’ own close associations with Soros. Trump was also welcomed to office by Soros-financed advocacy groups openly working for the new president’s impeachment. Treason claims, Russia smears Some of the basis for the many attempts to delegitimize Trump center on unsubstantiated Russian intervention claims that began after Trump was elected and have since been repeatedly utilized to delegitimize the president. Only last week, it was revealed that the controversial, partially discredited 35-page dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer served as the FBI’s justification for seeking court approval to clandestinely monitor Carter Page, who has been identified as a foreign policy adviser to Trump. This is not the FBI’s only use of the dossier. Last month, the BBC reported the document served as a “roadmap” for the FBI’s investigation into claims of coordination between Moscow and members of Trump’s presidential campaign. The dossier, which contains wild and unproven claims about Trump and sordid sexual acts, including the widely-mocked claim that Trump hired prostitutes and had them urinate on a hotel room bed, was compiled by former intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who was reportedly paid by Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans to investigate Trump. The credibility of the document has been called into question by current and former U.S officials. Even before he took office, Trump’s future presidency was mired in multiple attempts to smear his incoming administration with numerous trumped up charges, from falsified claims of anti-Semitism to comparisons to murderous leader Adolf Hitler to questions surrounding his emotional health. Breitbart News reported on the talking point theme in which numerous Democratic Party operatives and establishment pundits began to increasingly use the word “treason” in a seeming attempt to smear Trump over the unproven Russia collusion claims. Many of the arguments mirrored each other in specific ways. In February, another establishment echo-chamber trend emerged in which news media outlets featured articles quoting health care professionals who questioned the billionaire’s mental stability. Following those reports, some Democratic politicians – and at least one Republican – called for Trump to be subjected to a psychiatric examination to determine whether he was fit for office. Some commentators have even suggested invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which allows for the commander-in-chief’s removal from office if the “president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” The health care professionals quoted in recent months attempting to diagnose Trump seem to be violating the so-called Goldwater Rule, established by the American Psychiatric Association after similar unsupported attacks against Senator Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign, which was widely considered a threat to the political establishment. The APA’s Goldwater Rule forbids psychiatrists from commenting on someone’s mental status unless they first carry out an examination and the doctor is authorized by the patient to speak to the public. Soros groups scheme Trump has been the target of numerous major protests depicted as grassroots by some news media outlets. Last Saturday, for example, an anti-Trump Tax Day March was held in Washington and at least 60 other locations. Unreported by the news media is that most of the listed partners and support organizers of the anti-Trump tax march were openly financed by Soros or have close links to Soros financing, as this reporter exposed. One group that has been organizing mass protests is the Indivisible Project. Breitbart News extensively reported that Indivisible leaders are openly associated with groups financed by Soros. In February, Breitbart News reported that a Soros-financed group distributed an actual script with anti-Trump talking points for citizens to use in town hall meetings, including during that month’s Congressional recess. The script provided word-for-word language suggestions that accuse the Trump administration of “xenophobia, racism and Islamophobia.” It asked activists to use the descriptors to petition their representatives to “forcefully condemn” and support legislation opposing Trump’s immigration and border security agendas. Meanwhile, Soros groups are not limiting themselves to protests. Numerous progressive, Soros-financed organizations have used the courts to stop Trump policies – at times successfully – especially his immigration actions. In January, immigration lawyers from groups financed by Soros, a champion of open border policies, were signatories to a lawsuit that successfully blocked Trump’s original executive order halting visas for 90 days to “immigrants and non-immigrants” from Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Iran and Iraq. Earlier this month, Soros-funded organizations banded together to sue the Department of Homeland Security for the release of visitor logs to the White House and President Trump’s homes in both New York and Florida. Obama vs. Trump As Trump plans a slew of policies that could dismantle key parts of Barack Obama’s presidential legacy, the former president seems to be returning to his roots as a Saul Alinsky-style radical community organizer. This time, Obama and his associates’ objective is to stop Trump’s domestic and foreign policy agendas on virtually all fronts – immigration reform, border security, the roll back of the controversial Obamacare system and more. According to some accounts, Obama and his associates may be seeking no less than Trump’s impeachment. The latest sign of Obama’s fingerprints on Trump disruption plots comes from recent reports that former Obama administration staffers have formed a group to closely monitor the Trump administration. Last month, the Daily Mail reported that Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, had moved into Obama’s multi-million dollar rental home in the nation’s capital. The newspaper claimed Obama is turning his home “into the nerve center of the mounting insurgency against” Trump. “Obama’s goal, according to a close family friend, is to oust Trump from the presidency either by forcing his resignation or through his impeachment,” reported the Daily Mail. Evidence of Obama’s close associations with efforts to oppose Trump emerged when a group of former top lawyers for the Obama administration last month formed their own organization aimed at utilizing legal advocacy methods to target Trump’s policies. In February, it was reported that Organizing for Action, the activist group that emerged from Obama’s first presidential campaign, partnered with the Indivisible Project for “online trainings” on how to protest Trump’s agenda. Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

www.breitbart.com

right

zUCsjV6VRu3rR4uw

test

15FvAsHggVeBSy2k

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guns-budget-gop-stories-care-politics-week/story?id=18891949#.UWBy1Vd4-J0

Guns, Budget, GOP: 5 Stories You'll Care About Next Week

Rick Klein

intro : Because you 've missed Congress about as much as you 've missed a budget from the president ... and because you wo n't have to miss an immigration framework much longer ( we think ) ... here 's a glimpse of the top stories the ███ political unit is tracking in the week to come . quicklist : 1 title : Gang 's All Here text : The Senate 's `` Gang of Eight '' is nearing agreement on its much-awaiting comprehensive immigration reform bill , with final details expected to emerge with the return of Congress to Washington next week . The first question will be whether Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , stays on board and keeps the gang from shrinking to seven . ( The answer is probably yes , but that does n't mean he 'll support the final bill . ) The biggest tricky questions left involve the pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are now here illegally , including how long they 'll have to wait to become citizens , and what border-security assurances will need to be in place first . Another big question we 'll see clarity on soon is how this matches up with the parallel `` gang '' at work in the GOP-controlled House ; expect that work product in a week or two . If the two measures largely match up , the prospects for a bill becoming law will be brighter . And President Obama has to play things carefully , for now . If he appears too enthusiastic about the House and Senate packages , he risks driving Republicans away . quicklist : 2 title : Gunning for Action text : President Obama will travel to the emotional core of the nation 's gun debate on Monday , with a stop in Connecticut , where he 'll urge Congress to enact stricter gun laws in Sandy Hook 's wake . The president will be in Hartford , Conn. , where state lawmakers just finished work on a package of bills that 's being described as giving Connecticut the strictest gun laws in the nation . He made a similar stop to highlight Colorado 's new gun laws this past week . The White House knows it needs to change the terms of the gun debate or risk seeing Congress enact nothing -- or next to nothing -- even after the massacre in Connecticut . It 's an issue that 's seen Obama speak with rare emotion , and he 'll need every ounce of that to change the political dynamics in Congress . The Senate 's gun bill -- which we know will lack major elements such as an assault-weapons ban -- is expected to be filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev. , shortly after Congress returns to work Monday . quicklist : 3 title : Jesse Jackson Jr. 's Seat text : Mark Sanford wo n't be winning a seat in Congress this week , but another House vacancy will be filled Tuesday in a special election to fill former Rep. Jesse Jackson 's Chicago-based seat . After Tuesday night , Illinois ' Second Congressional District will almost certainly be represented by Democratic nominee Robin Kelly , a former state representative who is now Cook County 's chief administrative officer . Kelly 's elevation to Congress -- she faces Republican Paul McKinley in the extremely blue district -- will shine a spotlight on the politics of gun control . Kelly made her support for stricter gun-control measures a major issue in the Democratic primary , earning her the support ( and financial backing ) of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg . The president cited Kelly 's support for gun control in issuing his endorsement after the primary , which , of course , is taking place in the president 's hometown as Chicago deals with a rash of gun violence . quicklist : 4 title : Show Me Your Budget text : It will be two months late , and it will make for dense reading on its way to not becoming law , as always . But President Obama 's budget proposal , to be released Wednesday , includes an intriguing political gambit . Amid the red ink , Obama is putting in black-and-white the previous offers he 's made to Republican leaders around entitlement spending . That 's making him the first Democratic president ever to propose effective cuts to Social Security and Medicare , via new methods of calculating cost-of-living increases . These are relatively modest steps , and the White House has made clear they 're contingent on Republicans accepting tax increases ( good luck with that ) . But the president is looking for a game-changer in the long-stalled debate over taxing and spending , and Republicans ca n't just dismiss this proposal out of hand . Meanwhile , voices on the left are just beginning to make their displeasure -- even outright anger -- known to the White House . The president will do his next dinner date with Republican members of Congress on the evening of his budget 's release . Will President Obama 's new budget proposal out next week , which includes cuts to Medicare and Social Security , re-set the deficit debate in Washington ? Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer will answer those questions and more Sunday on `` This Week . '' quicklist : 5 title : Elephants Heard text : The Republican National Committee holds its spring meeting Wednesday to Friday in Los Angeles , a city that is Ground Zero for the immigration debate that 's driving so much discussion around the GOP 's identity . Beyond that , this will be the first opportunity for members of the Republican National Committee to react and respond to Chairman Reince Priebus ' `` autopsy '' report on the 2012 elections . Expect heated reaction to the party 's efforts to shorten and simplify the primary process , with fewer debates , an earlier convention , and controls to ensure quick resolution of the Republican nomination . It 's also the first RNC meeting since two Republican senators endorsed gay marriage , so look for discussion and possibly backlash . There 's talk of a new resolution affirming the GOP 's commitment to supporting only heterosexual marriage , which may not be the signal the party needs as it tries to reach out to gay and younger voters .

intro: Because you've missed Congress about as much as you've missed a budget from the president ... and because you won't have to miss an immigration framework much longer (we think) ... here's a glimpse of the top stories the ABC News political unit is tracking in the week to come. quicklist: 1 title: Gang's All Here text: The Senate's "Gang of Eight" is nearing agreement on its much-awaiting comprehensive immigration reform bill, with final details expected to emerge with the return of Congress to Washington next week. The first question will be whether Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., stays on board and keeps the gang from shrinking to seven. (The answer is probably yes, but that doesn't mean he'll support the final bill.) The biggest tricky questions left involve the pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are now here illegally, including how long they'll have to wait to become citizens, and what border-security assurances will need to be in place first. Another big question we'll see clarity on soon is how this matches up with the parallel "gang" at work in the GOP-controlled House; expect that work product in a week or two. If the two measures largely match up, the prospects for a bill becoming law will be brighter. And President Obama has to play things carefully, for now. If he appears too enthusiastic about the House and Senate packages, he risks driving Republicans away. Gang of 8 Has Immigration 'Agreement' media:18892049 quicklist: 2 title: Gunning for Action text: President Obama will travel to the emotional core of the nation's gun debate on Monday, with a stop in Connecticut, where he'll urge Congress to enact stricter gun laws in Sandy Hook's wake. The president will be in Hartford, Conn., where state lawmakers just finished work on a package of bills that's being described as giving Connecticut the strictest gun laws in the nation. He made a similar stop to highlight Colorado's new gun laws this past week. The White House knows it needs to change the terms of the gun debate or risk seeing Congress enact nothing -- or next to nothing -- even after the massacre in Connecticut. It's an issue that's seen Obama speak with rare emotion, and he'll need every ounce of that to change the political dynamics in Congress. The Senate's gun bill -- which we know will lack major elements such as an assault-weapons ban -- is expected to be filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., shortly after Congress returns to work Monday. Obama: Gun Laws 'Tougher' Than Immigration media: 18009726 quicklist: 3 title: Jesse Jackson Jr.'s Seat text: Mark Sanford won't be winning a seat in Congress this week, but another House vacancy will be filled Tuesday in a special election to fill former Rep. Jesse Jackson's Chicago-based seat. After Tuesday night, Illinois' Second Congressional District will almost certainly be represented by Democratic nominee Robin Kelly, a former state representative who is now Cook County's chief administrative officer. Kelly's elevation to Congress -- she faces Republican Paul McKinley in the extremely blue district -- will shine a spotlight on the politics of gun control. Kelly made her support for stricter gun-control measures a major issue in the Democratic primary, earning her the support (and financial backing) of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The president cited Kelly's support for gun control in issuing his endorsement after the primary, which, of course, is taking place in the president's hometown as Chicago deals with a rash of gun violence. Jesse Jackson Jr. Pleads Guilty media: 18702397 quicklist: 4 title: Show Me Your Budget text: It will be two months late, and it will make for dense reading on its way to not becoming law, as always. But President Obama's budget proposal, to be released Wednesday, includes an intriguing political gambit. Amid the red ink, Obama is putting in black-and-white the previous offers he's made to Republican leaders around entitlement spending. That's making him the first Democratic president ever to propose effective cuts to Social Security and Medicare, via new methods of calculating cost-of-living increases. These are relatively modest steps, and the White House has made clear they're contingent on Republicans accepting tax increases (good luck with that). But the president is looking for a game-changer in the long-stalled debate over taxing and spending, and Republicans can't just dismiss this proposal out of hand. Meanwhile, voices on the left are just beginning to make their displeasure -- even outright anger -- known to the White House. The president will do his next dinner date with Republican members of Congress on the evening of his budget's release. Will President Obama's new budget proposal out next week, which includes cuts to Medicare and Social Security, re-set the deficit debate in Washington? Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer will answer those questions and more Sunday on "This Week." media: 18887809 quicklist: 5 title: Elephants Heard text: The Republican National Committee holds its spring meeting Wednesday to Friday in Los Angeles, a city that is Ground Zero for the immigration debate that's driving so much discussion around the GOP's identity. Beyond that, this will be the first opportunity for members of the Republican National Committee to react and respond to Chairman Reince Priebus' "autopsy" report on the 2012 elections. Expect heated reaction to the party's efforts to shorten and simplify the primary process, with fewer debates, an earlier convention, and controls to ensure quick resolution of the Republican nomination. It's also the first RNC meeting since two Republican senators endorsed gay marriage, so look for discussion and possibly backlash. There's talk of a new resolution affirming the GOP's commitment to supporting only heterosexual marriage, which may not be the signal the party needs as it tries to reach out to gay and younger voters. Immigration Puts GOP in Tight Spot media:18710642

www.abcnews.go.com

left

15FvAsHggVeBSy2k

test

8sUem3tYo5hHBUJH

fbi

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/29/fbi-refuses-to-turn-over-clinton-email-docs-due-to-a-lack-of-public-interest/

FBI Refuses To Turn Over Clinton Email Docs Due To A Lack Of Public Interest

2017-08-29

The FBI refused to turn over documents related to its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s emails , citing a lack of public interest to justify denying a FOIA request for the records . The head of the FBI Records Management Division wrote Ty Clevenger , a New York Attorney who filed the FOIA request in March 2016 , to inform him that his request was being denied in late August . “ You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public ’ s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject , ” the letter , obtained by Fox News , reads . “ Therefore , records regarding your subject are withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions . ” The FBI investigated Clinton in 2016 for allegedly using a private email address and server to handle classified documents . Former FBI Director James Comey called Clinton ’ s decision to use a private server “ extremely careless ” in July 2016 congressional testimony but opted not to file charges . Clevenger specifically requested all documents related to then-House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz ’ s Sept. 6 , 2016 referral to the Department of Justice . Chaffetz called for investigators to examine “ whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statues that prohibit destruction of records , obstruction of congressional inquiries , and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation . ” The FBI asked Clevenger to explain why exactly he believed the public had an interest in viewing the requested documents in an Aug. 11 letter . Clevenger expressed astonishment at the FBI ’ s request in his response to the letter “ Frankly , I am stunned I should have to explain why my request pertains to a matter of public interest , ” Clevenger wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to the FBI . Clevenger told The Washington Times that he believes the public should learn the truth about Clinton ’ s conduct despite her 2016 electoral defeat . “ I ’ m just stunned . This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election , but she didn ’ t . It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI , ” Clevenger said Tuesday . “ How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest ? If this is the new standard , then there ’ s no such thing as a public interest exception . ”

The FBI refused to turn over documents related to its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, citing a lack of public interest to justify denying a FOIA request for the records. The head of the FBI Records Management Division wrote Ty Clevenger, a New York Attorney who filed the FOIA request in March 2016, to inform him that his request was being denied in late August. “You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” the letter, obtained by Fox News, reads. “Therefore, records regarding your subject are withheld pursuant to FOIA exemptions.” The FBI investigated Clinton in 2016 for allegedly using a private email address and server to handle classified documents. Former FBI Director James Comey called Clinton’s decision to use a private server “extremely careless” in July 2016 congressional testimony but opted not to file charges. Clevenger specifically requested all documents related to then-House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz’s Sept. 6, 2016 referral to the Department of Justice. Chaffetz called for investigators to examine “whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statues that prohibit destruction of records, obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation.” The FBI asked Clevenger to explain why exactly he believed the public had an interest in viewing the requested documents in an Aug. 11 letter. Clevenger expressed astonishment at the FBI’s request in his response to the letter “Frankly, I am stunned I should have to explain why my request pertains to a matter of public interest,” Clevenger wrote in an Aug. 11 letter to the FBI. Clevenger told The Washington Times that he believes the public should learn the truth about Clinton’s conduct despite her 2016 electoral defeat. “I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Clevenger said Tuesday. “How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception.” Follow Jack on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

www.dailycaller.com

right

8sUem3tYo5hHBUJH

test

h5yn8TmO05Cp4TZm

education

Associated Press

https://www.apnews.com/c02b3d7f3caf41a8bc25fc4080b124ce

DeVos held in contempt of court in loan forgiveness dispute

2019-10-25

In this Oct. 21 , 2019 , photo , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos listens to President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington . A federal judge has held DeVos in contempt of court for violating an order to stop collecting loans from thousands of former for-profit college students . ( AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais ) In this Oct. 21 , 2019 , photo , Education Secretary Betsy DeVos listens to President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington . A federal judge has held DeVos in contempt of court for violating an order to stop collecting loans from thousands of former for-profit college students . ( AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was held in contempt of court after a federal judge said she violated an earlier order to stop collecting loans from former students of a defunct for-profit college chain . U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued the ruling Thursday in San Francisco , saying DeVos and the department made “ only minimal efforts ” to comply with a 2018 court order . Kim also fined the Education Department $ 100,000 and required the agency to make monthly reports to prove it is complying with the order . The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by thousands of former Corinthian Colleges students who say they were defrauded by the chain before it collapsed in 2015 . The suit says the students are owed full forgiveness of their federal student loans under a rule created by the Obama administration , and it challenges DeVos ’ 2017 decision to provide only partial relief based on borrowers ’ incomes . In a May 2018 decision , Kim ruled that the partial-relief formula was unlawful . She ordered the department to stop using the formula and to stop collecting student loans from former Corinthian students . But in a September court filing , the department acknowledged that it incorrectly sent loan bills to more than 16,000 former Corinthian students , prompting more than 3,000 to send payments . The department also garnished wages or tax refunds from 1,800 borrowers and provided credit agencies with negative reports about 800 borrowers . The judge wrote that there was “ no question ” the department and DeVos violated the May 2018 injunction . She said the defendants had “ not provided evidence that they were unable to comply with the preliminary injunction , and the evidence shows only minimal efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction . ” The Education Department did not respond to requests for comment . Lawyers for the former Corinthian students called the ruling a “ rare and powerful action ” that provides consequences for the “ extreme harm ” DeVos caused . DeVos “ repeatedly and brazenly violated the law to collect for-profit college students ’ debts and deny their rights , and today she has been held accountable , ” said Toby Merrill , director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending , which helped file the suit . “ The judge is sending a loud and clear message : Students have rights under the law , and DeVos ’ illegal and reckless violation of their rights will not be tolerated . ” In her ruling , the judge said the department sent just a single , three-sentence email with instructions to loan servicers , along with an “ equally cursory ” email to certain borrowers . There were no meetings or phone calls , Kim wrote , and little effort to make sure loan servicers received the emails . The judge threatened to impose further sanctions if the department fails to follow her order , saying she would appoint a court official to serve as “ special master ” to help enforce the injunction . The $ 100,000 fine will repay students for expenses they incurred to raise the issue to the court . The fine is to be paid by the department , not by DeVos personally .

In this Oct. 21, 2019, photo, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos listens to President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. A federal judge has held DeVos in contempt of court for violating an order to stop collecting loans from thousands of former for-profit college students. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) In this Oct. 21, 2019, photo, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos listens to President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. A federal judge has held DeVos in contempt of court for violating an order to stop collecting loans from thousands of former for-profit college students. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) WASHINGTON (AP) — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was held in contempt of court after a federal judge said she violated an earlier order to stop collecting loans from former students of a defunct for-profit college chain. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim issued the ruling Thursday in San Francisco, saying DeVos and the department made “only minimal efforts” to comply with a 2018 court order. Kim also fined the Education Department $100,000 and required the agency to make monthly reports to prove it is complying with the order. The dispute stems from a lawsuit filed by thousands of former Corinthian Colleges students who say they were defrauded by the chain before it collapsed in 2015. The suit says the students are owed full forgiveness of their federal student loans under a rule created by the Obama administration, and it challenges DeVos’ 2017 decision to provide only partial relief based on borrowers’ incomes. In a May 2018 decision, Kim ruled that the partial-relief formula was unlawful. She ordered the department to stop using the formula and to stop collecting student loans from former Corinthian students. But in a September court filing, the department acknowledged that it incorrectly sent loan bills to more than 16,000 former Corinthian students, prompting more than 3,000 to send payments. The department also garnished wages or tax refunds from 1,800 borrowers and provided credit agencies with negative reports about 800 borrowers. The judge wrote that there was “no question” the department and DeVos violated the May 2018 injunction. She said the defendants had “not provided evidence that they were unable to comply with the preliminary injunction, and the evidence shows only minimal efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction.” The Education Department did not respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the former Corinthian students called the ruling a “rare and powerful action” that provides consequences for the “extreme harm” DeVos caused. DeVos “repeatedly and brazenly violated the law to collect for-profit college students’ debts and deny their rights, and today she has been held accountable,” said Toby Merrill, director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, which helped file the suit. “The judge is sending a loud and clear message: Students have rights under the law, and DeVos’ illegal and reckless violation of their rights will not be tolerated.” In her ruling, the judge said the department sent just a single, three-sentence email with instructions to loan servicers, along with an “equally cursory” email to certain borrowers. There were no meetings or phone calls, Kim wrote, and little effort to make sure loan servicers received the emails. The judge threatened to impose further sanctions if the department fails to follow her order, saying she would appoint a court official to serve as “special master” to help enforce the injunction. The $100,000 fine will repay students for expenses they incurred to raise the issue to the court. The fine is to be paid by the department, not by DeVos personally.

www.apnews.com

center

h5yn8TmO05Cp4TZm

test

3qWRIRCUsNQr1N2E

media_bias

The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/11/michelle-malkin-grassroots-would-rather-watch-diamond-and-silk-than-cnn-or-fox-news/

Michelle Malkin: Grassroots ‘Would Rather Watch Diamond And Silk Than CNN Or Fox News’

2016-12-11

Michelle Malkin says the elite media are out of touch with the America that propelled Donald Trump into the White House . The conservative commentator and host of CRTV.com ’ s “ Michelle Malkin Investigates ” explained why in the latest episode of “ The Jamie Weinstein Show ” podcast , where she also discussed her thoughts on Trump ’ s election victory , immigration , fake news and much more . On Trump ’ s victory and her interaction with The Donald ( 3:46 ) On a possible grassroots rebellion to Trump ’ s education secretary ( 29:30 ) You can Subscribe and Listen to the Podcast on iTunes , and be sure to leave me a Rating and Review ! “ I wish that the elite media would kind of get off the whole alt-right thing for a moment and look at the alt-voter , ” she said while discussing Trump ’ s victory . “ Stop somebody on the streets where , you know , the New York Times headquarters are or the Washington Post and ask them if they know who Diamond and Silk are ? ” Diamond and Silk are two African-American women Trump supporters who became YouTube sensations during the 2016 election . Trump even featured them at some of his rallies . Asked whether most of her neighbors in Colorado really know who Diamond and Silk are , Malkin answered emphatically . “ Yes they do ! ” she said . “ They ’ d rather watch Diamond and Silk than CNN or Fox News , for that matter . ” Malkin is a big critic of the mainstream media and believes the recent push to get social media networks to crackdown on “ fake news ” is just a pretext by liberals to silence conservative journalists . “ The Macedonian teenagers who are manufacturing that fake news , that ’ s low hanging fruit , ” she said . “ I think we can all agree that that should not have a place in , you know , these social media public square , but this is a tactic and for a lot of calculating people who have been spreading this fake news meme — Hillary Clinton — that ’ s not what they ’ re really concerned about . The marginalization of people who operate outside of corporate media , acceptable media , is something that goes back , really , to the Clinton years when they were trying to marginalize talk radio , not only as manufacturers of fake news , but also fomenters of dangerous violence and a climate of hate . ” Listen to past episodes of “ The Jamie Weinstein Show ” and subscribe to it in iTunes .

Michelle Malkin says the elite media are out of touch with the America that propelled Donald Trump into the White House. The conservative commentator and host of CRTV.com’s “Michelle Malkin Investigates” explained why in the latest episode of “The Jamie Weinstein Show” podcast, where she also discussed her thoughts on Trump’s election victory, immigration, fake news and much more. Listen: Show Map: On Trump’s victory and her interaction with The Donald (3:46) On the NeverTrump movement (11:58) Why Trump won (14:18) On immigration (20:59) On a possible grassroots rebellion to Trump’s education secretary (29:30) On the Carrier deal (34:51) On the mainstream and conservative media (42:43) On the “fake news” debate (55:48) How to become the next Michelle Malkin (1:05:51) On her influences (1:13:18) You can Subscribe and Listen to the Podcast on iTunes , and be sure to leave me a Rating and Review! “I wish that the elite media would kind of get off the whole alt-right thing for a moment and look at the alt-voter,” she said while discussing Trump’s victory. “Stop somebody on the streets where, you know, the New York Times headquarters are or the Washington Post and ask them if they know who Diamond and Silk are?” Diamond and Silk are two African-American women Trump supporters who became YouTube sensations during the 2016 election. Trump even featured them at some of his rallies. Asked whether most of her neighbors in Colorado really know who Diamond and Silk are, Malkin answered emphatically. “Yes they do!” she said. “They’d rather watch Diamond and Silk than CNN or Fox News, for that matter.” Malkin is a big critic of the mainstream media and believes the recent push to get social media networks to crackdown on “fake news” is just a pretext by liberals to silence conservative journalists. “The Macedonian teenagers who are manufacturing that fake news, that’s low hanging fruit,” she said. “I think we can all agree that that should not have a place in, you know, these social media public square, but this is a tactic and for a lot of calculating people who have been spreading this fake news meme — Hillary Clinton — that’s not what they’re really concerned about. The marginalization of people who operate outside of corporate media, acceptable media, is something that goes back, really, to the Clinton years when they were trying to marginalize talk radio, not only as manufacturers of fake news, but also fomenters of dangerous violence and a climate of hate.” Listen to past episodes of “The Jamie Weinstein Show” and subscribe to it in iTunes. Follow Jamie on Twitter

www.dailycaller.com

right

3qWRIRCUsNQr1N2E

test

WgDJB82GJB0IOjOb

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/14/on-newtown-anniversary-obama-says-these-tragedies-must-end/

On Newtown anniversary, Obama says ‘these tragedies must end’

2013-12-14

( CNN ) – One year after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut , killed 20 first-graders and six adults , devastating a community and shocking the nation , President Barack Obama said we haven ’ t done enough to keep our country safe . `` More than the tragedy itself , that ’ s how Newtown will be remembered , '' the President said Saturday in his weekly address . Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama marked the anniversary Saturday by lighting 26 candles at the White House - one for each of the victims at Newtown - and a moment of silence . `` And on this anniversary of a day we will never forget , that ’ s the example we should continue to follow . Because we haven ’ t yet done enough to make our communities and our country safer . ” Obama continued : “ We have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily . We have to do more to heal troubled minds . We have to do everything we can to protect our children from harm and make them feel loved , and valued , and cared for . '' Change , he said , must come from the American people , not lawmakers in Washington . `` Beneath the sadness , we also felt a sense of resolve – that these tragedies must end , and that to end them , we must change . '' Efforts to enact stricter gun laws fizzled in April when a bill that included stronger federal background checks for gun purchases failed to pass the Senate . Obama ’ s address comes after another shooting at a school in Centennial , Colorado , on Friday . Three were rushed to hospitals after a student with a gun entered Arapahoe High School with an intention of harming a specific faculty member , officials said . The shooting at Sandy Hook on December 14 , 2012 , marked the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history , after the April 2007 slaying of 32 people at Virginia Tech . Adam Lanza , the Sandy Hook gunman , also killed his mother and himself . Shortly after the Newtown massacre , Obama said in an interview on NBC that the shooting was the worst day of his presidency .

6 years ago Updated 9:45 a.m., 12/14/2013 (CNN) – One year after a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killed 20 first-graders and six adults, devastating a community and shocking the nation, President Barack Obama said we haven’t done enough to keep our country safe. "More than the tragedy itself, that’s how Newtown will be remembered," the President said Saturday in his weekly address. Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama marked the anniversary Saturday by lighting 26 candles at the White House - one for each of the victims at Newtown - and a moment of silence. "And on this anniversary of a day we will never forget, that’s the example we should continue to follow. Because we haven’t yet done enough to make our communities and our country safer.” Obama continued: “We have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. We have to do more to heal troubled minds. We have to do everything we can to protect our children from harm and make them feel loved, and valued, and cared for." Change, he said, must come from the American people, not lawmakers in Washington. "Beneath the sadness, we also felt a sense of resolve – that these tragedies must end, and that to end them, we must change." Efforts to enact stricter gun laws fizzled in April when a bill that included stronger federal background checks for gun purchases failed to pass the Senate. Obama’s address comes after another shooting at a school in Centennial, Colorado, on Friday. Three were rushed to hospitals after a student with a gun entered Arapahoe High School with an intention of harming a specific faculty member, officials said. The shooting at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, marked the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, after the April 2007 slaying of 32 people at Virginia Tech. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook gunman, also killed his mother and himself. Shortly after the Newtown massacre, Obama said in an interview on NBC that the shooting was the worst day of his presidency.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

WgDJB82GJB0IOjOb

test

RW1bIQOsgO3XHonD

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48591001

Hong Kong extradition: Police fire rubber bullets at protesters

Police have fired rubber bullets and tear gas in Hong Kong at demonstrators amid anger at a new bill to allow extradition to mainland China . Protesters blocked key roads around government buildings and threw bricks and projectiles at police . They are concerned the new laws could target political opponents of Beijing , and fear human rights abuses in China 's legal system . Hong Kong 's Chief Executive Carrie Lam condemned the `` organised riots '' . `` The rioting actions that damage peaceful society , ignoring law and discipline is unacceptable for any civilised societies , '' she said in a video statement . Officials say 72 people aged between 15 and 66 have been injured so far , with two men in a critical condition . The government is still backing the bill and it is expected to pass its final vote on 20 June . It has promised legally binding human rights safeguards and other measures it says should alleviate concerns . But Hong Kong 's Legislative Council ( LegCo ) has now delayed its second reading . The rallies against the extradition bill are the biggest since the territory was handed back to China by the British in 1997 . Protests had been largely peaceful ahead of the scheduled debate of the bill - but on Wednesday they escalated as activists tried to storm government buildings . One young protester wearing a black mask and gloves told news agency AFP that they would not leave until `` they scrap the law '' . Rights groups including Amnesty have accused police of using excessive force , but Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung said police had had `` no choice '' . As night fell , protesters remained in some streets behind makeshift barricades . Meanwhile a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman has described reports that security forces from the mainland could be sent to Hong Kong as `` fake news '' . Geng Shuang said such reports were `` rumours to fool people so as to create panic '' . Police said they were also investigating death threats made against Ms Lam . In a tearful interview with local TV , Ms Lam dismissed accusations that she had `` sold out '' Hong Kong . `` I have grown up here with all the Hong Kong people , '' she said . `` My love for this place has led me to make many personal sacrifices . '' There has been very limited media coverage of events in Hong Kong on the mainland . Search results are either blank or toe the Beijing line . `` This kind of violent demonstration is not supposed to happen in Hong Kong , a developed society , '' said Global Times Editor Hu Xijin on Twitter , which is blocked in China `` I do n't think Westerners that encourage protests in Hong Kong want the best for the city . They would rather see disturbance there . '' However Chinese citizens are not completely unaware of what is happening across the border . Some mainlanders were seen protesting in Hong Kong over the weekend , and others have shown their solidarity on the Wechat social media platform . `` Although this is Hong Kongers ' fight , the love for freedom and dignity is universal , '' wrote one user . `` I salute their struggle and effort . I just hope that we are not going to see a bloody crackdown . '' It allows for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China , Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of serious criminal wrongdoing such as murder and rape . The requests would then be decided on a case-by-case basis . The move came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while they were holidaying in Taiwan together in February last year . The man fled to Hong Kong and could not be extradited to Taiwan because the two do not have an extradition treaty . Hong Kong officials have said courts in the territory will have the final say over whether to grant extradition requests , and suspects accused of political and religious crimes will not be extradited . The government has also promised to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years . Hong Kong has entered into extradition agreements with 20 countries , including the UK and the US . China has expressed `` firm support '' for the bill but many Western nations have criticised it . A wide range of groups have spoken out against extradition to China , and hundreds of petitions are in circulation . More than 100 businesses have said they will shut to allow their staff to protest and nearly 4,000 teachers said they would strike . Powerful business lobbies say they fear the plans will damage Hong Kong 's competitiveness as a base of operations . On Sunday organisers said more than a million people took to the streets demanding the government abandon the amendments , though police estimated turnout was 240,000 at its peak . In 2014 tens of thousands protested against restrictions on who they could vote for as chief executive . Despite being mostly peaceful , the protests failed to achieve any concessions . Some of the organisers have since been jailed on public nuisance charges . Hong Kong was a British colony from 1841 until sovereignty was returned to China in 1997 . Under the `` one country , two systems '' principle , Hong Kong has kept its judicial independence , its own legislature , its economic system and the Hong Kong dollar . Its residents were also granted protection of certain human rights and freedoms , including freedom of speech and assembly . Beijing retains control of foreign and defence affairs , and visas or permits are required for travel between Hong Kong and the mainland .

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Police use tear gas on protesters Police have fired rubber bullets and tear gas in Hong Kong at demonstrators amid anger at a new bill to allow extradition to mainland China. Protesters blocked key roads around government buildings and threw bricks and projectiles at police. They are concerned the new laws could target political opponents of Beijing, and fear human rights abuses in China's legal system. Hong Kong's Chief Executive Carrie Lam condemned the "organised riots". "The rioting actions that damage peaceful society, ignoring law and discipline is unacceptable for any civilised societies," she said in a video statement. Officials say 72 people aged between 15 and 66 have been injured so far, with two men in a critical condition. The government is still backing the bill and it is expected to pass its final vote on 20 June. It has promised legally binding human rights safeguards and other measures it says should alleviate concerns. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse was inside the LegCo building But Hong Kong's Legislative Council (LegCo) has now delayed its second reading. The rallies against the extradition bill are the biggest since the territory was handed back to China by the British in 1997. How have the protests unfolded? Protests had been largely peaceful ahead of the scheduled debate of the bill - but on Wednesday they escalated as activists tried to storm government buildings. One young protester wearing a black mask and gloves told news agency AFP that they would not leave until "they scrap the law". Rights groups including Amnesty have accused police of using excessive force, but Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung said police had had "no choice". As night fell, protesters remained in some streets behind makeshift barricades. Image copyright Reuters Meanwhile a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman has described reports that security forces from the mainland could be sent to Hong Kong as "fake news". Geng Shuang said such reports were "rumours to fool people so as to create panic". Image copyright Reuters Police said they were also investigating death threats made against Ms Lam. In a tearful interview with local TV, Ms Lam dismissed accusations that she had "sold out" Hong Kong. "I have grown up here with all the Hong Kong people," she said. "My love for this place has led me to make many personal sacrifices." Chinese editor decries violence By Vincent Ni, BBC News Chinese reporter There has been very limited media coverage of events in Hong Kong on the mainland. Search results are either blank or toe the Beijing line. "This kind of violent demonstration is not supposed to happen in Hong Kong, a developed society," said Global Times Editor Hu Xijin on Twitter, which is blocked in China "I don't think Westerners that encourage protests in Hong Kong want the best for the city. They would rather see disturbance there." However Chinese citizens are not completely unaware of what is happening across the border. Some mainlanders were seen protesting in Hong Kong over the weekend, and others have shown their solidarity on the Wechat social media platform. "Although this is Hong Kongers' fight, the love for freedom and dignity is universal," wrote one user. "I salute their struggle and effort. I just hope that we are not going to see a bloody crackdown." What is in the extradition bill? It allows for extradition requests from authorities in mainland China, Taiwan and Macau for suspects accused of serious criminal wrongdoing such as murder and rape. The requests would then be decided on a case-by-case basis. The move came after a 19-year-old Hong Kong man allegedly murdered his 20-year-old pregnant girlfriend while they were holidaying in Taiwan together in February last year. The man fled to Hong Kong and could not be extradited to Taiwan because the two do not have an extradition treaty. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The BBC's Helier Cheung on why people are taking to the streets in Hong Kong Hong Kong officials have said courts in the territory will have the final say over whether to grant extradition requests, and suspects accused of political and religious crimes will not be extradited. The government has also promised to only hand over fugitives for offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. Hong Kong has entered into extradition agreements with 20 countries, including the UK and the US. China has expressed "firm support" for the bill but many Western nations have criticised it. How widespread is the opposition? A wide range of groups have spoken out against extradition to China, and hundreds of petitions are in circulation. More than 100 businesses have said they will shut to allow their staff to protest and nearly 4,000 teachers said they would strike. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The protesters fear human rights abuses in China's legal system Powerful business lobbies say they fear the plans will damage Hong Kong's competitiveness as a base of operations. On Sunday organisers said more than a million people took to the streets demanding the government abandon the amendments, though police estimated turnout was 240,000 at its peak. In 2014 tens of thousands protested against restrictions on who they could vote for as chief executive. Image copyright BBC News Despite being mostly peaceful, the protests failed to achieve any concessions. Some of the organisers have since been jailed on public nuisance charges. What is Hong Kong's relationship with China? Hong Kong was a British colony from 1841 until sovereignty was returned to China in 1997. Under the "one country, two systems" principle, Hong Kong has kept its judicial independence, its own legislature, its economic system and the Hong Kong dollar. Image copyright AFP Image caption Ms Lam has refused to scrap the bill Its residents were also granted protection of certain human rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech and assembly. Beijing retains control of foreign and defence affairs, and visas or permits are required for travel between Hong Kong and the mainland. Are you attending the protests? If it's safe to do so, tell us about your experience by emailing [email protected] You can also contact us in the following ways:

www.bbc.com

center

RW1bIQOsgO3XHonD

test

Lhnmy5iQq0JiDAyC

politics

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-lead-anti-iran-deal/story?id=33631184

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz Lead Anti-Iran Deal Rally

John Santucci, Jessica Hopper, Veronica Stracqualursi

Donald Trump and Sen Ted Cruz , R-Texas , headlined a rally today in Washington D.C. protesting the U.S. negotiated deal with Iran . The rally , organized by the Tea Party Patriots , including Concerned Women for America , attracted hundreds outside the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol despite the hot weather . `` I 've been doing deals for a long time ... that 's what I do , '' Trump said . `` Never ever , ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran . '' Trump went on to bash current American leadership -- `` We are led by very very stupid people . '' The GOP frontrunner promised he would bring home the four Americans - former FBI agent Robert Levinson , pastor Saeed Abedini , former U.S. marine Amir Hekmati and Washington Post 's Jason Rezaian -- before he entered the White House . `` If I win the presidency I guarantee you those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office , '' Trump said . `` I guarantee that . '' Speaking immediately before Trump , Sen. Cruz called the Iran deal `` catastrophic '' and the `` single greatest national security threat facing America . '' Cruz has been one of the few Republican presidential candidates who has n't gone after Trump . `` I want to thank my friend Donald Trump for joining us today , '' Cruz said at the rally . The two embraced , shook hands and chatted briefly before Trump took the stage . The joint appearance of Cruz and Trump at the rally was the latest friendly gesture between the GOP presidential candidates . The two have spent the summer appearing to cultivate what might be the friendliest relationship possible for two men both vying to be the next commander-in-chief . Cruz has refused to say anything negative about Trump , even coming to his defense when Trump 's comments on Mexican immigrants landed him in hot water . Trump has publicly thanked Cruz on Twitter and said that he likes both Cruz and fellow presidential candidate Carson . Cruz and Trump visited together for over an hour at Trump tower in July During that visit , Cruz described the meeting between the two men as “ terrific ” and called Trump , “ one of a kind . ” `` He does n't speak the way I speak , but I appreciate his highlighting the problem of illegal immigration , ” said Cruz outside Trump Tower . It was Cruz who invited Trump to participate in today 's rally , but it appeared Trump seemed to overshadow Cruz . For Cruz , it 's the second day in a row he 's shared the limelight with a fellow presidential candidate . Yesterday , he was at the same Kentucky rally that Mike Huckabee addressed with freed Rowan County Court Clerk Kim Davis . While Huckabee addressed the crowd from a stage , Cruz was standing in the crowd talking to reporters . Presidential hopeful former Virginia Gov . Jim Gilmore , Duck Dynasty 's Phil Robertson and Sarah Palin also spoke at the rally . All the Democratic senators , as of yesterday , have declared where they stand on the deal . Currently 42 Democrats support the deal , while four oppose . Four previously undeclared Senate Democrats — Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , Ron Wyden of Oregon , Gary Peters of Michigan and Maria Cantwell of Washington state — announced their support for the international agreement in a coordinated burst . That pushed supporters to a 42-vote total , one more than necessary to block a GOP disapproval resolution with a filibuster , and prevent a final vote . `` There is no better deal available now , '' declared Blumenthal , one of the Senate 's Jewish Democrats , announcing his support for an accord that is strongly opposed by Israeli leaders as well as Republican senators .

Donald Trump and Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas, headlined a rally today in Washington D.C. protesting the U.S. negotiated deal with Iran. The rally, organized by the Tea Party Patriots, including Concerned Women for America, attracted hundreds outside the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol despite the hot weather. "I've been doing deals for a long time ... that's what I do," Trump said. "Never ever, ever in my life have I seen any transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran." Trump went on to bash current American leadership -- "We are led by very very stupid people." The GOP frontrunner promised he would bring home the four Americans - former FBI agent Robert Levinson, pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. marine Amir Hekmati and Washington Post's Jason Rezaian -- before he entered the White House. "If I win the presidency I guarantee you those four prisoners are back in our country before I ever take office," Trump said. "I guarantee that." Speaking immediately before Trump, Sen. Cruz called the Iran deal "catastrophic" and the "single greatest national security threat facing America." "Stop this deal!" Cruz declared. Cruz has been one of the few Republican presidential candidates who hasn't gone after Trump. "I want to thank my friend Donald Trump for joining us today," Cruz said at the rally. The two embraced, shook hands and chatted briefly before Trump took the stage. The joint appearance of Cruz and Trump at the rally was the latest friendly gesture between the GOP presidential candidates. The two have spent the summer appearing to cultivate what might be the friendliest relationship possible for two men both vying to be the next commander-in-chief. Cruz has refused to say anything negative about Trump, even coming to his defense when Trump's comments on Mexican immigrants landed him in hot water. Trump has publicly thanked Cruz on Twitter and said that he likes both Cruz and fellow presidential candidate Carson. Cruz and Trump visited together for over an hour at Trump tower in July During that visit, Cruz described the meeting between the two men as “terrific” and called Trump, “one of a kind.” "He doesn't speak the way I speak, but I appreciate his highlighting the problem of illegal immigration,” said Cruz outside Trump Tower. It was Cruz who invited Trump to participate in today's rally, but it appeared Trump seemed to overshadow Cruz. For Cruz, it's the second day in a row he's shared the limelight with a fellow presidential candidate. Yesterday, he was at the same Kentucky rally that Mike Huckabee addressed with freed Rowan County Court Clerk Kim Davis. While Huckabee addressed the crowd from a stage, Cruz was standing in the crowd talking to reporters. Presidential hopeful former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and Sarah Palin also spoke at the rally. All the Democratic senators, as of yesterday, have declared where they stand on the deal. Currently 42 Democrats support the deal, while four oppose. Four previously undeclared Senate Democrats — Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Gary Peters of Michigan and Maria Cantwell of Washington state — announced their support for the international agreement in a coordinated burst. That pushed supporters to a 42-vote total, one more than necessary to block a GOP disapproval resolution with a filibuster, and prevent a final vote. "There is no better deal available now," declared Blumenthal, one of the Senate's Jewish Democrats, announcing his support for an accord that is strongly opposed by Israeli leaders as well as Republican senators.

www.abcnews.go.com

left

Lhnmy5iQq0JiDAyC

test

A9OhZEB2BVb2ZP1X

lgbt_rights

ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-administration-joins-legal-fight-california-gay-marriage/story?id=18621879

Obama Administration Joins Legal Fight Against California Gay Marriage Ban

Ariane De Vogue

The Department of Justice filed a brief today in the case of a controversial California ballot initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman , asking the Supreme Court to affirm a lower court decision that struck down the measure , known as Proposition 8 . The brief marked the first time that the Obama administration has come out in court against Prop 8 and the first time it has argued against state gay marriage ban before the Supreme Court . The administration 's argument also could reverberate beyond California . If the Supreme Court accepts the arguments in the brief , it could lay the groundwork toward undermining laws against gay marriage in several other states . `` The exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage does not substantially further any important governmental interest . Proposition 8 thus violates equal protection , '' wrote Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. in a `` friend of the court '' brief filed in favor of gay and lesbian couples challenging Prop 8 . Now that it has filed a Supreme Court amicus brief , the Obama administration most likely will be granted time to actually argue its position in front of the justices . When the government files an amicus brief in an important case , it is normally granted time to argue . A statement on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com , the proponent of Prop 8 , described the Obama administration 's decision to weigh in both `` unprecedented '' and `` hardly surprising , but nevertheless disturbing . '' `` In his first term as president , Obama clearly stated that Americans can choose a special designation of marriage between man and woman , and that supporters of traditional marriage can hold that position without animus , '' said the statement by Andy Pugno , general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com . `` He later remarked that it would be a 'mistake ' to make the debate over redefining marriage into a federal issue . `` Yet today , '' the statement added , `` by stating that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted only in irrational prejudice , the president has impugned the motives and actions of millions of Californians and turned his back on society 's long-standing interest in both mothers and fathers raising the next generation . '' Thomas Peters , communications director for the National Organization for Marriage , another gay marriage opponent , invoked California 's voters in saying the group expected the court to uphold the law . `` NOM expects the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage , '' said Peters . `` The president is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors . There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution . '' However , referring to proponents of the voter-approved measure who are defending it in court , Verrilli wrote , `` Petitioners contend that Proposition 8 serves an interest in returning the issue of marriage to the democratic process , but use of a voter initiative to promote democratic self-governance can not save a law like Proposition 8 that would otherwise violate equal protection . '' The Obama administration brief noted that California extends all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbians , but forbids them the designation of `` marriage . '' That circumstance `` particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8 , '' Verrilli wrote . While the brief fell short of calling for a fundamental right to marriage under the Constitution , it suggested that if the court were to agree with the administration 's position , gay marriage laws in seven other states could be in jeopardy . Those states are Delaware , Hawaii , Illinois , Nevada , New Jersey , Oregon and Rhode Island . `` The brief pays closest attention to California and the other seven states that grant same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but insist on denying them the favored name , '' said Jane S. Schacter , a professor at Stanford Law School . `` But it advocates that the court adopt a much tougher , more skeptical approach to any state law that denies same-sex couples the right to marry . `` That approach is what lawyers call 'heightened scrutiny , ' '' she added , `` and if it were faithfully applied to all state laws banning same-sex marriage , it would result in the invalidation of those laws . The administration 's brief provides a blueprint for a national right-to-marriage equality , even though it does not advocate that in express terms . '' Stephen I. Vladeck , a professor of law at American University of Law , called it the `` tip of a much larger anti-discrimination iceberg . '' According the brief , Vladeck said , `` states ca n't discriminate against gays without a really strong reason -- not just with respect to marriage , but adoption , employment , benefits and so on . '' Today , 39 states have laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples . This number includes voter-approved constitutional amendments in 30 states barring same sex marriage . Nine states allow gay marriage . `` The brief filed by the solicitor general is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 can not be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded , '' said Adam Umhoefer executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights ( AFER ) , the group behind the challenge of Prop 8 . Related : Eric Holder Says Gay Marriage is the Next Civil Rights Issue

The Department of Justice filed a brief today in the case of a controversial California ballot initiative that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, asking the Supreme Court to affirm a lower court decision that struck down the measure, known as Proposition 8. The brief marked the first time that the Obama administration has come out in court against Prop 8 and the first time it has argued against state gay marriage ban before the Supreme Court. The administration's argument also could reverberate beyond California. If the Supreme Court accepts the arguments in the brief, it could lay the groundwork toward undermining laws against gay marriage in several other states. "The exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage does not substantially further any important governmental interest. Proposition 8 thus violates equal protection," wrote Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. in a "friend of the court" brief filed in favor of gay and lesbian couples challenging Prop 8. Now that it has filed a Supreme Court amicus brief, the Obama administration most likely will be granted time to actually argue its position in front of the justices. When the government files an amicus brief in an important case, it is normally granted time to argue. A statement on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the proponent of Prop 8, described the Obama administration's decision to weigh in both "unprecedented" and "hardly surprising, but nevertheless disturbing." "In his first term as president, Obama clearly stated that Americans can choose a special designation of marriage between man and woman, and that supporters of traditional marriage can hold that position without animus," said the statement by Andy Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com. "He later remarked that it would be a 'mistake' to make the debate over redefining marriage into a federal issue. "Yet today," the statement added, "by stating that the traditional definition of marriage is rooted only in irrational prejudice, the president has impugned the motives and actions of millions of Californians and turned his back on society's long-standing interest in both mothers and fathers raising the next generation." Thomas Peters, communications director for the National Organization for Marriage, another gay marriage opponent, invoked California's voters in saying the group expected the court to uphold the law. "NOM expects the Supreme Court to exonerate the votes of over 7 million Californians to protect marriage," said Peters. "The president is clearly fulfilling a campaign promise to wealthy gay marriage donors. There is no right to redefine marriage in our Constitution." However, referring to proponents of the voter-approved measure who are defending it in court, Verrilli wrote, "Petitioners contend that Proposition 8 serves an interest in returning the issue of marriage to the democratic process, but use of a voter initiative to promote democratic self-governance cannot save a law like Proposition 8 that would otherwise violate equal protection." In Depth: Obama's Prop 8 Decision The Obama administration brief noted that California extends all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbians, but forbids them the designation of "marriage." That circumstance "particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8," Verrilli wrote. While the brief fell short of calling for a fundamental right to marriage under the Constitution, it suggested that if the court were to agree with the administration's position, gay marriage laws in seven other states could be in jeopardy. Those states are Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island. "The brief pays closest attention to California and the other seven states that grant same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage but insist on denying them the favored name," said Jane S. Schacter, a professor at Stanford Law School. "But it advocates that the court adopt a much tougher, more skeptical approach to any state law that denies same-sex couples the right to marry. "That approach is what lawyers call 'heightened scrutiny,'" she added, "and if it were faithfully applied to all state laws banning same-sex marriage, it would result in the invalidation of those laws. The administration's brief provides a blueprint for a national right-to-marriage equality, even though it does not advocate that in express terms." Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University of Law, called it the "tip of a much larger anti-discrimination iceberg." According the brief, Vladeck said, "states can't discriminate against gays without a really strong reason -- not just with respect to marriage, but adoption, employment, benefits and so on." Today, 39 states have laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. This number includes voter-approved constitutional amendments in 30 states barring same sex marriage. Nine states allow gay marriage. "The brief filed by the solicitor general is a powerful statement that Proposition 8 cannot be squared with the principles of equality upon which this nation was founded," said Adam Umhoefer executive director of the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group behind the challenge of Prop 8. Related: Eric Holder Says Gay Marriage is the Next Civil Rights Issue Related: Republican Moderates Join Legal Fight for Gay Marriage

www.abcnews.go.com

left

A9OhZEB2BVb2ZP1X

test

IQMHz908eHctbjo8

media_bias

Breitbart News

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/12/27/blue-state-blues-a-decade-of-fake-news/

Blue State Blues: A Decade of Fake News

2019-12-27

Joel B. Pollak

The idea of a “ decade in review ” article at the end of 2019 is a bit of “ fake news. ” Technically , the current decade does not end until December 31 , 2020 . In that spirit , it is worth looking back at the past ten years through the “ fake news ” lens . These were years in which the mainstream media used false allegations and biased reporting to suppress conservative voices ; they were also the first years in which , thanks to Andrew Breitbart , we began to resist them . 2010 : Tea Party “ N-word. ” The media ’ s claimed , based on false allegations by House Democrats , that Tea Party protesters called civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis ( D-GA ) the “ n-word ” at a demonstration on Capitol Hill against Obamacare . Andrew Breitbart offered $ 10,000 , then $ 100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide video proving the allegation . No one ever did , but the fake news tarnished the Tea Party — permanently . 2011 : Sarah Palin and Tucson shooting . The media blamed former Alaska Gov . Sarah Palin for inciting a mass shooting in Tucson , Arizona because her PAC used crosshairs in an ad identifying “ targeted ” congressional districts , including that of wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords ( D-AZ ) . The shooter turned out to be insane . In other fake news , media blamed Tea Party Republicans for the debt limit showdown , though many ultimately would vote to raise it . 2012 : Mitt Romney ’ s taxes , and Benghazi . The media played up sensational accusations that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had killed a former employee ’ s wife , or failed to pay taxes . These were all untrue — a fact later justified by former Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D-NV ) , who noted with satisfaction that Romney had lost . The second presidential debate featured a CNN moderator intervening to defend Obama ’ s lies about Benghazi . 2013 : Obamacare collapse . The media mocked and attacked Republicans after Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) used a “ talking filibuster ” to shut the government down ahead of the imminent launch of Obamacare . When Obamacare finally opened , however , the federal website did not work ; one state ’ s insurance exchange collapsed and never recovered . In subsequent years , households were shocked by rising premiums and unaffordably high deductibles . 2014 : “ Hands up , don ’ t shoot. ” The media reported — and celebrated — the infamously false claim that black teenager Michael Brown had been shot in the back while attempting to surrender to police ; in fact he had grabbed an officer ’ s gun and was charging him when he was shot in self-defense . That fake news story damaged race relations and disrupted policing in urban neighborhoods — ironically , making black Americans more unsafe . 2015 : Trump remarks on Mexicans and Muslims . In what would become the new template for coverage of Donald Trump , the media claimed that he had called all Mexican immigrants “ rapists ” in his campaign launch speech , though he had clearly attempted to distinguish between criminals and “ good people. ” His later call for a “ Muslim ban , ” likewise , was a response to Islamic terror , not an expression of some innate religious prejudice . 2016 : Russian intervention in the election . When Trump joked at a press conference , “ Russia , if you ’ re listening , I hope you ’ re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing , ” the media — and the Obama administration — took that as evidence that he was colluding with Russian attempts to interfere in the election . That led to surveillance of the Trump campaign and to media leaks that planted the seeds of the conspiracy theory that still haunts us to this day . 2017 : Charlottesville “ very fine people ” hoax . President Trump condemned violence on all sides ; specifically condemned racism ; then noted that there were “ very fine people ” among non-violent protesters on both sides of the issue of the removal of a Confederate statue , adding : “ I ’ m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists , because they should be condemned totally. ” The media later said that he had called neo-Nazis “ very fine people . ” 2018 : “ Kids in cages. ” In 2014 , ███ broke the story that thousands of illegal alien kids were suddenly swamping the border . The media covered the story , but largely ignored that Obama had built chain-link fences in temporary holding facilities . By 2018 , thy claimed Trump was putting “ kids in cages ” by enforcing existing laws . Latee , the media spread unsubstantiated sexual allegations against Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanagh . 2019 : Ukraine phone call and impeachment . The Democrats , relying on a second- or third-hand complaint from a so-called “ whistleblower , ” claimed that president Trump tried to “ solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. ” Trump released the rough “ transcript ” of the call , showing he had done nothing of the sort . The Democrats pressed ahead with impeachment , using the media to publish selective leaks of closed-door testimony . No doubt 2020 will bring more fake news , with an impeachment trial and a presidential election looming — against the backdrop of the most successful economy in American history . What Andrew Breitbart called the “ Democrat-Media Complex ” will be fighting hard , assisted by the censorship of tech giants in Silicon Valley . However , thanks to him , the American people still have alternative media through which to find the truth , to fight back , and to win . Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at ███ . He earned an A.B . in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College , and a J.D . from Harvard Law School . He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship . He is also the co-author of How Trump Won : The Inside Story of a Revolution , which is available from Regnery . Follow him on Twitter at @ joelpollak .

The idea of a “decade in review” article at the end of 2019 is a bit of “fake news.” Technically, the current decade does not end until December 31, 2020. In that spirit, it is worth looking back at the past ten years through the “fake news” lens. These were years in which the mainstream media used false allegations and biased reporting to suppress conservative voices; they were also the first years in which, thanks to Andrew Breitbart, we began to resist them. 2010: Tea Party “N-word.” The media’s claimed, based on false allegations by House Democrats, that Tea Party protesters called civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) the “n-word” at a demonstration on Capitol Hill against Obamacare. Andrew Breitbart offered $10,000, then $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone could provide video proving the allegation. No one ever did, but the fake news tarnished the Tea Party — permanently. 2011: Sarah Palin and Tucson shooting. The media blamed former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for inciting a mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona because her PAC used crosshairs in an ad identifying “targeted” congressional districts, including that of wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). The shooter turned out to be insane. In other fake news, media blamed Tea Party Republicans for the debt limit showdown, though many ultimately would vote to raise it. 2012: Mitt Romney’s taxes, and Benghazi. The media played up sensational accusations that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had killed a former employee’s wife, or failed to pay taxes. These were all untrue — a fact later justified by former Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who noted with satisfaction that Romney had lost. The second presidential debate featured a CNN moderator intervening to defend Obama’s lies about Benghazi. 2013: Obamacare collapse. The media mocked and attacked Republicans after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) used a “talking filibuster” to shut the government down ahead of the imminent launch of Obamacare. When Obamacare finally opened, however, the federal website did not work; one state’s insurance exchange collapsed and never recovered. In subsequent years, households were shocked by rising premiums and unaffordably high deductibles. 2014: “Hands up, don’t shoot.” The media reported — and celebrated — the infamously false claim that black teenager Michael Brown had been shot in the back while attempting to surrender to police; in fact he had grabbed an officer’s gun and was charging him when he was shot in self-defense. That fake news story damaged race relations and disrupted policing in urban neighborhoods — ironically, making black Americans more unsafe. 2015: Trump remarks on Mexicans and Muslims. In what would become the new template for coverage of Donald Trump, the media claimed that he had called all Mexican immigrants “rapists” in his campaign launch speech, though he had clearly attempted to distinguish between criminals and “good people.” His later call for a “Muslim ban,” likewise, was a response to Islamic terror, not an expression of some innate religious prejudice. 2016: Russian intervention in the election. When Trump joked at a press conference, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing,” the media — and the Obama administration — took that as evidence that he was colluding with Russian attempts to interfere in the election. That led to surveillance of the Trump campaign and to media leaks that planted the seeds of the conspiracy theory that still haunts us to this day. 2017: Charlottesville “very fine people” hoax. President Trump condemned violence on all sides; specifically condemned racism; then noted that there were “very fine people” among non-violent protesters on both sides of the issue of the removal of a Confederate statue, adding: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.” The media later said that he had called neo-Nazis “very fine people.” 2018: “Kids in cages.” In 2014, Breitbart News broke the story that thousands of illegal alien kids were suddenly swamping the border. The media covered the story, but largely ignored that Obama had built chain-link fences in temporary holding facilities. By 2018, thy claimed Trump was putting “kids in cages” by enforcing existing laws. Latee, the media spread unsubstantiated sexual allegations against Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanagh. 2019: Ukraine phone call and impeachment. The Democrats, relying on a second- or third-hand complaint from a so-called “whistleblower,” claimed that president Trump tried to “solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” Trump released the rough “transcript” of the call, showing he had done nothing of the sort. The Democrats pressed ahead with impeachment, using the media to publish selective leaks of closed-door testimony. No doubt 2020 will bring more fake news, with an impeachment trial and a presidential election looming — against the backdrop of the most successful economy in American history. What Andrew Breitbart called the “Democrat-Media Complex” will be fighting hard, assisted by the censorship of tech giants in Silicon Valley. However, thanks to him, the American people still have alternative media through which to find the truth, to fight back, and to win. Updated to add Brett Kavanaugh. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

www.breitbart.com

right

IQMHz908eHctbjo8

test

3YuB95GvsqqOZ3Fy

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/no-regrets-one-year-after-they-voted-for-trump-has-he-delivered

No regrets: one year after they voted for Trump, has he delivered?

2017-10-26

Tom Mccarthy

Duane Miller realized at the “ very last minute ” last November that he was going to vote for a candidate he didn ’ t much like , Donald Trump . He did not even really vote for Trump , to hear him describe it . Instead , he voted against Washington fecklessness and corruption , which he saw as embodied by Hillary Clinton , in his eyes the ultimate establishment candidate , who was doubtlessly going to win anyway , he thought . Trump 's big test : will his swing voters stay loyal ? Read more “ I thought there was no way that Trump could beat Hillary , right up till the end , ” said Miller . “ Right up to the night before . ” That was almost a year ago , now . Enough time for the surprise of Trump ’ s victory to sink in . Enough time to get a look at Trump in the White House , and to assess his performance as president . Miller , 79 , a Democrat and the former mayor of Bangor , Pennsylvania , has not been impressed by Trump – but it would be inaccurate to say that Miller is surprised , either , because , as he puts it , he never mistook Trump for a political savior . It is a view shared by many of the customers at his paint store , he said . “ Trump ’ s losing support because of his , of the complete stupidity – you know , maybe we should give him an IQ test with others , ” Miller said , referring to Trump ’ s recent challenge to secretary of state Rex Tillerson to compare IQ tests . “ People are getting fed up with that . But there ’ s not much of an alternative . We ’ ll elect someone in four years . So . Conversations with Trump voters as the anniversary of the 8 November election nears do not typically reveal such regret . Most people who voted for the president are still solidly behind him , at least in Northampton County , Pennsylvania , which voted for Barack Obama twice before opting for Trump last fall . For our series The Promise , ███ has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton since before the inauguration , to gauge whether support for the president in this key bellwether county is changing , and to find out whether Trump voters feel that the president has delivered on his promise to Make America Great Again . Trump ’ s core supporters in the region are still with him , although the president appears to have slipped with impulsive or protest voters like Miller , said Christopher Borick , director of the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College in neighboring Lehigh County . “ There ’ s a difference , right ? ” said Borick . “ There ’ s the Trump voter , and there are people who voted for Trump last year . And Trump voters are still every bit as passionate , or even more so , than they were last year in Northampton County . Those folks are going nowhere . “ But there are those folks that made the call last fall – because they didn ’ t like Clinton , or they just wanted to blow things up – now a year in , that aren ’ t enamored any more . They kind of have a bit of buyer ’ s remorse . ” Are there enough of those “ buyer ’ s remorse ” people to reverse the presidential result and hand Trump a defeat in Northampton , if the election were held again tomorrow ? “ I think it would be a very close race , ” said Borick . In 2012 , Obama beat Romney by 6,160 votes in the former steel industry heartland of Northampton County as he comfortably held on to the state of Pennsylvania . Last year , Clinton nearly matched Obama ’ s performance in Northampton , but she lost the county by 5,461 votes as Trump won some Democrats and saw a surge in first-time and dormant voter turnout on his way to narrowly winning the state by 0.7 % of the votes cast . It ’ s too early to judge the battle lines for future elections . But it ’ s clear that the sense of disillusionment that created an opening for Trump in places like Northampton did not go away , and may only have deepened , with his victory . Jeff Fox , 57 , of Pen Argyl , Pennsylvania , said he reluctantly voted for Trump “ given the situation ” . But Fox lamented the “ lack of civility ” in politics , frustration with which drove him to switch his party registration from Republican to Independent before last year ’ s election . “ I have very rarely heard the real reason I think that Donald Trump won , ” said Fox . For many people who follow US politics from the coasts or overseas , Trump ’ s presidency can seem like a string of endless scandals . Trump personally promises $ 25,000 to the father of a fallen soldier which he then fails to deliver until it becomes a news story . Trump blasts football players for kneeling during the national anthem and calls press freedom “ frankly disgusting ” . Trump responds to a white supremacist march in Charlottesville , Virginia , by saying “ both sides ” were responsible for ensuing violence . The list goes on . But viewed from the other end of the telescope , the list isn ’ t a parade of offenses . It ’ s a list of examples of how Trump ’ s words or his intentions are repeatedly twisted by the media , which seem to regard the president as an enemy . It ’ s also a list of examples of how Trump is in touch with the pulse of Main Street , USA . “ With the national anthem , that ’ s a really big thing among the little people , ” said Joe D ’ Ambrosio , a barber in Bethlehem , Pennsylvania , who switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican so he could vote for Trump in the state ’ s closed primary . D ’ Ambrosio said there was “ no question ” that the president was on the right side of the debate over National Football League players kneeling during the national anthem , which players have explained is a protest of police violence against African Americans but which Trump has framed , successfully it appears , as an attack on patriotism . “ What these guys ought to do is start looking at the History Channel and watch how many people died in our wars , and see what kind of contribution they made in the military , ” D ’ Ambrosio said . “ All they ’ re worried about is their millions . ” Trump ’ s response to the violence in Charlottesville had been similarly misinterpreted , many voters in Northampton told ███ . “ He isn ’ t the best public speaker , ” said Fox . “ And that ’ s Trump . That ’ s who he is . But I think to take what he said and twist it into , you know , ‘ He supports racists and white supremacists ’ – I mean , c ’ mon . No . Taking little soundbites – no . Not if you look at the whole picture . “ What I ’ m saying is that there are people that stir the pot and contribute to a lack of civility in discourse , that are blind to the fact that they themselves contribute to the lack of civil discourse , and blame it all on Trump , for example . ” For 10 weeks every year , from mid-October through Christmas , the city of Bethlehem suspends an ordinance prohibiting the placement of debris in the street to allow for leaf clearance . Residents rake leaves off their lawns and into neat piles in the gutters , where eventually they are vacuumed up ( at some volume ) by city crews . On a recent visit to town , the leaves were piled high streetside , and the ubiquitous American flags on porches had become crowded by seasonal Halloween company , in the form of carved pumpkins , fake cobwebs , giant plastic spiders and novelty skeletons . By the numbers , the region is thriving in an America with Trump for president . Local cheers went up last month when the US commerce department released data showing that the Lehigh Valley , where Northampton is located , had set a record for economic output in 2016 , with gains in transportation , warehousing , insurance , real estate and manufacturing . Warehouse workers are enjoying a bidding war for their services , the local Morning Call newspaper reported recently . Economic clouds linger , especially in the county ’ s northern reaches . But , in general , the picture is sunny . Matthew Dietz , 40 , is a corporate pilot flying out of the Allentown airport who grew up in the Slate Belt in the north of the county . He ’ s busy , but a lot of people in the Slate Belt have not regained a level of employment they knew when the region ’ s clothing mills and slate quarries were still booming , he said . Though the area has not seen a direct economic bounce from Trump , Dietz said , support for him remains solid . “ I think those that were for him before the election are still there , and those that were against are still in that camp as well , ” he said . “ I agree with a lot of the stuff that he ’ s working towards , and of course if he wasn ’ t so vocal , I think he ’ d get a little bit more done . But that ’ s his style that he was elected on , so . “ Locally , we haven ’ t necessarily seen any new jobs or anything created up there , but obviously most everyone has retirement locked up in the stock market , which is great and gives them some security . “ On the local level , I ’ d say that ’ s the biggest impact that we ’ ve seen . ” Trump regularly touts the huge surge in the stock market since he was elected , and his supporters are likewise quick to point out the Wall Street gains as an example of how life is good under Trump . “ We ’ re full employment here , pretty much , ” said D ’ Ambrosio , the barber . “ The one thing that the little guy got for him is the Dow hit 23,000 , and if you have a 401 ( k ) [ retirement savings plan ] , they see it growing . Even the guys that don ’ t like him say it ’ s the Trump effect . ” Frank Hawkey , who worked at Bethlehem steel for 31 years and who brands Trump a “ psychopath ” , said that at his current job as a bus driver , “ tons ” of Trump voters had grown sour on the president , though “ you still have that few that say , ‘ he ’ s doing a great job , look at the stock market . ’ “ Oh really ? That ’ s who he wants to help . The people who have stocks . You know , ‘ How many stocks do you have ? ’ D ’ Ambrosio , who owns rental properties and does some investing on the side , is way more upbeat . “ I ’ m beating my broker ! ” he said . “ I ’ m actually doing so much better than my broker it ’ s unbelievable . ” Bruce Haines , a former steel executive and local businessman , said he remained a strong supporter of the president , but he was concerned “ that the bold agenda will get watered down , ” especially on taxes . Haines was disappointed , he said , that Trump had caved to pressure from big business interests such as retail giant Walmart to remove a proposed border tax on US imports from his fiscal blueprint . Such a tax was needed , Haines said , to create the kind of renaissance in US manufacturing that Trump described during the campaign . “ I don ’ t think we ’ ve seen the dramatic changes with new manufacturing opening , coming back from overseas , for example , which you would hope to see – but it is going to take awhile , ” Haines said . “ With the exception of the border tax , I think he ’ s still trying to enact his bold agenda , and that ’ s why I support him . ” Trump voters who admit to impatience with the enactment of key planks in his agenda – tax cuts , border wall construction , healthcare reform , a travel ban – to a person blame Congress , not the president , for the delays . Lance Prator , mayor of Portland in the extreme north-east of the county , said he wanted to see a border wall built “ because you need to take care of the home front , ” but he did not feel impatient about it . “ Even in Portland , we work at the speed of government , ” Prator said . “ I understand the speed of government . You can ’ t just magically wave a wand and build a wall . It ’ ll probably be 25 years after it ’ s all said and done that the first brick will be put down . ” It was a nice day for a ballgame , but the IronPigs minor league baseball team had already lost their league and the season was long over . Instead , Coca-Cola baseball park in Allentown was hosting a forum for candidates in the county executive races to be held early next month . Audience members grazed the buffet , sponsored by regional manufacturing giant Air Products , and drained coffee from urns the shape of the iron ore blast furnaces as seen in a mural at the ballpark , or in person six miles away . Republican John Brown , the current Northampton county executive , spoke at the forum about open space preservation , bridge maintenance and the slump in the Slate Belt . Afterwards , he observed that a climate of acrimony that seemed to seep into life in the region a year or two ago had not fully dissipated . “ Everything is an argument , ” he said . “ And I find that very interesting that that has not waned . That that has kind of expanded and accelerated . Things have taken on a much more abrasive nature . I ’ m not sure where it ’ s coming from . “ You can point to Trump ’ s election , but it ’ s not always political , and it ’ s almost as if there ’ s still a wake that ’ s following everything , that still – everything else is still getting washed through , after years of being submerged . It ’ s something else . ” Jeff Fox , up in Pen Argyl , saw the same thing . “ I think if Trump ran today , it would be messy , ” Fox said . “ I think the problem is – me personally – I believe that the problem really goes beyond politics . It comes to how we treat one another , how we converse with one another . ” For Duane Miller in his paint store , the picture was no rosier . “ The people are disgusted , ” he said . “ They ’ re absolutely saying , we don ’ t care . Tax cut – who believes it ? Healthcare – who believes it ? “ The political climate for the average American , from my point of view here in the little town of Bangor , is one of disbelief . The American people don ’ t believe anything any more . And that ’ s where the apathy is overwhelming . ”

Duane Miller realized at the “very last minute” last November that he was going to vote for a candidate he didn’t much like, Donald Trump. He did not even really vote for Trump, to hear him describe it. Instead, he voted against Washington fecklessness and corruption, which he saw as embodied by Hillary Clinton, in his eyes the ultimate establishment candidate, who was doubtlessly going to win anyway, he thought. Trump's big test: will his swing voters stay loyal? Read more “I thought there was no way that Trump could beat Hillary, right up till the end,” said Miller. “Right up to the night before.” That was almost a year ago, now. Enough time for the surprise of Trump’s victory to sink in. Enough time to get a look at Trump in the White House, and to assess his performance as president. Miller, 79, a Democrat and the former mayor of Bangor, Pennsylvania, has not been impressed by Trump – but it would be inaccurate to say that Miller is surprised, either, because, as he puts it, he never mistook Trump for a political savior. It is a view shared by many of the customers at his paint store, he said. “Trump’s losing support because of his, of the complete stupidity – you know, maybe we should give him an IQ test with others,” Miller said, referring to Trump’s recent challenge to secretary of state Rex Tillerson to compare IQ tests. “People are getting fed up with that. But there’s not much of an alternative. We’ll elect someone in four years. So. “There is a sense of regret.” Conversations with Trump voters as the anniversary of the 8 November election nears do not typically reveal such regret. Most people who voted for the president are still solidly behind him, at least in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, which voted for Barack Obama twice before opting for Trump last fall. For our series The Promise, the Guardian has been interviewing Trump supporters in Northampton since before the inauguration, to gauge whether support for the president in this key bellwether county is changing, and to find out whether Trump voters feel that the president has delivered on his promise to Make America Great Again. Trump’s core supporters in the region are still with him, although the president appears to have slipped with impulsive or protest voters like Miller, said Christopher Borick, director of the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College in neighboring Lehigh County. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Duane Miller, 79, the owner of Miller Paints in Bangor, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian “There’s a difference, right?” said Borick. “There’s the Trump voter, and there are people who voted for Trump last year. And Trump voters are still every bit as passionate, or even more so, than they were last year in Northampton County. Those folks are going nowhere. “But there are those folks that made the call last fall – because they didn’t like Clinton, or they just wanted to blow things up – now a year in, that aren’t enamored any more. They kind of have a bit of buyer’s remorse.” Are there enough of those “buyer’s remorse” people to reverse the presidential result and hand Trump a defeat in Northampton, if the election were held again tomorrow? “I think it would be a very close race,” said Borick. In 2012, Obama beat Romney by 6,160 votes in the former steel industry heartland of Northampton County as he comfortably held on to the state of Pennsylvania. Last year, Clinton nearly matched Obama’s performance in Northampton, but she lost the county by 5,461 votes as Trump won some Democrats and saw a surge in first-time and dormant voter turnout on his way to narrowly winning the state by 0.7% of the votes cast. It’s too early to judge the battle lines for future elections. But it’s clear that the sense of disillusionment that created an opening for Trump in places like Northampton did not go away, and may only have deepened, with his victory. Jeff Fox, 57, of Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania, said he reluctantly voted for Trump “given the situation”. But Fox lamented the “lack of civility” in politics, frustration with which drove him to switch his party registration from Republican to Independent before last year’s election. “I have very rarely heard the real reason I think that Donald Trump won,” said Fox. “People just got fed up.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest Bath, Pennsylvania. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian In touch with Main Street For many people who follow US politics from the coasts or overseas, Trump’s presidency can seem like a string of endless scandals. Trump personally promises $25,000 to the father of a fallen soldier which he then fails to deliver until it becomes a news story. Trump blasts football players for kneeling during the national anthem and calls press freedom “frankly disgusting”. Trump responds to a white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia, by saying “both sides” were responsible for ensuing violence. The list goes on. But viewed from the other end of the telescope, the list isn’t a parade of offenses. It’s a list of examples of how Trump’s words or his intentions are repeatedly twisted by the media, which seem to regard the president as an enemy. It’s also a list of examples of how Trump is in touch with the pulse of Main Street, USA. “With the national anthem, that’s a really big thing among the little people,” said Joe D’Ambrosio, a barber in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican so he could vote for Trump in the state’s closed primary. D’Ambrosio said there was “no question” that the president was on the right side of the debate over National Football League players kneeling during the national anthem, which players have explained is a protest of police violence against African Americans but which Trump has framed, successfully it appears, as an attack on patriotism. “What these guys ought to do is start looking at the History Channel and watch how many people died in our wars, and see what kind of contribution they made in the military,” D’Ambrosio said. “All they’re worried about is their millions.” Trump’s response to the violence in Charlottesville had been similarly misinterpreted, many voters in Northampton told the Guardian. “He isn’t the best public speaker,” said Fox. “And that’s Trump. That’s who he is. But I think to take what he said and twist it into, you know, ‘He supports racists and white supremacists’ – I mean, c’mon. No. Taking little soundbites – no. Not if you look at the whole picture. “What I’m saying is that there are people that stir the pot and contribute to a lack of civility in discourse, that are blind to the fact that they themselves contribute to the lack of civil discourse, and blame it all on Trump, for example.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest A worker arranges Halloween decorations inside an office in Bethlehem. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian Growth spurt For 10 weeks every year, from mid-October through Christmas, the city of Bethlehem suspends an ordinance prohibiting the placement of debris in the street to allow for leaf clearance. Residents rake leaves off their lawns and into neat piles in the gutters, where eventually they are vacuumed up (at some volume) by city crews. On a recent visit to town, the leaves were piled high streetside, and the ubiquitous American flags on porches had become crowded by seasonal Halloween company, in the form of carved pumpkins, fake cobwebs, giant plastic spiders and novelty skeletons. By the numbers, the region is thriving in an America with Trump for president. Local cheers went up last month when the US commerce department released data showing that the Lehigh Valley, where Northampton is located, had set a record for economic output in 2016, with gains in transportation, warehousing, insurance, real estate and manufacturing. Warehouse workers are enjoying a bidding war for their services, the local Morning Call newspaper reported recently. Economic clouds linger, especially in the county’s northern reaches. But, in general, the picture is sunny. Matthew Dietz, 40, is a corporate pilot flying out of the Allentown airport who grew up in the Slate Belt in the north of the county. He’s busy, but a lot of people in the Slate Belt have not regained a level of employment they knew when the region’s clothing mills and slate quarries were still booming, he said. Though the area has not seen a direct economic bounce from Trump, Dietz said, support for him remains solid. “I think those that were for him before the election are still there, and those that were against are still in that camp as well,” he said. “I agree with a lot of the stuff that he’s working towards, and of course if he wasn’t so vocal, I think he’d get a little bit more done. But that’s his style that he was elected on, so. “Locally, we haven’t necessarily seen any new jobs or anything created up there, but obviously most everyone has retirement locked up in the stock market, which is great and gives them some security. “On the local level, I’d say that’s the biggest impact that we’ve seen.” Trump regularly touts the huge surge in the stock market since he was elected, and his supporters are likewise quick to point out the Wall Street gains as an example of how life is good under Trump. “We’re full employment here, pretty much,” said D’Ambrosio, the barber. “The one thing that the little guy got for him is the Dow hit 23,000, and if you have a 401(k) [retirement savings plan], they see it growing. Even the guys that don’t like him say it’s the Trump effect.” Frank Hawkey, who worked at Bethlehem steel for 31 years and who brands Trump a “psychopath”, said that at his current job as a bus driver, “tons” of Trump voters had grown sour on the president, though “you still have that few that say, ‘he’s doing a great job, look at the stock market.’ “Oh really? That’s who he wants to help. The people who have stocks. You know, ‘How many stocks do you have?’ “‘Well, I have none.’” D’Ambrosio, who owns rental properties and does some investing on the side, is way more upbeat. “I’m beating my broker!” he said. “I’m actually doing so much better than my broker it’s unbelievable.” Bruce Haines, a former steel executive and local businessman, said he remained a strong supporter of the president, but he was concerned “that the bold agenda will get watered down,” especially on taxes. Haines was disappointed, he said, that Trump had caved to pressure from big business interests such as retail giant Walmart to remove a proposed border tax on US imports from his fiscal blueprint. Such a tax was needed, Haines said, to create the kind of renaissance in US manufacturing that Trump described during the campaign. Facebook Twitter Pinterest The coffee urns in the shape of the iron ore blast furnaces. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian “I don’t think we’ve seen the dramatic changes with new manufacturing opening, coming back from overseas, for example, which you would hope to see – but it is going to take awhile,” Haines said. “With the exception of the border tax, I think he’s still trying to enact his bold agenda, and that’s why I support him.” Trump voters who admit to impatience with the enactment of key planks in his agenda – tax cuts, border wall construction, healthcare reform, a travel ban – to a person blame Congress, not the president, for the delays. Lance Prator, mayor of Portland in the extreme north-east of the county, said he wanted to see a border wall built “because you need to take care of the home front,” but he did not feel impatient about it. “Even in Portland, we work at the speed of government,” Prator said. “I understand the speed of government. You can’t just magically wave a wand and build a wall. It’ll probably be 25 years after it’s all said and done that the first brick will be put down.” ‘Everything is an argument’ It was a nice day for a ballgame, but the IronPigs minor league baseball team had already lost their league and the season was long over. Instead, Coca-Cola baseball park in Allentown was hosting a forum for candidates in the county executive races to be held early next month. Audience members grazed the buffet, sponsored by regional manufacturing giant Air Products, and drained coffee from urns the shape of the iron ore blast furnaces as seen in a mural at the ballpark, or in person six miles away. Republican John Brown, the current Northampton county executive, spoke at the forum about open space preservation, bridge maintenance and the slump in the Slate Belt. Afterwards, he observed that a climate of acrimony that seemed to seep into life in the region a year or two ago had not fully dissipated. Facebook Twitter Pinterest John Brown, the Northampton county executive. Photograph: Mark Makela/The Guardian “Everything is an argument,” he said. “And I find that very interesting that that has not waned. That that has kind of expanded and accelerated. Things have taken on a much more abrasive nature. I’m not sure where it’s coming from. Can Trump really make America great again? Read more “You can point to Trump’s election, but it’s not always political, and it’s almost as if there’s still a wake that’s following everything, that still – everything else is still getting washed through, after years of being submerged. It’s something else.” Jeff Fox, up in Pen Argyl, saw the same thing. “I think if Trump ran today, it would be messy,” Fox said. “I think the problem is – me personally – I believe that the problem really goes beyond politics. It comes to how we treat one another, how we converse with one another.” For Duane Miller in his paint store, the picture was no rosier. “The people are disgusted,” he said. “They’re absolutely saying, we don’t care. Tax cut – who believes it? Healthcare – who believes it? “The political climate for the average American, from my point of view here in the little town of Bangor, is one of disbelief. The American people don’t believe anything any more. And that’s where the apathy is overwhelming.” Sign up for regular email dispatches throughout the year to hear from Tom and the people of Northampton County

www.theguardian.com

left

3YuB95GvsqqOZ3Fy

test

w4lP5jKh6M4OKKxm

gun_control_and_gun_rights

CNN (Web News)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/07/flake-willing-to-support-background-checks-with-changes-to-internet-sales/

Flake willing to support background checks, with changes to internet sales

2013-05-07

Washington ( CNN ) – Republican Sen. Jeff Flake told CNN he is willing to reverse his opposition to expanding background checks for guns if the Senate bill 's sponsors change a provision dealing with internet sales . Flake said the only reason he voted no was because of his concern that the requirement for background checks on internet sales is too costly and inconvenient , given the way guns are often sold among friends in his state of Arizona and others . He said under the measure as written , if a gun owner sends a few friends a text or email asking if they want to buy their gun , or posts it on their Facebook page , `` that is considered a commercial sale . '' For people in rural areas in his state and others , he said that becomes inconvenient and costly . Flake admitted that Sen. Joe Manchin , D-West Virginia , the measure 's chief sponsor who is trying to revive it after a devastating Senate defeat last month , may not be able to change the language in a way that satisfies him . But Flake insists he hopes they can figure it out . Manchin and gun control advocates need to convince five senators to go from `` no '' to `` yes '' in order to find the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster . The legislation would have expanded a requirement for gun background checks on internet sales and private sales at gun shows . A Senate Democratic leadership aide said Monday that they do n't anticipate or expect to get a deal on background checks in time for the bill to be reconsidered this work period , which ends just before Memorial Day weekend . Flake , a first term senator , is close with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords , who , along with her husband , had been lobbying Flake to support expanding background checks . They were publicly highly critical of Flake 's decision to vote no . Some Republicans opposed the measure out of fear that expanding background checks would put the country on a path to a national gun registry , but Flake said that is not his concern . `` I know that is not what this bill does , just the opposite , '' Flake said . During last week 's congressional recess , Flake was the target of gun control group protests . One group , Mayors Against Illegal Guns , sent a woman whose son died in the Aurora movie massacre to try to see Flake in his Phoenix office so he could see the `` pain in her eyes . '' A Democratic polling firm 's survey showed Flake as the most unpopular senator in the country , prompting Flake to post on his Facebook page that puts him somewhere `` below pond scum '' Still , he said he got plenty of positive feedback back from home for opposing the background check measure as it was written . `` I 'm comfortable with where I am , pond scum or not , '' he said with a smile .

6 years ago Washington (CNN) – Republican Sen. Jeff Flake told CNN he is willing to reverse his opposition to expanding background checks for guns if the Senate bill's sponsors change a provision dealing with internet sales. Flake said the only reason he voted no was because of his concern that the requirement for background checks on internet sales is too costly and inconvenient, given the way guns are often sold among friends in his state of Arizona and others. Follow @politicalticker He said under the measure as written, if a gun owner sends a few friends a text or email asking if they want to buy their gun, or posts it on their Facebook page, "that is considered a commercial sale." For people in rural areas in his state and others, he said that becomes inconvenient and costly. Flake admitted that Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, the measure's chief sponsor who is trying to revive it after a devastating Senate defeat last month, may not be able to change the language in a way that satisfies him. But Flake insists he hopes they can figure it out. Manchin and gun control advocates need to convince five senators to go from "no" to "yes" in order to find the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. The legislation would have expanded a requirement for gun background checks on internet sales and private sales at gun shows. A Senate Democratic leadership aide said Monday that they don't anticipate or expect to get a deal on background checks in time for the bill to be reconsidered this work period, which ends just before Memorial Day weekend. Flake, a first term senator, is close with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who, along with her husband, had been lobbying Flake to support expanding background checks. They were publicly highly critical of Flake's decision to vote no. Some Republicans opposed the measure out of fear that expanding background checks would put the country on a path to a national gun registry, but Flake said that is not his concern. "I know that is not what this bill does, just the opposite," Flake said. During last week's congressional recess, Flake was the target of gun control group protests. One group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, sent a woman whose son died in the Aurora movie massacre to try to see Flake in his Phoenix office so he could see the "pain in her eyes." A Democratic polling firm's survey showed Flake as the most unpopular senator in the country, prompting Flake to post on his Facebook page that puts him somewhere "below pond scum" Still, he said he got plenty of positive feedback back from home for opposing the background check measure as it was written. "I'm comfortable with where I am, pond scum or not," he said with a smile. - CNN Senior Congressional Producer Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

left

w4lP5jKh6M4OKKxm

test

5YCp5Pn6KPWEYpAc

politics

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/13/omarosa-trump-tapes-did-she-break-law

Did Omarosa break the law by secretly recording Trump and Kelly?

2018-08-13

Ben Jacobs

Secret recordings of Trump and his chief of staff are seen as security breach and have also left lingering questions Omarosa Manigault Newman has released secret recordings of her conversations with Donald Trump and his chief of staff , John Kelly , which have made international headlines but have also left lingering questions . Manigault Newman says she secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017 , and she played the recording on NBC ’ s Meet The Press on Sunday . On Monday , she released another recording , aired on NBC ’ s Today program , in which Trump appears to express surprise that she had been ousted . Trump hits back after Omarosa releases secret recording of president Read more The former White House aide , who had previously been a contestant on Trump ’ s reality television show The Apprentice , shared the recording as part of her promotional tour for her new book about her stint in the White House , Unhinged . ███ first reported excerpts from the book , which also included claims that Trump has used racial epithets . Juliette Kayyem , a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security , pointed to Manigault Newman ’ s recording device as signifying the lack of “ security culture ” in the Trump administration . The former Obama administration aide noted that Trump has “ essentially mocked this ideal of a security culture ” . She pointed out instances such as White House staffers working without security clearances , Trump using an unsecured phone and his 2017 dinner with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe about North Korea among diners at Mar-a-Lago . Bradley Moss , a national security lawyer in Washington , noted that it was unusual for a personnel meeting to happen in the Situation Room . In his opinion , the most obvious reason would be that the White House “ had its own suspicions that she was the type of person who might try to secretly record [ the meeting ] , and put it in the Situation Room . ” Moss also told ███ that Manigault Newman ’ s use of a recording device presented counterintelligence risks . “ All it takes is one foreign agency hacking [ the recording device ] , and setting it to passive record mode , ” said Moss . The result would mean all conversations , not just those Manigault Newman chose to record , would be “ accessible to foreign entities ” . Omarosa claims she has heard tape of Trump using N-word Read more This concern was shared by Kayyem . “ There might be the perception , particularly by our enemies , that the entire White House might be compromised , and that ’ s kind of scary , ” she said , adding : “ The audience isn ’ t just us and Omarosa and Trump . It ’ s the Chinese and the Russians . ” Moss said , however , that just because the conversation occurred in the Situation Room , which is actually a secured series of connected rooms , there is “ no real obvious criminal liability ” . All staffers entering the area must lock away their cell phones and other insecure electronic devices . But he noted the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security clearance if she ever wishes to work for the federal government in the future . “ The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security , ” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders . She added : “ Then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee . ”

Secret recordings of Trump and his chief of staff are seen as security breach and have also left lingering questions Omarosa Manigault Newman has released secret recordings of her conversations with Donald Trump and his chief of staff, John Kelly, which have made international headlines but have also left lingering questions. What happened? Manigault Newman says she secretly recorded Kelly firing her in the White House Situation Room in December 2017, and she played the recording on NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday. On Monday, she released another recording, aired on NBC’s Today program, in which Trump appears to express surprise that she had been ousted. Trump hits back after Omarosa releases secret recording of president Read more The former White House aide, who had previously been a contestant on Trump’s reality television show The Apprentice, shared the recording as part of her promotional tour for her new book about her stint in the White House, Unhinged. The Guardian first reported excerpts from the book, which also included claims that Trump has used racial epithets. Is this normal? Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, pointed to Manigault Newman’s recording device as signifying the lack of “security culture” in the Trump administration. The former Obama administration aide noted that Trump has “essentially mocked this ideal of a security culture”. She pointed out instances such as White House staffers working without security clearances, Trump using an unsecured phone and his 2017 dinner with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe about North Korea among diners at Mar-a-Lago. Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington, noted that it was unusual for a personnel meeting to happen in the Situation Room. In his opinion, the most obvious reason would be that the White House “had its own suspicions that she was the type of person who might try to secretly record [the meeting], and put it in the Situation Room.” Is this a security risk? Moss also told the Guardian that Manigault Newman’s use of a recording device presented counterintelligence risks. “All it takes is one foreign agency hacking [the recording device], and setting it to passive record mode,” said Moss. The result would mean all conversations, not just those Manigault Newman chose to record, would be “accessible to foreign entities”. Omarosa claims she has heard tape of Trump using N-word Read more This concern was shared by Kayyem. “There might be the perception, particularly by our enemies, that the entire White House might be compromised, and that’s kind of scary,” she said, adding: “The audience isn’t just us and Omarosa and Trump. It’s the Chinese and the Russians.” Is recording in the Situation Room a crime? Moss said, however, that just because the conversation occurred in the Situation Room, which is actually a secured series of connected rooms, there is “no real obvious criminal liability”. All staffers entering the area must lock away their cell phones and other insecure electronic devices. But he noted the violation would likely be enough to deny Manigault Newman a security clearance if she ever wishes to work for the federal government in the future. What has the White House said? “The very idea a staff member would sneak a recording device into the White House Situation Room shows a blatant disregard for our national security,” said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. She added: “Then to brag about it on national television further proves the lack of character and integrity of this disgruntled former White House employee.”

www.theguardian.com

left

5YCp5Pn6KPWEYpAc

test

GWgQc6xmwcMNGVFc

media_bias

CBN

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2020/february/media-reported-fake-news-about-russia-helping-trump-in-2020

Media Reported Fake News About Russia Helping Trump in 2020

2020-02-24

There 's no specific intelligence information that Russia is interfering in the presidential election to help President Trump get re-elected , according to new reports . Major media outlets cited anonymous sources last week who claimed that the Russians were working to boost the president . That 's something both Trump and his team denied , including National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien . `` I have not seen that , and I get pretty good access , '' O'Brien said . “ I have n't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump re-elected . ” Deputy White House Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said on Monday , `` The way it has been characterized in the media is just completely false . We had two officials from this administration , high ranking , to come out and say they were in the briefing and the allegations of what happened actually did n't occur at all . '' The fake news report came out of a hearing held by House Democrats . `` As far as these selective leaks are concerned , I just do n't know how many more times Democrats can leak something selectively out of a committee . I do n't know how many more times the media is going to fall for a lie from Adam Schiff or his staff before they just stop taking some of his quotes , '' Gidley continued . The new reports say the intelligence briefer reportedly overstated Russia 's actions , leaving out key elements . Intelligence reports do say that Russia is trying to help Bernie Sanders campaign , although it 's not clear how they might be doing that . Gidley says the administration is working to make sure these 2020 elections are secure . `` No one 's been tougher on Russia than this administration . What we 've done to secure our elections , to make sure that every vote counts , every vote matters , is unprecedented . It was the Barack Obama administration who knew Russia was going to meddle and they did nothing . It was our administration that put a whole of government approach in place . We are now working with local governments , state , local levels , using FBI , DHS and others to ensure that those elections are protected . In fact , we 're running tests in many states as well so that we can make sure that those devices they count votes on can not be tampered with , can not be meddled with . ''

There's no specific intelligence information that Russia is interfering in the presidential election to help President Trump get re-elected, according to new reports. Major media outlets cited anonymous sources last week who claimed that the Russians were working to boost the president. That's something both Trump and his team denied, including National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien. "I have not seen that, and I get pretty good access," O'Brien said. “I haven't seen any intelligence that Russia is doing anything to attempt to get President Trump re-elected.” Deputy White House Press Secretary Hogan Gidley said on Monday, "The way it has been characterized in the media is just completely false. We had two officials from this administration, high ranking, to come out and say they were in the briefing and the allegations of what happened actually didn't occur at all." The fake news report came out of a hearing held by House Democrats. "As far as these selective leaks are concerned, I just don't know how many more times Democrats can leak something selectively out of a committee. I don't know how many more times the media is going to fall for a lie from Adam Schiff or his staff before they just stop taking some of his quotes," Gidley continued. The new reports say the intelligence briefer reportedly overstated Russia's actions, leaving out key elements. Intelligence reports do say that Russia is trying to help Bernie Sanders campaign, although it's not clear how they might be doing that. Gidley says the administration is working to make sure these 2020 elections are secure. "No one's been tougher on Russia than this administration. What we've done to secure our elections, to make sure that every vote counts, every vote matters, is unprecedented. It was the Barack Obama administration who knew Russia was going to meddle and they did nothing. It was our administration that put a whole of government approach in place. We are now working with local governments, state, local levels, using FBI, DHS and others to ensure that those elections are protected. In fact, we're running tests in many states as well so that we can make sure that those devices they count votes on cannot be tampered with, cannot be meddled with."

www1.cbn.com

right

GWgQc6xmwcMNGVFc

test

Xp6yrdXOdxhX4WeS

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44949500

Tape reveals Trump and lawyer discussing payoff over alleged affair

A recording of a conversation in which President Donald Trump and his lawyer discuss a payoff over an alleged affair with a model has been broadcast by CNN . Mr Trump and Michael Cohen discuss buying the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal 's story . The audiotape was recorded in September 2016 , two months before the election . The affair allegedly dates to 2006 . Mr Trump 's current lawyer Rudy Giuliani says no money was paid , and the tape does not show evidence of any crime . The tape obtained by CNN was one of a number reportedly discovered during an FBI raid on Mr Cohen 's property earlier this year in New York . Mr Giuliani said Mr Cohen had recorded the McDougal conversation at Trump Tower in New York using a hidden device . Mr Trump has criticised Mr Cohen on Twitter , saying : `` What kind of a lawyer would tape a client ? '' Mr Cohen 's attorney , Lanny Davis , took to Twitter to respond warning : `` Just as Richard Nixon learned , tapes do n't lie ! '' The conversation jumps around , there are other voices and some of the audio is muffled . Mr Trump and Mr Cohen , who no longer works for the president , appear to be discussing buying the rights to Ms McDougal 's story from the parent company of the National Enquirer . The former Playboy model had sold her story to the Enquirer in the run-up to the election . Mr Cohen says : `` I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend , David . '' This could be a reference to Mr Trump 's friend , David Pecker , president of American Media Inc , the National Enquirer 's parent company . Mr Trump says later : `` So , what do we got to pay for this ? One-fifty ? '' Ms McDougal reportedly received $ 150,000 ( £115,000 ) from the Enquirer for her story . Mr Cohen starts to mention financing and Mr Trump asks : `` What financing ? '' The next section is pivotal . Mr Trump is heard saying `` pay with cash '' but it is not clear if he is suggesting to do so or not do so . Mr Cohen 's response is clear : `` No , no , no '' . In April , Donald Trump tweeted that Michael Cohen is a `` fine person '' who he has `` always liked and respected '' , adding that he did n't see him ever turning on his former boss . The president might be having second thoughts now that Mr Cohen has made public his recording of a controversial conversation first leaked to the press last week . `` We were not going to let Michael become a punching bag , '' Lanny Davis , Mr Cohen 's new lawyer , said in explaining the move . Instead , Mr Cohen is throwing the punches , raising suspicions that this may be the first blow in an escalating fight with the president . There are , Mr Davis says , `` a lot of other tapes '' . And given Mr Cohen 's business and legal work for Mr Trump over the course of a decade , there 's no telling what surprises might be in store . Mr Cohen telegraphed this latest turn of events by selecting Mr Davis as his attorney . The long-time Washington operative is a former Democratic congressional candidate , member of the Democratic National Committee and lawyer for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial . Mr Davis is the kind of man you want if you 're preparing for war… against Republicans . The Department of Justice is looking into alleged hush money paid to women who claim they had a relationship with Mr Trump . It is a potential problem for Mr Trump because undisclosed payments to bury embarrassing stories about a political candidate can be treated as a violation of US campaign finance laws . At the very least , the tape suggests Mr Trump was aware that discussions were taking place to buy the rights to Ms McDougal 's story . When previously questioned about Ms McDougal , President Trump had denied the affair and said he had no knowledge of any payment . Mr Giuliani told Associated Press news agency that he had had the tape enhanced and it clearly shows the president saying `` do n't pay with cash '' . He told AP : `` The president wanted to do it the right way . If you wanted to hide something , you would not do it by corporation or cheque . '' Mr Giuliani said no payment was made in the end although he did not know why that was the case . A former Playboy model who says she had a 10-month relationship with Mr Trump starting in 2006 . He was already then married to Melania and was the host of TV show The Apprentice . She sold her story to the National Enquirer , signing a $ 150,000 agreement that gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair . The Enquirer did not publish her kiss-and-tell , and she says she was tricked . Mr Trump has denied any affair took place . White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said this week `` the president maintains he 's done nothing wrong '' . A former Trump stalwart , Mr Cohen once famously vowed he would take a bullet for the president . But things changed after the FBI raided his office and home in April . About a dozen audio recordings were seized and passed to federal prosecutors . Mr Cohen told ABC News this month that his loyalty to his family and country came before his old boss . His comments stoked speculation that he might co-operate with investigators against Mr Trump , although there has been no confirmation so far that he has done so . Mr Cohen is reportedly under investigation for possible bank and tax fraud , as well as potential violation of election law , though he has so far not been charged with anything . This relates to another woman who claims an affair with Mr Trump , Stormy Daniels , also in 2006 . In May , President Trump admitted he had reimbursed Mr Cohen for a payment he made to hush up her claims . Mr Trump had previously denied all knowledge of the $ 130,000 payment as part of a non-disclosure agreement .

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption From left: Michael Cohen, Karen McDougal, Donald Trump A recording of a conversation in which President Donald Trump and his lawyer discuss a payoff over an alleged affair with a model has been broadcast by CNN. Mr Trump and Michael Cohen discuss buying the rights to former Playboy model Karen McDougal's story. The audiotape was recorded in September 2016, two months before the election. The affair allegedly dates to 2006. Mr Trump's current lawyer Rudy Giuliani says no money was paid, and the tape does not show evidence of any crime. The tape obtained by CNN was one of a number reportedly discovered during an FBI raid on Mr Cohen's property earlier this year in New York. Mr Giuliani said Mr Cohen had recorded the McDougal conversation at Trump Tower in New York using a hidden device. Mr Trump has criticised Mr Cohen on Twitter, saying: "What kind of a lawyer would tape a client?" Mr Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, took to Twitter to respond warning: "Just as Richard Nixon learned, tapes don't lie!" What's on the tape? The conversation jumps around, there are other voices and some of the audio is muffled. Mr Trump and Mr Cohen, who no longer works for the president, appear to be discussing buying the rights to Ms McDougal's story from the parent company of the National Enquirer. The former Playboy model had sold her story to the Enquirer in the run-up to the election. Mr Cohen says: "I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David." This could be a reference to Mr Trump's friend, David Pecker, president of American Media Inc, the National Enquirer's parent company. Mr Trump says later: "So, what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?" Ms McDougal reportedly received $150,000 (£115,000) from the Enquirer for her story. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Cohen once famously vowed he would take a bullet for the president Mr Cohen starts to mention financing and Mr Trump asks: "What financing?" Mr Cohen says: "We'll have to pay". The next section is pivotal. Mr Trump is heard saying "pay with cash" but it is not clear if he is suggesting to do so or not do so. Mr Cohen's response is clear: "No, no, no". Mr Trump is then heard saying "cheque". An escalating fight? Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington In April, Donald Trump tweeted that Michael Cohen is a "fine person" who he has "always liked and respected", adding that he didn't see him ever turning on his former boss. The president might be having second thoughts now that Mr Cohen has made public his recording of a controversial conversation first leaked to the press last week. "We were not going to let Michael become a punching bag," Lanny Davis, Mr Cohen's new lawyer, said in explaining the move. Instead, Mr Cohen is throwing the punches, raising suspicions that this may be the first blow in an escalating fight with the president. There are, Mr Davis says, "a lot of other tapes". And given Mr Cohen's business and legal work for Mr Trump over the course of a decade, there's no telling what surprises might be in store. Mr Cohen telegraphed this latest turn of events by selecting Mr Davis as his attorney. The long-time Washington operative is a former Democratic congressional candidate, member of the Democratic National Committee and lawyer for President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial. Mr Davis is the kind of man you want if you're preparing for war… against Republicans. What does it all mean? The Department of Justice is looking into alleged hush money paid to women who claim they had a relationship with Mr Trump. It is a potential problem for Mr Trump because undisclosed payments to bury embarrassing stories about a political candidate can be treated as a violation of US campaign finance laws. At the very least, the tape suggests Mr Trump was aware that discussions were taking place to buy the rights to Ms McDougal's story. When previously questioned about Ms McDougal, President Trump had denied the affair and said he had no knowledge of any payment. Mr Giuliani told Associated Press news agency that he had had the tape enhanced and it clearly shows the president saying "don't pay with cash". He told AP: "The president wanted to do it the right way. If you wanted to hide something, you would not do it by corporation or cheque." Mr Giuliani said no payment was made in the end although he did not know why that was the case. Image copyright CBS Who is Karen McDougal? A former Playboy model who says she had a 10-month relationship with Mr Trump starting in 2006. He was already then married to Melania and was the host of TV show The Apprentice. She sold her story to the National Enquirer, signing a $150,000 agreement that gave the tabloid exclusive story rights and banned her from talking publicly about the alleged affair. The Enquirer did not publish her kiss-and-tell, and she says she was tricked. Mr Trump has denied any affair took place. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said this week "the president maintains he's done nothing wrong". What about Michael Cohen? A former Trump stalwart, Mr Cohen once famously vowed he would take a bullet for the president. But things changed after the FBI raided his office and home in April. About a dozen audio recordings were seized and passed to federal prosecutors. Mr Cohen told ABC News this month that his loyalty to his family and country came before his old boss. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Was Trump's Stormy Daniels payment legal? His comments stoked speculation that he might co-operate with investigators against Mr Trump, although there has been no confirmation so far that he has done so. Mr Cohen is reportedly under investigation for possible bank and tax fraud, as well as potential violation of election law, though he has so far not been charged with anything. This relates to another woman who claims an affair with Mr Trump, Stormy Daniels, also in 2006. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, has typically represented Democrats over the years In May, President Trump admitted he had reimbursed Mr Cohen for a payment he made to hush up her claims. Mr Trump had previously denied all knowledge of the $130,000 payment as part of a non-disclosure agreement.

www.bbc.com

center

Xp6yrdXOdxhX4WeS

test

32LQH83QrODIdFol

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/oh-big-deal-so-close-down-the-government/

OPINION: Oh, Big Deal! So Close Down the Government

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

So go ahead and close down the cockamamie Government . If only ! Let ’ s call a spade a spade : Donald J. Trump , private public citizen ( oxymoron ? ) , descended on an escalator ( an oxymoron that ! ) , and he said that Mexico is sending us their worst , not their best . Was he right ? Did he speak elegantly ? That is open to fair debate , but one thing is clear : From the moment he began his quixotic campaign for the Presidency , his signature issue was that he would regain control over our broken immigration system . And so the campaign went : “ I am going to build a big beautiful Wall , and Mexico is going to pay for it. ” It honestly became as much his meme as Obama ’ s “ If you like your plan , you will keep your plan . If you like your doctor , you will keep your doctor . ” Obama was a liar . He always was a liar . Who knows whether his name even is Obama ? What we would give to read the application forms he submitted to get into Columbia and later into Harvard Law , and later to get hired as a part-time untenured law professor with no academic publications to his name ! Given Elizabeth Warren ’ s tribal heritage , if only to read Obama ’ s “ Lies My Father Told Me— and the Even Better Ones I Made Up All Myself. ” Half the country pegged him as a liar from the day we met him , as the oceans stopped rising and the planet started healing . Another twenty percent have figured it out since . That is why , whenever the Republicans face a tough election and have run out of strategies , their final “ nuclear option ” is to convince the opponent to bring Obama to campaign for the Democrats . It worked for the GOP in 2010 , in 2014 , and just the other day in Georgia . By contrast , for those who really “ get ” Trump , he is not a liar . He is a showman , a promoter , a kibbitzer , and a shrewd negotiator . He engages in what business law calls “ puffery. ” No one who voted for Trump takes his specific words literally ; rather , Trump supporters take his core beliefs and end-goals seriously . By contrast , his haters in the Left Media consume themselves with counting “ Pinocchios. ” Meantime , Trump has fulfilled more campaign promises since almost any other American political figure in the past century or two , and his percentage of fulfilled promises is stratospheric . So he pulled out of the Paris Climate nonsense , the disastrous and myopic Iran Deal , crushed ISIS in Raqqa , has been deregulating Obama rules to their point of disappearance , approved the Keystone XL pipeline , opened ANWR to oil exploration , moved our Israel embassy to Jerusalem , pulled us out of the blood-lusting UN “ Human Rights Council , ” stared down Western European leaders of NATO and actually told them to their faces that they have to start ponying up their Euros , Francs , Deutsche Marks , Pounds , Liras , and whatever other kind of play money they use ( because we don ’ t let them print the faces of their queens and counts and kaisers on our real money ) . Our economy erupted . Unemployment hit record lows , propelling welfare and food stamp recipients to pay into the system with income taxes instead of draining it . The guy keeps his promises unbelievably , even if the Washington Post gives him more Pinocchios than Gepetto would have had if the tree-huggers and spotted-owl protectors had let him carve more wood . But Trump has not yet fulfilled on immigration . When report cards come , he gets an “ A ” for “ Effort ” on Immigration and a “ B- ” for “ Works Well with Others. ” There is no pride in showing that “ B- ” to Mom and Dad . He would have done himself much prouder and everyone else much better if instead he had worked a bit harder to earn an “ F ” in “ Works Well with Others ” on Immigration . He — which also means “ we ” — will never get the Wall unless , like everything else these past two years , he basically just does it himself . We knew from Day One — and two years now have proven — that President Trump is a Constitutionalist and not the authoritarian dictator that the CNN/MSNBC crowd describe . When an Obama Judge strikes down a law , the President does not strike down the judge but pursues a hopeless appeal to the Ninth Circuit and begins the two-year wait for the Supreme Court ultimately to rule . When the House denies him , he negotiates . When it goes to the Senate , either he gets his 60 votes , or he tries a once-per-Congress budget reconciliation . If he is denied , he goes back to the drawing board . He plays by the rules . With two years under his belt , the President has learned some lessons . He picked himself an Attorney-General who managed to get in the way of everything , to obstruct almost everything — all by getting lost . ( An oxymoron ! ) He had a Republican House that never will pass immigration reform because they believe CNN polls more than their own voters , thus fear antagonizing people who never will vote for them anyway while driving their own actual supporters to stay home — as they now will , too . He does have a Senate majority , but he can not get anything through the Senate ( except for judicial and other nominations ) without some 7 of 47 Democrats — in order to attain the 60-vote minimum — and he never ever will get any of them except for Doug Jones of Alabama during the three weeks before the 2020 elections . He promised to change the broken immigration system and build a Wall for which Mexico would pay . CNN/MSNBC took him literally — that he will get Mexico literally to hand over pesos or nachos . By contrast , Trump ’ s supporters understood that there are more sophisticated ways for making Mexico pay — and Mexico will pay , just in a manner of asset-transfers that no one but the inside players realizes . Nevertheless , so far no Wall . He asked for $ 25 billion ; he accepted less than $ 2 billion to start because he understandably perceived that , as urgent as the Wall is , Obama-Hillary-Kerry had left the United States military gravely underfunded and perilously inadequately supplied to confront any immediate danger . That military rebuild had to take priority . England and France had gone light on military defense after WWI , thrifty until a short brown-haired Austrian with half a moustache convinced Germany that he was a tall , blonde , racially Aryan German and grabbed almost all of Western Europe schnell . France got gulped like vichyssoise . England got bombed a ton because they also failed to build defenses to stop , say , a Luftwaffe . Therefore , Trump reversed the Obama-Hillary-Kerry decade that saw us snickering at “ jayvee teams ” that chop off heads , pushing red-plastic “ reset ” buttons , and bicycling through Paris with James Taylor on the handle bars playing guitar . So Trump accommodated , got the massive defense allocations , but no Wall . With the 2018 midterms past , it now is time for Trump to shift into “ Larry the Cable Guy ” and just “ Git-R-Done . ” Pelosi will not give it to him — and , in her defense , she can not possibly do so . If she gives him that money , her Left flank will bail out on her , and she will not get elected House Speaker . She has to say no . And Schumer can not seem weaker than Nancy for several reasons . First of all , even though Democrats talk the Identity Politics/Fluid Gender talk , we all know they do not believe one word of that stuff — otherwise , their two leading candidates for President would not be the two oldest White Men in politics , now that Strom Thurmond has passed away at age 101 . Moreover , Democrats expect Schumer to swagger with at least as much macho as Nancy does . Third , Schumer just lost seats in the Senate in a year that all other Democrats had some gains . So Schumer can ’ t budge . At this point , two years into his Presidency , there is no political downside to Trump shutting down the Government . Airport security will remain the same , and air traffic controllers will stay on duty . The Post Office will remain open , and letter carriers will keep delivering ; indeed , the USPS is funded through a different mechanism . Social Security checks still will arrive as scheduled . The IRS will remain open . The prisons will remain open . ( Another oxymoron ! ) ICE still will be at the border and raiding the homes of Illegals in Oakland . The military is funded , and our service men and women will be paid . Fully seventy percent of the Government will remain operating . That means — and this is dismaying — that you can not shut down more than a fraction of the federal government even when you want to do it . Yes , federal employees will be sent home without paychecks , and CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NYT will run stories about Scrooges and Grinches and Tiny Tim with no smartphone and Santa forced to sell reindeer on E-Bay . But meantime , as always happens with federal workers , they end up with the cushiest deal of all : sent home for the holidays , no work through Christmas and New Year ’ s , yet a complete recompensing salary check as soon as the stalemate ends , paying them every single unearned cent they otherwise properly would not have earned had they come to “ work ” as usual . Sure , some federal agencies will close for a while . The Energy Department , for example . When was the last time you filled your car at an Energy Department office ? The Education Department , for another . If you have kids in school , when was the last time you went to the Education Department for Parent-Teachers Night ? Half those agencies should remain shut . Use their budgets and employees to build the Wall . So , big deal ! Close down the Government . People can reschedule their visits to national parks until the weather gets warmer . Go visit Beale Street in Memphis , Jackson Square in N ’ awlins , the National Cowboy Museum in Oklahoma City , Opryland , and Graceland , the bank that Jesse James held up in Russellville , Kentucky ; a Quilt Museum in Paducah , or the Oscar Goetz Museum of Whiskey in Bardstown . Take a tour of the “ Breaking Bad ” sites in Albuquerque or a family-friendly casino ( oxymoron ! ) in Las Vegas or the gorgeous red rocks of Sedona , Arizona , or a ranch in Laramie , Wyoming . Close the Government and keep it closed demonstratively for a long time , until Congress budges and blinks on immigration after forty years of immigration anarchy . There is no political downside . First of all , it is two years until the next national elections . Even now we know that 35 % will vote against Trump and the Republicans in 2020 , no matter what — and 35 % then will vote for him and them , no matter what . Another 15 % will not vote in 2020 anyway , because they voted already in 1996 . It all will come down , two years from now , to the 15 % whose hearts and minds must be won by everyone from the Ballot Harvesters to the Bloomberg-Steyer Money Machines — and those 15 % have a spotless record , dating back at least a century , consistently manifesting a memory that maxes out at 60 days . That is why most campaign advertising begins after Labor Day — because the people who decide our country ’ s course in November have to try to remember the day in September . Even now , you say “ Christine Ford , ” and they now think it is the name of a new truck . You say “ Omarosa , ” and they think that is where Ben Cartwright , Little Joe , and Hoss were ranchers . You say “ Billy Bush and the tapes in the trailer , ” and they think that is the former President who just got buried because of Watergate . You talk to them about “ the Wall , ” and they think Pink Floyd . You talk to them about the “ Caravan , ” and they think of “ Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat ” or the Three Wise Men ( not to be confused with Biden , Bernie , and Beto ) . Al Franken and Jill Stein ? A monstrous portmanteau . This is the perfect time to shut down the Government — all the more so if there is a reason . So shut the cockamamie thing down . For a week . For three months . For a year . Democrats will cave ; they can not breathe without Ubiquitous Government . And voters in 2020 will reward the President who stared down Pelosi and Schumer , and said , “ We have to have a wall.… I will take the mantle of shutting it down.… I am proud to shut down the Government over border security. ” They will re-elect that guy so that he can face four more years of Mueller , impeachment , and Jim Acosta while proving his mettle , his strength , and leaving the rest of NATO , along with Putin and the North Korean Doughboy , gazing in awe that this guy means business when he means business .

So go ahead and close down the cockamamie Government. If only! Let’s call a spade a spade: Donald J. Trump, private public citizen (oxymoron?), descended on an escalator (an oxymoron that!), and he said that Mexico is sending us their worst, not their best. Was he right? Did he speak elegantly? That is open to fair debate, but one thing is clear: From the moment he began his quixotic campaign for the Presidency, his signature issue was that he would regain control over our broken immigration system. And so the campaign went: “I am going to build a big beautiful Wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it.” It honestly became as much his meme as Obama’s “If you like your plan, you will keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you will keep your doctor.” Obama was a liar. He always was a liar. Who knows whether his name even is Obama? What we would give to read the application forms he submitted to get into Columbia and later into Harvard Law, and later to get hired as a part-time untenured law professor with no academic publications to his name! Given Elizabeth Warren’s tribal heritage, if only to read Obama’s “Lies My Father Told Me— and the Even Better Ones I Made Up All Myself.” Half the country pegged him as a liar from the day we met him, as the oceans stopped rising and the planet started healing. Another twenty percent have figured it out since. That is why, whenever the Republicans face a tough election and have run out of strategies, their final “nuclear option” is to convince the opponent to bring Obama to campaign for the Democrats. It worked for the GOP in 2010, in 2014, and just the other day in Georgia. By contrast, for those who really “get” Trump, he is not a liar. He is a showman, a promoter, a kibbitzer, and a shrewd negotiator. He engages in what business law calls “puffery.” No one who voted for Trump takes his specific words literally; rather, Trump supporters take his core beliefs and end-goals seriously. By contrast, his haters in the Left Media consume themselves with counting “Pinocchios.” Meantime, Trump has fulfilled more campaign promises since almost any other American political figure in the past century or two, and his percentage of fulfilled promises is stratospheric. So he pulled out of the Paris Climate nonsense, the disastrous and myopic Iran Deal, crushed ISIS in Raqqa, has been deregulating Obama rules to their point of disappearance, approved the Keystone XL pipeline, opened ANWR to oil exploration, moved our Israel embassy to Jerusalem, pulled us out of the blood-lusting UN “Human Rights Council,” stared down Western European leaders of NATO and actually told them to their faces that they have to start ponying up their Euros, Francs, Deutsche Marks, Pounds, Liras, and whatever other kind of play money they use (because we don’t let them print the faces of their queens and counts and kaisers on our real money). Our economy erupted. Unemployment hit record lows, propelling welfare and food stamp recipients to pay into the system with income taxes instead of draining it. The guy keeps his promises unbelievably, even if the Washington Post gives him more Pinocchios than Gepetto would have had if the tree-huggers and spotted-owl protectors had let him carve more wood. But Trump has not yet fulfilled on immigration. When report cards come, he gets an “A” for “Effort” on Immigration and a “B-” for “Works Well with Others.” There is no pride in showing that “B- ” to Mom and Dad. He would have done himself much prouder and everyone else much better if instead he had worked a bit harder to earn an “F” in “Works Well with Others” on Immigration. He — which also means “we” — will never get the Wall unless, like everything else these past two years, he basically just does it himself. We knew from Day One — and two years now have proven — that President Trump is a Constitutionalist and not the authoritarian dictator that the CNN/MSNBC crowd describe. When an Obama Judge strikes down a law, the President does not strike down the judge but pursues a hopeless appeal to the Ninth Circuit and begins the two-year wait for the Supreme Court ultimately to rule. When the House denies him, he negotiates. When it goes to the Senate, either he gets his 60 votes, or he tries a once-per-Congress budget reconciliation. If he is denied, he goes back to the drawing board. He plays by the rules. With two years under his belt, the President has learned some lessons. He picked himself an Attorney-General who managed to get in the way of everything, to obstruct almost everything — all by getting lost. (An oxymoron!) He had a Republican House that never will pass immigration reform because they believe CNN polls more than their own voters, thus fear antagonizing people who never will vote for them anyway while driving their own actual supporters to stay home — as they now will, too. He does have a Senate majority, but he cannot get anything through the Senate (except for judicial and other nominations) without some 7 of 47 Democrats — in order to attain the 60-vote minimum — and he never ever will get any of them except for Doug Jones of Alabama during the three weeks before the 2020 elections. He promised to change the broken immigration system and build a Wall for which Mexico would pay. CNN/MSNBC took him literally — that he will get Mexico literally to hand over pesos or nachos. By contrast, Trump’s supporters understood that there are more sophisticated ways for making Mexico pay — and Mexico will pay, just in a manner of asset-transfers that no one but the inside players realizes. Nevertheless, so far no Wall. He asked for $25 billion; he accepted less than $2 billion to start because he understandably perceived that, as urgent as the Wall is, Obama-Hillary-Kerry had left the United States military gravely underfunded and perilously inadequately supplied to confront any immediate danger. That military rebuild had to take priority. England and France had gone light on military defense after WWI, thrifty until a short brown-haired Austrian with half a moustache convinced Germany that he was a tall, blonde, racially Aryan German and grabbed almost all of Western Europe schnell. France got gulped like vichyssoise. England got bombed a ton because they also failed to build defenses to stop, say, a Luftwaffe. Therefore, Trump reversed the Obama-Hillary-Kerry decade that saw us snickering at “jayvee teams” that chop off heads, pushing red-plastic “reset” buttons, and bicycling through Paris with James Taylor on the handle bars playing guitar. So Trump accommodated, got the massive defense allocations, but no Wall. With the 2018 midterms past, it now is time for Trump to shift into “Larry the Cable Guy” and just “Git-R-Done.” Pelosi will not give it to him — and, in her defense, she cannot possibly do so. If she gives him that money, her Left flank will bail out on her, and she will not get elected House Speaker. She has to say no. And Schumer cannot seem weaker than Nancy for several reasons. First of all, even though Democrats talk the Identity Politics/Fluid Gender talk, we all know they do not believe one word of that stuff — otherwise, their two leading candidates for President would not be the two oldest White Men in politics, now that Strom Thurmond has passed away at age 101. Moreover, Democrats expect Schumer to swagger with at least as much macho as Nancy does. Third, Schumer just lost seats in the Senate in a year that all other Democrats had some gains. So Schumer can’t budge. At this point, two years into his Presidency, there is no political downside to Trump shutting down the Government. Airport security will remain the same, and air traffic controllers will stay on duty. The Post Office will remain open, and letter carriers will keep delivering; indeed, the USPS is funded through a different mechanism. Social Security checks still will arrive as scheduled. The IRS will remain open. The prisons will remain open. (Another oxymoron!) ICE still will be at the border and raiding the homes of Illegals in Oakland. The military is funded, and our service men and women will be paid. Fully seventy percent of the Government will remain operating. That means — and this is dismaying — that you cannot shut down more than a fraction of the federal government even when you want to do it. Yes, federal employees will be sent home without paychecks, and CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NYT will run stories about Scrooges and Grinches and Tiny Tim with no smartphone and Santa forced to sell reindeer on E-Bay. But meantime, as always happens with federal workers, they end up with the cushiest deal of all: sent home for the holidays, no work through Christmas and New Year’s, yet a complete recompensing salary check as soon as the stalemate ends, paying them every single unearned cent they otherwise properly would not have earned had they come to “work” as usual. Sure, some federal agencies will close for a while. The Energy Department, for example. When was the last time you filled your car at an Energy Department office? The Education Department, for another. If you have kids in school, when was the last time you went to the Education Department for Parent-Teachers Night? Half those agencies should remain shut. Use their budgets and employees to build the Wall. So, big deal! Close down the Government. People can reschedule their visits to national parks until the weather gets warmer. Go visit Beale Street in Memphis, Jackson Square in N’awlins, the National Cowboy Museum in Oklahoma City, Opryland, and Graceland, the bank that Jesse James held up in Russellville, Kentucky; a Quilt Museum in Paducah, or the Oscar Goetz Museum of Whiskey in Bardstown. Take a tour of the “Breaking Bad” sites in Albuquerque or a family-friendly casino (oxymoron!) in Las Vegas or the gorgeous red rocks of Sedona, Arizona, or a ranch in Laramie, Wyoming. Close the Government and keep it closed demonstratively for a long time, until Congress budges and blinks on immigration after forty years of immigration anarchy. There is no political downside. First of all, it is two years until the next national elections. Even now we know that 35% will vote against Trump and the Republicans in 2020, no matter what — and 35% then will vote for him and them, no matter what. Another 15% will not vote in 2020 anyway, because they voted already in 1996. It all will come down, two years from now, to the 15% whose hearts and minds must be won by everyone from the Ballot Harvesters to the Bloomberg-Steyer Money Machines — and those 15% have a spotless record, dating back at least a century, consistently manifesting a memory that maxes out at 60 days. That is why most campaign advertising begins after Labor Day — because the people who decide our country’s course in November have to try to remember the day in September. Even now, you say “Christine Ford,” and they now think it is the name of a new truck. You say “Omarosa,” and they think that is where Ben Cartwright, Little Joe, and Hoss were ranchers. You say “Billy Bush and the tapes in the trailer,” and they think that is the former President who just got buried because of Watergate. You talk to them about “the Wall,” and they think Pink Floyd. You talk to them about the “Caravan,” and they think of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” or the Three Wise Men (not to be confused with Biden, Bernie, and Beto). Al Franken and Jill Stein? A monstrous portmanteau. This is the perfect time to shut down the Government — all the more so if there is a reason. So shut the cockamamie thing down. For a week. For three months. For a year. Democrats will cave; they cannot breathe without Ubiquitous Government. And voters in 2020 will reward the President who stared down Pelosi and Schumer, and said, “We have to have a wall.… I will take the mantle of shutting it down.… I am proud to shut down the Government over border security.” They will re-elect that guy so that he can face four more years of Mueller, impeachment, and Jim Acosta while proving his mettle, his strength, and leaving the rest of NATO, along with Putin and the North Korean Doughboy, gazing in awe that this guy means business when he means business.

www.spectator.org

right

32LQH83QrODIdFol

test

y0dbhMynpK7pNrCh

politics

Guest Writer - Right

https://spectator.org/impeachment-creates-an-opening-for-chappaqua/

Impeachment Creates an Opening for Chappaqua

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Dov Fischer, John C. Wohlstetter, Jeffrey Lord, William Murchison, E. Donald Elliott

How is the Democrats ’ impeachment inquiry going to turn out ? Well , we have already been through the impeachment inquiry , though it was called by another name . It was called the collusion inquiry , and it turned out as most conservatives said it was going to turn out . They said there was no evidence and Robert Mueller , who conducted the official inquiry , found no evidence . By the way , I insist that Robert Mueller is an honorable man . His service to the country was notable . In my opinion , he is a hero in this epic battle between President Donald Trump and the Democrats . Will there be another hero ? The impeachment inquiry will proceed along the lines that the collusion inquiry followed . After each leak , each new accusation , even after each new twist and turn of the collusion proceedings , the Left celebrated and then quieted down . Why did they quiet down ? Because the conservatives were right with their rejoinder : “ There is no evidence. ” There will be no evidence found for impeachment either . Why ? Well , I am one American , though I am sure that there are many more , who is looking for a fair-minded and objective arbiter to come to a sober conclusion about President Trump ’ s July call to the newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky . Had President Trump done anything wrong ? Had he committed an impeachable act by mentioning former Vice President Joe Biden to President Zelensky ? Naturally , I scoured all the major newspapers ’ editorial pages . I even consulted the cable news ’ howling heads . Incidentally , I noticed that the New York Times has been leavening its editorials with pictures to be certain all its readers — even its non-readers — get the point of its editorials . President Trump was , of course pictured on the Times ’ editorial page . He looked very angry . At any rate , after my extensive review I settled on the Wall Street Journal . It is critical of the president , and of the Democrats , and even of the whistleblower . Yet the Journal was fair . Here is what it said in the first paragraph of its editorial : “ The news is that Mr. Trump was telling the truth about it [ his telephone call ] . The conversation was largely routine diplomacy , and even the reference to Joe Biden was less than promoted by the press . Good luck persuading Americans that this is an impeachable offense. ” In other words , the transcript of President Trump ’ s call to the Ukraine leader revealed No Evidence . The Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry for which there is no evidence . And what will the Democrats do after the government establishes there is no evidence for impeachment , just as there was no evidence of collusion ? I have no idea , but you can be sure that the Democrats will be off on a new investigation of the president if they manage to maintain their edge in the House of Representatives . For this is their new innovation in constitutional government . The Democratic House of Representatives no longer legislates . That is passé . It now investigates . Whatever the Democrats do with their investigations , they will hit a stone wall when they take their impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate . So let me pick up on a point I inched forward in this column on August 7 . There is an angry woman living in Chappaqua , New York , who very much wants another crack at the presidency . She has been called the Inevitable One in two , alas , failed presidential attempts . She has been referred to as the best prepared person ever to run for president . Some say she is beautiful . Right now there are bookies putting money on her candidacy . There are Democrats speaking of her candidacy in hushed tones . Her husband , who has been living in a feminist-imposed exile , is talking her up and dreaming of his reemergence from under his bed in Chappaqua . She has been booking appearances on television and calling President Trump an “ illegitimate president. ” I say Hillary is doing more than mulling over her next run for the presidency . I think she is already planning her next bumper sticker .

Washington How is the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry going to turn out? Well, we have already been through the impeachment inquiry, though it was called by another name. It was called the collusion inquiry, and it turned out as most conservatives said it was going to turn out. They said there was no evidence and Robert Mueller, who conducted the official inquiry, found no evidence. By the way, I insist that Robert Mueller is an honorable man. His service to the country was notable. In my opinion, he is a hero in this epic battle between President Donald Trump and the Democrats. Will there be another hero? The impeachment inquiry will proceed along the lines that the collusion inquiry followed. After each leak, each new accusation, even after each new twist and turn of the collusion proceedings, the Left celebrated and then quieted down. Why did they quiet down? Because the conservatives were right with their rejoinder: “There is no evidence.” There will be no evidence found for impeachment either. Why? Well, I am one American, though I am sure that there are many more, who is looking for a fair-minded and objective arbiter to come to a sober conclusion about President Trump’s July call to the newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Had President Trump done anything wrong? Had he committed an impeachable act by mentioning former Vice President Joe Biden to President Zelensky? Naturally, I scoured all the major newspapers’ editorial pages. I even consulted the cable news’ howling heads. Incidentally, I noticed that the New York Times has been leavening its editorials with pictures to be certain all its readers — even its non-readers — get the point of its editorials. President Trump was, of course pictured on the Times’ editorial page. He looked very angry. At any rate, after my extensive review I settled on the Wall Street Journal. It is critical of the president, and of the Democrats, and even of the whistleblower. Yet the Journal was fair. Here is what it said in the first paragraph of its editorial: “The news is that Mr. Trump was telling the truth about it [his telephone call]. The conversation was largely routine diplomacy, and even the reference to Joe Biden was less than promoted by the press. Good luck persuading Americans that this is an impeachable offense.” In other words, the transcript of President Trump’s call to the Ukraine leader revealed No Evidence. The Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry for which there is no evidence. And what will the Democrats do after the government establishes there is no evidence for impeachment, just as there was no evidence of collusion? I have no idea, but you can be sure that the Democrats will be off on a new investigation of the president if they manage to maintain their edge in the House of Representatives. For this is their new innovation in constitutional government. The Democratic House of Representatives no longer legislates. That is passé. It now investigates. Whatever the Democrats do with their investigations, they will hit a stone wall when they take their impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate. So let me pick up on a point I inched forward in this column on August 7. There is an angry woman living in Chappaqua, New York, who very much wants another crack at the presidency. She has been called the Inevitable One in two, alas, failed presidential attempts. She has been referred to as the best prepared person ever to run for president. Some say she is beautiful. Right now there are bookies putting money on her candidacy. There are Democrats speaking of her candidacy in hushed tones. Her husband, who has been living in a feminist-imposed exile, is talking her up and dreaming of his reemergence from under his bed in Chappaqua. She has been booking appearances on television and calling President Trump an “illegitimate president.” I say Hillary is doing more than mulling over her next run for the presidency. I think she is already planning her next bumper sticker. Happy days are here again.

www.spectator.org

right

y0dbhMynpK7pNrCh

test

T0rzCMTicvxZmqJH

race_and_racism

American Spectator

https://spectator.org/racism-a-cliche-fastened-to-a-dying-animal/

OPINION: ‘Racism’: A Cliché Fastened to a Dying Animal

David Catron, Chris Talgo, Nic Rowan, Seth King, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Paul Kengor, Debra J. Saunders

It ’ s increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party is moribund and that its members know it . In a desperate attempt to survive , they have declared war on a chimera called “ racism , ” which they insist is endemic to American culture . Left-wing Democrats call centrist members of their own caucus racist for voting their conscience . Freshman Democrats accuse the Speaker of the House of racism for requesting that they behave with decorum . All Democrats insist that all Republicans are racists while attributing all GOP election victories to racial gerrymandering , racist voters , or both . And every Republican president is racist by definition — particularly if his surname is Trump . Meanwhile , in order to signal that they are also on the side of the angels in this epic battle against bigotry , the “ news ” media wield their mighty pens on behalf of the noble cause . A textbook example of the assistance they offer to “ the party of Jefferson and Jackson ” can be found in a recent New Republic column titled “ Trump and His Deplorables. ” Its author , Matt Ford , begins by praising Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 observation that “ you could put half of Trump ’ s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. ” He then goes on to tell his readers that Clinton ’ s cavalier condemnation of 30 million voters was a highly nuanced argument whose wisdom has long since been vindicated : Two years into Trump ’ s presidency , “ deplorable ” seems almost kind . It ’ s clear by now that racism is an animating force of Trump ’ s presidency , yet many of Trump ’ s supporters and most of the Republican Party still back him after every bigoted slight and discriminatory policy he makes . They may not be willing to admit that they agree outright with everything he says or does , but their continued political support makes the distinction meaningless . The problem with this passage isn ’ t merely that it is gratuitously defamatory and demonstrably false , but that it tends to reinforce the sense of moral superiority that defines “ progressives ” like Ford and the politicians who actually take them seriously . It creates a positive feedback loop that allows both to justify outrageous behavior that neither would consider without mutual encouragement . It permits journalists to delegitimize those who disagree with them about Trump and also permits Democratic lawmakers to take the floor in the House of Representatives and accuse the president of racism — knowing full well that doing so violates a decades-old parliamentary rule . This brings us to the question that very few have bothered to ask about Trump ’ s Sunday morning tweet storm : Was it actually racist ? I didn ’ t bother to read the tweets when they first appeared . Nor was I moved to do so in response to the subsequent uproar . Everything the president says or does is instantly denounced by the Democrats and their media allies as racist , cruel , crazy , or crass . So it just sounded like another day at the office for Trump . I finally got around to reading them today and fail to see the catalogue of crimes his critics claim to see . Not that mere facts matter to the Democrats or the social justice warriors of today ’ s media , as Goldie Taylor makes clear in the Daily Beast : The president is a racist … On Sunday , he claimed that newly elected progressive Democrats “ originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe ” and “ the worst , more corrupt and inept anywhere in the world. ” And he told freshmen Reps. Ayanna Pressley , Rashida Tlaib , Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar — outspoken Democratic women of color who have challenged the administration ’ s inhumane immigration policies — to leave the country . But he didn ’ t do anything of the sort . First , none of the tweets contain any reference to the race of any congressional representative . Not a single , solitary syllable . So , how precisely can Taylor honestly denounce them as racist ? Moreover , it is by no means clear that he is referring to all four of the congresswomen she names . He pluralizes some words for general effect just as I do with “ journalists ” in paragraph four above , but this is hardly definitive . The tweets are obviously about Ilhan Omar , a Somali immigrant who routinely gripes about the “ racism , cruelty , and injustice ” of her adopted country , and throws in the occasional anti-Semitic slur to just to keep the pot bubbling . In fact , her anti-Semitic comments caused so much uproar last February that considerable pressure was put on the Democratic majority in the House to pass a resolution condemning her comments . But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi , the same Democrat representative who violated the rules of that body in order to call the president a “ racist , ” could not muster the votes to get it passed . Instead , the Democrats passed a generic resolution against hate speech that not only failed to mention Omar ’ s name , but also failed to mention anti-Semitism . As a clearly angry Rep. Liz Cheney put it , “ I voted against the Democrats ’ sham resolution — it was designed to protect anti-Semitic bigotry . ” The very Democrats who covered for a brazen anti-Semitic bigot would have us believe they are outraged by the president ’ s “ racist ” tweets . None of this is about racism or bigotry . It ’ s about a dying animal called the Democratic Party , hatred for the man administering the lethal injection , and the voters who support him . As Goldie Taylor says , “ Trump Is a Racist . If You Still Support Him , So Are You. ” As it happens , the House held a vote Wednesday afternoon to impeach the president . It failed 332 to 95 . The increasingly shrill cries of racism are just the death throes of a political party that reviles the United States , President Trump , and the voters they can no longer fool .

It’s increasingly obvious that the Democratic Party is moribund and that its members know it. In a desperate attempt to survive, they have declared war on a chimera called “racism,” which they insist is endemic to American culture. Left-wing Democrats call centrist members of their own caucus racist for voting their conscience. Freshman Democrats accuse the Speaker of the House of racism for requesting that they behave with decorum. All Democrats insist that all Republicans are racists while attributing all GOP election victories to racial gerrymandering, racist voters, or both. And every Republican president is racist by definition — particularly if his surname is Trump. Meanwhile, in order to signal that they are also on the side of the angels in this epic battle against bigotry, the “news” media wield their mighty pens on behalf of the noble cause. A textbook example of the assistance they offer to “the party of Jefferson and Jackson” can be found in a recent New Republic column titled “Trump and His Deplorables.” Its author, Matt Ford, begins by praising Hillary Clinton’s 2016 observation that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” He then goes on to tell his readers that Clinton’s cavalier condemnation of 30 million voters was a highly nuanced argument whose wisdom has long since been vindicated: Two years into Trump’s presidency, “deplorable” seems almost kind. It’s clear by now that racism is an animating force of Trump’s presidency, yet many of Trump’s supporters and most of the Republican Party still back him after every bigoted slight and discriminatory policy he makes. They may not be willing to admit that they agree outright with everything he says or does, but their continued political support makes the distinction meaningless. The problem with this passage isn’t merely that it is gratuitously defamatory and demonstrably false, but that it tends to reinforce the sense of moral superiority that defines “progressives” like Ford and the politicians who actually take them seriously. It creates a positive feedback loop that allows both to justify outrageous behavior that neither would consider without mutual encouragement. It permits journalists to delegitimize those who disagree with them about Trump and also permits Democratic lawmakers to take the floor in the House of Representatives and accuse the president of racism — knowing full well that doing so violates a decades-old parliamentary rule. This brings us to the question that very few have bothered to ask about Trump’s Sunday morning tweet storm: Was it actually racist? I didn’t bother to read the tweets when they first appeared. Nor was I moved to do so in response to the subsequent uproar. Everything the president says or does is instantly denounced by the Democrats and their media allies as racist, cruel, crazy, or crass. So it just sounded like another day at the office for Trump. I finally got around to reading them today and fail to see the catalogue of crimes his critics claim to see. Not that mere facts matter to the Democrats or the social justice warriors of today’s media, as Goldie Taylor makes clear in the Daily Beast: The president is a racist … On Sunday, he claimed that newly elected progressive Democrats “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” and “the worst, more corrupt and inept anywhere in the world.” And he told freshmen Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar — outspoken Democratic women of color who have challenged the administration’s inhumane immigration policies — to leave the country. But he didn’t do anything of the sort. First, none of the tweets contain any reference to the race of any congressional representative. Not a single, solitary syllable. So, how precisely can Taylor honestly denounce them as racist? Moreover, it is by no means clear that he is referring to all four of the congresswomen she names. He pluralizes some words for general effect just as I do with “journalists” in paragraph four above, but this is hardly definitive. The tweets are obviously about Ilhan Omar, a Somali immigrant who routinely gripes about the “racism, cruelty, and injustice” of her adopted country, and throws in the occasional anti-Semitic slur to just to keep the pot bubbling. In fact, her anti-Semitic comments caused so much uproar last February that considerable pressure was put on the Democratic majority in the House to pass a resolution condemning her comments. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the same Democrat representative who violated the rules of that body in order to call the president a “racist,” could not muster the votes to get it passed. Instead, the Democrats passed a generic resolution against hate speech that not only failed to mention Omar’s name, but also failed to mention anti-Semitism. As a clearly angry Rep. Liz Cheney put it, “I voted against the Democrats’ sham resolution — it was designed to protect anti-Semitic bigotry.” The very Democrats who covered for a brazen anti-Semitic bigot would have us believe they are outraged by the president’s “racist” tweets. None of this is about racism or bigotry. It’s about a dying animal called the Democratic Party, hatred for the man administering the lethal injection, and the voters who support him. As Goldie Taylor says, “Trump Is a Racist. If You Still Support Him, So Are You.” As it happens, the House held a vote Wednesday afternoon to impeach the president. It failed 332 to 95. The increasingly shrill cries of racism are just the death throes of a political party that reviles the United States, President Trump, and the voters they can no longer fool.

www.spectator.org

right

T0rzCMTicvxZmqJH

test

W5xVE5Xh9MYRMRaU

race_and_racism

Associated Press

https://apnews.com/b3817623ef861818803b5676d43741ea

Trump slams governors as ‘weak,’ urges crackdown on protests

2020-06-01

Jonathan Lemire, Jill Colvin, Alan Suderman

President Donald Trump walks in Lafayette Park to visit outside St. John 's Church across from the White House Monday , June 1 , 2020 , in Washington . Part of the church was set on fire during protests on Sunday night . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) President Donald Trump walks in Lafayette Park to visit outside St. John 's Church across from the White House Monday , June 1 , 2020 , in Washington . Part of the church was set on fire during protests on Sunday night . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Embracing the language of confrontation and war , President Donald Trump on Monday declared himself the “ president of law and order ” and signaled he would stake his reelection on convincing voters his forceful approach , including deploying U.S. troops to U.S. cities , was warranted in a time of national tumult and racial unrest . Trump made his Rose Garden declaration to the sound of tear gas and rubber bullets clearing peaceful protesters from the park in front of the White House . It created a split screen for the ages , with his critics saying the president was deepening divisions at a time when leadership was crucial to help unify a fractured country . The president ’ s forceful turn to a partisan posture was reminiscent of the us-vs.-them rhetoric he has often used when under pressure , including in the face of the coronavirus pandemic . He has responded to the violence with a string of polarizing tweets , one starkly laying out the political stakes by underscoring the approach of Election Day . Trump vowed to deploy the U.S. military to America ’ s own cities to quell a rise of violent protests , including ransacking stores and burning police cars . He offered little recognition of the anger coursing through the country as he demanded a harsher crackdown on the mayhem that has erupted following the death of George Floyd . Floyd died after a white Minneapolis police officer pinned him down and pressed his neck with his knee as the man pleaded that he couldn ’ t breathe . Violent demonstrations have raged in dozens of cities across the nation , marking a level of widespread turmoil unseen for decades . The political ground beneath Trump has greatly shifted in the spring of this election year . He was supposed to be running on a strong economy , but now he ’ s facing a pandemic , an economic collapse and civil unrest not seen since the 1960s . Indeed , some around the president likened the moment to 1968 , when Richard Nixon ran as the law-and-order candidate in the aftermath of a summer of riots and captured the White House . But Trump is the incumbent and , despite his efforts to portray himself as a political outsider , he risks being held responsible for the violence . Trump emerged after two days out of public view in the White House to threaten to deploy “ thousands and thousands ” of U.S. troops . Then he made a surprise walk through Lafayette Park to a Washington house of worship known as “ The Church of the Presidents ” that suffered fire damage in the protests . That brought a quick condemnation from Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde . “ The president just used a Bible and one of the churches of my diocese as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and everything that our church stands for , ” she said . But he had his campaign moment . “ Most of you are weak , ” he said . “ It ’ s like a war . And we will end it fast . Be tough . ” “ You have to dominate ” and “ if you don ’ t dominate you ’ re wasting your time , ” Trump said , demanding the protests be swiftly crushed , even as some warned that such an aggressive law enforcement response could lead to an escalation of violence . The president urged governors to make more use of the National Guard , which he credited for helping calm the situation Sunday night in Minneapolis . He demanded that similarly tough measures be taken in cities that also experienced spasms of violence , including New York , Philadelphia and Los Angeles . “ You ’ re going to arrest all those people and you ’ re going to try them . And if they get five years or 10 years , they have to get five years or 10 years , ” the president said . “ So I say that , and the winners dominate . ” Trump ’ s exhortations came after a night of escalating violence , with images of chaos overshadowing largely peaceful protests . The disturbances grew so heated Friday night that the Secret Service rushed the president to an underground White House bunker previously used during terrorist attacks . Some West Wing officials and political advisers have acknowledged that some of the president ’ s tweets have not been helpful , and they have been pushing Trump to acknowledge the pain of the peaceful protesters without lumping them in with the agitators he says are responsible for the violence . But another faction within the administration , including longtime law-and-order proponent Attorney General William Barr , has encouraged Trump ’ s instincts to focus on the group violence . The hope is such a posture can help Trump draw a contrast with Democrats who have been less vocal in their condemnation of the unrest . The West Wing had been mostly empty over the weekend . Many staffers were told to stay home to avoid the protests , chief of staff Mark Meadows was out of town celebrating his daughter ’ s wedding and senior adviser Jared Kushner was marking a Jewish holiday . Among the options being discussed in the White House : a new criminal justice reform package , a task force that would include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and a listening tour of African American communities , according to people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because nothing had been finalized . “ Hate just hides . It doesn ’ t go away , and when you have somebody in power who breathes oxygen into the hate under the rocks , it comes out from under the rocks , ” said the party ’ s presumptive presidential nominee , former Vice President Joe Biden , speaking at a church in Wilmington , Delaware . Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump “ struggles to summon even an ounce of humanity in this time of turmoil . ” “ The president has reacted to the pain and anger in the country by playing politics and encouraging police to be tougher on protesters by bragging about his reelection prospects and his personal safety inside the White House , ” Schumer said . Long drawn to displays of strength , Trump and his advisers believe that the combative rhetoric and promises to send the military into cities will reassure voters , including senior citizens and suburban women , concerned by the lawlessness . Eager to change the narrative of the election , just five months away , from a referendum on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic , Trump and his aides see a cultural war issue that could captivate his base . Ralph Reed , chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a close ally of the president , said , “ In the same way that he became the unlikeliest of champions for evangelicals and the faith community , he has it in him to do the same thing for the minority community . ” Much as he has with the pandemic , Trump has tried to scapegoat the nation ’ s Democratic governors and mayors , much to their dismay . During the teleconference , Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker bluntly told Trump that “ the rhetoric that ’ s coming out of the White House is making it worse . ” Lemire reported from New York . Suderman reported from Richmond , Virginia . ███ writers Zeke Miller , Darlene Superville , Kevin Freking and Michael Balsamo contributed reporting from Washington .

President Donald Trump walks in Lafayette Park to visit outside St. John's Church across from the White House Monday, June 1, 2020, in Washington. Part of the church was set on fire during protests on Sunday night. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) President Donald Trump walks in Lafayette Park to visit outside St. John's Church across from the White House Monday, June 1, 2020, in Washington. Part of the church was set on fire during protests on Sunday night. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) WASHINGTON (AP) — Embracing the language of confrontation and war, President Donald Trump on Monday declared himself the “president of law and order” and signaled he would stake his reelection on convincing voters his forceful approach, including deploying U.S. troops to U.S. cities, was warranted in a time of national tumult and racial unrest. Trump made his Rose Garden declaration to the sound of tear gas and rubber bullets clearing peaceful protesters from the park in front of the White House. It created a split screen for the ages, with his critics saying the president was deepening divisions at a time when leadership was crucial to help unify a fractured country. ADVERTISEMENT The president’s forceful turn to a partisan posture was reminiscent of the us-vs.-them rhetoric he has often used when under pressure, including in the face of the coronavirus pandemic. He has responded to the violence with a string of polarizing tweets, one starkly laying out the political stakes by underscoring the approach of Election Day. “NOVEMBER 3RD,” was all it said. Trump vowed to deploy the U.S. military to America’s own cities to quell a rise of violent protests, including ransacking stores and burning police cars. He offered little recognition of the anger coursing through the country as he demanded a harsher crackdown on the mayhem that has erupted following the death of George Floyd. Floyd died after a white Minneapolis police officer pinned him down and pressed his neck with his knee as the man pleaded that he couldn’t breathe. Violent demonstrations have raged in dozens of cities across the nation, marking a level of widespread turmoil unseen for decades. The political ground beneath Trump has greatly shifted in the spring of this election year. He was supposed to be running on a strong economy, but now he’s facing a pandemic, an economic collapse and civil unrest not seen since the 1960s. Indeed, some around the president likened the moment to 1968, when Richard Nixon ran as the law-and-order candidate in the aftermath of a summer of riots and captured the White House. But Trump is the incumbent and, despite his efforts to portray himself as a political outsider, he risks being held responsible for the violence. Trump emerged after two days out of public view in the White House to threaten to deploy “thousands and thousands” of U.S. troops. Then he made a surprise walk through Lafayette Park to a Washington house of worship known as “The Church of the Presidents” that suffered fire damage in the protests. ADVERTISEMENT That brought a quick condemnation from Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde. “The president just used a Bible and one of the churches of my diocese as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and everything that our church stands for,” she said. But he had his campaign moment. In a video teleconference Monday morning, Trump scolded governors. “Most of you are weak,” he said. “It’s like a war. And we will end it fast. Be tough.” “You have to dominate” and “if you don’t dominate you’re wasting your time,” Trump said, demanding the protests be swiftly crushed, even as some warned that such an aggressive law enforcement response could lead to an escalation of violence. The president urged governors to make more use of the National Guard, which he credited for helping calm the situation Sunday night in Minneapolis. He demanded that similarly tough measures be taken in cities that also experienced spasms of violence, including New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. “You’re going to arrest all those people and you’re going to try them. And if they get five years or 10 years, they have to get five years or 10 years,” the president said. “So I say that, and the winners dominate.” Trump’s exhortations came after a night of escalating violence, with images of chaos overshadowing largely peaceful protests. The disturbances grew so heated Friday night that the Secret Service rushed the president to an underground White House bunker previously used during terrorist attacks. Some West Wing officials and political advisers have acknowledged that some of the president’s tweets have not been helpful, and they have been pushing Trump to acknowledge the pain of the peaceful protesters without lumping them in with the agitators he says are responsible for the violence. But another faction within the administration, including longtime law-and-order proponent Attorney General William Barr, has encouraged Trump’s instincts to focus on the group violence. The hope is such a posture can help Trump draw a contrast with Democrats who have been less vocal in their condemnation of the unrest. The West Wing had been mostly empty over the weekend. Many staffers were told to stay home to avoid the protests, chief of staff Mark Meadows was out of town celebrating his daughter’s wedding and senior adviser Jared Kushner was marking a Jewish holiday. Among the options being discussed in the White House: a new criminal justice reform package, a task force that would include Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson and a listening tour of African American communities, according to people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because nothing had been finalized. Democrats hammered Trump, accusing him of stirring the unrest. “Hate just hides. It doesn’t go away, and when you have somebody in power who breathes oxygen into the hate under the rocks, it comes out from under the rocks,” said the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at a church in Wilmington, Delaware. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump “struggles to summon even an ounce of humanity in this time of turmoil.” “The president has reacted to the pain and anger in the country by playing politics and encouraging police to be tougher on protesters by bragging about his reelection prospects and his personal safety inside the White House,” Schumer said. Long drawn to displays of strength, Trump and his advisers believe that the combative rhetoric and promises to send the military into cities will reassure voters, including senior citizens and suburban women, concerned by the lawlessness. Eager to change the narrative of the election, just five months away, from a referendum on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, Trump and his aides see a cultural war issue that could captivate his base. Full Coverage: America Protests Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a close ally of the president, said, “In the same way that he became the unlikeliest of champions for evangelicals and the faith community, he has it in him to do the same thing for the minority community.” Much as he has with the pandemic, Trump has tried to scapegoat the nation’s Democratic governors and mayors, much to their dismay. During the teleconference, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker bluntly told Trump that “the rhetoric that’s coming out of the White House is making it worse.” ___ Lemire reported from New York. Suderman reported from Richmond, Virginia. Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Darlene Superville, Kevin Freking and Michael Balsamo contributed reporting from Washington.

www.apnews.com

center

W5xVE5Xh9MYRMRaU

test

NN3WDWOfiMT1ezgt

fbi

Reason

https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/what-we-know-about-the-search-trump-lawy

Feds Raid Office of Trump Lawyer Who Paid Off Stormy Daniels. This Is a Big Deal.

2018-04-09

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

The very big news of the day : FBI agents raided the law office of Michael Cohen , President Donald Trump 's lawyer who was involved in payment of $ 130,000 to adult performer `` Stormy Daniels '' for a nondisclosure agreement . Some reports suggest they also raided his home . Recently I 've been listening to the podcast Slow Burn , about Watergate . There 's a fascinating theme throughout it : When you 're living a historical event , how do you know ? How can you tell when a development is a big deal ? This is a big deal . It 's very early on , but here 's some things we can already tell . 1 . According to Cohen 's own lawyer , the U.S. Attorney 's Office for the Southern District of New York ( widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney 's Office in the country ) secured the search warrants for the FBI , based on a referral from Robert Mueller 's office . Assuming this report is correct , that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney 's Office—not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's office—thought that there was enough for a search warrant here . 2 . Moreover , it 's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant . They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney 's office for that attorney 's client communications . That 's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice . The U.S. Attorney 's Manual ( USAM ) —at Section 9-13.320—contains the relevant policies and procedures . The highlights : The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures wo n't work . As the USAM puts it : In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships , prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law . Consideration should be given to obtaining information from other sources or through the use of a subpoena , unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution , or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence , or would otherwise be ineffective . Such a search requires high-level approval . The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. attorney—the head of the office , a presidential appointee—and requires `` consultation '' with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice . This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant . Such a search requires an elaborate review process . The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize , or review , attorney-client communications . The USAM—and relevant caselaw—therefore require the feds to set up a review process . That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged ( or what might fall within an exception to the privilege ) , or else set up a `` dirty team '' that does the review but is insulated from the `` clean team '' running the investigation . Another option is a `` special master , '' an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review . Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material . Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek , or to implement , a court ruling that the documents are not privileged . ( Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing ; he already sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul Manafort 's communications with his lawyers were not privileged because they were undertaken for the purpose of fraud—the so-called `` crime-fraud exception '' to the attorney-client privilege . ) 3 . A magistrate judge signed off on this . Federal magistrate judges ( appointed by local district judges , not by the president ) review search warrant applications . A magistrate judge therefore reviewed this application and found probable cause—that is , probable cause to believe that the subject premises ( Cohen 's office ) contains specified evidence of a specified federal crime . Now , magistrate judges sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste ( notably , recall the time that a magistrate judge signed off on a truly ludicrous gag order forbidding ███ from revealing that it had been served with a subpoena for information identifying commenters ) . But here , where the magistrate judge knew that this would become one of the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever , and because the nature of the warrant of an attorney 's office is unusual , you can expect that the magistrate judge felt pretty confident that there was enough there . 4 . The search warrant application ( the lengthy narrative from the FBI agent setting for the evidence ) is almost certainly still under seal , and even Michael Cohen does n't get to see it ( yet ) . But the FBI would have left the warrant itself—and that shows ( 1 ) the federal criminal statutes they were investigating , and ( 2 ) the list of items they wanted to seize . Much can be learned for those . Assuming Michael Cohen does n't release it , watch for it to be leaked . It 's early times . Watch for the search warrant itself—that will show us what crimes they are investigating and what documents they think are probative of that crime . Watch also for what Michael Cohen 's lawyers do in the struggle to compel arbitration with Stormy Daniels in a federal court in Los Angeles—the search warrant dramatically complicates whether Cohen can , or should , submit to any questions in that case . Be skeptical of the surge of misinformation and inaccurate legal takes that are certain to drop . But watch . This is historic . ( A version of this story originally appeared at the Popehat blog )

The very big news of the day: FBI agents raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's lawyer who was involved in payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a nondisclosure agreement. Some reports suggest they also raided his home. Recently I've been listening to the podcast Slow Burn, about Watergate. There's a fascinating theme throughout it: When you're living a historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a development is a big deal? This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we can already tell. 1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country) secured the search warrants for the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller's office. Assuming this report is correct, that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office—not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office—thought that there was enough for a search warrant here. 2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual (USAM)—at Section 9-13.320—contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights: The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures won't work. As the USAM puts it: In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be given to obtaining information from other sources or through the use of a subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective. Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. attorney—the head of the office, a presidential appointee—and requires "consultation" with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant. Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review, attorney-client communications. The USAM—and relevant caselaw—therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged. (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he already sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul Manafort's communications with his lawyers were not privileged because they were undertaken for the purpose of fraud—the so-called "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client privilege.) 3. A magistrate judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges (appointed by local district judges, not by the president) review search warrant applications. A magistrate judge therefore reviewed this application and found probable cause—that is, probable cause to believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains specified evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, magistrate judges sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste (notably, recall the time that a magistrate judge signed off on a truly ludicrous gag order forbidding Reason from revealing that it had been served with a subpoena for information identifying commenters). But here, where the magistrate judge knew that this would become one of the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and because the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual, you can expect that the magistrate judge felt pretty confident that there was enough there. 4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the FBI agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under seal, and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it (yet). But the FBI would have left the warrant itself—and that shows (1) the federal criminal statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked. Again: This is a big deal. It's early times. Watch for the search warrant itself—that will show us what crimes they are investigating and what documents they think are probative of that crime. Watch also for what Michael Cohen's lawyers do in the struggle to compel arbitration with Stormy Daniels in a federal court in Los Angeles—the search warrant dramatically complicates whether Cohen can, or should, submit to any questions in that case. Be skeptical of the surge of misinformation and inaccurate legal takes that are certain to drop. But watch. This is historic. (A version of this story originally appeared at the Popehat blog)

www.reason.com

right

NN3WDWOfiMT1ezgt

test

ru8kAxfdPzZc11le

fbi

Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-democrats/trump-blocks-release-of-russia-memo-drafted-by-democrats-idUSKBN1FT2NP

Trump blocks release of Russia memo drafted by Democrats

2018-02-10

Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - President Donald Trump on Friday blocked the release of a classified memo written by congressional Democrats to rebut a Republican document that he allowed to be made public last week that claimed FBI and Justice Department bias against him in the federal probe of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election . The Republican president ’ s decision — the latest controversy relating to an investigation that has hung over his year in office — infuriated Democrats . Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said , “ Millions of Americans are asking one simple question : what is he hiding ? ” White House Counsel Don McGahn said the Justice Department had identified portions of the 10-page memo written by Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee that “ would create especially significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests ” of the country . The White House also released a letter from the FBI director and the department ’ s No . 2 official voicing concern about its release in relation to protecting U.S. intelligence sources and methods . A week earlier , Trump had overruled similar objections from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department about releasing the memo written by the same committee ’ s Republican members that took aim at senior law enforcement officials . “ The president ’ s double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling , Schumer said . Trump on Feb. 2 allowed the release of the memo written by the committee ’ s Republicans with no redactions . Democrats said the Republican memo mischaracterized highly sensitive classified information and was intended to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation of potential collusion between Trump ’ s 2016 campaign and Russia . Mueller is also investigating whether Trump has committed obstruction of justice in trying to impede the Russia probe . McGahn said the president would be willing to reconsider the release of the memo if the committee decides to revise it “ to mitigate the risks ” identified by the Justice Department . The committee ’ s top Democrat , Adam Schiff , said the memo Trump blocked puts forth facts that the public needs to know , including that the FBI acted properly in seeking permission from a special court for surveillance of Carter Page , a Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia . Schiff said the committee ’ s Democrats “ take seriously ” the Justice Department and FBI concerns and will review their recommended redactions . He said he hopes the matter can be resolved quickly so the committee can return to the Russia investigation . The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on Monday to release the document drafted by the panel ’ s Democrats , contingent on the Republican president agreeing to reclassify it . “ Although the President is inclined to declassify the Feb. 5 Memorandum , because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages , he is unable to do so at this time , ” McGahn said in a letter to Devin Nunes , the Republican chairman of the House panel . The White House also released a letter sent to McGahn by FBI Director Christopher Wray and to Rod Rosenstein , the No . 2 Justice Department official , expressing concerns about the memo ’ s release “ in light of longstanding principles regarding the protection of intelligence sources and methods , ongoing investigations , and other similar sensitive information . ” Democratic Representative Ted Lieu wrote on Twitter that Trump ’ s action was outrageous , adding that he read the memo and is convinced that Trump “ is now intentionally hiding relevant information from the American people in order to mislead the public . An innocent person would not block the memo . ” The Republican memo portrayed the Russia investigation as a product of political bias at the FBI and Justice Department against Trump . The president said the document “ totally vindicates ” him in the Russia investigation , a claim disputed by Democrats and some Republicans . Democrats last week warned Trump against using the Republican memo as a pretext to fire Rosenstein , who hired Mueller and oversees the investigation , or to remove Mueller himself . The Republican memo singled out Rosenstein and several other officials by name , including former FBI Director James Comey , who Trump fired in May 2017 , as the agency investigated the Russia matter . U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington , U.S. February 9 , 2018 . ███/Jonathan Ernst U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign using hacking and propaganda , an effort that eventually included attempting to tilt the race in Trump ’ s favor . Russia denies interfering in the election . Trump denies collusion with Moscow . The Republican document asserted that a dossier of alleged Trump-Russia contacts compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele , and funded in part by U.S. Democrats , formed an “ essential part ” of requests to a special court to be allowed to conduct electronic surveillance on Page , an oil industry consultant with numerous contacts in Russia , that began in October 2016 .

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Friday blocked the release of a classified memo written by congressional Democrats to rebut a Republican document that he allowed to be made public last week that claimed FBI and Justice Department bias against him in the federal probe of Russia and the 2016 U.S. election. The Republican president’s decision — the latest controversy relating to an investigation that has hung over his year in office — infuriated Democrats. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said, “Millions of Americans are asking one simple question: what is he hiding?” White House Counsel Don McGahn said the Justice Department had identified portions of the 10-page memo written by Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee that “would create especially significant concerns for the national security and law enforcement interests” of the country. The White House also released a letter from the FBI director and the department’s No. 2 official voicing concern about its release in relation to protecting U.S. intelligence sources and methods. A week earlier, Trump had overruled similar objections from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department about releasing the memo written by the same committee’s Republican members that took aim at senior law enforcement officials. “The president’s double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling, Schumer said. Trump on Feb. 2 allowed the release of the memo written by the committee’s Republicans with no redactions. Democrats said the Republican memo mischaracterized highly sensitive classified information and was intended to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of potential collusion between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. Mueller is also investigating whether Trump has committed obstruction of justice in trying to impede the Russia probe. McGahn said the president would be willing to reconsider the release of the memo if the committee decides to revise it “to mitigate the risks” identified by the Justice Department. FBI SURVEILLANCE The committee’s top Democrat, Adam Schiff, said the memo Trump blocked puts forth facts that the public needs to know, including that the FBI acted properly in seeking permission from a special court for surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser with ties to Russia. Schiff said the committee’s Democrats “take seriously” the Justice Department and FBI concerns and will review their recommended redactions. He said he hopes the matter can be resolved quickly so the committee can return to the Russia investigation. The Intelligence Committee voted unanimously on Monday to release the document drafted by the panel’s Democrats, contingent on the Republican president agreeing to reclassify it. “Although the President is inclined to declassify the Feb. 5 Memorandum, because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages, he is unable to do so at this time,” McGahn said in a letter to Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House panel. The White House also released a letter sent to McGahn by FBI Director Christopher Wray and to Rod Rosenstein, the No. 2 Justice Department official, expressing concerns about the memo’s release “in light of longstanding principles regarding the protection of intelligence sources and methods, ongoing investigations, and other similar sensitive information.” Democratic Representative Ted Lieu wrote on Twitter that Trump’s action was outrageous, adding that he read the memo and is convinced that Trump “is now intentionally hiding relevant information from the American people in order to mislead the public. An innocent person would not block the memo.” The Republican memo portrayed the Russia investigation as a product of political bias at the FBI and Justice Department against Trump. The president said the document “totally vindicates” him in the Russia investigation, a claim disputed by Democrats and some Republicans. Democrats last week warned Trump against using the Republican memo as a pretext to fire Rosenstein, who hired Mueller and oversees the investigation, or to remove Mueller himself. The Republican memo singled out Rosenstein and several other officials by name, including former FBI Director James Comey, who Trump fired in May 2017, as the agency investigated the Russia matter. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. February 9, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Mueller took over the investigation from the FBI. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign using hacking and propaganda, an effort that eventually included attempting to tilt the race in Trump’s favor. Russia denies interfering in the election. Trump denies collusion with Moscow. The Republican document asserted that a dossier of alleged Trump-Russia contacts compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and funded in part by U.S. Democrats, formed an “essential part” of requests to a special court to be allowed to conduct electronic surveillance on Page, an oil industry consultant with numerous contacts in Russia, that began in October 2016.

www.reuters.com

center

ru8kAxfdPzZc11le

test

PrwFBoyAmwZ8fXzy

politics

BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45405757

Trump attacks Sessions over prosecutions of Republicans

US President Donald Trump has accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the justice department of damaging the re-election chances of two Republican representatives by prosecuting them . The move to file charges against the men had jeopardised `` easy wins '' in the mid-term elections , Mr Trump tweeted . One is accused of insider trading and the other of campaign violations . The tweet has sparked fresh criticism that Mr Trump is illegally seeking to interfere with the justice system . It is highly unusual for sitting presidents to lash out against attorneys general and to try to bring political considerations to bear on prosecution decisions . It comes ahead of the mid-term elections on 6 November . The Democrats are seeking to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans . Last month Representative Christopher Collins was charged with participating in an insider trading scheme . He has denied wrongdoing but said he would not seek re-election . Later in August Representative Duncan Hunter and his wife were indicted for allegedly using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses . They too deny the charges . Both men were early supporters of Mr Trump when he launched his bid for the presidency and was facing hostility from Republican congressional leaders . In a tweet , Mr Trump criticised the prosecution of `` two very popular Republican Congressmen '' . The investigation into Mr Hunter began under the presidency of Barack Obama , but the Collins inquiry was launched last year . The justice department has not commented on the tweet . But it has drawn fire from a number of critics , including Mr Trump 's fellow party members . Republican Senator Ben Sasse said the justice department should remain politically neutral in deciding whether or not to prosecute . `` The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice - one for the majority party and one for the minority party . These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence , not because of who the president was when the investigations began , '' he said . Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said : `` Now we have a president who has declared in the last 24 hours that the department of justice should n't prosecute Republicans . It 's Alice in Wonderland . '' US political scientist and columnist Brian Klass called Mr Trump 's outburst `` insane '' . Other critics argue that mid-term elections are not a good reason to delay prosecution . The president has been a vocal critic of the justice department and has frequently clashed with his attorney general . The criticism began in the early months of the administration last year , when Mr Sessions recused himself from investigations into claims that Russia tried to help Mr Trump win the 2016 election . The attorney general , a staunch conservative and early supporter of Mr Trump 's campaign , handed control to his deputy to avoid a potential conflict of interest . Mr Trump regarded that move as a `` betrayal '' . The deputy in turn appointed ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the inquiry , which the president has repeatedly called a `` witch hunt '' . Mr Trump is widely believed to have lost faith in Mr Sessions . In a recent interview with Bloomberg , he said : `` I do question what is Jeff doing . '' Asked if he would retain his attorney general beyond the midterms , he declined to comment . Donald Trump has questioned his attorney general 's decision not to be involved in the Russia investigation . Now he 's angry about investigations Mr Sessions is overseeing . While Mr Trump may be concerned that the justice department is taking legal actions unnecessarily close to a national election - something its guidelines caution against - his tweet constitutes yet another violation of standards of presidential conduct with regard to federal investigations that date back to the post-Watergate era . It also represents yet another swipe at what he has called his `` beleaguered '' attorney general . Although Mr Trump has said he wo n't review Mr Sessions ' job status until after the election , it 's hard to imagine the current level of tension lasting indefinitely . The problem for the president , however , is that with every hostile tweet he makes it that much harder to replace Mr Sessions . Who would want a job subjected to such pressure ? And what type of candidate who satisfies Mr Trump 's desire for loyalty would survive a Senate confirmation vote ? In what could be the president 's greatest trick , a recent poll showed that 75 % of Democrats support keeping the hard-core conservative Session on the job .

Image copyright AFP Image caption Jeff Sessions has been a frequent target of Mr Trump's very public ire US President Donald Trump has accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the justice department of damaging the re-election chances of two Republican representatives by prosecuting them. The move to file charges against the men had jeopardised "easy wins" in the mid-term elections, Mr Trump tweeted. One is accused of insider trading and the other of campaign violations. The tweet has sparked fresh criticism that Mr Trump is illegally seeking to interfere with the justice system. It is highly unusual for sitting presidents to lash out against attorneys general and to try to bring political considerations to bear on prosecution decisions. What's at stake? It comes ahead of the mid-term elections on 6 November. The Democrats are seeking to wrest control of the House of Representatives from the Republicans. Read more about America's November elections: Last month Representative Christopher Collins was charged with participating in an insider trading scheme. He has denied wrongdoing but said he would not seek re-election. Later in August Representative Duncan Hunter and his wife were indicted for allegedly using campaign funds to pay for personal expenses. They too deny the charges. Both men were early supporters of Mr Trump when he launched his bid for the presidency and was facing hostility from Republican congressional leaders. In a tweet, Mr Trump criticised the prosecution of "two very popular Republican Congressmen". The investigation into Mr Hunter began under the presidency of Barack Obama, but the Collins inquiry was launched last year. Banana republic? The justice department has not commented on the tweet. But it has drawn fire from a number of critics, including Mr Trump's fellow party members. Republican Senator Ben Sasse said the justice department should remain politically neutral in deciding whether or not to prosecute. "The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice - one for the majority party and one for the minority party. These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence, not because of who the president was when the investigations began," he said. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said: "Now we have a president who has declared in the last 24 hours that the department of justice shouldn't prosecute Republicans. It's Alice in Wonderland." US political scientist and columnist Brian Klass called Mr Trump's outburst "insane". Other critics argue that mid-term elections are not a good reason to delay prosecution. How have Trump's relations with Sessions soured? The president has been a vocal critic of the justice department and has frequently clashed with his attorney general. The criticism began in the early months of the administration last year, when Mr Sessions recused himself from investigations into claims that Russia tried to help Mr Trump win the 2016 election. The attorney general, a staunch conservative and early supporter of Mr Trump's campaign, handed control to his deputy to avoid a potential conflict of interest. Mr Trump regarded that move as a "betrayal". The deputy in turn appointed ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the inquiry, which the president has repeatedly called a "witch hunt". Mr Trump is widely believed to have lost faith in Mr Sessions. In a recent interview with Bloomberg, he said: "I do question what is Jeff doing." Asked if he would retain his attorney general beyond the midterms, he declined to comment. Donald Trump's problem Analysis by BBC's North America reporter Anthony Zurcher Donald Trump has questioned his attorney general's decision not to be involved in the Russia investigation. Now he's angry about investigations Mr Sessions is overseeing. While Mr Trump may be concerned that the justice department is taking legal actions unnecessarily close to a national election - something its guidelines caution against - his tweet constitutes yet another violation of standards of presidential conduct with regard to federal investigations that date back to the post-Watergate era. It also represents yet another swipe at what he has called his "beleaguered" attorney general. Although Mr Trump has said he won't review Mr Sessions' job status until after the election, it's hard to imagine the current level of tension lasting indefinitely. The problem for the president, however, is that with every hostile tweet he makes it that much harder to replace Mr Sessions. Who would want a job subjected to such pressure? And what type of candidate who satisfies Mr Trump's desire for loyalty would survive a Senate confirmation vote? In what could be the president's greatest trick, a recent poll showed that 75% of Democrats support keeping the hard-core conservative Session on the job. They may get their wish … for now.

www.bbc.com

center

PrwFBoyAmwZ8fXzy

test

BkKtiM8LVzm90zKq

national_defense

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/20/syria-kurds-trump-troop-withdrawal-isis-turkey

US Syria pullout draws Kurdish condemnation and Putin's praise

2018-12-20

Martin Chulov, Andrew Roth, Julian Borger

‘ Donald is right , ’ says Russian president , as US-backed Kurdish-led force warns fight against Islamic State not over The Kurdish force that has led the ground war against Islamic State in Syria has condemned the White House ’ s surprise decision to withdraw US troops from the country and claimed it will spark a revival of the terror group . The Syrian Democratic Forces , a group of Kurdish and Arab units raised by Washington specifically to fight Isis , said the US ’ s move would have “ dangerous implications for international stability ” . Donald Trump has told the Pentagon to extricate its estimated 2,000 troops as soon as possible , with a target of accomplishing the task in less than a 100 days , according to officials in Washington , but defence staff are trying to make the argument for more time and leaving a residual counter-terrorist force of a few hundred . Reuters reported on Thursday that the Trump administration was also planning to cut short the air war against Isis in Syria . An official told the news agency that a final decision had not been made . Trump stuck to his decision in the face of fierce criticism from within his own party on Thursday , but changed his justification . On Wednesday , he had argued that Isis was defeated . But 24 hours later , the US president said the withdrawal was to save US soldiers ’ lives and dollars . Donald Trump 's Syria withdrawal could reverberate for years Read more “ Why are we fighting for our enemy , Syria , by staying & killing ISIS for them , Russia , Iran & other locals ? , ” Trump asked on Twitter . “ Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong ! ” The planned US pullout was announced as Turkey was preparing to send its military into Syria to confront Kurdish militias that it says threaten its sovereignty . The US-backed Kurds are drawn from the same Kurdish groups – a point that has caused friction between Ankara and Washington throughout the four-year campaign against Isis . The SDF and the YPG , a partner Kurdish militia , described the move as a “ blatant betrayal ” . One Kurdish leader contacted by ███ said the fight against Isis in Syria ’ s far east would be abandoned immediately , and all SDF units on that front would redeploy closer to the Turkish border . The SDF responded to the announcement with a blunt statement . “ The war against Islamic State has not ended and Islamic State has not been defeated , ” it said . Any withdrawal would “ create a political and military vacuum in the area , leaving its people between the claws of hostile parties ” . Other Kurdish leaders said the mooted abandonment would cause damage to Kurdish movements elsewhere in the region . “ We have every right to be afraid , ” Arin Sheikmos , a Kurdish journalist and commentator , told the Associated Press . “ If the Americans pull out and leave us to the Turks or the [ Syrian ] regime , our destiny will be like the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991 . Neither the regime , nor Iran nor Turkey , will accept our presence here . ” By contrast , Vladimir Putin , the Russian president whose military intervened in the Syrian war in 2015 , turning the tide in favour of the Assad regime , welcomed the US move . Isis not defeated in Syria despite Trump claim , says UK Read more “ If the USA made that decision then it ’ s the right one , ” Putin said during a nationally televised press conference on Thursday , repeating complaints that US troop deployments in Syria were illegal because they were not agreed upon with the Assad government . He said he agreed with Trump that a “ serious blow ” had been struck against Isis , saying : “ Donald is right , I agree with him . ” US allies were not consulted before the announcement of the withdrawal , and have been scrambling since then to find out what it will mean in practice . Ministers from the UK and France , countries with their own special forces in northern Syria , have contradicted Trump ’ s assessment that Isis had been defeated . “ There is not just the real risk that it lets Daesh off the hook and allows them to re-establish some control , but it could mean foreign fighters held by the SDF are released , and the Iranians and Russians are left a free hand , ” a European official said . France has said its forces will remain in place and the country ’ s armed forces minister , Florence Parly , expressed French determination to fight on in Syria . “ Daesh [ Isis ] has lost more 90 % of its territory , ” Parly said on Twitter . “ But Daesh had not been cleared off the map , nor , for that matter , have its roots been cleared . The last pockets of this terrorist organisation must be beaten in a definitive manner by military means . ” However , the few hundred British and French troops in the area are dependent on US logistical support to operate and it would be very hard for them to stay after the US have left . At the UN , the UK ’ s ambassador , Karen Pierce , told the security council : “ Much remains to be done in the global campaign … and we must not lose sight of the threat Daesh continues to pose , even when they no longer hold territory . ” In August this year , the Pentagon assessed there were as many as 14,500 Isis fighters still in Syria . Trump ’ s order for a full , rapid withdrawal of more than 2,000 US troops from Syria , and his declaration of victory over Isis , left Pentagon and state department officials scrambling to interpret an abrupt change in course . In the summer , the policy was to keep forces in Syria to ensure the “ enduring defeat of Isis ” and act as a bulwark against Iranian influence . The move appeared to blindside Trump ’ s most senior officials , many of whom were invested in an ongoing partnership with the SDF . The US secretary of state , Mike Pompeo , on Thursday rejected reports that the president ’ s decision had come out of the blue . “ This was a decision that was made with lots of consultation between all the senior-level officials , including myself , with the president . So yes , did I – I had more than a heads-up , ” Pompeo told a radio show . Has Isis been defeated in Syria , as Trump claims ? Read more Administration officials had previously characterised the objective in Syria as “ the enduring defeat of Isis ” . Since Trump announced his decision , they have said it was the destruction of the “ territorial caliphate ” . Throughout the Syrian war , Turkey has prioritised managing Kurdish ambitions in Syria , and potential implications for its own Kurdish populations , above all else . Ankara sees the YPG in Syria as indistinguishable from Kurdish Workers ’ Party ( PKK ) militants inside Turkey . Ankara views the militant groups as dangerous subversives who threaten its borders despite Syria ’ s Kurds saying they have no interest in full autonomy , and the PKK having said it no longer aspires to an independent state .

‘Donald is right,’ says Russian president, as US-backed Kurdish-led force warns fight against Islamic State not over The Kurdish force that has led the ground war against Islamic State in Syria has condemned the White House’s surprise decision to withdraw US troops from the country and claimed it will spark a revival of the terror group. The Syrian Democratic Forces, a group of Kurdish and Arab units raised by Washington specifically to fight Isis, said the US’s move would have “dangerous implications for international stability”. Donald Trump has told the Pentagon to extricate its estimated 2,000 troops as soon as possible, with a target of accomplishing the task in less than a 100 days, according to officials in Washington, but defence staff are trying to make the argument for more time and leaving a residual counter-terrorist force of a few hundred. Reuters reported on Thursday that the Trump administration was also planning to cut short the air war against Isis in Syria. An official told the news agency that a final decision had not been made. Trump stuck to his decision in the face of fierce criticism from within his own party on Thursday, but changed his justification. On Wednesday, he had argued that Isis was defeated. But 24 hours later, the US president said the withdrawal was to save US soldiers’ lives and dollars. Donald Trump's Syria withdrawal could reverberate for years Read more “Why are we fighting for our enemy, Syria, by staying & killing ISIS for them, Russia, Iran & other locals?,” Trump asked on Twitter. “Time to focus on our Country & bring our youth back home where they belong!” The planned US pullout was announced as Turkey was preparing to send its military into Syria to confront Kurdish militias that it says threaten its sovereignty. The US-backed Kurds are drawn from the same Kurdish groups – a point that has caused friction between Ankara and Washington throughout the four-year campaign against Isis. The SDF and the YPG, a partner Kurdish militia, described the move as a “blatant betrayal”. One Kurdish leader contacted by the Guardian said the fight against Isis in Syria’s far east would be abandoned immediately, and all SDF units on that front would redeploy closer to the Turkish border. The SDF responded to the announcement with a blunt statement. “The war against Islamic State has not ended and Islamic State has not been defeated,” it said. Any withdrawal would “create a political and military vacuum in the area, leaving its people between the claws of hostile parties”. Other Kurdish leaders said the mooted abandonment would cause damage to Kurdish movements elsewhere in the region. “We have every right to be afraid,” Arin Sheikmos, a Kurdish journalist and commentator, told the Associated Press. “If the Americans pull out and leave us to the Turks or the [Syrian] regime, our destiny will be like the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan in 1991. Neither the regime, nor Iran nor Turkey, will accept our presence here.” By contrast, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president whose military intervened in the Syrian war in 2015, turning the tide in favour of the Assad regime, welcomed the US move. Isis not defeated in Syria despite Trump claim, says UK Read more “If the USA made that decision then it’s the right one,” Putin said during a nationally televised press conference on Thursday, repeating complaints that US troop deployments in Syria were illegal because they were not agreed upon with the Assad government. He said he agreed with Trump that a “serious blow” had been struck against Isis, saying: “Donald is right, I agree with him.” US allies were not consulted before the announcement of the withdrawal, and have been scrambling since then to find out what it will mean in practice. Ministers from the UK and France, countries with their own special forces in northern Syria, have contradicted Trump’s assessment that Isis had been defeated. “There is not just the real risk that it lets Daesh off the hook and allows them to re-establish some control, but it could mean foreign fighters held by the SDF are released, and the Iranians and Russians are left a free hand,” a European official said. France has said its forces will remain in place and the country’s armed forces minister, Florence Parly, expressed French determination to fight on in Syria. “Daesh [Isis] has lost more 90% of its territory,” Parly said on Twitter. “But Daesh had not been cleared off the map, nor, for that matter, have its roots been cleared. The last pockets of this terrorist organisation must be beaten in a definitive manner by military means.” However, the few hundred British and French troops in the area are dependent on US logistical support to operate and it would be very hard for them to stay after the US have left. At the UN, the UK’s ambassador, Karen Pierce, told the security council: “Much remains to be done in the global campaign … and we must not lose sight of the threat Daesh continues to pose, even when they no longer hold territory.” In August this year, the Pentagon assessed there were as many as 14,500 Isis fighters still in Syria. Trump’s order for a full, rapid withdrawal of more than 2,000 US troops from Syria, and his declaration of victory over Isis, left Pentagon and state department officials scrambling to interpret an abrupt change in course. In the summer, the policy was to keep forces in Syria to ensure the “enduring defeat of Isis” and act as a bulwark against Iranian influence. The move appeared to blindside Trump’s most senior officials, many of whom were invested in an ongoing partnership with the SDF. The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, on Thursday rejected reports that the president’s decision had come out of the blue. “This was a decision that was made with lots of consultation between all the senior-level officials, including myself, with the president. So yes, did I – I had more than a heads-up,” Pompeo told a radio show. Has Isis been defeated in Syria, as Trump claims? Read more Administration officials had previously characterised the objective in Syria as “the enduring defeat of Isis”. Since Trump announced his decision, they have said it was the destruction of the “territorial caliphate”. Throughout the Syrian war, Turkey has prioritised managing Kurdish ambitions in Syria, and potential implications for its own Kurdish populations, above all else. Ankara sees the YPG in Syria as indistinguishable from Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) militants inside Turkey. Ankara views the militant groups as dangerous subversives who threaten its borders despite Syria’s Kurds saying they have no interest in full autonomy, and the PKK having said it no longer aspires to an independent state.

www.theguardian.com

left

BkKtiM8LVzm90zKq

test

gsFwdzkSy4FOxW8F

media_bias

Reason

http://reason.com/archives/2017/02/05/fake-news-freakout

Fake News Freakout

2017-02-05

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

Anyone with a Facebook account this year likely witnessed a barrage of false , conspiracy-laden headlines . My news feed informed me that Hillary Clinton was gravely ill , was already dead , had a body double , and murdered dozens of people . ( It 's amazing what you can learn when you have the right friends . ) I also found out that President Barack Obama had worked his way through college as a gay prostitute . ( Who could blame him ? Columbia is very expensive ! ) Reeling after November 's unexpected loss to Donald Trump , Democrats have taken to blaming such `` fake news '' for that outcome . Trump won , the argument goes , because Americans were exposed to inaccurate information ; if only they 'd had the right info from the right people , voters would have made better choices . A Washington Post piece took the idea further , claiming that fake news stems from a `` sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton , helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy . '' In response to such heated calls , Facebook has started looking for ways to rid itself of the fakeries . Whether or not it 's to blame for Trump 's victory , fake news can be a problem . People who absorb inaccuracies will sometimes believe them and , worse , act on them . And once an inaccuracy gets lodged in a person 's head , it can be difficult to dislodge . The political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown that even when presented with authoritative facts , people will not merely refuse to change their incorrect beliefs ; in some instances they 'll double down on them . This is called the `` backfire '' effect . But it is far from clear that fake news has the sweeping effects that its critics charge . People have always put stock in dubious ideas , and the latest deluge of suspect headlines traversing the Internet smells more of continuity than it does of change . I have been studying political communication for more than a decade . Much of that time has been spent looking at conspiracy theories , why people believe them , and how they spread . What we know about how people interact with information—and misinformation—suggests that fake political news does n't affect people 's opinions nearly as much as is being insinuated . Where Political Beliefs Come From In the 1940s , the sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues explored how the media affects political views by comparing people 's opinions ( as measured by surveys ) to the news and advertisements they were exposed to . The investigators expected to find evidence that media messages had immediate , powerful , and intuitive effects on people 's political views . Instead , they found that opinions were largely stable and invariant to media messages . You could face a barrage of the Madison Avenue pitches proclaiming the virtues of either President Franklin Roosevelt or his Republican challenger , but if six months in advance you were inclined to vote for one of those men , in November that was who you 'd probably vote for . Very few people changed their preferences over the course of the campaign . The same finding held throughout the broadcast era : There was very little relationship between people 's intended choices and the messaging they encountered . Whatever change did occur usually took the form of people aligning their candidate preferences with their underlying party affiliation . External events and economic conditions mattered , of course , but they tended to make their impact regardless of messaging . This is not to say that news , advertisements , and campaigns have no effects . But those effects tend to be less direct and of lower magnitude than people assume . Over the last few decades , as media markets segmented , the ratings for the three traditional broadcast news programs have declined and people have sought out other entertainment options . For those who enjoy and seek out political news , market segmentation allowed them to gravitate toward messages that gratified their beliefs . Republicans tuned in to Fox News ; Democrats preferred MSNBC . People tended to avoid news they disagreed with—and when they nonetheless did encounter a message that they rejected a priori , they found ways to discount it or to interpret it in a manner that made it congruent with their pre-existing opinions . Political scientists Katherine Einstein and David Glick recently published the results of an experiment showing that Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics ' unemployment numbers were faked or misleading . The experiment took place during the Obama administration , so it was no surprise that Democrats resisted the idea that the numbers were false while Republicans could not accept that unemployment was going down . People hear what they want to hear . This is consistent with broader findings on partisanship . The first major statement of these data was The American Voter , a 1960 book by a team of scholars at the University of Michigan . During their formative years , the authors concluded , people are socialized into their ideologies and partisan loyalties by their parents , family , schools , friends , religion , media , and many other sources . Their views may evolve as they mature , but by the time a person hits her 30s , her political identity has usually solidified . Candidates , elections , and issues will come and go , but people 's political identities will probably not change . These underlying attitudes determine how people vote . Thus , despite the remarkably low favorability numbers that both major-party candidates enjoyed in 2016 , about 90 percent of Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton and about 90 percent of Republicans voted for Donald Trump . There were few defectors . Partisanship and ideology color how people interpret information . Democrats look at the current unemployment rate of 4.9 percent and conclude that Barack Obama has done a great job on the economy . Republicans see that same number and conclude it is either improperly calculated or , worse , a hoax . Same information , different interpretations . Perhaps my favorite example of this occurred when Herman Cain ran for the Republican presidential nomination . His successful tenure as CEO of Godfather 's Pizza was a primary talking point on the campaign trail . Coincidentally , YouGov 's BrandIndex already happened to be surveying the public about the restaurant 's brand favorability . When Cain 's campaign began , Republicans and Democrats viewed the pizza chain similarly , but as the country learned about Cain , opinions of Godfather 's polarized : Democrats began to view the chain more negatively while Republicans did the opposite . By the height of Cain 's popularity in late 2011 , Republicans and Democrats differed by 25 points ( on a scale ranging from -100 to 100 ) in their view of the company . It was the same pizza , but suddenly people 's political loyalties played a major role in determining how much they liked it . What does this mean for fake news ? When my father-in-law read on Facebook that Barack Obama once worked as a gay prostitute , it did not change his view of the president . He was already convinced that Obama had a shrouded past and that the president did not share his values . The prostitution story reinforced my father-in-law 's views , but it did not create them . Fake political news tends to preach to the choir . Has the Internet Really Made the Problem Worse ? Aha , you might object , but the internet has changed all that . The old gatekeepers have been wiped away , and we are flooded like never before by misinformation , disinformation , and dubious claims of all kinds . Surely that poses an unprecedented threat . As the New York Daily News breathlessly declared a few years ago , `` It 's official : America is becoming a conspiratocracy . The tendency for a small slice of the population to believe in devious plots has always been with us . But conspiracies have never spread this swiftly across the country . They have never lodged this deeply in the American psyche . And they have never found as receptive an audience . '' My research into conspiracy theories suggests we should be suspicious of such claims . `` Fake news '' and `` conspiracy theories '' are not precisely the same thing—not all fake news stories involve conspiracies , and for that matter not all conspiracy claims are fake—but they overlap enough that what we 've learned about one can inform how we react to the other . Much fake news is sold and consumed on the premise that mainstream outlets cover up important information that is only available through alternative sources . Contrary to many people 's expectations , the internet does not appear to have made conspiracy thinking more common . In a study of letters to the editor of The New York Times , my coauthor Joseph Parent and I found that over time , conspiracy theorizing has in fact declined . There have been spikes in the past—in the 1890s , when fear was focused on corporate trusts , and in the 1950s , during the Red Scare—but there does not seem to be such a surge now . Yes , thanks to Trump ( and to some extent Bernie Sanders ) our political and media elites are discussing conspiracy theories much more frequently . But that does n't mean people are believing them more than they did in , say , 2012 . If anything , Trump 's conspiracy theories follow trends that already existed : His conspiracy theories about foreigners and foreign governments play to fears that people already had . ( Our data show that Americans have always possessed a fondness for scapegoating foreigners . ) Furthermore , conspiracy theories may feature more prominently in societies that are less connected to the internet . While survey data is hard to collect in closed societies , political scientist Scott Radnitz 's research into post-communist countries suggests that conspiracy theorizing is very common there and used as a political tool for coalition formation , particularly in times of uncertainty . Political scientists Stephanie Ortmann and John Heathershaw have also noted `` that anyone recently doing social science or humanities research on the [ post-Soviet space ] will have come across conspiracy theories , '' and that in Russia and other post-communist countries conspiracy theories function as the `` official discourses of state power . '' In Africa , where levels of internet connectivity are much lower than in the U.S. , conspiracy theories about disease , western medicine , and genetically modified crops abound . Economist Nicoli Nattrass ' research shows both the prominence and terrible consequences of AIDS conspiracy theories : With government policy reflecting popular conspiracy beliefs , hundreds of thousands of South Africans either were needlessly infected or died prematurely from the virus . The idea that fake news from social media is radically transforming Americans ' political attitudes relies on several dubious assumptions about people , the internet , and people 's behavior on the internet . Dubious assumption No . 1 : In the past , false ideas did not travel far or fast , but social media allow such ideas to be adopted by many more people today . The internet does allow news , real or fake , to travel faster than ever before . But false rumors traveled widely long before networked personal computers were a significant part of our media landscape . What Gen Xer did n't hear about Richard Gere and the gerbil , or how Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen in EPCOT ? Conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy circulated long before social media , hitting their apex just as the internet was starting to reach a mass audience in the 1990s . Since social media emerged , belief in JFK conspiracy theories has gone down about 20 percentage points . Furthermore , search patterns suggest that the most popular conspiracy theories of the internet era owe their popularity not to the net itself but to more familiar influences . Instead of the herding patterns you 'd expect if people were just indiscriminately transmitting ideas from one person to the next , we see patterns that suggest people are following the ideas of elites they trust . Searches for `` Obama birth certificate , '' for example , show three spikes in interest : in 2008 , 2011 , and 2016 . The jump in 2008 was largely due to the mainstream attention given to the theory during and after the election , and those in 2011 and 2016 were due to discussions by Donald Trump . Compare that to nonpolitical but equally dubious ideas , such as the New Age concept of `` mindfulness . '' They show an almost linear pattern : A few people like the idea , then other people think the idea is worthwhile , then more people , and so forth . Dubious assumption No . 2 : People 's views are easily pliable , and can be altered by nothing more than reading a webpage or receiving a communication on social media . People are not easily convinced by new information . Casey Klofstad , Matthew Atkinson , and I learned this when we attempted , in a study published in 2016 , to convince experimental subjects of a conspiracy theory involving the media . We found that people who already believed that the media was conspiring against them were not affected by the new information : They already believed it , and new info would not do much to convince them more . The people not inclined to buy into the conspiracy were not affected either . In fact , the only people we could get to believe in our media conspiracy were those who had no inclination to believe or not believe it in the first place—which were very few people . This helps explain why most conspiracy theories run into a ceiling . In the U.S. , most partisan conspiracies ca n't seem to convince more than 25 percent of the population , because in order to buy into such a theory , you need to be inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and you need to have partisan inclinations that match this particular theory 's logic . ( Birther theories could not convince the fans of Barack Obama , while 9/11 truther theories had a tough time with the fans of George W . Bush . ) Even if the internet allows fake news to reach larger audiences than ever before , that does n't mean most people will be inclined to accept it . Dubious assumption No . 3 : Most people actively access conspiracy theories and fake news on the web . It is often assumed that because dubious web pages are available in the dark corners of the net , people will automatically seek them out . In fact , most people do n't . The web is largely a reflection of the real world , and just because something is posted somewhere does n't mean anyone cares . There are almost half a million recipes for duck confit on the internet ; hardly anyone is racing home to cook duck confit tonight . People do n't seek out conspiratorial or other dubious information on the web nearly as much as they do more mainstream news sources . The New York Times is currently ranked 21st in the U.S. for website traffic , according to the analytics company Alexa . InfoWars , the most popular conspiracy website in the rankings , is at No . 318 . People go to the internet to do all sorts of things ; getting fake news is at the bottom of the list . It 's true , of course , that people do n't necessarily need to go looking for fake news to find it . All sorts of headlines can be dumped into your Facebook or Twitter feed , whether you read the story or not , and these headlines may impact your views . At the same time , people have much more control over their information environment than ever before . They choose who they friend or follow—in some cases because of their politics—and this affects which advertisers try to reach them . So even the fake news you passively receive is at least somewhat shaped by what messages you are already likely to agree with . Dubious assumption No . 4 : The Internet largely serves to propagate misinformation . At the same time that the internet has given voice to peddlers of misinformation , it has also given larger voices to authoritative sources of information as well . Fact-checking outlets have multiplied in recent years , and there are many websites—such as Snopes.com—that seek out and debunk popular rumors . Rather than relying on village wisdom , you can get expert information directly from doctors , lawyers , government officials , and others on thousands of sites . Google `` sunburn , '' and you 'll find out quickly that rubbing butter on it , like my grandmother used to do to me , is not a good idea . Steve Clarke of Charles Sturt University in Australia has even made the case that the `` hyper-critical atmosphere of the internet '' has actually `` slowed down the development of conspiracy theories , discouraging conspiracy theorists from articulating explicit versions of their favoured theories . '' Clarke used the `` controlled demolition '' theory that explosives were used to help bring down the twin towers on 9/11 to demonstrate that while the internet has `` aided in the dissemination '' of that story , it also appears `` to have retarded its development . '' Since the internet emerged , the empirical claims that conspiracy theorists make can be disputed right away . The internet can quickly put claims to the test and see if there 's any truth to them , and it allows experts to quickly weigh in on debates . If conspiracy theorists ' claims are debunked , that news also travels fast . And that would n't have been the case in the past . The internet acts as an incubator for fake news , but it also acts as the antidote . First Do No Harm So while fake news is a problem , it is neither new nor bigger than ever before . And some of the solutions being suggested to combat it may be worse than the disease . Cracking down on fake news runs the risk of restricting true news as well . Some sites ' contents are fully fake : They traffic in outright hoaxes and nothing else . But there are also outlets that have some tether to truth but serve as little more than ideological propaganda . Still other places are widely considered legitimate news sources but occasionally report biased , distorted , or flatly inaccurate information . In the time since Election Day , all of the above have been lumped together as `` fake news . '' How can Facebook or any other platform decide which outlets , headlines , and stories are true and which ones are not ? There is no guarantee that anyone ( or any algorithm ) could effectively differentiate true from false , and attempts to do so would likely remove some real news , even if only unintentionally . If we ban new and controversial ideas without allowing them to be poked and prodded in the open marketplace , how can society fully test the veracity of what we currently hold to be true ? Take an example from the recent campaign . In the lead-up to November 8 , several right-wing websites reported that Donald Trump was winning the electoral map . Since those claims did not match with the predictions made by the professional pollsters , those sites ' claims were deemed fake . But after the vote , those `` fake '' predictions turned out to be no less wrong than the predictions made by the pros—and at least they called the winner correctly . The point is n't that we should put more stock in fringe websites than in , say , Nate Silver . It 's just that deciding what is true or false can be more tricky than it at first appears . If someone tells you otherwise , watch out : He just might be a fake .

Anyone with a Facebook account this year likely witnessed a barrage of false, conspiracy-laden headlines. My news feed informed me that Hillary Clinton was gravely ill, was already dead, had a body double, and murdered dozens of people. (It's amazing what you can learn when you have the right friends.) I also found out that President Barack Obama had worked his way through college as a gay prostitute. (Who could blame him? Columbia is very expensive!) Reeling after November's unexpected loss to Donald Trump, Democrats have taken to blaming such "fake news" for that outcome. Trump won, the argument goes, because Americans were exposed to inaccurate information; if only they'd had the right info from the right people, voters would have made better choices. A Washington Post piece took the idea further, claiming that fake news stems from a "sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy." In response to such heated calls, Facebook has started looking for ways to rid itself of the fakeries. Whether or not it's to blame for Trump's victory, fake news can be a problem. People who absorb inaccuracies will sometimes believe them and, worse, act on them. And once an inaccuracy gets lodged in a person's head, it can be difficult to dislodge. The political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown that even when presented with authoritative facts, people will not merely refuse to change their incorrect beliefs; in some instances they'll double down on them. This is called the "backfire" effect. But it is far from clear that fake news has the sweeping effects that its critics charge. People have always put stock in dubious ideas, and the latest deluge of suspect headlines traversing the Internet smells more of continuity than it does of change. I have been studying political communication for more than a decade. Much of that time has been spent looking at conspiracy theories, why people believe them, and how they spread. What we know about how people interact with information—and misinformation—suggests that fake political news doesn't affect people's opinions nearly as much as is being insinuated. Where Political Beliefs Come From In the 1940s, the sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues explored how the media affects political views by comparing people's opinions (as measured by surveys) to the news and advertisements they were exposed to. The investigators expected to find evidence that media messages had immediate, powerful, and intuitive effects on people's political views. Instead, they found that opinions were largely stable and invariant to media messages. You could face a barrage of the Madison Avenue pitches proclaiming the virtues of either President Franklin Roosevelt or his Republican challenger, but if six months in advance you were inclined to vote for one of those men, in November that was who you'd probably vote for. Very few people changed their preferences over the course of the campaign. The same finding held throughout the broadcast era: There was very little relationship between people's intended choices and the messaging they encountered. Whatever change did occur usually took the form of people aligning their candidate preferences with their underlying party affiliation. External events and economic conditions mattered, of course, but they tended to make their impact regardless of messaging. This is not to say that news, advertisements, and campaigns have no effects. But those effects tend to be less direct and of lower magnitude than people assume. Over the last few decades, as media markets segmented, the ratings for the three traditional broadcast news programs have declined and people have sought out other entertainment options. For those who enjoy and seek out political news, market segmentation allowed them to gravitate toward messages that gratified their beliefs. Republicans tuned in to Fox News; Democrats preferred MSNBC. People tended to avoid news they disagreed with—and when they nonetheless did encounter a message that they rejected a priori, they found ways to discount it or to interpret it in a manner that made it congruent with their pre-existing opinions. Political scientists Katherine Einstein and David Glick recently published the results of an experiment showing that Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment numbers were faked or misleading. The experiment took place during the Obama administration, so it was no surprise that Democrats resisted the idea that the numbers were false while Republicans could not accept that unemployment was going down. People hear what they want to hear. This is consistent with broader findings on partisanship. The first major statement of these data was The American Voter, a 1960 book by a team of scholars at the University of Michigan. During their formative years, the authors concluded, people are socialized into their ideologies and partisan loyalties by their parents, family, schools, friends, religion, media, and many other sources. Their views may evolve as they mature, but by the time a person hits her 30s, her political identity has usually solidified. Candidates, elections, and issues will come and go, but people's political identities will probably not change. These underlying attitudes determine how people vote. Thus, despite the remarkably low favorability numbers that both major-party candidates enjoyed in 2016, about 90 percent of Democrats voted for Hillary Clinton and about 90 percent of Republicans voted for Donald Trump. There were few defectors. Partisanship and ideology color how people interpret information. Democrats look at the current unemployment rate of 4.9 percent and conclude that Barack Obama has done a great job on the economy. Republicans see that same number and conclude it is either improperly calculated or, worse, a hoax. Same information, different interpretations. Perhaps my favorite example of this occurred when Herman Cain ran for the Republican presidential nomination. His successful tenure as CEO of Godfather's Pizza was a primary talking point on the campaign trail. Coincidentally, YouGov's BrandIndex already happened to be surveying the public about the restaurant's brand favorability. When Cain's campaign began, Republicans and Democrats viewed the pizza chain similarly, but as the country learned about Cain, opinions of Godfather's polarized: Democrats began to view the chain more negatively while Republicans did the opposite. By the height of Cain's popularity in late 2011, Republicans and Democrats differed by 25 points (on a scale ranging from -100 to 100) in their view of the company. It was the same pizza, but suddenly people's political loyalties played a major role in determining how much they liked it. What does this mean for fake news? When my father-in-law read on Facebook that Barack Obama once worked as a gay prostitute, it did not change his view of the president. He was already convinced that Obama had a shrouded past and that the president did not share his values. The prostitution story reinforced my father-in-law's views, but it did not create them. Fake political news tends to preach to the choir. Has the Internet Really Made the Problem Worse? Aha, you might object, but the internet has changed all that. The old gatekeepers have been wiped away, and we are flooded like never before by misinformation, disinformation, and dubious claims of all kinds. Surely that poses an unprecedented threat. As the New York Daily News breathlessly declared a few years ago, "It's official: America is becoming a conspiratocracy. The tendency for a small slice of the population to believe in devious plots has always been with us. But conspiracies have never spread this swiftly across the country. They have never lodged this deeply in the American psyche. And they have never found as receptive an audience." My research into conspiracy theories suggests we should be suspicious of such claims. "Fake news" and "conspiracy theories" are not precisely the same thing—not all fake news stories involve conspiracies, and for that matter not all conspiracy claims are fake—but they overlap enough that what we've learned about one can inform how we react to the other. Much fake news is sold and consumed on the premise that mainstream outlets cover up important information that is only available through alternative sources. Contrary to many people's expectations, the internet does not appear to have made conspiracy thinking more common. In a study of letters to the editor of The New York Times, my coauthor Joseph Parent and I found that over time, conspiracy theorizing has in fact declined. There have been spikes in the past—in the 1890s, when fear was focused on corporate trusts, and in the 1950s, during the Red Scare—but there does not seem to be such a surge now. Yes, thanks to Trump (and to some extent Bernie Sanders) our political and media elites are discussing conspiracy theories much more frequently. But that doesn't mean people are believing them more than they did in, say, 2012. If anything, Trump's conspiracy theories follow trends that already existed: His conspiracy theories about foreigners and foreign governments play to fears that people already had. (Our data show that Americans have always possessed a fondness for scapegoating foreigners.) Furthermore, conspiracy theories may feature more prominently in societies that are less connected to the internet. While survey data is hard to collect in closed societies, political scientist Scott Radnitz's research into post-communist countries suggests that conspiracy theorizing is very common there and used as a political tool for coalition formation, particularly in times of uncertainty. Political scientists Stephanie Ortmann and John Heathershaw have also noted "that anyone recently doing social science or humanities research on the [post-Soviet space] will have come across conspiracy theories," and that in Russia and other post-communist countries conspiracy theories function as the "official discourses of state power." In Africa, where levels of internet connectivity are much lower than in the U.S., conspiracy theories about disease, western medicine, and genetically modified crops abound. Economist Nicoli Nattrass' research shows both the prominence and terrible consequences of AIDS conspiracy theories: With government policy reflecting popular conspiracy beliefs, hundreds of thousands of South Africans either were needlessly infected or died prematurely from the virus. The idea that fake news from social media is radically transforming Americans' political attitudes relies on several dubious assumptions about people, the internet, and people's behavior on the internet. Dubious assumption No. 1: In the past, false ideas did not travel far or fast, but social media allow such ideas to be adopted by many more people today. The internet does allow news, real or fake, to travel faster than ever before. But false rumors traveled widely long before networked personal computers were a significant part of our media landscape. What Gen Xer didn't hear about Richard Gere and the gerbil, or how Walt Disney is cryogenically frozen in EPCOT? Conspiracy theories about the assassination of John F. Kennedy circulated long before social media, hitting their apex just as the internet was starting to reach a mass audience in the 1990s. Since social media emerged, belief in JFK conspiracy theories has gone down about 20 percentage points. Furthermore, search patterns suggest that the most popular conspiracy theories of the internet era owe their popularity not to the net itself but to more familiar influences. Instead of the herding patterns you'd expect if people were just indiscriminately transmitting ideas from one person to the next, we see patterns that suggest people are following the ideas of elites they trust. Searches for "Obama birth certificate," for example, show three spikes in interest: in 2008, 2011, and 2016. The jump in 2008 was largely due to the mainstream attention given to the theory during and after the election, and those in 2011 and 2016 were due to discussions by Donald Trump. Compare that to nonpolitical but equally dubious ideas, such as the New Age concept of "mindfulness." They show an almost linear pattern: A few people like the idea, then other people think the idea is worthwhile, then more people, and so forth. Dubious assumption No. 2: People's views are easily pliable, and can be altered by nothing more than reading a webpage or receiving a communication on social media. People are not easily convinced by new information. Casey Klofstad, Matthew Atkinson, and I learned this when we attempted, in a study published in 2016, to convince experimental subjects of a conspiracy theory involving the media. We found that people who already believed that the media was conspiring against them were not affected by the new information: They already believed it, and new info would not do much to convince them more. The people not inclined to buy into the conspiracy were not affected either. In fact, the only people we could get to believe in our media conspiracy were those who had no inclination to believe or not believe it in the first place—which were very few people. This helps explain why most conspiracy theories run into a ceiling. In the U.S., most partisan conspiracies can't seem to convince more than 25 percent of the population, because in order to buy into such a theory, you need to be inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and you need to have partisan inclinations that match this particular theory's logic. (Birther theories could not convince the fans of Barack Obama, while 9/11 truther theories had a tough time with the fans of George W. Bush.) Even if the internet allows fake news to reach larger audiences than ever before, that doesn't mean most people will be inclined to accept it. Dubious assumption No. 3: Most people actively access conspiracy theories and fake news on the web. It is often assumed that because dubious web pages are available in the dark corners of the net, people will automatically seek them out. In fact, most people don't. The web is largely a reflection of the real world, and just because something is posted somewhere doesn't mean anyone cares. There are almost half a million recipes for duck confit on the internet; hardly anyone is racing home to cook duck confit tonight. People don't seek out conspiratorial or other dubious information on the web nearly as much as they do more mainstream news sources. The New York Times is currently ranked 21st in the U.S. for website traffic, according to the analytics company Alexa. InfoWars, the most popular conspiracy website in the rankings, is at No. 318. People go to the internet to do all sorts of things; getting fake news is at the bottom of the list. It's true, of course, that people don't necessarily need to go looking for fake news to find it. All sorts of headlines can be dumped into your Facebook or Twitter feed, whether you read the story or not, and these headlines may impact your views. At the same time, people have much more control over their information environment than ever before. They choose who they friend or follow—in some cases because of their politics—and this affects which advertisers try to reach them. So even the fake news you passively receive is at least somewhat shaped by what messages you are already likely to agree with. Dubious assumption No. 4: The Internet largely serves to propagate misinformation. At the same time that the internet has given voice to peddlers of misinformation, it has also given larger voices to authoritative sources of information as well. Fact-checking outlets have multiplied in recent years, and there are many websites—such as Snopes.com—that seek out and debunk popular rumors. Rather than relying on village wisdom, you can get expert information directly from doctors, lawyers, government officials, and others on thousands of sites. Google "sunburn," and you'll find out quickly that rubbing butter on it, like my grandmother used to do to me, is not a good idea. Steve Clarke of Charles Sturt University in Australia has even made the case that the "hyper-critical atmosphere of the internet" has actually "slowed down the development of conspiracy theories, discouraging conspiracy theorists from articulating explicit versions of their favoured theories." Clarke used the "controlled demolition" theory that explosives were used to help bring down the twin towers on 9/11 to demonstrate that while the internet has "aided in the dissemination" of that story, it also appears "to have retarded its development." Since the internet emerged, the empirical claims that conspiracy theorists make can be disputed right away. The internet can quickly put claims to the test and see if there's any truth to them, and it allows experts to quickly weigh in on debates. If conspiracy theorists' claims are debunked, that news also travels fast. And that wouldn't have been the case in the past. The internet acts as an incubator for fake news, but it also acts as the antidote. First Do No Harm So while fake news is a problem, it is neither new nor bigger than ever before. And some of the solutions being suggested to combat it may be worse than the disease. Cracking down on fake news runs the risk of restricting true news as well. Some sites' contents are fully fake: They traffic in outright hoaxes and nothing else. But there are also outlets that have some tether to truth but serve as little more than ideological propaganda. Still other places are widely considered legitimate news sources but occasionally report biased, distorted, or flatly inaccurate information. In the time since Election Day, all of the above have been lumped together as "fake news." How can Facebook or any other platform decide which outlets, headlines, and stories are true and which ones are not? There is no guarantee that anyone (or any algorithm) could effectively differentiate true from false, and attempts to do so would likely remove some real news, even if only unintentionally. If we ban new and controversial ideas without allowing them to be poked and prodded in the open marketplace, how can society fully test the veracity of what we currently hold to be true? Take an example from the recent campaign. In the lead-up to November 8, several right-wing websites reported that Donald Trump was winning the electoral map. Since those claims did not match with the predictions made by the professional pollsters, those sites' claims were deemed fake. But after the vote, those "fake" predictions turned out to be no less wrong than the predictions made by the pros—and at least they called the winner correctly. The point isn't that we should put more stock in fringe websites than in, say, Nate Silver. It's just that deciding what is true or false can be more tricky than it at first appears. If someone tells you otherwise, watch out: He just might be a fake.

www.reason.com

right

gsFwdzkSy4FOxW8F

test