Split (3)

train · 29.3k rows

topic stringclasses 108 values	source stringclasses 479 values	bias class label 3 classes	url stringlengths 24 422	title stringlengths 5 255	date stringlengths 0 10	authors stringlengths 0 184	content stringlengths 131 54k	content_original stringlengths 1.71k 62.4k	source_url stringclasses 467 values	bias_text class label 3 classes	ID stringlengths 16 16
immigration	CBS News	00	http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/11/14/report-reid-wants-obama-to-delay-immigration-executive-orders/	Report: Reid Wants Obama To Delay Immigration Executive Orders	2014-11-14		WASHINGTON ( CBSDC/AP ) — President Barack Obama is poised to act soon to unveil a series of executive actions on immigration that will shield possibly around 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally from deportation , according to advocates in touch with the White House . The estimate includes extending deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years . The president is also likely to expand his 2-year-old program that protects young immigrants from deportation . Timing of the announcement is unclear , though it ’ s expected before the end of the year . White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama would review final recommendations after returning from his Asia trip next week . CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the president to delay his executive order on immigration over fears of a government shutdown . “ Things are so tense here that the Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid told our Ted Barrett that he has asked the president to hold off on an executive order on immigration , until , in the words of Reid , ‘ the finances of this country are out of the way. ’ Translation : do it too soon and risk a government shutdown , ” CNN chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported . Bash added : “ The other issue at play here is that funding for the government runs out on December 11th and that is why , again , Harry Reid told our Ted Barrett that he wants the president to hold off on this executive order after that because … they don ’ t want to deal with the government shutdown on either side of the aisle . ” Congressional Republicans are strongly opposed to Obama ’ s plans , and as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill this week following midterm elections in which the GOP retook the Senate , they vowed to oppose him . “ We ’ re going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path . This is the wrong way to govern . This is exactly what the American people said on Election Day they didn ’ t want , ” House Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio , said Thursday . “ And so , all the options are on the table . ” Some conservatives in the House and Senate announced plans to push for language in must-pass spending bills to block the president from acting . But other Republicans warned that such a push could result in another government shutdown like the one last year over Obama ’ s health care plan . “ My sense is that the vast majority of us want to do everything we can to stop it , but also want to avoid outcomes that would prove bad for the country as a whole , ” said Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla . It wasn ’ t clear , though , what other options Republicans had . Traveling in Asia , Obama said Friday Congress could simply undo his executive actions by passing comprehensive immigration legislation . “ I would advise that if in fact they want to take a different approach , rather than devote a lot of time trying to constrain my lawful actions as the chief executive of the U.S. government in charge of enforcing our immigrations laws , that they spend some time passing a bill , ” he said during a news conference in Yangon , Myanmar . The immigration advocates , who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement , said that final details of the plan remained in flux . But the White House is likely to include parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents , stipulating that they ’ ve resided in the U.S. for some period of time — possibly as little as five years . That group totals around 3.8 million people , according to the Migration Policy Institute . Although Obama is not able to grant citizenship or permanent resident green cards on his own without Congress , he can offer temporary protection from deportation along with work authorization , as he has done in the past . Adjustments also are expected to the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that allowed immigrants under 31 who had arrived before June 2007 to apply for a reprieve from deportation and a work permit . More than 600,000 young immigrants have been shielded from deportation to date under the program . Removing the upper age limit so that applicants don ’ t have to be under 31 — one option under consideration — would make an additional 200,000 people eligible . There may also be tweaks to business visa programs to speed up visas or make more available for high-tech workers or others . Changes are also expected on the law enforcement side , including to a controversial program called Secure Communities that hands over people booked for local crimes to federal immigration authorities . A former administration official with knowledge of the plans said the Secure Communities program would be eliminated or at least renamed , although some of the concepts would remain . Priorities for immigrants to be picked up by immigration authorities will also be revised to eliminate some of the less serious conduct that previously would have caused someone to be detained , said the former official , who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private details . In an interview on CBS ’ “ Face The Nation ” Sunday , Obama said he would prefer to sign comprehensive immigration legislation like the bill passed last year by the Senate . But absent that , “ I am going to do what I can do through executive action. ” He said the Homeland Security Department is “ deporting people who don ’ t need to be deported . ” Advocates are gearing up to embrace the long-sought changes , which Obama has delayed twice , most recently under pressure from Senate Democrats concerned about the midterm elections . At the same time they intend to keep pushing for wider protections and a legislative solution . “ This is definitely a step in the right direction and we would still encourage the administration to go even bigger than the estimated 5 million , ” said Kica Matos , of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement . “ This is a temporary fix and Republicans need to understand that the immigrant rights movement intends to wage a ferocious fight until we have permanent solution and that is through legislation . ” ( TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries . CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license . All Rights Reserved . This material may not be published , broadcast , rewritten , or redistributed . The Associated Press contributed to this report . )	WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — President Barack Obama is poised to act soon to unveil a series of executive actions on immigration that will shield possibly around 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally from deportation, according to advocates in touch with the White House. The estimate includes extending deportation protections to parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years. The president is also likely to expand his 2-year-old program that protects young immigrants from deportation. Timing of the announcement is unclear, though it’s expected before the end of the year. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama would review final recommendations after returning from his Asia trip next week. CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the president to delay his executive order on immigration over fears of a government shutdown. “Things are so tense here that the Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid told our Ted Barrett that he has asked the president to hold off on an executive order on immigration, until, in the words of Reid, ‘the finances of this country are out of the way.’ Translation: do it too soon and risk a government shutdown,” CNN chief congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported. Bash added: “The other issue at play here is that funding for the government runs out on December 11th and that is why, again, Harry Reid told our Ted Barrett that he wants the president to hold off on this executive order after that because … they don’t want to deal with the government shutdown on either side of the aisle.” Congressional Republicans are strongly opposed to Obama’s plans, and as lawmakers returned to Capitol Hill this week following midterm elections in which the GOP retook the Senate, they vowed to oppose him. “We’re going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path. This is the wrong way to govern. This is exactly what the American people said on Election Day they didn’t want,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday. “And so, all the options are on the table.” Some conservatives in the House and Senate announced plans to push for language in must-pass spending bills to block the president from acting. But other Republicans warned that such a push could result in another government shutdown like the one last year over Obama’s health care plan. “My sense is that the vast majority of us want to do everything we can to stop it, but also want to avoid outcomes that would prove bad for the country as a whole,” said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. It wasn’t clear, though, what other options Republicans had. Traveling in Asia, Obama said Friday Congress could simply undo his executive actions by passing comprehensive immigration legislation. “I would advise that if in fact they want to take a different approach, rather than devote a lot of time trying to constrain my lawful actions as the chief executive of the U.S. government in charge of enforcing our immigrations laws, that they spend some time passing a bill,” he said during a news conference in Yangon, Myanmar. The immigration advocates, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, said that final details of the plan remained in flux. But the White House is likely to include parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, stipulating that they’ve resided in the U.S. for some period of time — possibly as little as five years. That group totals around 3.8 million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Although Obama is not able to grant citizenship or permanent resident green cards on his own without Congress, he can offer temporary protection from deportation along with work authorization, as he has done in the past. Adjustments also are expected to the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that allowed immigrants under 31 who had arrived before June 2007 to apply for a reprieve from deportation and a work permit. More than 600,000 young immigrants have been shielded from deportation to date under the program. Removing the upper age limit so that applicants don’t have to be under 31 — one option under consideration — would make an additional 200,000 people eligible. There may also be tweaks to business visa programs to speed up visas or make more available for high-tech workers or others. Changes are also expected on the law enforcement side, including to a controversial program called Secure Communities that hands over people booked for local crimes to federal immigration authorities. A former administration official with knowledge of the plans said the Secure Communities program would be eliminated or at least renamed, although some of the concepts would remain. Priorities for immigrants to be picked up by immigration authorities will also be revised to eliminate some of the less serious conduct that previously would have caused someone to be detained, said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose private details. In an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation” Sunday, Obama said he would prefer to sign comprehensive immigration legislation like the bill passed last year by the Senate. But absent that, “I am going to do what I can do through executive action.” He said the Homeland Security Department is “deporting people who don’t need to be deported.” Advocates are gearing up to embrace the long-sought changes, which Obama has delayed twice, most recently under pressure from Senate Democrats concerned about the midterm elections. At the same time they intend to keep pushing for wider protections and a legislative solution. “This is definitely a step in the right direction and we would still encourage the administration to go even bigger than the estimated 5 million,” said Kica Matos, of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement. “This is a temporary fix and Republicans need to understand that the immigrant rights movement intends to wage a ferocious fight until we have permanent solution and that is through legislation.” (TM and © Copyright 2014 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2014 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)	www.washington.cbslocal.com	0left	1akEEvOEcYoUwe85
treasury	Christian Science Monitor	11	http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0923/Why-retirement-of-Lois-Lerner-doesn-t-end-IRS-tea-party-scandal-video	Why retirement of Lois Lerner doesn't end IRS tea party scandal (+video)	2013-09-23	Linda Feldmann	Lois Lerner , the Internal Revenue Service official under fire for her department ’ s targeting of tea party groups , has retired effective Monday , according to the IRS . But that development does not end the scandal that burst into the open last May , when Ms. Lerner revealed that tea party groups were undergoing extra scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption . Lerner , who was director of the IRS ’ s section on tax-exempt organizations , had been placed on paid administrative leave , and remains under subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , which is investigating the scandal . “ Lois Lerner ’ s exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee ’ s interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs , ” Rep. Darrell Issa ( R ) of California , chairman of the committee , said in a statement . Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah , the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee , also signaled his continued interest in the IRS targeting scandal . “ Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over , ” Senator Hatch said in a statement . “ Far from it . In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth . ” The brouhaha has been a political boon to conservatives , who had long suspected they were being targeted by the government in an effort to undermine their activities . The issue is likely to figure in efforts to energize conservatives for the 2014 midterms . Republicans already control the House , but have a shot at taking over the Senate . Lerner emerged early as a key figure in the targeting scandal . In fact , it was she who brought the practice to light in public on May 10 , when she responded to an audience question – later revealed to be planted – at a legal conference . She stated that the targeting was “ absolutely incorrect , ” “ insensitive , ” and “ inappropriate , ” and that “ the IRS would like to apologize for that . ” At a congressional hearing on May 22 , Lerner said she was proud of her government service , and had done nothing wrong . Then she refused to testify , citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination . Starting in 2010 , the IRS began subjecting groups with names that contained conservative keywords , such as “ tea party ” and “ patriot , ” to additional scrutiny in their requests for tax exemption , which delayed their applications . It was later revealed that some progressive groups , such as those associated with the Occupy movement , had undergone similar targeting , but not nearly as many as the tea party groups . A report by the Treasury Department ’ s inspector general for tax administration ( TIGTA ) released on May 14 found that inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review , and that Lerner herself had been briefed on the targeting in June 2011 . Bloomberg News reported Monday that an internal IRS board was going to propose starting the process of firing Lerner , though it had not concluded that she had acted with political bias or willful misconduct . The report also indicated her pension would not have been different had she been fired . In a statement Monday confirming Lerner ’ s retirement , the IRS sought to reassure the public that the agency had reformed its procedures . “ The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the EO [ exempt organizations ] area identified by TIGTA , ” the statement said . “ Our goal is to restore the public ’ s faith and trust in the tax system . ” Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy The statement continued : “ We have sent nearly 400,000 pages of documents to Congress and facilitated dozens of employee interviews . We look forward to continuing to cooperate with Congress and other investigations . ” Public faith in the IRS is especially critical as the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) is about to go into effect . It will be the IRS ’ s responsibility to determine whether individuals have health insurance , as mandated under the ACA .	Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official under fire for her department’s targeting of tea party groups, has retired effective Monday, according to the IRS. But that development does not end the scandal that burst into the open last May, when Ms. Lerner revealed that tea party groups were undergoing extra scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption. Lerner, who was director of the IRS’s section on tax-exempt organizations, had been placed on paid administrative leave, and remains under subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the scandal. “Lois Lerner’s exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee’s interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, chairman of the committee, said in a statement. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, also signaled his continued interest in the IRS targeting scandal. “Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over,” Senator Hatch said in a statement. “Far from it. In fact, there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth.” The brouhaha has been a political boon to conservatives, who had long suspected they were being targeted by the government in an effort to undermine their activities. The issue is likely to figure in efforts to energize conservatives for the 2014 midterms. Republicans already control the House, but have a shot at taking over the Senate. Lerner emerged early as a key figure in the targeting scandal. In fact, it was she who brought the practice to light in public on May 10, when she responded to an audience question – later revealed to be planted – at a legal conference. She stated that the targeting was “absolutely incorrect,” “insensitive,” and “inappropriate,” and that “the IRS would like to apologize for that.” At a congressional hearing on May 22, Lerner said she was proud of her government service, and had done nothing wrong. Then she refused to testify, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination. Starting in 2010, the IRS began subjecting groups with names that contained conservative keywords, such as “tea party” and “patriot,” to additional scrutiny in their requests for tax exemption, which delayed their applications. It was later revealed that some progressive groups, such as those associated with the Occupy movement, had undergone similar targeting, but not nearly as many as the tea party groups. A report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) released on May 14 found that inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review, and that Lerner herself had been briefed on the targeting in June 2011. Bloomberg News reported Monday that an internal IRS board was going to propose starting the process of firing Lerner, though it had not concluded that she had acted with political bias or willful misconduct. The report also indicated her pension would not have been different had she been fired. In a statement Monday confirming Lerner’s retirement, the IRS sought to reassure the public that the agency had reformed its procedures. “The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the EO [exempt organizations] area identified by TIGTA,” the statement said. “Our goal is to restore the public’s faith and trust in the tax system.” Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy The statement continued: “We have sent nearly 400,000 pages of documents to Congress and facilitated dozens of employee interviews. We look forward to continuing to cooperate with Congress and other investigations.” Public faith in the IRS is especially critical as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is about to go into effect. It will be the IRS’s responsibility to determine whether individuals have health insurance, as mandated under the ACA.	www.csmonitor.com	2center	xtr7oA49KLDsAMWx
immigration	Washington Times	22	http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/immigration-back-on-the-front-burner-for-obama/	Immigration back on the front burner for Obama; raises eyebrows with DHS pick	2013-10-18	Dave Boyer, Stephen Dinan	President Obama said early Thursday that he wants to make a major push to have Congress pass immigration legislation this year — but by late in the day the White House was confirming he will nominate someone with little immigration experience to head the Department of Homeland Security . Administration and congressional officials said Mr. Obama will turn to Jeh Johnson , who was the top lawyer at the Pentagon , to run the agency that oversees the Secret Service , the Transportation Security Administration , the Federal Emergency Management Agency and all three immigration services . “ The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders , having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world , ” a White House aide said . A nomination could come Friday for the job , which many observers say is the toughest in Washington , getting battered from all sides on issues of privacy and security , and on how strenuously the department is enforcing immigration laws . With the end of the government shutdown , Mr. Obama has elevated immigration to the top of his legislative agenda , saying Thursday that he will pressure House Republicans to pass a bill , following the lead of the Senate which passed one in June . “ This can and should get done by the end of this year , ” he said , adding that he expected it to be an area of cooperation with the GOP . SEE ALSO : Obama scolds Congress for ‘ unnecessary damage ’ upon government ’ s reopening Some key Republicans , though , said judging by the way the president refused to negotiate with them during the spending and debt fights , he ’ s squandered any chance to work with them now . “ I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with him on immigration , and I ’ m a proponent of immigration reform , ” Rep. Raul R. Labrador , Idaho Republican , said Wednesday . “ He ’ s trying to destroy the Republican Party , and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind , which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy . ” Where the Senate passed a broad bill combining more spending on border security with a revamp of the legal immigration system and a legalization program for those in the country illegally , House Republican leaders have said they will tackle the issue in pieces . Speaking alongside Mr. Labrador at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday , Rep. Matt Salmon , Arizona Republican , said he had been promised by House Speaker John A. Boehner that the House will not go to conference committee to work out differences with the Senate on a big bill , only on the small pieces . A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said the speaker was reiterating “ his long-standing support for a step-by-step process to fix our broken immigration system . ” Key to the House GOP ’ s efforts will be a bill to legalize younger illegal immigrants , known as Dreamers . House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is trying to write that bill along with Rep. Bob Goodlatte , Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee . Mr. Johnson ’ s nomination will help renew the immigration debate — though his experience with the issue seems limited . “ There doesn ’ t seem to be any indication that he has any experience at all in immigration , ” said Rosemary Jenks , chief lobbyist for NumbersUSA , which advocates for stricter immigration limits . Indeed , reaction from either side of the immigration debate was muted as everyone tried to figure out what to make of Mr. Johnson . One tantalizing tidbit appeared in a short Crain ’ s New York Business profile in the 1990s , noting that during his time as a young Justice Department lawyer he prosecuted “ corrupt politicians , cops and immigration agents . ” That might not sit well with immigration agents already bristling at what many argue is an administration that has chosen to turn an eye on illegal immigration while prosecuting Border Patrol agents for excessive violence . Sen. Jeff Sessions , an Alabama Republican who fought the Senate ’ s immigration bill , questioned whether Mr. Johnson is the right man to reform the immigration services . “ It would appear that the president plans to nominate a loyalist and fundraiser to this post . This is deeply concerning , ” he said . “ This huge department must have a proven manager with strong relevant law enforcement experience , recognized independence and integrity , who can restore this department to its full capability . ” But Mr. Johnson earned words of encouragement from several key lawmakers , including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael T. McCaul , Texas Republican , and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Thomas R. Carper , Delaware Democrat . “ Mr . Johnson brings a wealth of experience from the Department of Defense , and I am eager to meet with him and discuss his vision , ” Mr. Carper said . Even if Mr. Johnson is confirmed , it will still leave major gaps at the department , and in the three immigration services in particular . U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement , the two immigration law-enforcement branches , are without chiefs . Meanwhile , the head of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services , which administers immigration benefits , has been tapped to be the Homeland Security department ’ s deputy secretary — but his nomination has been tied to a political scandal involving Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe . With the growing threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa , Mr. Johnson ’ s nomination could get some pushback from Senate Republicans for his views that the terrorist network is rapidly deteriorating . “ I do believe that on the present course , there will come a tipping point , ” Mr. Johnson said in a speech at Oxford University late last year . “ A tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured such that al Qaeda as we know it , the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001 , has been effectively destroyed . ”	President Obama said early Thursday that he wants to make a major push to have Congress pass immigration legislation this year — but by late in the day the White House was confirming he will nominate someone with little immigration experience to head the Department of Homeland Security. Administration and congressional officials said Mr. Obama will turn to Jeh Johnson, who was the top lawyer at the Pentagon, to run the agency that oversees the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and all three immigration services. “The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders, having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world,” a White House aide said. A nomination could come Friday for the job, which many observers say is the toughest in Washington, getting battered from all sides on issues of privacy and security, and on how strenuously the department is enforcing immigration laws. With the end of the government shutdown, Mr. Obama has elevated immigration to the top of his legislative agenda, saying Thursday that he will pressure House Republicans to pass a bill, following the lead of the Senate which passed one in June. “This can and should get done by the end of this year,” he said, adding that he expected it to be an area of cooperation with the GOP. SEE ALSO: Obama scolds Congress for ‘unnecessary damage’ upon government’s reopening Some key Republicans, though, said judging by the way the president refused to negotiate with them during the spending and debt fights, he’s squandered any chance to work with them now. “I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with him on immigration, and I’m a proponent of immigration reform,” Rep. Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Republican, said Wednesday. “He’s trying to destroy the Republican Party, and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy.” Where the Senate passed a broad bill combining more spending on border security with a revamp of the legal immigration system and a legalization program for those in the country illegally, House Republican leaders have said they will tackle the issue in pieces. Speaking alongside Mr. Labrador at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday, Rep. Matt Salmon, Arizona Republican, said he had been promised by House Speaker John A. Boehner that the House will not go to conference committee to work out differences with the Senate on a big bill, only on the small pieces. A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said the speaker was reiterating “his long-standing support for a step-by-step process to fix our broken immigration system.” Key to the House GOP’s efforts will be a bill to legalize younger illegal immigrants, known as Dreamers. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is trying to write that bill along with Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Johnson’s nomination will help renew the immigration debate — though his experience with the issue seems limited. “There doesn’t seem to be any indication that he has any experience at all in immigration,” said Rosemary Jenks, chief lobbyist for NumbersUSA, which advocates for stricter immigration limits. Indeed, reaction from either side of the immigration debate was muted as everyone tried to figure out what to make of Mr. Johnson. One tantalizing tidbit appeared in a short Crain’s New York Business profile in the 1990s, noting that during his time as a young Justice Department lawyer he prosecuted “corrupt politicians, cops and immigration agents.” That might not sit well with immigration agents already bristling at what many argue is an administration that has chosen to turn an eye on illegal immigration while prosecuting Border Patrol agents for excessive violence. Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who fought the Senate’s immigration bill, questioned whether Mr. Johnson is the right man to reform the immigration services. “It would appear that the president plans to nominate a loyalist and fundraiser to this post. This is deeply concerning,” he said. “This huge department must have a proven manager with strong relevant law enforcement experience, recognized independence and integrity, who can restore this department to its full capability.” But Mr. Johnson earned words of encouragement from several key lawmakers, including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican, and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat. “Mr. Johnson brings a wealth of experience from the Department of Defense, and I am eager to meet with him and discuss his vision,” Mr. Carper said. Even if Mr. Johnson is confirmed, it will still leave major gaps at the department, and in the three immigration services in particular. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the two immigration law-enforcement branches, are without chiefs. Meanwhile, the head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers immigration benefits, has been tapped to be the Homeland Security department’s deputy secretary — but his nomination has been tied to a political scandal involving Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. With the growing threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa, Mr. Johnson’s nomination could get some pushback from Senate Republicans for his views that the terrorist network is rapidly deteriorating. “I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point,” Mr. Johnson said in a speech at Oxford University late last year. “A tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured such that al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.” Sign up for Daily Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	VDG2luRw9vTCq21L
healthcare	Fox News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/30/president-ignores-obamacare-horror-stories-as-human-financial-costs-pile-up/	President ignores ObamaCare horror stories as human, financial costs pile up	2014-01-30		As predicted , the Obama administration and many in the Democratic Party are trying to peddle the story that ObamaCare is now working because the healthcare.gov website is functioning better . But despite the questionable claims of easier access and more people enrolling in the ObamaCare exchanges , the ugly truth is the horror stories are piling up and , sooner or later , ObamaCare ’ s cheerleaders will have to confront the overwhelming evidence indicting them for repeatedly lying to the American people . As expected , President Obama used his State of the Union speech Tuesday to extol the virtues of ObamaCare , and also as expected , retold the story of one person positively affected by the program . But for each success there are countless failures . People ’ s Exhibit A : Josie Gracchi has breast cancer . Up until January 1st of this year she had insurance and was scheduled for a January 3rd biopsy and follow-up treatment at one the largest private cancer treatment centers in the world : Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York . But once 2014 arrived , her insurance was rolled into an ObamaCare health exchange . She now has no access to the surgeons she was working with , her biopsy and treatment have been postponed and she can ’ t find comparable doctors and surgeons through the ObamaCare website . She pleaded on television for help from the president , but has yet to receive an answer . People ’ s Exhibit B : Whitney Johnson of Texas is a new mom at 26 and suffers from Multiple Sclerosis . Her treatments were expensive , $ 40,000 every five weeks , but her insurance was paying for those treatments . Then came January 1 , 2014 when the insurance was canceled ; her insurance company is actually leaving the state of Texas because her plan no longer complies with ObamaCare . Whitney liked her plan , which President Obama and a cast of countless Democrats told her she ’ d be able to keep . She doesn ’ t know what she ’ ll do now . People ’ s Exhibit C : Gloria Cantor of Florida was told her insurance was being dropped because of ObamaCare . She has five brain tumors as well as tumors in her bones . Her insurance company told her that it can offer a different plan , but it will be more expensive . Another reason why “ if you like your plan you can keep it ” was labeled the “ lie of the year ” for 2013 . People ’ s Exhibit D : Joan Carrico is a 60 year old registered nurse in Michigan suffering from cancer , now going on six years . She liked her insurance which was expensive but affordable . Then she was told by her insurance company that her best bet under ObamaCare would be a plan that would increase her premium anywhere from $ 4,500 to $ 6,500 per year , as well as a 10 percent federal tax . Remember when Obama told us families would save $ 2,500 a year under ObamaCare ? Complete fiction . Question : What could be worse than being kicked off the health care plan you prefer when you need it most – when you ’ re suffering from a serious medical condition or debilitating disease ? Answer : Having the government come after you in the form of the IRS following your decision to go public about your dire situation . People ’ s Exhibit E : Bill Elliot of South Carolina has stage four cancer and had insurance that covered most of his treatments . Then it was canceled because of ObamaCare . His doctor told him he is in full remission , his treatments have been working . He voted for Obama , in part because he believed the president ’ s words when he said “ if you like your plan you can keep it. ” But the new policy under ObamaCare would cost him $ 1,500 per month along with a $ 13,000 deductible , and it won ’ t even cover medicine or medical devices . Elliot went public about his dilemma , doing media interviews to bring attention to his situation . All of a sudden he received a letter from the IRS telling him they would be auditing him for tax year 2009 . Moody ’ s Investor Service just downgraded its outlook for the U.S. health insurance industry from stable to negative because of serious concerns with the implementation of ObamaCare . Moody ’ s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said : `` While we 've had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while , the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change . ” The cost of the empty promises and outright lies is enormous both in human and financial terms . What these people are experiencing is exactly what Moody ’ s Investor Service is so concerned about . ObamaCare is really NobamaCare .	As predicted, the Obama administration and many in the Democratic Party are trying to peddle the story that ObamaCare is now working because the healthcare.gov website is functioning better. But despite the questionable claims of easier access and more people enrolling in the ObamaCare exchanges, the ugly truth is the horror stories are piling up and, sooner or later, ObamaCare’s cheerleaders will have to confront the overwhelming evidence indicting them for repeatedly lying to the American people. As expected, President Obama used his State of the Union speech Tuesday to extol the virtues of ObamaCare, and also as expected, retold the story of one person positively affected by the program. But for each success there are countless failures. [pullquote] People’s Exhibit A: Josie Gracchi has breast cancer. Up until January 1st of this year she had insurance and was scheduled for a January 3rd biopsy and follow-up treatment at one the largest private cancer treatment centers in the world: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. More On This... But once 2014 arrived, her insurance was rolled into an ObamaCare health exchange. She now has no access to the surgeons she was working with, her biopsy and treatment have been postponed and she can’t find comparable doctors and surgeons through the ObamaCare website. She pleaded on television for help from the president, but has yet to receive an answer. People’s Exhibit B: Whitney Johnson of Texas is a new mom at 26 and suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. Her treatments were expensive, $40,000 every five weeks, but her insurance was paying for those treatments. Then came January 1, 2014 when the insurance was canceled; her insurance company is actually leaving the state of Texas because her plan no longer complies with ObamaCare. Whitney liked her plan, which President Obama and a cast of countless Democrats told her she’d be able to keep. She doesn’t know what she’ll do now. People’s Exhibit C: Gloria Cantor of Florida was told her insurance was being dropped because of ObamaCare. She has five brain tumors as well as tumors in her bones. Her insurance company told her that it can offer a different plan, but it will be more expensive. Another reason why “if you like your plan you can keep it” was labeled the “lie of the year” for 2013. People’s Exhibit D: Joan Carrico is a 60 year old registered nurse in Michigan suffering from cancer, now going on six years. She liked her insurance which was expensive but affordable. Then she was told by her insurance company that her best bet under ObamaCare would be a plan that would increase her premium anywhere from $4,500 to $6,500 per year, as well as a 10 percent federal tax. Remember when Obama told us families would save $2,500 a year under ObamaCare? Complete fiction. Question: What could be worse than being kicked off the health care plan you prefer when you need it most – when you’re suffering from a serious medical condition or debilitating disease? Answer: Having the government come after you in the form of the IRS following your decision to go public about your dire situation. People’s Exhibit E: Bill Elliot of South Carolina has stage four cancer and had insurance that covered most of his treatments. Then it was canceled because of ObamaCare. His doctor told him he is in full remission, his treatments have been working. He voted for Obama, in part because he believed the president’s words when he said “if you like your plan you can keep it.” But the new policy under ObamaCare would cost him $1,500 per month along with a $13,000 deductible, and it won’t even cover medicine or medical devices. Elliot went public about his dilemma, doing media interviews to bring attention to his situation. All of a sudden he received a letter from the IRS telling him they would be auditing him for tax year 2009. Moody’s Investor Service just downgraded its outlook for the U.S. health insurance industry from stable to negative because of serious concerns with the implementation of ObamaCare. Moody’s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said: "While we've had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while, the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change.” The cost of the empty promises and outright lies is enormous both in human and financial terms. What these people are experiencing is exactly what Moody’s Investor Service is so concerned about. ObamaCare is really NobamaCare.	www.foxnews.com	1right	uYPgt9HnE3Y5x10k
mexico	The Hill	11	https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/459316-ice-rule-change-on-u-visas-sparks-outrage	ICE rule change on U visas sparks outrage	2019-08-30		The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations , allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas . The change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes , say immigration attorneys , who argue it also reflects the Trump administration ’ s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States . “ This is going to have a chilling effect , ” Eileen Blessinger , a Falls Church , Va.-based immigration attorney , told ███ , because “ by applying , you ’ re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there ’ s a risk that ICE might pick you up . ” The change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) directive released on Aug. 2 . The directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas , which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations . But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion . Applications for U visas can take up to four years . The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21 . The directive reserves the right for the agency to “ review the totality of the circumstances , including any favorable or adverse factors , and any federal interest ( s ) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate . ” ICE adds in the directive that it will “ exercise its discretion ” in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests , but cautions that the agency “ no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement . ” In a statement to ███ , an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications . “ As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased , this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn ’ t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement , '' the spokesperson said . Blessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago , when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants . This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas . While the application itself does not cost any money , applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $ 585 fee to apply for a waiver . Blessinger told ███ that her firm , Blessinger Legal , had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation . The man was able to file for a U visa , which was eventually approved , and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation . If he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive , however , he could have been deported . Another of her clients , Blessinger said , is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P . Hill , Va. , after failing to appear in court in El Paso , Texas , after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing ’ s date or time . “ She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied , but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation , ” Blessinger told ███ . “ She ’ s not a criminal , she ’ s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet , ” added Blessinger . “ The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes : one , to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity , and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection , ” Cecelia Friedman Levin , senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance , told ███ . “ What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for , ” she added . Complicating the process further , Friedman Levin said , ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy . “ It ’ s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they ’ re actually supposed to do , ” she said , calling the change “ just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection . ” Kristian Ramos , communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American , told ███ the change was indicative of the administration ’ s general handling of long-standing immigration policy . “ This administration ’ s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties , ” Ramos told ███ . The client “ came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it ’ s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help , ” he added .	The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations, allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas. The change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes, say immigration attorneys, who argue it also reflects the Trump administration’s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States. “This is going to have a chilling effect,” Eileen Blessinger, a Falls Church, Va.-based immigration attorney, told The Hill, because “by applying, you’re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there’s a risk that ICE might pick you up.” ADVERTISEMENT The change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directive released on Aug. 2. The directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas, which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations. But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion. Applications for U visas can take up to four years. The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21. The directive reserves the right for the agency to “review the totality of the circumstances, including any favorable or adverse factors, and any federal interest(s) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate.” ICE adds in the directive that it will “exercise its discretion” in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests, but cautions that the agency “no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.” In a statement to The Hill, an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications. “As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased, this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn’t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement," the spokesperson said. Blessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago, when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants. This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas. ADVERTISEMENT While the application itself does not cost any money, applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $585 fee to apply for a waiver. Blessinger told The Hill that her firm, Blessinger Legal, had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation. The man was able to file for a U visa, which was eventually approved, and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation. If he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive, however, he could have been deported. Another of her clients, Blessinger said, is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P. Hill, Va., after failing to appear in court in El Paso, Texas, after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing’s date or time. “She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied, but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation,” Blessinger told The Hill. “She’s not a criminal, she’s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet,” added Blessinger. “The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes: one, to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity, and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection,” Cecelia Friedman Levin, senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance, told The Hill. “What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for,” she added. Complicating the process further, Friedman Levin said, ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy. “It’s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they’re actually supposed to do,” she said, calling the change “just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection.” Kristian Ramos, communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American, told The Hill the change was indicative of the administration’s general handling of long-standing immigration policy. “This administration’s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties,” Ramos told The Hill. The client “came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it’s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help,” he added.	www.thehill.com	2center	vWeRDs4w1KpD88tQ
us_senate	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/senate-democrats-break-from-obama-103004.html?hp=t3_3	Senate Democrats break from Obama	2014-02-02	Burgess Everett	Harry Reid didn ’ t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals . Senate Dems break from Obama President Barack Obama is counting on Senate Democrats to help approve his legislative agenda during his final years in office . And though they are his staunchest allies on most economic issues , many Democratic senators are breaking with him on key issues in very public ways . From trade to Iran sanctions , the Keystone XL pipeline , Obamacare , the National Security Agency and energy policy , Senate Democrats seem unusually comfortable criticizing the president , with only minimal concerns about repercussions from the White House . Even Obama ’ s steadfast ally , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada , didn ’ t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals that is strongly backed by the White House , working against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana , a Senate colleague who has been tapped to be the president ’ s ambassador to China . “ You had two or three Democrats in the Senate who made statements after the president ’ s State of the Union speech that wouldn ’ t have been written any different if they had been written by the [ National ] Republican Senatorial Committee , ” said Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-Mo . ) , referring to the Senate GOP campaign arm ’ s aggressive anti-Obama messaging . Blunt was referring to discontented Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia , who insists that Obama misspoke during his State of the Union speech when he told Congress that he will work with lawmakers when he can — and go around them if he can ’ t . “ I don ’ t think that ’ s what he meant . I swear to God I don ’ t , ” Manchin said in an interview . “ Could he have picked these words better ? I would have thought he could have , I would have hoped he would have . But it came out offensive to a lot of people . ” For some lawmakers , the criticism is predictable : Democrats from energy-producing states are likely to whack the administration ’ s energy policies and red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 are worried about Obamacare fallout . In some instances , the contrasts between vulnerable Senate Democrats and the White House appear to be orchestrated to counter Obama ’ s low approval rates in red states where incumbents will face voters this fall , congressional aides in both parties suggest . But not all the criticism is coming from expected quarters . Liberal Democrats have decried NSA surveillance programs , and Democrats not up for reelection for years seem perfectly at ease clashing with the White House . “ I think the framers did an incredible job of finding the right balance , so , we ’ ve gotten away from that . And when we get back to that , my outspokenness will diminish , ” said freshman Sen. Martin Heinrich ( D-N.M. ) , a persistent critic of the White House on NSA policy . The rifts might represent nothing more than bad message coordination and a White House that doesn ’ t do enough to keep Capitol Hill in the loop . President Barack Obama does not have terribly close personal relationships with most Democratic lawmakers , and his legislative affairs shop was riddled with Capitol Hill criticism until the recent addition of longtime Hill staffer Katie Beirne Fallon . “ This White House has been very , how shall I say , it ’ s not their strong suit to give anybody a heads-up on anything , ” said Sen. Mary Landrieu ( D-La . ) of Obama ’ s outreach to Democratic senators . Landrieu — who is up for reelection this year — was angered recently by a surprise Statement of Administration Policy ripping her flood insurance bill , which would ease rate increases that would disproportionately hit flood-prone Louisiana . Obama ’ s aides indicated the bill is not sound fiscal policy , though they notably did not threaten a veto of her bill . “ I believe in many of the principles of the Democratic Party . But I stay focused on the issues that are important to Louisiana . And when the president is for Louisiana , I ’ m for the president . When he ’ s not , I ’ m not , ” Landrieu said . “ That statement from them was unsolicited , it was unexpected and it was misguided . ”	Harry Reid didn’t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals. Senate Dems break from Obama President Barack Obama is counting on Senate Democrats to help approve his legislative agenda during his final years in office. And though they are his staunchest allies on most economic issues, many Democratic senators are breaking with him on key issues in very public ways. From trade to Iran sanctions, the Keystone XL pipeline, Obamacare, the National Security Agency and energy policy, Senate Democrats seem unusually comfortable criticizing the president, with only minimal concerns about repercussions from the White House. Story Continued Below Even Obama’s steadfast ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, didn’t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals that is strongly backed by the White House, working against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Senate colleague who has been tapped to be the president’s ambassador to China. Even some Republicans are noticing. ( PHOTOS: 12 Democrats criticizing the Obamacare rollout) “You had two or three Democrats in the Senate who made statements after the president’s State of the Union speech that wouldn’t have been written any different if they had been written by the [National] Republican Senatorial Committee,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), referring to the Senate GOP campaign arm’s aggressive anti-Obama messaging. Blunt was referring to discontented Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who insists that Obama misspoke during his State of the Union speech when he told Congress that he will work with lawmakers when he can — and go around them if he can’t. “I don’t think that’s what he meant. I swear to God I don’t,” Manchin said in an interview. “Could he have picked these words better? I would have thought he could have, I would have hoped he would have. But it came out offensive to a lot of people.” For some lawmakers, the criticism is predictable: Democrats from energy-producing states are likely to whack the administration’s energy policies and red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 are worried about Obamacare fallout. In some instances, the contrasts between vulnerable Senate Democrats and the White House appear to be orchestrated to counter Obama’s low approval rates in red states where incumbents will face voters this fall, congressional aides in both parties suggest. ( Also on POLITICO: Rove: Obama trampling on the law) But not all the criticism is coming from expected quarters. Liberal Democrats have decried NSA surveillance programs, and Democrats not up for reelection for years seem perfectly at ease clashing with the White House. “I think the framers did an incredible job of finding the right balance, so, we’ve gotten away from that. And when we get back to that, my outspokenness will diminish,” said freshman Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a persistent critic of the White House on NSA policy. The rifts might represent nothing more than bad message coordination and a White House that doesn’t do enough to keep Capitol Hill in the loop. President Barack Obama does not have terribly close personal relationships with most Democratic lawmakers, and his legislative affairs shop was riddled with Capitol Hill criticism until the recent addition of longtime Hill staffer Katie Beirne Fallon. ( Also on POLITICO: Obama faces executive power backlash) “This White House has been very, how shall I say, it’s not their strong suit to give anybody a heads-up on anything,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) of Obama’s outreach to Democratic senators. Landrieu — who is up for reelection this year — was angered recently by a surprise Statement of Administration Policy ripping her flood insurance bill, which would ease rate increases that would disproportionately hit flood-prone Louisiana. Obama’s aides indicated the bill is not sound fiscal policy, though they notably did not threaten a veto of her bill. “I believe in many of the principles of the Democratic Party. But I stay focused on the issues that are important to Louisiana. And when the president is for Louisiana, I’m for the president. When he’s not, I’m not,” Landrieu said. “That statement from them was unsolicited, it was unexpected and it was misguided.”	www.politico.com	0left	3ukf8DENFtguXztp
terrorism	CNN (Web News)	00	http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/politics/benghazi-hearing/index.html?hpt=po_c1	Doomed Libya ambassador: 'We're under attack'	2013-05-08	Alan Silverleib, Cnn Congressional Producer	Story highlights State Department official says he never believed the attack was a protest Rep. Elijah Cummings accuses GOP of trying to `` smear '' officials Another hearing witness said it was `` inexplicable '' attack review ignored key points Late on the night of last September 11 , U.S . Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens spoke to his deputy for the final time from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi , Libya . Within hours , Stevens and three other Americans were dead , victims of an armed terrorist assault that has since become a political and foreign policy flashpoint in Washington 's partisan wars . The dramatic narrative recounted by Hicks at a six-hour Republican-led House hearing on Wednesday reflected the knowledge of a high-level insider who was in Libya that long night and was deeply involved in trying to react to events . His efforts to determine the circumstances of the attack and muster help for those under siege in eastern Libya were later praised by his superiors and by President Barack Obama . JUST WATCHED Benghazi officer : Man ran in yelling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Benghazi officer : Man ran in yelling 03:27 JUST WATCHED Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya 02:00 JUST WATCHED Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack 02:16 The step-by-step account riveted the Oversight Committee proceeding that was also marked by sharp partisan exchanges over the merits of continued congressional inquiries over the attack . Republicans once again accused the Obama administration of trying to cover up the fact that it was a well-orchestrated assault by militants , failing to adequately explain events to the public , and then refusing to cooperate with congressional investigators . Democrats once again accused Republicans of using tragedy for political gain . Hicks -- praised by Republicans as a `` whistleblower '' but who says he has since been effectively demoted -- was joined at the witness table by Eric Nordstrom , a former regional security officer in Libya , and Mark Thompson , the State Department 's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism . Our goal `` is to get answers , declared committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa , R-California . `` The administration , however , has not been cooperative . '' Hicks described in personal detail how he missed Stevens ' initial call and then reached him by cell phone as the attack unfolded in phases . `` I got the ambassador on the other end and he said , 'Greg , we 're under attack . ' '' He recounted the efforts of a security response team on site that drove back the attackers , and `` repeated attempts '' by those on the ground to enter the burning compound to try and rescue Stevens and others . He then said that Stevens was at a hospital that was controlled by a group that he said Twitter feeds identified as leading the attack . Was it a trap to lure more Americans ? `` I received a call from the prime minister of Libya . I think it 's the saddest phone call I 've ever had in my life . He told me that Ambassador Stevens had passed away , '' Hicks said . Oversight committee Republicans continued to go after televised remarks by U.N . Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack . In them , she insisted it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam film that turned violent . GOP critics believe Rice was shielding Obama at the height of his re-election campaign during which there were times that he trumpeted U.S. successes in combating terrorism , including the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 . Administration officials say Rice was using official talking points that relied on the best available information at the time . JUST WATCHED Americans killed in Benghazi : Why ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Americans killed in Benghazi : Why ? 03:16 JUST WATCHED State Department missed Benghazi danger Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH State Department missed Benghazi danger 07:18 Rep. Patrick McHenry , R-North Carolina , asked Hicks if there was any evidence early on that the attack was a protest . `` No , there was none , '' Hicks said . `` I 'm confident Ambassador Stevens would have reported a protest immediately if one appeared on his door . '' Hicks also said an inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube video initially cited as a cause of the alleged protest was `` a non-event in Libya . '' He previously insisted administration officials immediately knew the culprit was al Qaeda . `` I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning , '' Hicks told investigators in interviews before the hearings . In fact , Hicks said during the hearing that he was told by the Libyan president soon afterward that elements with possible terror links were thought to be behind the assault . The veteran diplomat said his `` jaw dropped '' and he was both `` stunned '' and `` embarrassed '' when Rice said the attack was a response to the YouTube video . Hicks also argued the U.S. military could have blunted the attack by scrambling intimidating military aircraft from Italy 's Aviano Air Base -- an assertion denied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey when he testified before Congress in February . Dempsey told Congress it would take up to 20 hours to scramble the aircraft to get to Benghazi ; Hicks said he believed it would take two to three hours . `` I was speaking from my perspective ... on the ground in Tripoli based on what the defense attache told me , '' Hicks said when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland , the top Democrat on the Oversight panel , asked Hicks if he had any reason to question Dempsey 's assertion . Finally , Hicks claimed four members of the military were ready to board a plane from Tripoli to Benghazi , but were prevented from doing so by their superiors . `` How did the personnel react at being told to stand down ? '' asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz , R-Utah . `` They were furious , '' said Hicks . `` I can only say , well , I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson who said , 'This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military . ' '' Pentagon officials insist the members of the military in question were told not to go to Benghazi because they were not equipped for combat , and were needed in Tripoli to care for wounded headed their way . Nordstrom said in written testimony it was `` inexplicable '' that a followup internal State Department review ignored `` the role senior department leadership played before , during , and after '' the attack . In the run-up to the hearing , Issa trickled out testimony from the witnesses in an apparent attempt to build anticipation for the session , one of several that have occurred in Congress focusing on security at the compound and the administration 's response . Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a `` smear '' campaign . `` What we have seen ... is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way but rather a launch of unfounded accusations to smear public officials , '' Cummings said . White House spokesman Jay Carney also weighed in , telling reporters that the Benghazi attack `` is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans . '' He defended defended the administration has `` made extraordinary efforts to work with '' Congress on multiple investigations . For its part , the State Department also accused House Republicans of playing politics with the tragedy . `` This is not sort of a collaborative process where the committee is working directly with us in trying to establish facts that would help , you know , as we look to keep our people safe overseas in a very complex environment , '' State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said on Monday . Wednesday 's hearing is another chapter in what has become an epic back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on Benghazi , partly stemming from Rice 's televised comments . The comments are widely believed to have cost her a likely nomination to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state . Some congressional Republicans previously sharply questioned Clinton over the administration 's explanation of events and the state of security at the compound at the time of the attack . Clinton has said that she accepted responsibility for the deaths , declaring that as secretary of state , she was `` in charge of the State Department 's 60,000-plus people all over the world . '' In January , Clinton testified for more than five hours before the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees . In her testimony , she acknowledged a `` systematic breakdown '' on Benghazi and said her department was taking additional steps to increase U.S. security at diplomatic posts . At one point at that hearing , Clinton barely controlled her anger as she responded to a lawmaker who pressed her on the administration 's post-attack storyline . Critics have questioned the validity of continued congressional scrutiny , especially Democrats , who say Republicans are only interested in discrediting the administration and hurting Clinton 's chances if she were to run for president in 2016 . One Republican congressman , Ohio 's Jim Jordan , used the hearing to criticize top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills . Hicks said he received a call from Mills , who he added was not happy that a State Department lawyer -- described by Republicans as a minder -- was excluded from a briefing on Benghazi in Libya with Hicks , a Republican congressman and others . Hicks has been `` praised by everybody who counts , the president , the secretary , everyone above him , '' Jordan said . `` And yet now , they 're obstructing -- because he wo n't -- he wo n't help them cover this up . '' But former Clinton aide Philppe Reines disputed that characterization , saying the State Department took a cooperative approach with Congress . He said in a written statement that Mills had , in fact , called Hicks to support him . `` She wanted ( people on the ground in Libya ) to know that no matter how far away they were from home , they were n't alone , '' Reines said . `` She was with them , and most importantly ( Secretary Clinton ) was with them . ''	Story highlights State Department official says he never believed the attack was a protest Key lawmaker says administration is not cooperating with investigation Rep. Elijah Cummings accuses GOP of trying to "smear" officials Another hearing witness said it was "inexplicable" attack review ignored key points Late on the night of last September 11, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens spoke to his deputy for the final time from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. "Greg, we're under attack," Stevens told Gregory Hicks. Within hours, Stevens and three other Americans were dead, victims of an armed terrorist assault that has since become a political and foreign policy flashpoint in Washington's partisan wars. The dramatic narrative recounted by Hicks at a six-hour Republican-led House hearing on Wednesday reflected the knowledge of a high-level insider who was in Libya that long night and was deeply involved in trying to react to events. His efforts to determine the circumstances of the attack and muster help for those under siege in eastern Libya were later praised by his superiors and by President Barack Obama. Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, arrives for a House committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, May 8. State Department employees testified about the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. View photos of the attack. Hide Caption 1 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – From left, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism Mark Thompson; Hicks; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya, are sworn in before the hearing. The three are testifying at the hearing investigating into whether the State Department misled the public about the assault. Hide Caption 2 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Nordstrom testifies on May 8. He said in written testimony it was "inexplicable" that a followup internal State Department review ignored "the role senior department leadership played before, during, and after" the attack. Hide Caption 3 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, center, listens as Hicks testifies. She is the widow of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the attack. Hide Caption 4 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, left, speaks as Chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, listens. Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a "smear" campaign. Hide Caption 5 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Nordstrom listens to Hicks testify. Hicks has been praised by Republicans as a "whistleblower." He has expressed concern that more could have been done by the military to protect those being attacked last year at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Hide Caption 6 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Thompson testifies on May 8. He is the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism. Hide Caption 7 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Ray Smith, left, and Pat Smith listen as Thompson testifies. Their son Sean was one of the four Americans killed in the terror attack. Hide Caption 8 of 8 JUST WATCHED Benghazi officer: Man ran in yelling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Benghazi officer: Man ran in yelling 03:27 JUST WATCHED Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya 02:00 JUST WATCHED Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack 02:16 The step-by-step account riveted the Oversight Committee proceeding that was also marked by sharp partisan exchanges over the merits of continued congressional inquiries over the attack. Republicans once again accused the Obama administration of trying to cover up the fact that it was a well-orchestrated assault by militants, failing to adequately explain events to the public, and then refusing to cooperate with congressional investigators. Democrats once again accused Republicans of using tragedy for political gain. Hicks -- praised by Republicans as a "whistleblower" but who says he has since been effectively demoted -- was joined at the witness table by Eric Nordstrom, a former regional security officer in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism. Our goal "is to get answers, declared committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California. "The administration, however, has not been cooperative." Hicks described in personal detail how he missed Stevens' initial call and then reached him by cell phone as the attack unfolded in phases. "I got the ambassador on the other end and he said, 'Greg, we're under attack.'" He recounted the efforts of a security response team on site that drove back the attackers, and "repeated attempts" by those on the ground to enter the burning compound to try and rescue Stevens and others. He then said that Stevens was at a hospital that was controlled by a group that he said Twitter feeds identified as leading the attack. Was it a trap to lure more Americans? Then the worst news about his boss. "I received a call from the prime minister of Libya. I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life. He told me that Ambassador Stevens had passed away," Hicks said. A slow-to-evolve explanation Oversight committee Republicans continued to go after televised remarks by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack. In them, she insisted it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam film that turned violent. GOP critics believe Rice was shielding Obama at the height of his re-election campaign during which there were times that he trumpeted U.S. successes in combating terrorism, including the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011. Administration officials say Rice was using official talking points that relied on the best available information at the time. JUST WATCHED Americans killed in Benghazi: Why? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Americans killed in Benghazi: Why? 03:16 JUST WATCHED State Department missed Benghazi danger Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH State Department missed Benghazi danger 07:18 Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, asked Hicks if there was any evidence early on that the attack was a protest. "No, there was none," Hicks said. "I'm confident Ambassador Stevens would have reported a protest immediately if one appeared on his door." Hicks also said an inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube video initially cited as a cause of the alleged protest was "a non-event in Libya." He previously insisted administration officials immediately knew the culprit was al Qaeda. "I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Hicks told investigators in interviews before the hearings. In fact, Hicks said during the hearing that he was told by the Libyan president soon afterward that elements with possible terror links were thought to be behind the assault. The veteran diplomat said his "jaw dropped" and he was both "stunned" and "embarrassed" when Rice said the attack was a response to the YouTube video. Hicks also argued the U.S. military could have blunted the attack by scrambling intimidating military aircraft from Italy's Aviano Air Base -- an assertion denied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey when he testified before Congress in February. Dempsey told Congress it would take up to 20 hours to scramble the aircraft to get to Benghazi; Hicks said he believed it would take two to three hours. "I was speaking from my perspective ... on the ground in Tripoli based on what the defense attache told me," Hicks said when asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, asked Hicks if he had any reason to question Dempsey's assertion. Finally, Hicks claimed four members of the military were ready to board a plane from Tripoli to Benghazi, but were prevented from doing so by their superiors. "How did the personnel react at being told to stand down?" asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. "They were furious," said Hicks. "I can only say, well, I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson who said, 'This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.'" Pentagon officials insist the members of the military in question were told not to go to Benghazi because they were not equipped for combat, and were needed in Tripoli to care for wounded headed their way. Nordstrom said in written testimony it was "inexplicable" that a followup internal State Department review ignored "the role senior department leadership played before, during, and after" the attack. In the run-up to the hearing, Issa trickled out testimony from the witnesses in an apparent attempt to build anticipation for the session, one of several that have occurred in Congress focusing on security at the compound and the administration's response. Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a "smear" campaign. "What we have seen ... is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way but rather a launch of unfounded accusations to smear public officials," Cummings said. White House spokesman Jay Carney also weighed in, telling reporters that the Benghazi attack "is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans." He defended defended the administration has "made extraordinary efforts to work with" Congress on multiple investigations. Accusation of playing politics For its part, the State Department also accused House Republicans of playing politics with the tragedy. "This is not sort of a collaborative process where the committee is working directly with us in trying to establish facts that would help, you know, as we look to keep our people safe overseas in a very complex environment," State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said on Monday. Wednesday's hearing is another chapter in what has become an epic back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on Benghazi, partly stemming from Rice's televised comments. The comments are widely believed to have cost her a likely nomination to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Some congressional Republicans previously sharply questioned Clinton over the administration's explanation of events and the state of security at the compound at the time of the attack. Clinton has said that she accepted responsibility for the deaths, declaring that as secretary of state, she was "in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world." In January, Clinton testified for more than five hours before the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees. In her testimony, she acknowledged a "systematic breakdown" on Benghazi and said her department was taking additional steps to increase U.S. security at diplomatic posts. At one point at that hearing, Clinton barely controlled her anger as she responded to a lawmaker who pressed her on the administration's post-attack storyline. Critics have questioned the validity of continued congressional scrutiny, especially Democrats, who say Republicans are only interested in discrediting the administration and hurting Clinton's chances if she were to run for president in 2016. One Republican congressman, Ohio's Jim Jordan, used the hearing to criticize top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he received a call from Mills, who he added was not happy that a State Department lawyer -- described by Republicans as a minder -- was excluded from a briefing on Benghazi in Libya with Hicks, a Republican congressman and others. Hicks has been "praised by everybody who counts, the president, the secretary, everyone above him," Jordan said. "And yet now, they're obstructing -- because he won't -- he won't help them cover this up." But former Clinton aide Philppe Reines disputed that characterization, saying the State Department took a cooperative approach with Congress. He said in a written statement that Mills had, in fact, called Hicks to support him. "She wanted (people on the ground in Libya) to know that no matter how far away they were from home, they weren't alone," Reines said. "She was with them, and most importantly (Secretary Clinton) was with them."	www.cnn.com	0left	wSPgk2EaL7zYaxSI
healthcare	National Review	22	http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453184/john-kasich-obamacare-defender	John Kasich Leans into the Role of Pro-Obamacare Republican	2017-10-27	Jason Hart, Kyle Smith, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Luke Thompson, Jordan Sillars, Jay Nordlinger, David French, Kevin D. Williamson, Julie Gunlock	He fought every attempt to repeal the law ; now he wants to ‘ stabilize ’ it . Ohio governor John Kasich , the most vocal Republican critic of Obamacare-repeal efforts this year , is pleading with Congress to pass the health-care bill proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander ( R. , Tenn. ) and Senator Patty Murray ( D. , Wash. ) . The Alexander–Murray bill follows a template that Kasich and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper , a Democrat , began promoting in August : Obamacare ’ s mandates , regulations , and Medicaid expansion would all remain in place , and Congress would authorize spending to “ stabilize ” the exchanges . In particular , Alexander–Murray would reimburse insurers for “ cost-sharing reductions ” Obamacare requires them to provide to certain low-income enrollees . Congress has thus far refused to appropriate money for these payments ; President Obama paid the subsidies illegally anyway , but President Trump recently halted them . “ This should be a no-brainer . Get Alexander-Murray passed & signed , ” Kasich wrote in a Twitter update Monday after Trump endorsed — and then unendorsed — the bill . “ Then we take on the big reforms necessary to get American families the coverage they need . ” Kasich ’ s ideas for reform amount to managing an increasingly vast federal health-care bureaucracy more efficiently . While conservative Republicans have prodded Senate moderates to enact modest free-market reforms , Kasich has attacked all of their proposals from the left . When Alexander–Murray was introduced , Kasich ’ s band of ten pro-Obamacare governors — only two of whom , including Kasich , are Republicans — fired off a letter to House and Senate leaders imploring them to “ quickly pass legislation to stabilize our private health insurance markets and make quality health insurance more available and affordable . ” Kasich latched on to the Congressional Budget Office ’ s estimate that Alexander–Murray would reduce federal deficits by $ 3.8 billion over ten years , posting a video statement on Twitter the day CBO ’ s report was released . “ The Congressional Budget Office says that we can actually reduce the deficit modestly but also not have anybody removed from health care under Alexander-Murray . It is a great thing to be for : stabilize our market , save peoples ’ health care , and move on to controlling health-care costs , ” Kasich said . “ With the positive CBO score in hand , passage of Alexander-Murray is a must , ” he wrote in the accompanying tweet . But past Obamacare-related cost estimates have proven remarkably unreliable . Kasich projected that expanding Medicaid would cost $ 13 billion by 2020 , but it has already cost taxpayers more than $ 15 billion . Other states have seen similarly unsustainable welfare-spending increases since expanding Medicaid , and the CBO sharply underestimated Medicaid-expansion costs , too . Kasich was less concerned about deficit spending when he was pushing the Ohio General Assembly to expand Medicaid . “ There really is not a legitimate argument against it , ” he told newspaper reporters in 2013 . “ What it is , is , ‘ Well , you know , we ’ re ringing up the federal debt ’ – I mean , what ? You think by turning this down you ’ re gon na solve the federal debt ? ” And listening to Kasich lobby for greater Obamacare funding now , it would be easy to forget that last year he was promising to repeal and replace Obamacare if elected president . The year before that , Kasich scoffed at CNN host Jake Tapper when Tapper questioned his embrace of Obamacare ’ s Medicaid expansion . “ I don ’ t support Obamacare ; I want to repeal it , but I did expand Medicaid because I was able to bring Ohio money back home to treat the mentally ill , the drug-addicted , and to help the working poor get health care , ” Kasich insisted in that May 2015 interview . Perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare work as intended . When Kasich decided to implement Obamacare ’ s expansion of Medicaid to working-age adults with no kids and no disabilities , it was not to “ bring Ohio money back home , ” but rather to accept a blank check for new federal deficit spending . “ If a state doesn ’ t implement the ACA Medicaid expansion , the federal funds that would have been used for that state ’ s expansion are not being sent to another state , ” the Congressional Research Service clarified in a 2015 memo . In a New York Times op-ed this July , Kasich acknowledged that states “ can not expect the federal government to continue paying 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs given our nation ’ s historic debt , ” but since then he has continued working tirelessly to delay changes to the Medicaid expansion until after he hits his term limit in January 2019 . Kasich tried for several years to argue that Medicaid expansion was not really part of Obamacare , even though most of the Obamacare spending increases and coverage gains in Ohio and nationwide result from the law ’ s Medicaid expansion . With Republicans in Congress seemingly unable to deliver on years of repeal promises , Kasich is leaning into the role of pro-Obamacare Republican . If Barack Obama ’ s biggest domestic-policy achievement remains in place , perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare ’ s mandates , subsidies , penalties , and regulations work together as intended .	(Reuters photo: Aaron Josefczyk) He fought every attempt to repeal the law; now he wants to ‘stabilize’ it. Ohio governor John Kasich, the most vocal Republican critic of Obamacare-repeal efforts this year, is pleading with Congress to pass the health-care bill proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.). The Alexander–Murray bill follows a template that Kasich and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, began promoting in August: Obamacare’s mandates, regulations, and Medicaid expansion would all remain in place, and Congress would authorize spending to “stabilize” the exchanges. Advertisement Advertisement In particular, Alexander–Murray would reimburse insurers for “cost-sharing reductions” Obamacare requires them to provide to certain low-income enrollees. Congress has thus far refused to appropriate money for these payments; President Obama paid the subsidies illegally anyway, but President Trump recently halted them. “This should be a no-brainer. Get Alexander-Murray passed & signed,” Kasich wrote in a Twitter update Monday after Trump endorsed — and then unendorsed — the bill. “Then we take on the big reforms necessary to get American families the coverage they need.” Kasich’s ideas for reform amount to managing an increasingly vast federal health-care bureaucracy more efficiently. While conservative Republicans have prodded Senate moderates to enact modest free-market reforms, Kasich has attacked all of their proposals from the left. Advertisement When Alexander–Murray was introduced, Kasich’s band of ten pro-Obamacare governors — only two of whom, including Kasich, are Republicans — fired off a letter to House and Senate leaders imploring them to “quickly pass legislation to stabilize our private health insurance markets and make quality health insurance more available and affordable.” Advertisement Kasich latched on to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that Alexander–Murray would reduce federal deficits by $3.8 billion over ten years, posting a video statement on Twitter the day CBO’s report was released. “The Congressional Budget Office says that we can actually reduce the deficit modestly but also not have anybody removed from health care under Alexander-Murray. It is a great thing to be for: stabilize our market, save peoples’ health care, and move on to controlling health-care costs,” Kasich said. “With the positive CBO score in hand, passage of Alexander-Murray is a must,” he wrote in the accompanying tweet. Advertisement But past Obamacare-related cost estimates have proven remarkably unreliable. Kasich projected that expanding Medicaid would cost $13 billion by 2020, but it has already cost taxpayers more than $15 billion. Other states have seen similarly unsustainable welfare-spending increases since expanding Medicaid, and the CBO sharply underestimated Medicaid-expansion costs, too. Advertisement Kasich was less concerned about deficit spending when he was pushing the Ohio General Assembly to expand Medicaid. “There really is not a legitimate argument against it,” he told newspaper reporters in 2013. “What it is, is, ‘Well, you know, we’re ringing up the federal debt’ – I mean, what? You think by turning this down you’re gonna solve the federal debt?” And listening to Kasich lobby for greater Obamacare funding now, it would be easy to forget that last year he was promising to repeal and replace Obamacare if elected president. The year before that, Kasich scoffed at CNN host Jake Tapper when Tapper questioned his embrace of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. “I don’t support Obamacare; I want to repeal it, but I did expand Medicaid because I was able to bring Ohio money back home to treat the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, and to help the working poor get health care,” Kasich insisted in that May 2015 interview. Perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare work as intended. When Kasich decided to implement Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to working-age adults with no kids and no disabilities, it was not to “bring Ohio money back home,” but rather to accept a blank check for new federal deficit spending. “If a state doesn’t implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, the federal funds that would have been used for that state’s expansion are not being sent to another state,” the Congressional Research Service clarified in a 2015 memo. Advertisement In a New York Times op-ed this July, Kasich acknowledged that states “cannot expect the federal government to continue paying 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs given our nation’s historic debt,” but since then he has continued working tirelessly to delay changes to the Medicaid expansion until after he hits his term limit in January 2019. Kasich tried for several years to argue that Medicaid expansion was not really part of Obamacare, even though most of the Obamacare spending increases and coverage gains in Ohio and nationwide result from the law’s Medicaid expansion. With Republicans in Congress seemingly unable to deliver on years of repeal promises, Kasich is leaning into the role of pro-Obamacare Republican. If Barack Obama’s biggest domestic-policy achievement remains in place, perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare’s mandates, subsidies, penalties, and regulations work together as intended. Advertisement Advertisement READ MORE: The Constitution Finally Takes Precedence over Obamacare Should the House Accept the Alexander-Murray Deal? Republicans Should Reject ‘Bipartisan’ Solution for Obamacare	www.nationalreview.com	1right	ix1iMToO9gF7apzo
race_and_racism	Al Jazeera	00	https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/india-sri-lanka-coronavirus-stigmatise-muslims-200519134939934.html	Like India, Sri Lanka is using coronavirus to stigmatise Muslims		Omar Suleiman	The world is going through a period of unprecedented instability , distress and uncertainty . The novel coronavirus pandemic , and the threat posed by it to the socioeconomic fabric of nations , pushed many governments around the world into an existential crisis and forced them to switch to survival mode . Populist politicians in these countries , who failed to respond to this public health crisis swiftly and efficiently , resorted to scapegoating minority communities , especially Muslims , to justify their shortcomings . This has put millions of people , who were subjected to discrimination , abuse and oppression even before the start of the pandemic , in a bind . In many countries around the world underprivileged Muslims are now facing not only a pandemic that is threatening their lives and livelihoods , but also a spike in institutionalised Islamophobia . In India , since the emergence of COVID-19 , members of the country 's 200 million-strong Muslim community have repeatedly been accused of being `` super spreaders '' of coronavirus both by the media and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) . In late March , after a Muslim religious gathering in New Delhi allegedly led to a rise in the number of coronavirus cases in the city , a politician from the BJP dubbed the gathering `` corona terrorism '' , and called for Muslims who attend mosques amid the pandemic to be `` punished like terrorists '' . As a result , `` corona jihad '' became a trending topic on social media and many Muslims , including volunteers distributing relief material , faced physical and verbal attacks . A BJP legislator from the state of Uttar Pradesh , meanwhile , called for a boycott of Muslim vendors , accusing them of `` infecting vegetables with saliva '' . The Indian media also contributed to the stigmatisation of Muslims during the pandemic . As politicians continued their efforts to blame the rapid spread of the virus in the country on Muslims , pro-government media organisations ran shows and published reports that support this unfounded accusation . As a result , Muslims who had only a few months ago survived a pogrom in New Delhi found themselves with an even bigger target on their backs . India 's government treated the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to double down on its existing Islamophobic policies . Since the start of this public health emergency , it not only used Muslims as a scapegoat to divert attention from the shortcomings of its coronavirus response , but also managed to deepen the Hindu majority 's existing prejudices about this community . In neighbouring Sri Lanka , the government chose to use the pandemic as an excuse to stigmatise Muslims and pander to Islamophobia . Sri Lanka is an island nation with a vibrant multireligious and multi-ethnic heritage . But Islamophobic propaganda persistently spread by the media and politicians over the years , coupled with attacks by radical Muslim groups in Sri Lanka and the mainstreaming of Islamophobia across the world , led to the marginalisation of Muslims in the country . Muslims faced waves of violence at the hands of nationalists . The government was accused of not doing enough to protect this minority community and bring those who attack them to justice . So , unsurprisingly , when COVID-19 reached Sri Lanka , some prominent media organisations and nationalists who are close to the current government were quick to blame Muslims , who form nearly 10 percent of the population , for the spread of the virus . Just like in India , Muslim religious practices were singled out as `` super spreader events '' and Sri Lankans who belong to the Buddhist majority were warned not to buy food items from Muslim vendors . In April , the government made cremations compulsory for coronavirus victims , which goes against the Islamic tradition of burying the dead . The measure not only deprived Muslims of a basic religious right , but it contributed to the widespread perception that Muslim religious practices aid the spread of the virus . Islam has at its heart the sanctity of life and honouring the dead is an extension of that sanctity . There are four duties that Muslims are obligated to perform upon the passing away of a fellow Muslim ; they are to wash the body , shroud it with clean sheets , perform the funeral prayer even if only with a few people , and provide a dignified burial . When called on to take all the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus , the majority of Muslim communities , in Sri Lanka and elsewhere , agreed to adjust their burial practices accordingly , especially in regards to the first two duties . There is no scientific basis to the claim that burying bodies of victims contributes to the spread of the coronavirus . Countries across the world , from Europe to Africa and North America , are burying coronavirus victims , according to the detailed guidelines issued by their governments , and without causing any risk to public health . The Sri Lankan government 's decision to make cremation mandatory for all victims of COVID-19 is thus not a public health measure but a blatant act of institutionalised Islamophobia . It speaks to the larger fears that amid the coronavirus pandemic the Indian model of disenfranchisement is being tested in Sri Lanka as well . India and Sri Lanka are not the only countries in which Muslims face increased risks , abuse and discrimination due to the coronavirus crisis . In China , Uighurs and other Turkic-Muslim minorities are still subjected to the most unimaginable forms of abuse at the hands of the government . According to the UN , about one million Uighurs are being held within so-called `` re-education camps '' in unhygenic and cramped conditions . As I wrote at the very beginning of this crisis , this puts them at an increased risk of contracting the novel coronavirus . It is also not known whether they have immediate access to healthcare . The suffering of Rohingya Muslims , who in 2017 faced a military offensive in Myanmar for which the government is facing genocide charges at the UN 's top court , has also increased due to the pandemic.Today , hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees are living in densely populated camps in neighbouring Bangladesh . A COVID-19 outbreak in the overcrowded camps is almost certain to come - and when it does , experts say , the damage could be severe . A Rohingya refugee in the camps already tested positive for the virus last week . The governments of both China and Myanmar are using the coronavirus pandemic to divert attention from the crimes they committed , and continue to commit , against Muslim minorities in their countries . Political leaders across the world are using racism , xenophobia and Islamophobia as potent tools for short-term gains during this pandemic . The world must act immediately and decisively to hold these leaders and governments to account to ensure we do not let the rise of COVID-19 contribute to the rise of fascism . The views expressed in this article are the author 's own and do not necessarily reflect ███ 's editorial stance .	The world is going through a period of unprecedented instability, distress and uncertainty. The novel coronavirus pandemic, and the threat posed by it to the socioeconomic fabric of nations, pushed many governments around the world into an existential crisis and forced them to switch to survival mode. Populist politicians in these countries, who failed to respond to this public health crisis swiftly and efficiently, resorted to scapegoating minority communities, especially Muslims, to justify their shortcomings. This has put millions of people, who were subjected to discrimination, abuse and oppression even before the start of the pandemic, in a bind. In many countries around the world underprivileged Muslims are now facing not only a pandemic that is threatening their lives and livelihoods, but also a spike in institutionalised Islamophobia. In India, since the emergence of COVID-19, members of the country's 200 million-strong Muslim community have repeatedly been accused of being "super spreaders" of coronavirus both by the media and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In late March, after a Muslim religious gathering in New Delhi allegedly led to a rise in the number of coronavirus cases in the city, a politician from the BJP dubbed the gathering "corona terrorism", and called for Muslims who attend mosques amid the pandemic to be "punished like terrorists". As a result, "corona jihad" became a trending topic on social media and many Muslims, including volunteers distributing relief material, faced physical and verbal attacks. A BJP legislator from the state of Uttar Pradesh, meanwhile, called for a boycott of Muslim vendors, accusing them of "infecting vegetables with saliva". The Indian media also contributed to the stigmatisation of Muslims during the pandemic. As politicians continued their efforts to blame the rapid spread of the virus in the country on Muslims, pro-government media organisations ran shows and published reports that support this unfounded accusation. As a result, Muslims who had only a few months ago survived a pogrom in New Delhi found themselves with an even bigger target on their backs. India's government treated the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to double down on its existing Islamophobic policies. Since the start of this public health emergency, it not only used Muslims as a scapegoat to divert attention from the shortcomings of its coronavirus response, but also managed to deepen the Hindu majority's existing prejudices about this community. In neighbouring Sri Lanka, the government chose to use the pandemic as an excuse to stigmatise Muslims and pander to Islamophobia. Sri Lanka is an island nation with a vibrant multireligious and multi-ethnic heritage. But Islamophobic propaganda persistently spread by the media and politicians over the years, coupled with attacks by radical Muslim groups in Sri Lanka and the mainstreaming of Islamophobia across the world, led to the marginalisation of Muslims in the country. Muslims faced waves of violence at the hands of nationalists. The government was accused of not doing enough to protect this minority community and bring those who attack them to justice. So, unsurprisingly, when COVID-19 reached Sri Lanka, some prominent media organisations and nationalists who are close to the current government were quick to blame Muslims, who form nearly 10 percent of the population, for the spread of the virus. Just like in India, Muslim religious practices were singled out as "super spreader events" and Sri Lankans who belong to the Buddhist majority were warned not to buy food items from Muslim vendors. In April, the government made cremations compulsory for coronavirus victims, which goes against the Islamic tradition of burying the dead. The measure not only deprived Muslims of a basic religious right, but it contributed to the widespread perception that Muslim religious practices aid the spread of the virus. Islam has at its heart the sanctity of life and honouring the dead is an extension of that sanctity. There are four duties that Muslims are obligated to perform upon the passing away of a fellow Muslim; they are to wash the body, shroud it with clean sheets, perform the funeral prayer even if only with a few people, and provide a dignified burial. When called on to take all the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus, the majority of Muslim communities, in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, agreed to adjust their burial practices accordingly, especially in regards to the first two duties. There is no scientific basis to the claim that burying bodies of victims contributes to the spread of the coronavirus. Countries across the world, from Europe to Africa and North America, are burying coronavirus victims, according to the detailed guidelines issued by their governments, and without causing any risk to public health. The Sri Lankan government's decision to make cremation mandatory for all victims of COVID-19 is thus not a public health measure but a blatant act of institutionalised Islamophobia. It speaks to the larger fears that amid the coronavirus pandemic the Indian model of disenfranchisement is being tested in Sri Lanka as well. India and Sri Lanka are not the only countries in which Muslims face increased risks, abuse and discrimination due to the coronavirus crisis. In China, Uighurs and other Turkic-Muslim minorities are still subjected to the most unimaginable forms of abuse at the hands of the government. According to the UN, about one million Uighurs are being held within so-called "re-education camps" in unhygenic and cramped conditions. As I wrote at the very beginning of this crisis, this puts them at an increased risk of contracting the novel coronavirus. It is also not known whether they have immediate access to healthcare. The suffering of Rohingya Muslims, who in 2017 faced a military offensive in Myanmar for which the government is facing genocide charges at the UN's top court, has also increased due to the pandemic.Today, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees are living in densely populated camps in neighbouring Bangladesh. A COVID-19 outbreak in the overcrowded camps is almost certain to come - and when it does, experts say, the damage could be severe. A Rohingya refugee in the camps already tested positive for the virus last week. The governments of both China and Myanmar are using the coronavirus pandemic to divert attention from the crimes they committed, and continue to commit, against Muslim minorities in their countries. Political leaders across the world are using racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia as potent tools for short-term gains during this pandemic. The world must act immediately and decisively to hold these leaders and governments to account to ensure we do not let the rise of COVID-19 contribute to the rise of fascism. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.	www.aljazeera.com	0left	gvCaUI3ieWdwFsNQ
politics	RealClearPolitics	11	http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/30/priebus_wh_will_respond_to_evelyn_farkas_story_incredible_raises_many_questions.html	Priebus: WH Will Look Into Evelyn Farkas Story; Almost Too Incredible To Be True	2017-03-30		White House chief of staff Reince Priebus joins Hugh Hewitt for a Thursday morning interview . One of the subjects touched on is the story of Evelyn Farkas , formerly the Defense Department 's top Russia expert under President Obama who is now calling for an independent investigation of the president 's ties to Moscow . This week , conservative media has noticed an interview she did on MSNBC 's 'Morning Joe ' on March 2nd , 2017 where Farkas appears to happily admit that she was repsonsible for leaking sensitive information about what parts of the government might have spied on President-elect Trump and his Trump Tower . Fox News ran a story on this titled : Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team The Farkas statement in question : `` I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [ Obama ] people who left , so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence . '' Terrible ! Just found out that Obama had my `` wires tapped '' in Trump Tower just before the victory . Nothing found . This is McCarthyism ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 4 , 2017 HUGH HEWITT : A news story came up last night , Mr. Priebus . Evelyn Farkas , former assistant deputy secretary of Defense a few days ago was on with Morning Joe , and talking to Mika about the end game during the Obama years . She said this , the 30 second clip : EVELYN FARKAS : …that the Trump folks , if they found out how we knew what we knew about their , the staff , the Trump staff ’ s dealing with Russians , that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence . So I became very worried , because not enough was coming out into the open , and I knew that there was more . We have very good intelligence on Russia . So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues , and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill . RP : Well , I mean , I heard it late last night , so I mean I honestly , I talked to Sean a little bit about it late last night , Spicer , and then we ’ re going to be meeting on it this morning . It ’ s just an incredible statement , you know , and how , what it means and what she meant by that , and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day . But it certainly is an incredible comment , although I don ’ t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement . HH : Now I want to ask you about a personal reaction to it , though . It suggests that incidental collection of American conversation in intelligence , perhaps even in Russian to Russian conversation , was pushed out by Team Obama for the purposes of cornering you guys ? I don ’ t know what , but… RP : Yeah , I mean , a personal reaction is it ’ s , it ’ s almost , it ’ s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she ’ s talking about . I mean , you know what I ’ m saying ? RP : It ’ s sort of like one of these things it ’ s so much in your face that it makes you wonder what she means . HH : Now do you think Director Comey will be interested in that statement ? RP : ( laughing ) Well , I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested in all of these things . And the one thing I will tell you is that we want , we want this thing done thoroughly , and I will tell you that because we have got nothing to hide . I mean , there ’ s just nothing there . I ’ ve said it many times on television and elsewhere . There is no collusion . The issues in regard to contacts with Russia as outlined in the New York Times article about a month ago is total garbage , and we just , we would rather this move forward and be thorough and get on with it , because we ’ ve got nothing to hide . It ’ s ridiculous . White House chief of staff Reince Priebus responded Thursday morning : `` That ’ s incredible . `` `` It certainly is an incredible comment , although I don ’ t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement ... It ’ s just an incredible statement , you know , and how , what it means and what she meant by that , and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day . `` `` I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested , '' he also said.Radio hosts Sean Hannity ...... and Mark Levin both mentioned the story Wednesday afternoon ... The original clip from MSNBC 's 'Morning Joe ' : '' That 's why you have the leaking ! '' Farkas says in the clip . `` A personal reaction is it ’ s , it ’ s almost , it ’ s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she ’ s talking about . I mean , you know what I ’ m saying ? '' Priebus added.Transcript of the Priebus interview , courtesy of the Hugh Hewitt Show	White House chief of staff Reince Priebus joins Hugh Hewitt for a Thursday morning interview. One of the subjects touched on is the story of Evelyn Farkas, formerly the Defense Department's top Russia expert under President Obama who is now calling for an independent investigation of the president's ties to Moscow. This week, conservative media has noticed an interview she did on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' on March 2nd, 2017 where Farkas appears to happily admit that she was repsonsible for leaking sensitive information about what parts of the government might have spied on President-elect Trump and his Trump Tower. Fox News ran a story on this titled: Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team The Farkas statement in question: "I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence." Note: The Farkas clip originally aired on March 2. President Trump's infamous 'wiretap' tweet came two days later: Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 HUGH HEWITT: A news story came up last night, Mr. Priebus. Evelyn Farkas, former assistant deputy secretary of Defense a few days ago was on with Morning Joe, and talking to Mika about the end game during the Obama years. She said this, the 30 second clip: EVELYN FARKAS: …that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill. HH: So Mr. Priebus, I put two clips together. REINCE PRIEBUS, TRUMP ADMIN: That’s incredible. HH: React to that for me, would you? RP: Well, I mean, I heard it late last night, so I mean I honestly, I talked to Sean a little bit about it late last night, Spicer, and then we’re going to be meeting on it this morning. It’s just an incredible statement, you know, and how, what it means and what she meant by that, and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day. But it certainly is an incredible comment, although I don’t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement. HH: Now I want to ask you about a personal reaction to it, though. It suggests that incidental collection of American conversation in intelligence, perhaps even in Russian to Russian conversation, was pushed out by Team Obama for the purposes of cornering you guys? I don’t know what, but… RP: Yeah, I mean, a personal reaction is it’s, it’s almost, it’s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she’s talking about. I mean, you know what I’m saying? HH: Yeah. RP: It’s sort of like one of these things it’s so much in your face that it makes you wonder what she means. HH: Now do you think Director Comey will be interested in that statement? RP: (laughing) Well, I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested in all of these things. And the one thing I will tell you is that we want, we want this thing done thoroughly, and I will tell you that because we have got nothing to hide. I mean, there’s just nothing there. I’ve said it many times on television and elsewhere. There is no collusion. The issues in regard to contacts with Russia as outlined in the New York Times article about a month ago is total garbage, and we just, we would rather this move forward and be thorough and get on with it, because we’ve got nothing to hide. It’s ridiculous. HH: Okay, to a substantive question. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus responded Thursday morning: "That’s incredible.""It certainly is an incredible comment, although I don’t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement... It’s just an incredible statement, you know, and how, what it means and what she meant by that, and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day.""I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested," he also said.Radio hosts Sean Hannity......and Mark Levin both mentioned the story Wednesday afternoon...The original clip from MSNBC's 'Morning Joe':"That's why you have the leaking!" Farkas says in the clip."A personal reaction is it’s, it’s almost, it’s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she’s talking about. I mean, you know what I’m saying?" Priebus added.Transcript of the Priebus interview, courtesy of the Hugh Hewitt Show	www.realclearpolitics.com	2center	3tQm4L5zvSsV8k8T
federal_budget	CNN (Web News)	00	http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-blame/index.html?hpt=po_c1	CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame	2013-09-30	Paul Steinhauser	Story highlights CNN/ORC International poll : Six in 10 say they want budget deal to avoid shutdown In poll , 46 % would blame congressional Republicans and 36 % would blame the president Poll says 57 % oppose the Affordable Care Act ; 803 people participated in the two-day poll If the federal government shuts down starting Tuesday because of a bitter partisan battle over the new health care law , more people say congressional Republicans rather than President Barack Obama would be responsible , according to a new national survey . A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday morning , hours before funding for the government is scheduled to run out , also indicates that most Americans think Republicans in Congress are acting like spoiled children in this fiscal fight , with the public divided on whether the president is acting like a spoiled child or a responsible adult . And six in 10 questioned in the survey say they want Congress to approve a budget agreement to avoid a government shutdown , and if it happens , most people say a shutdown would be a bad thing for the country . The poll 's release comes one day after the GOP-dominated House of Representatives approved a spending plan to fund the government that would delay the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare , for a year , and repeal its tax on medical devices . JUST WATCHED House vote makes shutdown likely Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH House vote makes shutdown likely 02:09 JUST WATCHED Memorable moments from House debate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Memorable moments from House debate 01:13 That measure now heads back to Senate later Monday , where the Democratic majority has said any changes to the health care law would be a deal-killer . If no deal is reached on a temporary funding measure , a government shutdown would kick in at 12:01 a.m . ET Tuesday . According to the poll , which was conducted Friday through Sunday , 46 % say they would blame congressional Republicans for a government shutdown , with 36 % saying the president would be more responsible and 13 % pointing fingers at both the GOP in Congress and Obama . `` The number who would hold congressional Republicans responsible has gone down by 5 points since early September , and the number who would blame Obama is up 3 points in that same time , '' said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` Those changes came among most demographic groups . '' The CNN poll is similar to a CBS News/New York Times survey released late last week that indicated 44 % blaming congressional Republicans and 35 % pointing fingers at the president . Two other polls conducted in the past week and a half , from Pew Research Center and United Technologies/National Journal , showed a much closer margin but their questions mentioned Republicans in general rather than the GOP in Congress . While most Democrats questioned in the CNN poll would predictably blame congressional Republicans and most Republicans questioned would point fingers at the president , independents were divided on which side they would blame . In a separate question , 49 % of all people in the poll say that Obama is acting like a responsible adult in this budget battle , with 47 % describing him as a spoiled child . While that 's nothing to brag about , it 's better than Congress . According to the poll , 58 % say congressional Democrats are acting like spoiled children , with that number rising to 69 % for the GOP in Congress . Only one in four say congressional Republicans are acting like responsible adults . Some 68 % say a shutdown for a few days would be a bad thing for the country , with that number rising to nearly eight in 10 for a shutdown lasting a few weeks . Six in 10 questioned in the CNN survey say that it is more important for Congress to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the new health care law , with only a third saying it is more important for lawmakers to prevent major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them . The drive to overthrow the health care law , which was passed in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress , is being fueled by GOP lawmakers voted into office the past two elections with the strong support of tea party activists and other grassroots conservatives . `` A majority of Republicans think that blocking Obamacare is more important than approving a budget agreement , '' said Holland . `` So do tea party supporters , regardless of their partisan affiliation . '' `` Who 's driving this strategy : 40 to 50 of the most conservative members of the House , and four or five of the most conservative members of the Senate , '' says CNN Chief National Correspondent John King . `` Fifty-six percent of tea party supporters say it 's a good thing to shut down the government . These are the folks those most conservative members of Congress are listening to . Those lawmakers think back home they 're on safe ground even though nationally shutting down the government is a non-starter . '' The poll indicates that Obamacare is not popular , with 57 % saying they oppose the law , up 3 points from May , and 38 % saying they support the measure , down five points from May . But only about four in 10 oppose it because it is too liberal , with about one in 10 saying they do n't like the law because it is not liberal enough . If you add the 38 % who favor the law to the 11 % to oppose the law because it 's not liberal enough , you get 49 % , compared with the 39 % who say they oppose the law because it 's too liberal . The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International September 27-29 , with 803 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points . Where do you stand ? Add your thoughts in the comments below : QUESTION : If the federal government shuts down , do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for that ? QUESTION : Do you think Barack Obama has acted mostly like a responsible adult or mostly like a spoiled child during the recent debate over the federal budget ? QUESTION : Do you think the Republicans in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget ? QUESTION : Do you think the Democrats in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget ?	Story highlights CNN/ORC International poll: Six in 10 say they want budget deal to avoid shutdown In poll, 46% would blame congressional Republicans and 36% would blame the president Poll says 57% oppose the Affordable Care Act; 803 people participated in the two-day poll If the federal government shuts down starting Tuesday because of a bitter partisan battle over the new health care law, more people say congressional Republicans rather than President Barack Obama would be responsible, according to a new national survey. A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday morning, hours before funding for the government is scheduled to run out, also indicates that most Americans think Republicans in Congress are acting like spoiled children in this fiscal fight, with the public divided on whether the president is acting like a spoiled child or a responsible adult. And six in 10 questioned in the survey say they want Congress to approve a budget agreement to avoid a government shutdown, and if it happens, most people say a shutdown would be a bad thing for the country. The poll's release comes one day after the GOP-dominated House of Representatives approved a spending plan to fund the government that would delay the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare, for a year, and repeal its tax on medical devices. JUST WATCHED House vote makes shutdown likely Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH House vote makes shutdown likely 02:09 JUST WATCHED Memorable moments from House debate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Memorable moments from House debate 01:13 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – The game is the same, but many of the players have changed. Congress and the president are facing off in another supreme spending showdown. This last happened in 2011, when Congress avoided a shutdown by passing a spending measure shortly after the midnight deadline hit. Who controls what happens this time? Take a look at the key players who will determine how this fight ends. -- From CNN Capitol Hill Reporter Lisa Desjardins. CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report. Hide Caption 1 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina -- The architect. During Congress' August recess, the tea party-backed freshman wrote to Republican leaders suggesting that they tie dismantling Obamacare to the funding bill. Though initially rejected by GOP leadership, 79 of Meadows' House colleagues signed on to the letter, which quoted James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers, "the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon ... for obtaining a redress of every grievance." --The architect. During Congress' August recess, the tea party-backed freshman wrote to Republican leaders suggesting that they tie dismantling Obamacare to the funding bill. Though initially rejected by GOP leadership, 79 of Meadows' House colleagues signed on to the letter, which quoted James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers, "the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon ... for obtaining a redress of every grievance." Hide Caption 2 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- The coach. He'll make the key play call. The top Republican leader in the land may be the most important player in the days immediately before a possible shutdown. Boehner could decide whether to push through the Senate's version of a spending bill and keep government running, or he could float a third version with some other Republican wish list items in it. If he takes the second option, Boehner could risk a shutdown but could also force the Senate into a tough position: give House Republicans something or send federal workers home. Timing on all this will be critical. Hide Caption 3 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas -- The revolutionary or rabble rouser, depending on your viewpoint. The tea party firebrand could lead a long filibuster on the Senate floor, delaying passage of a spending bill until just one day before the deadline on Monday, September 30. Cruz has stoked the anti-Obamacare flames all summer, but recently angered fellow Republicans by openly saying that the Senate does not have the votes to repeal the health care law. Hide Caption 4 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida -- Senator to watch. The potential presidential candidate has been one of three senators (Cruz and Mike Lee, R-Utah, being the others) pushing to use the government shutdown debate as a way to repeal or defund Obamacare. But watch his actions and language as a shutdown nears to see if he digs in or if downshifts at all. Hide Caption 5 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada -- The man steering the ship in the Senate. Master at using Senate procedure to his advantage, Reid is the main force in controlling the voting process in the chamber and ensuring that an attempted filibuster by tea party-types fails. The majority leader will be a primary negotiator if we reach phase three, if the House does not accept the Senate spending bill. Hide Caption 6 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky -- If Reid steers the ship, McConnell controls the headwinds. Which is good news for Reid, at least initially. The Republican leader and several of his members say they will vote against Cruz's filibuster and in favor of a spending bill with no limits on Obamacare. Meaning, in favor of a bill that just funds government. McConnell generally has been leery of running into a shutdown or default. In fact, one legislative method for avoiding default is named after him. Hide Caption 7 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington -- The consigliore. Murray, center, does not seek the outside limelight, but the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman is a major fiscal force behind the scenes on Capitol Hill. Known by fellow Democrats as a straight shooter, she is also an experienced negotiator, having co-chaired the laborious, somewhat torturous and unsuccessful Super Committee. Hide Caption 8 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Tom Graves, R-Georgia -- The new militia leader. The freshman congressman from Georgia, second from right, is one reason the debate has reached this point. Graves led the charge that blocked the original proposal by House Republican leaders. That would have kept government funded and had a detachable portion on Obamacare. Instead Graves and other conservatives forced their leaders to pass a spending bill with a mandatory defunding of Obamacare. Hide Caption 9 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Peter King, R-New York -- The blunt statesman. King is outspoken against many tea party tactics, calling the move to tie Obamacare to the must-pass spending bill essentially a suicide mission and Cruz "a fraud." He is pushing for Republicans to accept a more "clean" spending bill that can pass the Senate and avoid a shutdown. Hide Caption 10 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- The heavy. Donohue is known for his deep connections and his aggressive lobbying on behalf of business. He and the Chamber are urging Republican lawmakers to avoid a shutdown. The Chamber is an important political backer for conservatives, but has had mixed success with the current Congress, locking in firm anti-tax positions but unable to push through immigration reform so far. Hide Caption 11 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Michael Needham, president of Heritage Action -- The driving force. Needham runs the political offshoot of the conservative Heritage Foundation and has been unrelenting in urging lawmakers to repeal Obamacare. He has told Republicans not to fear a potential shutdown, saying they would suffer more politically from allowing Obamacare to continue. Hide Caption 12 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – President Barack Obama -- The campaigner and CEO. Expect the president to use his podium more as a shutdown nears, aiming at public opinion as Democrats in Congress position themselves. If House Republicans send back a new proposal close to the September 30 deadline, the president and Democrats will have to decide what move to make next. Hide Caption 13 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia -- The powerful lieutenant. Cantor, the House Republican No. 2, is much more closely allied with conservatives and tea party members in the House than is Speaker Boehner. The two have not always agreed on every strategy during potential shutdown debates, but have been in public lockstep during the current go-around. Hide Caption 14 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland -- Players on deck. The top two House Democrats are mostly watching and waiting. But they will play a critical role once Boehner decides his next move. They could either bring Democratic votes on board a deal or be the loudest voices against a new Republican alternative. Hoyer will be interesting to watch; he has strongly opposed both the House and Senate plans as cutting too much in spending. Hide Caption 15 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California -- The numbers guy. McCarthy, the House whip, has the tricky job of assessing exactly where Republican members stand and getting the 217 votes it takes to pass a bill in the chamber. He is known for his outreach to and connection with many of the freshmen House members who align with the tea party. Hide Caption 16 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin -- Member to watch. The vote of the House budget chairman and former vice presidential nominee is an important signal both within Republican ranks and to the public at large. Ryan has voted against some funding measures in the past, including the emergency aid for Superstorm Sandy recovery. But he was a "yes" on the last extension of the debt ceiling. Hide Caption 17 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida -- Another member to watch. A former committee chairwoman (Republican rules have term limits for committee chairs), Ros-Lehtinen knows House politics and procedure inside out. Depending on the issue, she has been described as a conservative or moderate, and occasionally as a libertarian. Hide Caption 18 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A Park Service police officer stands guard in front of the Lincoln Memorial during a partial shutdown of the federal government in November 1995. Many government services and agencies were closed at the end of 1995 and beginning of 1996 as President Bill Clinton battled a Republican-led Congress over spending levels. Hide Caption 1 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – An employee hangs a sign on the door of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington on November 14, 1995, marking the start of the government shutdown. Hide Caption 2 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A tourist peers out a ferry window at the Statue of Liberty on November 14, 1995, as a small group of visitors wait on the dock to board the vessel. No passengers were allowed off the boat as both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were closed after federal workers were sent home. Hide Caption 3 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee holds up a chart showing the differences between Republican and Democratic budgets as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, left, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole stand by during a press conference on Capitol Hill. Hide Caption 4 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A police officer walks through the empty Statuary Hall in the Capitol on November 15, 1995. Hide Caption 5 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – The national debt clock in New York is stopped during the government shutdown in November. Hide Caption 6 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – President Clinton speaks about the federal budget impasse from the Oval Office on November 16, 1995. The first part of the budget shutdown ended on November 19 when a temporary spending bill was enacted. But Congress failed to come to an agreement on the federal budget, leading to a second shutdown starting December 16. Hide Caption 7 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – UPS workers deliver letters to members of Congress on November 28, 1995. The letters were written and sent by members of the Coalition For Change, a nonpartisan organization devoted to balancing the budget. Hide Caption 8 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A speaks to demonstrators at the Capitol Rotunda on December 7, 1995. Evangelical leaders from around the country held a prayer session to call on legislators to treat the poor justly during welfare reform and budget negotiations. Hide Caption 9 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Livingston, right, holds a "closed" sign outside the National Gallery of Art in Washington on December 18, 1995. Hide Caption 10 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A security guard informs people that the passport office is closed at the Federal Building in Los Angeles on December 18, 1995. Hide Caption 11 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Rep. John Boehner dumps out coal, which he called a Christmas gift to President Clinton, during a news conference about the federal budget on December 21, 1995. Hide Caption 12 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Karen Bishop chains herself to colleagues during a rally at the Federal Building in San Francisco on January 3, 1996. The workers claimed they were in servitude to the government as hundreds of thousands of federal employees were either furloughed or had to work without pay. Hide Caption 13 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Food service employees at the Veterans Hospital in Miami line up to receive food rations on January 3, 1996. Many federal employees faced financial hardships during the shutdown. Hide Caption 14 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Tourists line up outside the National Gallery of Art in Washington on January 5, 1996. It was one of the few government buildings open during the shutdown thanks to the assistance of private funds. Hide Caption 15 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – People trying to apply for visas at the U.S. consulate in Paris on January 5, 1996, are told that the building is closed because of the U.S. budget crisis. Hide Caption 16 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Rep. Thomas Davis III, R-Virginia, attends a rally in Washington on January 5, 1996, urging the end of the government shutdown. Hide Caption 17 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Tourists view Yosemite National Park in California after it re-opened on January 6, 1996. Early that morning, President Clinton signed Republican-crafted legislation to restore jobs and provide retroactive pay to government workers while he and Congress continued negotiating how to balance the federal budget. Hide Caption 18 of 18 That measure now heads back to Senate later Monday, where the Democratic majority has said any changes to the health care law would be a deal-killer. If no deal is reached on a temporary funding measure, a government shutdown would kick in at 12:01 a.m. ET Tuesday. According to the poll, which was conducted Friday through Sunday, 46% say they would blame congressional Republicans for a government shutdown, with 36% saying the president would be more responsible and 13% pointing fingers at both the GOP in Congress and Obama. "The number who would hold congressional Republicans responsible has gone down by 5 points since early September, and the number who would blame Obama is up 3 points in that same time," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Those changes came among most demographic groups." The CNN poll is similar to a CBS News/New York Times survey released late last week that indicated 44% blaming congressional Republicans and 35% pointing fingers at the president. Two other polls conducted in the past week and a half, from Pew Research Center and United Technologies/National Journal, showed a much closer margin but their questions mentioned Republicans in general rather than the GOP in Congress. While most Democrats questioned in the CNN poll would predictably blame congressional Republicans and most Republicans questioned would point fingers at the president, independents were divided on which side they would blame. In a separate question, 49% of all people in the poll say that Obama is acting like a responsible adult in this budget battle, with 47% describing him as a spoiled child. While that's nothing to brag about, it's better than Congress. According to the poll, 58% say congressional Democrats are acting like spoiled children, with that number rising to 69% for the GOP in Congress. Only one in four say congressional Republicans are acting like responsible adults. Some 68% say a shutdown for a few days would be a bad thing for the country, with that number rising to nearly eight in 10 for a shutdown lasting a few weeks. Six in 10 questioned in the CNN survey say that it is more important for Congress to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the new health care law, with only a third saying it is more important for lawmakers to prevent major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them. (Note: When CNN began interviews for this poll on Friday evening, the Senate had just stripped out of its bill the House Republican measure to defund the health care law. What the House passed this weekend doesn't specifically call for a defunding of Obamacare -- instead it delays its implementation for a year -- but the repeal on medical devices would cut key funding for the law.) The drive to overthrow the health care law, which was passed in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, is being fueled by GOP lawmakers voted into office the past two elections with the strong support of tea party activists and other grassroots conservatives. "A majority of Republicans think that blocking Obamacare is more important than approving a budget agreement," said Holland. "So do tea party supporters, regardless of their partisan affiliation." "Who's driving this strategy: 40 to 50 of the most conservative members of the House, and four or five of the most conservative members of the Senate," says CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. "Fifty-six percent of tea party supporters say it's a good thing to shut down the government. These are the folks those most conservative members of Congress are listening to. Those lawmakers think back home they're on safe ground even though nationally shutting down the government is a non-starter." The poll indicates that Obamacare is not popular, with 57% saying they oppose the law, up 3 points from May, and 38% saying they support the measure, down five points from May. But only about four in 10 oppose it because it is too liberal, with about one in 10 saying they don't like the law because it is not liberal enough. If you add the 38% who favor the law to the 11% to oppose the law because it's not liberal enough, you get 49%, compared with the 39% who say they oppose the law because it's too liberal. The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International September 27-29, with 803 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. THE QUESTIONS Where do you stand? Add your thoughts in the comments below: QUESTION: If the federal government shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for that? QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama has acted mostly like a responsible adult or mostly like a spoiled child during the recent debate over the federal budget? QUESTION: Do you think the Republicans in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget? QUESTION: Do you think the Democrats in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget?	www.cnn.com	0left	nWexooWGypXhLvNl
abortion	Guest Writer - Right	22	https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-editorial-board-covers-for-planned-parenthood/	New York Times Editorial Board Covers For Planned Parenthood	2019-08-20	Alexandra Desanctis, Mairead Mcardle, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Carrie Severino, John Fund, Tobias Hoonhout, Kevin D. Williamson, Bill Corsair, Jason Richwine	Outside the New York Times building in New York City ( Brendan McDermid/Reuters ) Planned Parenthood might as well stop wasting money on public-relations officials and marketing campaigns , because media outlets are only too willing to do their dirty work for free . In the wake of Planned Parenthood ’ s choice to withdraw from the Title X family planning program over a Trump-administration rule prohibiting providers from performing or referring for abortions , the New York Times editorial board rushed to the group ’ s defense . “ It Just Got Harder to Get Birth Control in America , ” declares the headline , and the subhead is hardly more accurate : “ Title X made sure poor women could have access to health care . The Trump administration has compromised that . ” This is precisely the myth that Planned Parenthood and its activist allies have propagated in the wake of the Protect Life rule . As the Times editorial puts it , the Trump administration “ has quietly been working to gut the Title X family planning program . ” In reality , the Trump administration hasn ’ t reduced federal funding for the Title X program by a cent . Instead , the rule forces providers to choose between federal funding and the profits that come from performing abortions . Planned Parenthood has made its decision . The Trump administration isn ’ t targeting the abortion provider , nor did it force the group to stop giving out contraception . In fact , there ’ s no evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood ’ s departure from Title X will affect the group ’ s ability to provide birth control at all . ( According to its own records , Planned Parenthood clinics provided 80,000 fewer contraceptives last year than the year before , making the supposed consternation over this particular issue even less sincere . ) Even if contraception access were to decline , it would be evidence not that the Trump administration has gutted Title X but that Planned Parenthood has gutted its own ability to provide health care in order to keep performing abortions . If the group ’ s executives were serious about women ’ s health , they would ’ ve chosen to maintain federal funding , adapting to the rule and financially distinguishing abortion procedures from the rest of the group ’ s work . That they did not is proof of Planned Parenthood ’ s preeminent commitment to its abortion business — and its ability to continue operating that business smoothly without any federal money at all . It is shameful that our nation ’ s newspaper of record would promote abortion-industry lies in order to obscure that reality .	Outside the New York Times building in New York City (Brendan McDermid/Reuters) Planned Parenthood might as well stop wasting money on public-relations officials and marketing campaigns, because media outlets are only too willing to do their dirty work for free. In the wake of Planned Parenthood’s choice to withdraw from the Title X family planning program over a Trump-administration rule prohibiting providers from performing or referring for abortions, the New York Times editorial board rushed to the group’s defense. Advertisement Advertisement “It Just Got Harder to Get Birth Control in America,” declares the headline, and the subhead is hardly more accurate: “Title X made sure poor women could have access to health care. The Trump administration has compromised that.” This is precisely the myth that Planned Parenthood and its activist allies have propagated in the wake of the Protect Life rule. As the Times editorial puts it, the Trump administration “has quietly been working to gut the Title X family planning program.” In reality, the Trump administration hasn’t reduced federal funding for the Title X program by a cent. Instead, the rule forces providers to choose between federal funding and the profits that come from performing abortions. Planned Parenthood has made its decision. Advertisement The Trump administration isn’t targeting the abortion provider, nor did it force the group to stop giving out contraception. In fact, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood’s departure from Title X will affect the group’s ability to provide birth control at all. (According to its own records, Planned Parenthood clinics provided 80,000 fewer contraceptives last year than the year before, making the supposed consternation over this particular issue even less sincere.) Advertisement Even if contraception access were to decline, it would be evidence not that the Trump administration has gutted Title X but that Planned Parenthood has gutted its own ability to provide health care in order to keep performing abortions. If the group’s executives were serious about women’s health, they would’ve chosen to maintain federal funding, adapting to the rule and financially distinguishing abortion procedures from the rest of the group’s work. That they did not is proof of Planned Parenthood’s preeminent commitment to its abortion business — and its ability to continue operating that business smoothly without any federal money at all. It is shameful that our nation’s newspaper of record would promote abortion-industry lies in order to obscure that reality.	www.nationalreview.com	1right	vEfAYf3HY8YTdrWX
taxes	Townhall	22	http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/13/how-liberals-argue-obamacare-taxes-n1466021	How Liberals Argue: Obamacare Taxes	2012-12-13	Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Matt Vespa	Last night , I joined CNBC 's The Kudlow Report to discuss the recent news that 18 Senate Democrats have signed a letter urging the postponement or repeal of Obamacare 's destructive medical device tax . Conservatives have warned for years that the tax would kill jobs and undermine innovation in the field , a conclusion that some Democrats have finally embraced as implementation looms . The Left has recognized this problem all along , of course , but they needed to squeeze as much on-paper revenue as possible into the Obamacare CBO score back in 2010 in order to attract those final few votes from `` fiscally conservative '' Democrats . Now that Obamacare 's on the books , they can systematically abandon their pay-fors -- a process that 's well underway . My sparring partner in this discussion was Igor Volsky , a staffer at George Soros ' Think Progress . Larry asked him why Democrats will admit that higher taxes kill jobs in some cases , but not others . See if you can locate a concrete answer anywhere in here : Volsky fascinatingly set up ideological shop several steps to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken . That alone is a noteworthy feat . But the point I tried to underscore in the segment was the bizarre certitude he projected that this medical device tax will not stifle innovation or threaten jobs . The industry will emerge unscathed by the tax increase , he argued , because it 's `` narrowly tailored '' and `` fair . '' Without explicitly saying so , he 's basically accusing America 's medical innovators of lying about how the new policy will affect their companies . And implicitly , by extension , he 's suggesting that these Democrats are either gullible or corrupt for believing the lies . Apparently we 're supposed to believe that the crew over at Think Progress has more expertise on the intricacies of healthcare business models than the industry 's actual businesses do . Incidentally , MKH pieced together a useful rundown of just a handful of the tangible consequences of this Obamacare tax over the summer . Some highlights : ( 1 ) An Indiana-based company is severely scaling back expansion plans , likely costing the US economy hundreds of jobs at five Midwestern plants that wo n't exist because of the tax . Cook Medical anticipates the device tax will cost them $ 20 million annually . ( 2 ) It took Massachusetts ' Abiomed three decades to become profitable . The new tax would have wiped out all of its 2012 profits , plunging the company $ 1.4 million into the red . ( 3 ) Medtronic expects an increased tax bill of up to $ 60 million next year , an outcome that would curtail investments and research . ( 4 ) A prosthetics manufacturer in Michigan has announced across-the-board layoffs tied directly to this tax . But remember , Obamacare 's medical device tax is narrowly targeted and fair , so it 's all good . The above examples must be part of a grand conspiracy of greed , or whatever . Volsky opposes unraveling current policy , but if Senate Democrats eventually succumb to the industry 's fictional grievances , he urges Democrats to find `` new revenues '' to fund the law . Democrats and new revenues ? Should n't be a problem .	Last night, I joined CNBC's The Kudlow Report to discuss the recent news that 18 Senate Democrats have signed a letter urging the postponement or repeal of Obamacare's destructive medical device tax. Conservatives have warned for years that the tax would kill jobs and undermine innovation in the field, a conclusion that some Democrats have finally embraced as implementation looms. The Left has recognized this problem all along, of course, but they needed to squeeze as much on-paper revenue as possible into the Obamacare CBO score back in 2010 in order to attract those final few votes from "fiscally conservative" Democrats. Now that Obamacare's on the books, they can systematically abandon their pay-fors -- a process that's well underway. My sparring partner in this discussion was Igor Volsky, a staffer at George Soros' Think Progress. Larry asked him why Democrats will admit that higher taxes kill jobs in some cases, but not others. See if you can locate a concrete answer anywhere in here: Volsky fascinatingly set up ideological shop several steps to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. That alone is a noteworthy feat. But the point I tried to underscore in the segment was the bizarre certitude he projected that this medical device tax will not stifle innovation or threaten jobs. The industry will emerge unscathed by the tax increase, he argued, because it's "narrowly tailored" and "fair." Without explicitly saying so, he's basically accusing America's medical innovators of lying about how the new policy will affect their companies. And implicitly, by extension, he's suggesting that these Democrats are either gullible or corrupt for believing the lies. Apparently we're supposed to believe that the crew over at Think Progress has more expertise on the intricacies of healthcare business models than the industry's actual businesses do. Incidentally, MKH pieced together a useful rundown of just a handful of the tangible consequences of this Obamacare tax over the summer. Some highlights: (1) An Indiana-based company is severely scaling back expansion plans, likely costing the US economy hundreds of jobs at five Midwestern plants that won't exist because of the tax. Cook Medical anticipates the device tax will cost them $20 million annually. (2) It took Massachusetts' Abiomed three decades to become profitable. The new tax would have wiped out all of its 2012 profits, plunging the company $1.4 million into the red. (3) Medtronic expects an increased tax bill of up to $60 million next year, an outcome that would curtail investments and research. (4) A prosthetics manufacturer in Michigan has announced across-the-board layoffs tied directly to this tax. But remember, Obamacare's medical device tax is narrowly targeted and fair, so it's all good. The above examples must be part of a grand conspiracy of greed, or whatever. Volsky opposes unraveling current policy, but if Senate Democrats eventually succumb to the industry's fictional grievances, he urges Democrats to find "new revenues" to fund the law. Democrats and new revenues? Shouldn't be a problem.	www.townhall.com	1right	9bVCwgW1VBMl5xzv
privacy	Newsmax - Opinion	22	https://www.newsmax.com/andrewnapolitano/fourth-amendment-federal-agents/2020/03/05/id/956998/	Time to Repeal the Patriot Act	2020-03-05		I have been writing for years about the dangers to human freedom that come from government mass surveillance . The United States was born in a defiant reaction to government surveillance . In the decade preceding the signing of the Declaration of Independence , the villains were the Stamp Act and the Writs of Assistance Act . In 1765 , when the British government was looking for creative ways to tax the colonists , Parliament enacted the Stamp Act . That law required all persons in the colonies to purchase stamps from a British government vendor and to affix them to all documents in one 's possession . These were not stamps as we use today , rather they bore the seal of the British government . The vendor would apply ink to the seal and for a fee — a tax — impress an image of the seal onto documents . All documents in one 's possession — financial , legal , letters , books , newspapers , pamphlets , even posters destined to be nailed to trees — required the government stamps . How did the British government , 3,000 miles away , know if one had its stamps on one 's documents ? Answer : The Writs of Assistance Act . A writ of assistance was a general warrant issued by a secret court in London . A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized . It merely authorized the bearer — a civilian or military government official — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found . The use of writs of assistance ostensibly to search colonial homes for stamps produced an avalanche of opposition that often turned to violence against the stamp vendors . The sheer cost of invading private homes fueled fears that the true purpose of the tax was not to generate revenue — though the king always needed cash — rather , it was to remind the colonists that the king was sovereign and his agents and soldiers could enter colonial homes on a whim . Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 , but it had caused lasting harm to the king . Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn has estimated that by the late 1760s , one-third of the colonists favored secession from Great Britain , either peaceful or violent . In 1789 , six years after the American Revolution was won , the 13 colonies that had seceded combined into the United States of America under the Constitution . Two years later , the Bill of Rights was ratified , the Fourth Amendment of which was expressly written to prohibit general warrants — to assure that the new government would not and could not do to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists . That assurance was manifested in the amendment 's requirements that only judges can issue search warrants , which must be based on probable cause of crime and which must specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized . The history of the United States is the history of the growth of government and the loss of personal liberty . Thankfully , we eradicated slavery and recognized the equality of all people , irrespective of race or gender . Yet , in times of crisis , we have supinely permitted the federal government to invade our privacy on a scale never approached by the folks who brought the Stamp Act to our ancestors . After 9/11 , the George W. Bush administration offered the Patriot Act to Congress . It was crafted in secrecy and enacted in infidelity to the Constitution . Members of the House of Representatives had 15 minutes to read is 300 plus pages and no time for serious floor debate . The one senator who spoke out against it was driven from office . Section 505 of the Patriot Act permits federal agents to bypass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and to issue their own search warrants . Those agent-written warrants are not based on probable cause of crime but rather on a representation by one agent to another of governmental needs — the same lame standard used by the secret London courts that issued writs of assistance . Since 2001 , federal agents have issued more than 300,000 of these search warrants — which they call National Security Letters — to custodians of financial records . In 2004 alone , 56,507 agent-written search warrants were issued . Those custodians include financial institutions , telecom providers , computer service providers , supermarkets , credit card issuers , health care insurers and providers , legal service providers , local and state governments , and even the Post Office . The very concept of one federal agent authorizing another to seize records is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment and repugnant to the American Revolution . I am writing about this now because a section of the Patriot Act will expire on March 15 , and many congressional liberals and libertarians — even a few conservatives still bruised at the governmental surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016 — have been contemplating structural changes to this pernicious law . Section 215 — which is about to expire — is as fatal to freedom as is section 505 . It permits designated federal judges to issue general warrants based on the old writs of assistance standard of governmental need . One of those judges signed a search warrant for the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the U.S. — at the time , 115 million of them . Both 215 and 505 are weapons of mass surveillance and should be repealed . They are instruments of a totalitarian government , not of free people . They defy the Constitution . They presume that our rights are not natural but come from a government that can take them back . Mass surveillance produces a state that knows more about us than we do about it — one that will slowly consume our freedoms in the name of governmental needs . It already has . Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey . He is Fox News ’ senior judicial analyst . Napolitano has been published in The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and numerous other publications . He is the author of the best-seller , `` Lies the Government Told You : Myth , Power , and Deception in American History . '' For more of Judge Napolitano 's reports , Go Here Now .	I have been writing for years about the dangers to human freedom that come from government mass surveillance. The United States was born in a defiant reaction to government surveillance. In the decade preceding the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the villains were the Stamp Act and the Writs of Assistance Act. Today, the villain is the Patriot Act. Here is the backstory: In 1765, when the British government was looking for creative ways to tax the colonists, Parliament enacted the Stamp Act. That law required all persons in the colonies to purchase stamps from a British government vendor and to affix them to all documents in one's possession. These were not stamps as we use today, rather they bore the seal of the British government. The vendor would apply ink to the seal and for a fee — a tax — impress an image of the seal onto documents. All documents in one's possession — financial, legal, letters, books, newspapers, pamphlets, even posters destined to be nailed to trees — required the government stamps. How did the British government, 3,000 miles away, know if one had its stamps on one's documents? Answer: The Writs of Assistance Act. A writ of assistance was a general warrant issued by a secret court in London. A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. It merely authorized the bearer — a civilian or military government official — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found. The use of writs of assistance ostensibly to search colonial homes for stamps produced an avalanche of opposition that often turned to violence against the stamp vendors. The sheer cost of invading private homes fueled fears that the true purpose of the tax was not to generate revenue — though the king always needed cash — rather, it was to remind the colonists that the king was sovereign and his agents and soldiers could enter colonial homes on a whim. Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but it had caused lasting harm to the king. Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn has estimated that by the late 1760s, one-third of the colonists favored secession from Great Britain, either peaceful or violent. In 1789, six years after the American Revolution was won, the 13 colonies that had seceded combined into the United States of America under the Constitution. Two years later, the Bill of Rights was ratified, the Fourth Amendment of which was expressly written to prohibit general warrants — to assure that the new government would not and could not do to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists. That assurance was manifested in the amendment's requirements that only judges can issue search warrants, which must be based on probable cause of crime and which must specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. The history of the United States is the history of the growth of government and the loss of personal liberty. Thankfully, we eradicated slavery and recognized the equality of all people, irrespective of race or gender. Yet, in times of crisis, we have supinely permitted the federal government to invade our privacy on a scale never approached by the folks who brought the Stamp Act to our ancestors. After 9/11, the George W. Bush administration offered the Patriot Act to Congress. It was crafted in secrecy and enacted in infidelity to the Constitution. Members of the House of Representatives had 15 minutes to read is 300 plus pages and no time for serious floor debate. The one senator who spoke out against it was driven from office. Section 505 of the Patriot Act permits federal agents to bypass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and to issue their own search warrants. Those agent-written warrants are not based on probable cause of crime but rather on a representation by one agent to another of governmental needs — the same lame standard used by the secret London courts that issued writs of assistance. Since 2001, federal agents have issued more than 300,000 of these search warrants — which they call National Security Letters — to custodians of financial records. In 2004 alone, 56,507 agent-written search warrants were issued. Those custodians include financial institutions, telecom providers, computer service providers, supermarkets, credit card issuers, health care insurers and providers, legal service providers, local and state governments, and even the Post Office. The very concept of one federal agent authorizing another to seize records is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment and repugnant to the American Revolution. I am writing about this now because a section of the Patriot Act will expire on March 15, and many congressional liberals and libertarians — even a few conservatives still bruised at the governmental surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016 — have been contemplating structural changes to this pernicious law. Section 215 — which is about to expire — is as fatal to freedom as is section 505. It permits designated federal judges to issue general warrants based on the old writs of assistance standard of governmental need. One of those judges signed a search warrant for the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the U.S. — at the time, 115 million of them. Both 215 and 505 are weapons of mass surveillance and should be repealed. They are instruments of a totalitarian government, not of free people. They defy the Constitution. They presume that our rights are not natural but come from a government that can take them back. Mass surveillance produces a state that knows more about us than we do about it — one that will slowly consume our freedoms in the name of governmental needs. It already has. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He is Fox News’ senior judicial analyst. Napolitano has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the best-seller, "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History." For more of Judge Napolitano's reports, Go Here Now.	www.newsmax.com	1right	F10NYwCzT4IJfYRZ
healthcare	Carrie Lukas	22	http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84054.html	President Obama won, but Obamacare didn't	2012-11-20		Obama may have won reelection , but Obamacare remains unpopular , author says . Obama won , but Obamacare did n't During the campaign , President Barack Obama minimized discussion of his first term ’ s most consequential new law : the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , or what ’ s commonly referred to as Obamacare . That was no accident . Undoubtedly , the campaign knew that Obamacare is , as it always has been , deeply unpopular with the American people . In fact , Obamacare epitomizes the public ’ s greatest concerns about this administration : the massive expansion of government and failure to deliver a new era of post-partisanship to Washington , since the law was jammed through using a party line vote and every available legislative trick . Bringing up health care risked stirring the passions that fueled the tea party ’ s rise and the Democrats ’ defeat in 2010 . Yet , research conducted by the polling company , inc./WomanTrend for Independent Women ’ s Voice ( IWV ) shows that health care was an important concern for Americans on Election Day . The president was reelected in spite of voters ’ lingering distaste for Obamacare , and the health care issue will remain a critical issue for voters moving forward . Just a quarter , or 26 percent of those surveyed by the polling company on Election Day supported implementing Obamacare completely . Even less than half ( 48 percent ) of self-identified Democrats want full implementation , suggesting that the health care law remains a liability , even within the president ’ s party . Forty-three percent of voters surveyed want Congress to either “ just repeal the law ” ( 30 percent ) or move toward repeal , while pursuing other measures - including defunding , amending , and blocking - to prevent its implementation ( 13 percent ) . Another quarter ( 23 percent ) favor amending the law , rather than full repeal . Jobs and the economy was the hands-down winner ( at 41 percent ) as the issue most often cited by voters asked what issue was most important for determining their vote . But health care was the second most often cited issue ( at nine percent ) , followed by “ government programs like Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid ” ( eight percent ) , and “ government spending , ” both of which could include concerns about Obamacare . When asked specifically about the role health care played in determining their vote , two-thirds ( 67 percent ) of voters said it was “ very important ” that the candidates they supported want to “ repeal and then replace ” the new health care law . Only five percent of voters thought this was “ not at all important. ” Indeed , on this measure , 2012 voters echoed 2010 voters in identifying Obamacare as a key symbol of government overreach .	Obama may have won reelection, but Obamacare remains unpopular, author says. Obama won, but Obamacare didn't During the campaign, President Barack Obama minimized discussion of his first term’s most consequential new law: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or what’s commonly referred to as Obamacare. That was no accident. Undoubtedly, the campaign knew that Obamacare is, as it always has been, deeply unpopular with the American people. In fact, Obamacare epitomizes the public’s greatest concerns about this administration: the massive expansion of government and failure to deliver a new era of post-partisanship to Washington, since the law was jammed through using a party line vote and every available legislative trick. Bringing up health care risked stirring the passions that fueled the tea party’s rise and the Democrats’ defeat in 2010. Story Continued Below Yet, research conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend for Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) shows that health care was an important concern for Americans on Election Day. The president was reelected in spite of voters’ lingering distaste for Obamacare, and the health care issue will remain a critical issue for voters moving forward. Just a quarter, or 26 percent of those surveyed by the polling company on Election Day supported implementing Obamacare completely. Even less than half (48 percent) of self-identified Democrats want full implementation, suggesting that the health care law remains a liability, even within the president’s party. Forty-three percent of voters surveyed want Congress to either “just repeal the law” (30 percent) or move toward repeal, while pursuing other measures - including defunding, amending, and blocking - to prevent its implementation (13 percent). Another quarter (23 percent) favor amending the law, rather than full repeal. Jobs and the economy was the hands-down winner (at 41 percent) as the issue most often cited by voters asked what issue was most important for determining their vote. But health care was the second most often cited issue (at nine percent), followed by “government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid” (eight percent), and “government spending,” both of which could include concerns about Obamacare. When asked specifically about the role health care played in determining their vote, two-thirds (67 percent) of voters said it was “very important” that the candidates they supported want to “repeal and then replace” the new health care law. Only five percent of voters thought this was “not at all important.” Indeed, on this measure, 2012 voters echoed 2010 voters in identifying Obamacare as a key symbol of government overreach. This article tagged under: Obamacare	www.politico.com	1right	1v1Hj0VrDO9fifI8
elections	Fox News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trumps-presidential-bid.html?intcmp=hplnws	Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump's presidential bid	2016-01-19		Former vice-presidential nominee and governor of Alaska Sarah Palin made her first foray into the 2016 presidential race Tuesday by announcing she is endorsing Donald Trump . `` I am proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America , '' Palin said in a statement from the Trump campaign announcing the endorsement . She later appeared alongside Trump at a campaign event at Iowa State University in Ames , Iowa “ You ’ re putting relationships on the line for this country because you ’ re willing to make America great again , ” she said at the rally . “ I am here because like you , I know it ’ s now or never . ” “ I ’ m in it to win it because we believe in America , ” she added . Trump told supporters he was “ greatly honored ” to receive Palin ’ s support . “ She ’ s the woman that from day one I said I needed to get her support , ” he said . Palin , who became a symbol of the Tea Party movement following the 2008 presidential election , is the highest-profile backer for a Republican contender so far in the race . In her endorsement speech , Palin praised Trump for bringing up controversial issues to create “ a good , heated primary , ” while taking aim at what she called “ establishment candidates ” in the race . “ They ’ ve been wearing political correctness kind of like a suicide vest , ” she said . The endorsement comes less than two weeks ahead of the critical lead-off Iowa caucus , where Trump is locked in a dead heat with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz . In the statement announcing the endorsement , Trump 's campaign described Palin as a conservative who `` helped launch the careers of several key future leaders of the Republican Party and conservative movement . '' The statement also quoted Cruz as once saying he `` would not be in the United States Senate were it not for Gov . Sarah Palin ... She can pick winners . '' Campaigning in New Hampshire , Tuesday , Cruz responded to Palin 's endorsement of Trump , saying `` regardless of what Sarah intends to do in 2016 , I will remain a big , big fan of Sarah Palin . '' Trump 's national political director Michael Glassner previously worked with Palin , who was a virtual newcomer to the national political arena when McCain named her as his running mate . Palin is expected to join Trump on Wednesday for campaign events in Norwalk , Iowa and Tulsa , Okla . “ Even with a record number of candidates and internal calls to become more inclusive as a party , Donald Trump and Sarah Palin remain two of the GOP ’ s most influential leaders , '' Mark Paustenbach , Democratic National Committee Press secretary , said in a statement responding to the endorsement . `` Their divisive rhetoric is now peddled by everyone from Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio . Americans deserve better than what Trump and Palin have to offer , but it seems like the other Republican candidates would rather follow in their footsteps , ” the statement continued . Palin 's endorsement was not the only one Trump received Tuesday . While campaigning at Iowa 's John Wayne Birthplace Museum , he received an endorsement from the western film actor ’ s daughter , Aissa Wayne . Wayne said the country needs a strong and courageous leader like her father , and that he would be offering his endorsement if he were still alive . Trump said he was a big fan of Wayne and that the actor represented strength and power — which , he said , the American people are looking for .	Former vice-presidential nominee and governor of Alaska Sarah Palin made her first foray into the 2016 presidential race Tuesday by announcing she is endorsing Donald Trump. "I am proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America," Palin said in a statement from the Trump campaign announcing the endorsement. She later appeared alongside Trump at a campaign event at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa “You’re putting relationships on the line for this country because you’re willing to make America great again,” she said at the rally. “I am here because like you, I know it’s now or never.” “I’m in it to win it because we believe in America,” she added. Trump told supporters he was “greatly honored” to receive Palin’s support. “She’s the woman that from day one I said I needed to get her support,” he said. Palin, who became a symbol of the Tea Party movement following the 2008 presidential election, is the highest-profile backer for a Republican contender so far in the race. In her endorsement speech, Palin praised Trump for bringing up controversial issues to create “a good, heated primary,” while taking aim at what she called “establishment candidates” in the race. “They’ve been wearing political correctness kind of like a suicide vest,” she said. The endorsement comes less than two weeks ahead of the critical lead-off Iowa caucus, where Trump is locked in a dead heat with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. In the statement announcing the endorsement, Trump's campaign described Palin as a conservative who "helped launch the careers of several key future leaders of the Republican Party and conservative movement." The statement also quoted Cruz as once saying he "would not be in the United States Senate were it not for Gov. Sarah Palin...She can pick winners." Campaigning in New Hampshire, Tuesday, Cruz responded to Palin's endorsement of Trump, saying "regardless of what Sarah intends to do in 2016, I will remain a big, big fan of Sarah Palin." Trump's national political director Michael Glassner previously worked with Palin, who was a virtual newcomer to the national political arena when McCain named her as his running mate. Palin is expected to join Trump on Wednesday for campaign events in Norwalk, Iowa and Tulsa, Okla. “Even with a record number of candidates and internal calls to become more inclusive as a party, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin remain two of the GOP’s most influential leaders," Mark Paustenbach, Democratic National Committee Press secretary, said in a statement responding to the endorsement. "Their divisive rhetoric is now peddled by everyone from Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio. Americans deserve better than what Trump and Palin have to offer, but it seems like the other Republican candidates would rather follow in their footsteps,” the statement continued. Palin's endorsement was not the only one Trump received Tuesday. While campaigning at Iowa's John Wayne Birthplace Museum, he received an endorsement from the western film actor’s daughter, Aissa Wayne. Wayne said the country needs a strong and courageous leader like her father, and that he would be offering his endorsement if he were still alive. Trump said he was a big fan of Wayne and that the actor represented strength and power — which, he said, the American people are looking for. The Associated Press contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	AmdZfcGrqrCIe6fZ
healthcare	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/freedom-caucus-senate-health-care-bill-239919	Freedom Caucus holds fire on Senate Obamacare repeal bill	2017-06-25	Kyle Cheney, Rachael Bade, Rachana Pradhan, Adam Cancryn, Burgess Everett, Jennifer Haberkorn	The most hard-line conservatives in the House are taking an unusually cautious approach to the Senate 's Obamacare replacement , promising to keep an open mind about whatever their colleagues across the Capitol send back . It ’ s a change in strategy for the House Freedom Caucus . When House leaders first released a health care bill in February , for instance , group members took to television talk shows to pan the plan as “ Obamacare lite , ” furious that it did n't , in their eyes , do enough to unravel the 2010 health care law . They also threatened to withhold their support until changes were made , and later won concessions . For now , those hardball tactics have disappeared . As the Senate looks to pass its own health care legislation this week , those same House conservatives are taking a more measured approach — even as several conservatives in the Senate are currently balking at the bill . `` I would like it to be better , but if this is the best we can do across the whole conference and the whole Congress , I have to respect that , '' said Rep. Scott Perry ( R-Pa. ) , a Freedom Caucus member . Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows ( R-N.C. ) said last week that he — and the majority of the group — would likely back the Senate measure if it includes a few changes offered by conservative ally Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) . And he 's signaled in recent weeks a willingness to bend on other Freedom Caucus priorities , including state waivers for Obamacare regulations that were essential to winning over the hard-liners ’ support in the House just a few weeks ago . As senators began negotiating , the Freedom Caucus refrained from taking formal positions on ideas floating around the upper chamber that many in their ranks would have once rushed to oppose . And Freedom Caucus vice chair Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) on Thursday said it ’ s unlikely that they ’ ll weigh in on the plan soon . It 's a notable change in tone from the typically rigid negotiating tactics of the Freedom Caucus . And it ’ s all aimed squarely at allowing their Senate colleagues breathing room to conduct difficult negotiations . `` I 'm optimistic that in the effort to find 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes [ in the House ] , that some of those compromises are being made , '' Meadows told reporters Thursday , hours after the Senate released its initial health care plan . ███ Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . Since the House passed its bill in May , the Freedom Caucus has kept a low profile , freeing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find consensus without conservative House members blasting his every move . In an interview late last month , Meadows even joked that his involvement would probably just tank the Senate process : “ Leader McConnell doesn ’ t need Mark Meadows to tell how to get consensus in the Senate . And quite frankly , the more that Mark Meadows tries to help him get consensus , the more difficult it is for him to get consensus , and I ’ m very self-aware of that . ” It 's more than just simple courtesy . McConnell is working in a highly polarized Senate to cobble together 50 votes for a health care package . With no Democrats expected to support the measure , he can afford to lose only two of the chamber 's 52 Republicans . Already , four conservative senators — Cruz , Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) , Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) and Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) — have said they ca n't support the bill without amendments to dismantle more of Obamacare . A fifth senator , Dean Heller ( R-Nev. ) , is pulling in the opposite direction , warning that the initial bill cuts too deeply into Medicaid and Obamacare 's protections for him to support it . Meadows and the Freedom Caucus are still hoping to assert themselves before the final version of the bill is passed , but they 're doing it in uncharacteristically subtle ways . The group 's leaders , including Meadows , Jordan and Raúl Labrador ( R-Idaho ) , have kept in touch with conservative senators , especially Lee , as well as Johnson . Meadows has also quietly been working with mainstream Senate Republicans to ward off changes that might erode conservative support — and to signal just how far his allies might be willing to go in accepting more moderate tweaks to the bill . For example , he 's spoken to Sen. John Thune ( R-S.D . ) about Thune ’ s plan to increase tax credits for poorer individuals while cutting them on the wealthy . The Freedom Caucus has advocated against proposals for a refundable tax credit , but Meadows signaled in May that he 's open to Thune ’ s proposal . Meadows also indicated several weeks ago that the Senate preference for a multiyear phase-out of Obamacare 's Medicaid expansion wo n't necessarily be a deal-breaker , even though conservatives have grumbled that the House 's shorter window was already too generous . And Meadows even indicated that he could possibly back the Senate bill if it weakens a conservative-favored provision that the House included : allowing states to waive core Obamacare coverage standards . “ If the waivers come out , there will be a number of other options that are put in their place that could potentially be just as meaningful in driving down premiums , ” he said . There are also indications the Freedom Caucus ' muted approach could change . One conservative source said the group 's current stance is n't necessarily indicative of its posture this week , as negotiations in the Senate continue . Perhaps the most crucial bellwether for conservative support the fate of Cruz 's proposed amendments . The Texas firebrand has suggested allowing consumers to use their Obamacare tax credits to purchase insurance products that fall short of the health care law 's coverage standards . That `` consumer choice '' amendment , along with a few other conservative additions , would virtually guarantee a majority of the Freedom Caucus ' support , Meadows said Thursday . Another flash point will come this week , when the Congressional Budget Office indicates the economic and coverage impact that the Senate bill is likely to have . CBO 's analysis suggested that the House bill would result in 23 million fewer people with health coverage in the next decade , a metric that spooked some moderate senators , who deemed the House measure a nonstarter . Conservatives will be looking a different CBO number : how the Senate bill affects premium increases , the most important thing to them . “ If CBO says this will continue to bring down premiums , and it protects pro-life and Planned Parenthood defunding and all , I ’ m open to it , ” Jordan said of the Senate proposal Thursday . In the meantime , the drumbeat of news that insurers are pulling out of Obamacare 's individual market exchanges has provided fuel for Republicans to push ahead with their plans . And it appears to be making it easier for some conservatives to swallow compromises . `` Is the bill that the Senate kicked out or the House bill my dream bill ? No , it is not , '' Perry said . `` However , the context is , what 's happening now is failing , and we have an obligation to do what we can to fix it as best we can . ''	The most hard-line conservatives in the House are taking an unusually cautious approach to the Senate's Obamacare replacement, promising to keep an open mind about whatever their colleagues across the Capitol send back. It’s a change in strategy for the House Freedom Caucus. Story Continued Below When House leaders first released a health care bill in February, for instance, group members took to television talk shows to pan the plan as “Obamacare lite,” furious that it didn't, in their eyes, do enough to unravel the 2010 health care law. They also threatened to withhold their support until changes were made, and later won concessions. For now, those hardball tactics have disappeared. As the Senate looks to pass its own health care legislation this week, those same House conservatives are taking a more measured approach — even as several conservatives in the Senate are currently balking at the bill. "I would like it to be better, but if this is the best we can do across the whole conference and the whole Congress, I have to respect that," said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a Freedom Caucus member. Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said last week that he — and the majority of the group — would likely back the Senate measure if it includes a few changes offered by conservative ally Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). And he's signaled in recent weeks a willingness to bend on other Freedom Caucus priorities, including state waivers for Obamacare regulations that were essential to winning over the hard-liners’ support in the House just a few weeks ago. As senators began negotiating, the Freedom Caucus refrained from taking formal positions on ideas floating around the upper chamber that many in their ranks would have once rushed to oppose. And Freedom Caucus vice chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday said it’s unlikely that they’ll weigh in on the plan soon. It's a notable change in tone from the typically rigid negotiating tactics of the Freedom Caucus. And it’s all aimed squarely at allowing their Senate colleagues breathing room to conduct difficult negotiations. "I'm optimistic that in the effort to find 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes [in the House], that some of those compromises are being made," Meadows told reporters Thursday, hours after the Senate released its initial health care plan. POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. Since the House passed its bill in May, the Freedom Caucus has kept a low profile, freeing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find consensus without conservative House members blasting his every move. In an interview late last month, Meadows even joked that his involvement would probably just tank the Senate process: “Leader McConnell doesn’t need Mark Meadows to tell how to get consensus in the Senate. And quite frankly, the more that Mark Meadows tries to help him get consensus, the more difficult it is for him to get consensus, and I’m very self-aware of that.” It's more than just simple courtesy. McConnell is working in a highly polarized Senate to cobble together 50 votes for a health care package. With no Democrats expected to support the measure, he can afford to lose only two of the chamber's 52 Republicans. Already, four conservative senators — Cruz, Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — have said they can't support the bill without amendments to dismantle more of Obamacare. A fifth senator, Dean Heller (R-Nev.), is pulling in the opposite direction, warning that the initial bill cuts too deeply into Medicaid and Obamacare's protections for him to support it. Meadows and the Freedom Caucus are still hoping to assert themselves before the final version of the bill is passed, but they're doing it in uncharacteristically subtle ways. The group's leaders, including Meadows, Jordan and Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), have kept in touch with conservative senators, especially Lee, as well as Johnson. Meadows has also quietly been working with mainstream Senate Republicans to ward off changes that might erode conservative support — and to signal just how far his allies might be willing to go in accepting more moderate tweaks to the bill. For example, he's spoken to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) about Thune’s plan to increase tax credits for poorer individuals while cutting them on the wealthy. The Freedom Caucus has advocated against proposals for a refundable tax credit, but Meadows signaled in May that he's open to Thune’s proposal. Meadows also indicated several weeks ago that the Senate preference for a multiyear phase-out of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion won't necessarily be a deal-breaker, even though conservatives have grumbled that the House's shorter window was already too generous. And Meadows even indicated that he could possibly back the Senate bill if it weakens a conservative-favored provision that the House included: allowing states to waive core Obamacare coverage standards. “If the waivers come out, there will be a number of other options that are put in their place that could potentially be just as meaningful in driving down premiums,” he said. There are also indications the Freedom Caucus' muted approach could change. One conservative source said the group's current stance isn't necessarily indicative of its posture this week, as negotiations in the Senate continue. Perhaps the most crucial bellwether for conservative support the fate of Cruz's proposed amendments. The Texas firebrand has suggested allowing consumers to use their Obamacare tax credits to purchase insurance products that fall short of the health care law's coverage standards. That "consumer choice" amendment, along with a few other conservative additions, would virtually guarantee a majority of the Freedom Caucus' support, Meadows said Thursday. Another flash point will come this week, when the Congressional Budget Office indicates the economic and coverage impact that the Senate bill is likely to have. CBO's analysis suggested that the House bill would result in 23 million fewer people with health coverage in the next decade, a metric that spooked some moderate senators, who deemed the House measure a nonstarter. Conservatives will be looking a different CBO number: how the Senate bill affects premium increases, the most important thing to them. “If CBO says this will continue to bring down premiums, and it protects pro-life and Planned Parenthood defunding and all, I’m open to it,” Jordan said of the Senate proposal Thursday. In the meantime, the drumbeat of news that insurers are pulling out of Obamacare's individual market exchanges has provided fuel for Republicans to push ahead with their plans. And it appears to be making it easier for some conservatives to swallow compromises. "Is the bill that the Senate kicked out or the House bill my dream bill? No, it is not," Perry said. "However, the context is, what's happening now is failing, and we have an obligation to do what we can to fix it as best we can."	www.politico.com	0left	GOQsmN1JCkksMxq8
fiscal_cliff	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obamas-debt-problem-85708.html?hp=f1	Obama's debt problem	2013-01-03	Glenn Thrush, Reid J. Epstein	Obama can no longer focus on his predecessor 's role in digging the hole . Obama 's debt problem President Barack Obama won ’ t be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight . The staggering national debt — up about 60 percent from the $ 10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama ’ s record , even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush . Obama has long emphasized Bush ’ s role in digging the immense hole . But he owns it now , and it ’ s a significant political liability as he girds for a fast-approaching brawl with the GOP over how to deal with converging deadlines of a new debt ceiling fight and the need to come up with $ 1 trillion in deficit reduction mandated by the so-called “ sequester . ” “ The numbers — at some point it ’ s got to catch up or else we ’ re all going to die , ” said Chris Chocola , head of the anti-tax Club for Growth , which opposed the cliff deal . “ We have serious problems that are going unaddressed and we ’ re moving in the wrong direction . ” Obama was able to splinter his deeply divided Republican opponents over the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy . But a similar fate might await the president and his Democratic allies if he brokers a deal with the GOP that requires massive spending and entitlement cuts . During the cliff talks , Obama was purposely opaque about what cuts he ’ d ultimately accept , saying only that Republican resistance to a one-shot grand bargain meant he needed to make a deal in pieces — taxes first , spending second . That tactic delayed but didn ’ t eliminate a looming day of reckoning on spending and entitlements that will come within 60 days thanks to the convergence of the debt ceiling deadline and the new deadline for keeping automatic cuts from kicking in . “ Republicans — and some Democrats — want to curtail Social Security , veterans benefits , Medicare and Medicaid — that ’ s not a secret — and some of us are going to be fighting to say no , ” said Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , author of a letter sent by 29 Senate Democrats in September demanding Obama back off chained CPI , which would reduce Social Security increases indexed to inflation . “ It is absolutely imperative the president and Democratic leadership stay strong on this issue . If they do , we will win , ” added Sanders , who wants the president to aggressively push for tax hikes and loophole elimination on corporations . Former Clinton administration official Alice Rivlin , a member of Obama ’ s defunct deficit commission , says Obama “ understands the [ deficit-reduction ] issue ” but “ he ’ s got to deal with his own left wing , which is not enthusiastic about doing it . The real problem … is that Social Security has become kind of [ a ] no-no ” to liberals . In a video message to his 2012 campaign supporters released Wednesday , Obama offered few specifics on how he ’ d approach the coming fight . He reiterated his call for a “ balanced ” approach to deficit reduction despite a cliff deal that contains only a few billion in cuts and may add hundreds of billions to the debt in coming decades , according to the Congressional Budget Office .	Obama can no longer focus on his predecessor's role in digging the hole. Obama's debt problem President Barack Obama won’t be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight. There are about 16.4 trillion reasons why. Story Continued Below The staggering national debt — up about 60 percent from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama’s record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush. ( Also on POLITICO: Why 85 House Republicans said ‘yes’ to taxes) Obama has long emphasized Bush’s role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now, and it’s a significant political liability as he girds for a fast-approaching brawl with the GOP over how to deal with converging deadlines of a new debt ceiling fight and the need to come up with $1 trillion in deficit reduction mandated by the so-called “sequester.” “The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth, which opposed the cliff deal. “We have serious problems that are going unaddressed and we’re moving in the wrong direction.” Obama was able to splinter his deeply divided Republican opponents over the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy. But a similar fate might await the president and his Democratic allies if he brokers a deal with the GOP that requires massive spending and entitlement cuts. ( Also on POLITICO: Toomey: No revenue in debt deal) During the cliff talks, Obama was purposely opaque about what cuts he’d ultimately accept, saying only that Republican resistance to a one-shot grand bargain meant he needed to make a deal in pieces — taxes first, spending second. That tactic delayed but didn’t eliminate a looming day of reckoning on spending and entitlements that will come within 60 days thanks to the convergence of the debt ceiling deadline and the new deadline for keeping automatic cuts from kicking in. “Republicans — and some Democrats — want to curtail Social Security, veterans benefits, Medicare and Medicaid — that’s not a secret — and some of us are going to be fighting to say no,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), author of a letter sent by 29 Senate Democrats in September demanding Obama back off chained CPI, which would reduce Social Security increases indexed to inflation. “It is absolutely imperative the president and Democratic leadership stay strong on this issue. If they do, we will win,” added Sanders, who wants the president to aggressively push for tax hikes and loophole elimination on corporations. ( Also on POLITICO: Enjoy the fiscal cliff debate? Just wait for the debt ceiling) Former Clinton administration official Alice Rivlin, a member of Obama’s defunct deficit commission, says Obama “understands the [deficit-reduction] issue” but “he’s got to deal with his own left wing, which is not enthusiastic about doing it. The real problem … is that Social Security has become kind of [a] no-no” to liberals. In a video message to his 2012 campaign supporters released Wednesday, Obama offered few specifics on how he’d approach the coming fight. He reiterated his call for a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction despite a cliff deal that contains only a few billion in cuts and may add hundreds of billions to the debt in coming decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office.	www.politico.com	0left	uqcCrmxErXWlQOBp
politics	Rich Lowry	22	http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451991/alabama-senate-race-donald-trump-republicans-identity-crisis	OPINION: The GOP Identity Crisis	2017-09-28	John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Carrie Severino	The GOP has no idea how to integrate Trump ’ s populism into the traditional Republican agenda . The Republican party can ’ t pass Obamacare repeal , but it can nominate Roy Moore . This is the state of the GOP in a nutshell . It is a party locked in mortal combat between an establishment that is ineffectual and unimaginative and a populist wing that is ineffectual and inflamed . Donald Trump ’ s ascendance created an identity crisis in the party that hasn ’ t been resolved , and the hope that it could be papered over with legislative accomplishments and signing ceremonies has come a cropper . It ’ d be hard to design a primary fight more characteristic of the GOP ’ s current state than Luther Strange vs. Roy Moore . There is nothing distinctive about Strange except his height , his name , and the dubious circumstances of his appointment . He was the state attorney general investigating disgraced Alabama Gov . Robert Bentley , who ended up appointing him to the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions not long before Bentley resigned because of a sex scandal . Since Strange would be a thoroughly adequate time-server , the establishment piled in behind him like it was trying to save Arthur Vandenberg . As for Moore , the twice-former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is to the judiciary what Joe Arpaio is to sheriffdom — neither was particularly good at their precise duties , but both had a knack for the theatrical , polarizing cause . It isn ’ t shocking that Moore prevailed . Sharron Angle , Christine O ’ Donnell , and Richard Mourdock all won primaries in 2010-2012 in less conservative states based on anti-establishment energy , although under a tea party/constitutionalist banner rather than a Trumpist/populist one . It is an irony that in a race featuring a candidate as Trumpian as they come , Trump was on the other side . The president presumably won ’ t let that happen again . The biggest loser in Alabama was Mitch McConnell . He is certainly the best Republican Senate leader in a generation . The conservative grass roots , though , has never been fond of Senate leaders who inevitably reflect the caution and process-obsession of the institution . The failure of Obamacare repeal has made him increasingly radioactive with Republicans nationally . This sentiment is unlikely to be expressed in ways that make it easier to get anything done , as Moore ’ s victory proves . Flame-throwing and ill-informed , the presumptive next senator from Alabama is unlikely to make legislating his priority . The result in Alabama will render Trump even more up for grabs . Is he going to simply move on and work with the congressional leadership on the next big priority , tax reform ? Is he going to exercise the “ Chuck and Nancy ” option ? Is he going to double down on his base ? All of the above ? Does he know ? Trump ’ s problem isn ’ t that he threw in with the establishment , as his most fervent supporters believe ; it is that he threw in with an establishment that had no idea how to process his victory and integrate populism into the traditional Republican agenda . One of the many causes of the failure of Obamacare repeal is that Republicans didn ’ t emphasize the economic interests of the working-class voters who propelled Trump to victory . Out of the gate , tax reform looks to have a similar problem — the Trumpist element is supposed to be a middle-class tax cut , but it ’ s not obvious that it delivers one . This gets to a fundamental failing of the populists . The president and his backers haven ’ t thought through what a workable populist platform is besides inveighing against internal party enemies , igniting cable TV-friendly controversies and over-investing in symbolic measures like the wall . If the populists don ’ t like the results , they should take their own political project more seriously , if they are capable of it . A success on taxes would provide some respite from the party ’ s internal dissension , yet the medium-term forecast has to be for more recrimination than governing . Whatever the core competency of the national Republican party is at the moment , it certainly isn ’ t forging coherence or creating legislative achievements .	Roy Moore and wife Kayla on election night in Montgomery, Ala., September 26, 2017. (Reuters photo: Marvin Gentry) The GOP has no idea how to integrate Trump’s populism into the traditional Republican agenda. The Republican party can’t pass Obamacare repeal, but it can nominate Roy Moore. This is the state of the GOP in a nutshell. It is a party locked in mortal combat between an establishment that is ineffectual and unimaginative and a populist wing that is ineffectual and inflamed. Donald Trump’s ascendance created an identity crisis in the party that hasn’t been resolved, and the hope that it could be papered over with legislative accomplishments and signing ceremonies has come a cropper. Advertisement Advertisement It’d be hard to design a primary fight more characteristic of the GOP’s current state than Luther Strange vs. Roy Moore. There is nothing distinctive about Strange except his height, his name, and the dubious circumstances of his appointment. He was the state attorney general investigating disgraced Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who ended up appointing him to the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions not long before Bentley resigned because of a sex scandal. Advertisement Since Strange would be a thoroughly adequate time-server, the establishment piled in behind him like it was trying to save Arthur Vandenberg. As for Moore, the twice-former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is to the judiciary what Joe Arpaio is to sheriffdom — neither was particularly good at their precise duties, but both had a knack for the theatrical, polarizing cause. It isn’t shocking that Moore prevailed. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Richard Mourdock all won primaries in 2010-2012 in less conservative states based on anti-establishment energy, although under a tea party/constitutionalist banner rather than a Trumpist/populist one. Advertisement It is an irony that in a race featuring a candidate as Trumpian as they come, Trump was on the other side. The president presumably won’t let that happen again. Advertisement The biggest loser in Alabama was Mitch McConnell. He is certainly the best Republican Senate leader in a generation. The conservative grass roots, though, has never been fond of Senate leaders who inevitably reflect the caution and process-obsession of the institution. The failure of Obamacare repeal has made him increasingly radioactive with Republicans nationally. This sentiment is unlikely to be expressed in ways that make it easier to get anything done, as Moore’s victory proves. Flame-throwing and ill-informed, the presumptive next senator from Alabama is unlikely to make legislating his priority. The result in Alabama will render Trump even more up for grabs. Is he going to simply move on and work with the congressional leadership on the next big priority, tax reform? Is he going to exercise the “Chuck and Nancy” option? Is he going to double down on his base? All of the above? Does he know? Advertisement Trump’s problem isn’t that he threw in with the establishment, as his most fervent supporters believe; it is that he threw in with an establishment that had no idea how to process his victory and integrate populism into the traditional Republican agenda. One of the many causes of the failure of Obamacare repeal is that Republicans didn’t emphasize the economic interests of the working-class voters who propelled Trump to victory. Out of the gate, tax reform looks to have a similar problem — the Trumpist element is supposed to be a middle-class tax cut, but it’s not obvious that it delivers one. This gets to a fundamental failing of the populists. The president and his backers haven’t thought through what a workable populist platform is besides inveighing against internal party enemies, igniting cable TV-friendly controversies and over-investing in symbolic measures like the wall. Advertisement If the populists don’t like the results, they should take their own political project more seriously, if they are capable of it. A success on taxes would provide some respite from the party’s internal dissension, yet the medium-term forecast has to be for more recrimination than governing. Whatever the core competency of the national Republican party is at the moment, it certainly isn’t forging coherence or creating legislative achievements. READ MORE: Has Steve Bannon Taken Over the GOP? The GOP has No One Left to Lie To Is Donald Trump Shrinking the GOP? — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: [email protected]. © 2017 King Features Syndicate	www.nationalreview.com	1right	5QYomOHG2s2r95g2
culture	The Guardian	00	https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/20/charles-manson-dead-cult-leader-sharon-tate	Charles Manson, cult leader and convicted murderer, dies aged 83	2017-11-20	Mazin Sidahmed, Edward Helmore	Manson and his ‘ family ’ became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969 Charles Manson , the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie , died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison . The 83-year-old , who died of natural causes , had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran , California , for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate , the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski , and six others . While his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring , Michele Hanisee , president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County , said : “ Today , Manson ’ s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death . ” She went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi , the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars , who had said : “ Manson was an evil , sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values . ” As the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family , Manson had instructed his followers , made up mostly of disaffected young women , to carry out the killings . The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge , and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love . Manson presented himself as a demonic force : at trial , he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead . The five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972 . Manson and three female followers , Susan Atkins , Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten , were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder . Another defendant , Charles “ Tex ” Watson , was convicted later . The second summer of Charles Manson : why the cult murders still grip us Read more Tate , the wife of Polanski , who was out of the country the night of her murder , was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson ’ s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles . They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors , Jay Sebring , Voytek Frykowski , coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent . The word “ Pig ” was written in blood on the front door . Tate , who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls , was stabbed 16 times , and an “ X ” was carved into her stomach . The next night , his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca . Although the followers committed the murders , Manson had ordered them . At the LaBianca home , he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings . After his death on Sunday night , Tate ’ s sister Debra told NBC : “ One could say I ’ ve forgiven them , which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of . It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days . ” In the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection , Polanski wrote : “ Even after so many years , I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all . ” Prosecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter , and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings . Before the murders , Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison , and he later became a singer-songwriter . He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson . The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love , which Manson had written . He became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher ( the son of Doris Day ) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie : The Love and Terror Cult ; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense . Manson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco . He took a handful of followers , some of whom would later be convicted in the killings , to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune . Van Houten , the youngest member of the original Manson Family , later said that Manson had used sex , LSD , Bible readings , repeated playing of the Beatles ’ White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her . Van Houten , 68 , was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca . She was recommended for parole in September but California ’ s governor , Jerry Brown , has yet to approve the recommendation . He rejected an earlier decision , concluding that Van Houten posed “ an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison ” . In June , officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel , the state ’ s longest-serving female prisoner , after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person . She has been denied parole multiple times in the past . Manson ’ s lawyer , Irving Kanarek , claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with ███ . “ No question he was legally innocent . And , more than that , he was actually innocent , ” Kanarek said , arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case . At a 2012 parole hearing , which was denied , Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists : “ I ’ m special . I ’ m not like the average inmate . I have spent my life in prison . I have put five people in the grave . I am a very dangerous man . ” According to the LA Times , Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison , including assault , repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff . Officials said he has spat in guards ’ faces , started fights , tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze . In 2014 , Manson and Afton Elaine Burton , a 26-year-old Manson devotee , were granted a marriage license , but it expired before the two could marry . She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years . Manson had been denied parole 12 times , with his next hearing set for 2027 . His death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes . Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot , and an adaptation of Emma Cline ’ s bestselling 2016 novel , The Girls , is on the way . Writer Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian , the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial , and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album ( 1979 ) . “ Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginable… ” Didion wrote . “ A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community . The jitters were setting in . I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full . Reached at home in Manhattan , Didion , 82 , told ███ : “ Manson ’ s legacy was never obvious to me . It wasn ’ t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian , and it isn ’ t obvious to me now . But I do find it easy to put him from my mind . ” In 2008 , California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided . The search turned up no evidence of human remains . Manson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures . “ I am crime , ” he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s .	Manson and his ‘family’ became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969 Charles Manson, the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie, died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison. The 83-year-old, who died of natural causes, had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran, California, for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate, the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski, and six others. While his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring, Michele Hanisee, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, said: “Today, Manson’s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death.” She went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars, who had said: “Manson was an evil, sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values.” Quick guide A quick guide to Charles Manson Show Hide Who was Charles Manson? Charles Manson was one of the most notorious murderers of the 20th century. He led a cult known as the Manson Family in California, most of whom were disaffected young women. Some became killers under his messianic influence. Murder from afar Despite spending more than 40 years in prison for the murders of seven people in 1969, Manson did not carry out the killings. Instead he convinced members of his ‘family’ to murder. One of their victims was the actor Sharon Tate, who was married to Roman Polanski and was more than eight months' pregnant when she was killed. Celebrity friends By the time of his trial in 1971, Manson had spent half of his life in correctional institutions for various crimes. He became a singer-songwriter before the Tate murders and got a break in the music industry when he met Beach Boys' Dennis Wilson, who let him crash at his home. Helter Skelter It is believed that Manson intended using the murders to incite an apocalyptic race war he called Helter Skelter, taking the name from the Beatles song. Notorious by name The killings and the seven-month trial that followed were the subjects of fevered news coverage in the US. Manson occupied a dark, persistent place in American culture, inspiring music, T-shirts and half the stage name of musician Marilyn Manson. Photograph: Los Angeles Times As the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family, Manson had instructed his followers, made up mostly of disaffected young women, to carry out the killings. The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge, and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love. Manson presented himself as a demonic force: at trial, he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead. The five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972. Manson and three female followers, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder. Another defendant, Charles “Tex” Watson, was convicted later. The second summer of Charles Manson: why the cult murders still grip us Read more Tate, the wife of Polanski, who was out of the country the night of her murder, was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson’s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles. They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski, coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent. The word “Pig” was written in blood on the front door. Tate, who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls, was stabbed 16 times, and an “X” was carved into her stomach. The next night, his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Although the followers committed the murders, Manson had ordered them. At the LaBianca home, he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings. After his death on Sunday night, Tate’s sister Debra told NBC: “One could say I’ve forgiven them, which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of. It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days.” In the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection, Polanski wrote: “Even after so many years, I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all.” Prosecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter, and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings. Before the murders, Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison, and he later became a singer-songwriter. He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson. The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love, which Manson had written. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Manson in a 2017 California department of corrections photo. Photograph: Reuters He became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher (the son of Doris Day) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie: The Love and Terror Cult; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense. Manson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. He took a handful of followers, some of whom would later be convicted in the killings, to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune. Van Houten, the youngest member of the original Manson Family, later said that Manson had used sex, LSD, Bible readings, repeated playing of the Beatles’ White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her. Van Houten, 68, was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. She was recommended for parole in September but California’s governor, Jerry Brown, has yet to approve the recommendation. He rejected an earlier decision, concluding that Van Houten posed “an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison”. In June, officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel, the state’s longest-serving female prisoner, after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person. She has been denied parole multiple times in the past. Manson’s lawyer, Irving Kanarek, claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with the Guardian. “No question he was legally innocent. And, more than that, he was actually innocent,” Kanarek said, arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case. At a 2012 parole hearing, which was denied, Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists: “I’m special. I’m not like the average inmate. I have spent my life in prison. I have put five people in the grave. I am a very dangerous man.” Charles Manson – a life in pictures Read more According to the LA Times, Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison, including assault, repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff. Officials said he has spat in guards’ faces, started fights, tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze. In 2014, Manson and Afton Elaine Burton, a 26-year-old Manson devotee, were granted a marriage license, but it expired before the two could marry. She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years. Manson had been denied parole 12 times, with his next hearing set for 2027. His death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes. Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot, and an adaptation of Emma Cline’s bestselling 2016 novel, The Girls, is on the way. Writer Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian, the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial, and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album (1979). “Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginable…” Didion wrote. “A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community. The jitters were setting in. I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full. “I remember that no one was surprised.” Reached at home in Manhattan, Didion, 82, told the Guardian: “Manson’s legacy was never obvious to me. It wasn’t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian, and it isn’t obvious to me now. But I do find it easy to put him from my mind.” In 2008, California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided. The search turned up no evidence of human remains. Manson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures. “I am crime,” he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s.	www.theguardian.com	0left	km6g1sgMjvlrchT2
elections	Reuters	11	https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-poll/for-trump-appeals-to-white-fears-about-race-may-be-a-tougher-sell-in-2020-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1V90TX	For Trump, appeals to white fears about race may be a tougher sell in 2020: Reuters/Ipsos poll	2019-08-19	Chris Kahn	NEW YORK ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s anti-immigrant rhetoric and focus on the grievances of white voters helped him win the 2016 election . But a ███ analysis of public opinion over the last four years suggests that Trump ’ s brand of white identity politics may be less effective in the 2020 election campaign . The analysis comes amid widespread criticism of Trump ’ s racially charged comments about four minority women lawmakers and the fallout from a mass shooting of Hispanics in El Paso , Texas , that many Democratic presidential candidates swiftly blamed on the president ’ s rhetoric . ███/Ipsos polling of 4,436 U.S. adults in July showed that people who rejected racial stereotypes were more interested in voting in the 2020 general election than those who expressed stronger levels of anti-black or anti-Hispanic biases . In 2016 , it was the reverse . The ███ analysis shows that Trump ’ s narrow win came at a time when Americans with strong anti-black opinions were the more politically engaged group . While ███ did not measure anti-Hispanic biases in 2016 , political scientists say that people who express them closely overlap with those who are biased against other racial minorities . This year ’ s poll found that among Americans who feel that blacks and whites are equal , or that blacks are superior to whites , 82 % expressed a strong interest in voting in 2020 . That was 7 percentage points higher than people who feel strongly that whites are superior to blacks . “ There is some indication that racial liberals are more energized than the racially intolerant , ” said University of Michigan political scientist Vincent Hutchings , who reviewed ███ ’ findings . “ That would seem to be good news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans . ” The July poll did have a silver lining for Trump . Most white Republicans approve of his performance in office . And over the past four years they have become increasingly supportive of his signature issue : expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border . Some 82 % now support it compared to 75 % last year . Trump is clearly still as popular as ever with conservatives who dominate the predominantly white , working-class communities that helped him win in 2016 , said Duke University political scientist Ashley Jardina , who also reviewed the poll findings . In his 2016 campaign , Trump focused on the grievances of white voters who feared the global economy was leaving them behind and who wanted more restrictions on immigration . He employed put-downs of Latino immigrants and inner-city , typically black , residents . He said then that Mexicans were “ murderers ” and “ rapists , ” and as recently as last year , Trump labeled illegal immigration to the United States an “ invasion . ” Trump has asserted repeatedly that his words are not meant to be racially divisive . “ I think my rhetoric ... brings people together , ” he said earlier this month . Responding to the ███ polling analysis , a spokesman for Trump ’ s reelection campaign , Daniel Bucheli , said the president “ enjoys broad support from diverse groups of Americans , and this coalition of supporters , to include minorities and first time voters , continues to grow daily . ” “ If there is something we ’ ve come to learn about President Trump is that he calls it like it is , ” Bucheli said , when asked about Trump ’ s recent comments about the lawmakers and others . The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll findings . The ███ analysis also found that Americans were less likely to express feelings of racial anxiety this year , and they were more likely to empathize with African Americans . This was also true for white Americans and whites without a college degree , who largely backed Trump in 2016 . White Americans are also 19 percentage points more supportive of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and 4 points less supportive of increased deportations , when their responses from the July poll were compared with a ███/Ipsos poll in January 2015 . The July 17-22 poll also found that 29 % of whites agreed that “ America must protect and preserve its White European heritage , ” down 7 points from a ███/Ipsos poll conducted in August 2017 and 9 points down from another ███/Ipsos poll in August 2018 . The poll also found that 17 % of whites and 26 % of white Republicans said they strongly agree that “ white people are currently under attack in this country , a drop of about 6 points and 8 points respectively from 2017 . Paula Ioanide , an expert in American race relations at Ithaca College , said the poll findings were consistent with her research that racial anxieties among whites peaked during the presidency of Barack Obama . Some white Americans “ are not feeling as under attack as they did in 2016 , ” Ioanide said . With Trump in the White House , “ they ’ ve seen a kind of endorsement of the kinds of things that they wanted : A restoration of a white identity that they previously had felt was under attack . ” ███ and its polling partner , Ipsos , developed its race poll with political scientists at the University of Michigan and Duke University , asking a series of questions that measured respondents ’ perceptions of people from different racial backgrounds , the treatment of blacks and whites in America and their interest in voting in 2020 . Methodology How ███/Ipsos measured the shift in the way Americans see race Among whites who dominate the American electorate , the poll showed a widening gap between the way Democrats and Republicans view race . Some 28 % of white Democrats said in the latest poll that “ black people are treated less fairly than white people ” in the workplace , compared with 5 % of white Republicans . Some 59 % of white Democrats said blacks were treated less fairly by police , while 22 % of white Republicans agreed . The number of Democrats who said blacks were treated unfairly in the workplace and by police grew by 8 points and 11 points , respectively since 2016 . There was almost no change , however , among white Republicans . White independents were more empathetic toward blacks than white Republicans , but less empathetic than Democrats . Michael Tesler , a political scientist at the University of California , Irvine , said Trump may be influencing many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents in their views on race . “ They may not care that much about race initially , and then they see Trump pushing on race so hard on race , ” he said . “ And so they push back . ” Samantha Burkes , 36 , of Bullhead City , Arizona said she was doing just that when she rated blacks well above whites in terms of intelligence , work ethic , manners , peacefulness and lawfulness in the ███/Ipsos poll . “ I just wanted to express that I don ’ t think black people are worse than white people , ” said Burkes , a white Democrat who plans to vote against Trump in 2020 . “ I ’ m just lashing out , really . ”	NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and focus on the grievances of white voters helped him win the 2016 election. But a Reuters analysis of public opinion over the last four years suggests that Trump’s brand of white identity politics may be less effective in the 2020 election campaign. The analysis comes amid widespread criticism of Trump’s racially charged comments about four minority women lawmakers and the fallout from a mass shooting of Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, that many Democratic presidential candidates swiftly blamed on the president’s rhetoric. Reuters/Ipsos polling of 4,436 U.S. adults in July showed that people who rejected racial stereotypes were more interested in voting in the 2020 general election than those who expressed stronger levels of anti-black or anti-Hispanic biases. In 2016, it was the reverse. The Reuters analysis shows that Trump’s narrow win came at a time when Americans with strong anti-black opinions were the more politically engaged group. While Reuters did not measure anti-Hispanic biases in 2016, political scientists say that people who express them closely overlap with those who are biased against other racial minorities. This year’s poll found that among Americans who feel that blacks and whites are equal, or that blacks are superior to whites, 82% expressed a strong interest in voting in 2020. That was 7 percentage points higher than people who feel strongly that whites are superior to blacks. “There is some indication that racial liberals are more energized than the racially intolerant,” said University of Michigan political scientist Vincent Hutchings, who reviewed Reuters’ findings. “That would seem to be good news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans.” The July poll did have a silver lining for Trump. Most white Republicans approve of his performance in office. And over the past four years they have become increasingly supportive of his signature issue: expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Some 82% now support it compared to 75% last year. Trump is clearly still as popular as ever with conservatives who dominate the predominantly white, working-class communities that helped him win in 2016, said Duke University political scientist Ashley Jardina, who also reviewed the poll findings. In his 2016 campaign, Trump focused on the grievances of white voters who feared the global economy was leaving them behind and who wanted more restrictions on immigration. He employed put-downs of Latino immigrants and inner-city, typically black, residents. He said then that Mexicans were “murderers” and “rapists,” and as recently as last year, Trump labeled illegal immigration to the United States an “invasion.” Trump has asserted repeatedly that his words are not meant to be racially divisive. “I think my rhetoric ... brings people together,” he said earlier this month. Responding to the Reuters polling analysis, a spokesman for Trump’s reelection campaign, Daniel Bucheli, said the president “enjoys broad support from diverse groups of Americans, and this coalition of supporters, to include minorities and first time voters, continues to grow daily.” “If there is something we’ve come to learn about President Trump is that he calls it like it is,” Bucheli said, when asked about Trump’s recent comments about the lawmakers and others. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll findings. DECLINING ANXIETY The Reuters analysis also found that Americans were less likely to express feelings of racial anxiety this year, and they were more likely to empathize with African Americans. This was also true for white Americans and whites without a college degree, who largely backed Trump in 2016. White Americans are also 19 percentage points more supportive of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and 4 points less supportive of increased deportations, when their responses from the July poll were compared with a Reuters/Ipsos poll in January 2015. The July 17-22 poll also found that 29% of whites agreed that “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage,” down 7 points from a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August 2017 and 9 points down from another Reuters/Ipsos poll in August 2018. The poll also found that 17% of whites and 26% of white Republicans said they strongly agree that “white people are currently under attack in this country, a drop of about 6 points and 8 points respectively from 2017. Paula Ioanide, an expert in American race relations at Ithaca College, said the poll findings were consistent with her research that racial anxieties among whites peaked during the presidency of Barack Obama. FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, and the crowd responded with "send her back", at a campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina, U.S., July 17, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake/File Photo Some white Americans “are not feeling as under attack as they did in 2016,” Ioanide said. With Trump in the White House, “they’ve seen a kind of endorsement of the kinds of things that they wanted: A restoration of a white identity that they previously had felt was under attack.” Reuters and its polling partner, Ipsos, developed its race poll with political scientists at the University of Michigan and Duke University, asking a series of questions that measured respondents’ perceptions of people from different racial backgrounds, the treatment of blacks and whites in America and their interest in voting in 2020. Methodology How Reuters/Ipsos measured the shift in the way Americans see race WIDENING DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN GAP Among whites who dominate the American electorate, the poll showed a widening gap between the way Democrats and Republicans view race. Some 28% of white Democrats said in the latest poll that “black people are treated less fairly than white people” in the workplace, compared with 5% of white Republicans. Some 59% of white Democrats said blacks were treated less fairly by police, while 22% of white Republicans agreed. The number of Democrats who said blacks were treated unfairly in the workplace and by police grew by 8 points and 11 points, respectively since 2016. There was almost no change, however, among white Republicans. White independents were more empathetic toward blacks than white Republicans, but less empathetic than Democrats. Michael Tesler, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, said Trump may be influencing many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents in their views on race. “They may not care that much about race initially, and then they see Trump pushing on race so hard on race,” he said. “And so they push back.” Samantha Burkes, 36, of Bullhead City, Arizona said she was doing just that when she rated blacks well above whites in terms of intelligence, work ethic, manners, peacefulness and lawfulness in the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Slideshow (5 Images) “I just wanted to express that I don’t think black people are worse than white people,” said Burkes, a white Democrat who plans to vote against Trump in 2020. “I’m just lashing out, really.”	www.reuters.com	2center	IuKI0oxKpWmLTNaz
foreign_policy	Vox	00	https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18678809/usa-iran-war-aumf-911-trump-pompeo	How the Trump administration is using 9/11 to build a case for war with Iran	2019-06-14	Alex Ward, Hannah Brown, Lauren Katz, Theodore Schleifer, Li Zhou, Sean Collins, Umair Irfan	The Trump administration keeps saying that it doesn ’ t want to go to war with Iran . The problem is that some top officials continue to make statements that could pave a dubiously legal and factually challenged pathway to war . If that ’ s the intention , a major flare-up between Washington and Tehran could lead the administration to say it has the right to launch what would be one of the nastiest , bloodiest conflicts in modern history — even if it really doesn ’ t legally have that authorization . For months , President Donald Trump and some of his top officials have claimed Iran and al-Qaeda , the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 terror attacks , are closely linked . That ’ s been a common refrain despite evidence showing their ties aren ’ t strong at all . In fact , even al-Qaeda ’ s own documents detail the weak connection between the two . But insisting there ’ s a nefarious , continual relationship matters greatly . In 2001 , Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) , allowing the president “ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations , organizations , or persons he determines planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons . ” Which means that if the Trump administration truly believes Iran and al-Qaeda have been in cahoots before or after 9/11 , then it could claim war with Tehran already is authorized by law . That chilling possibility was raised during a House Armed Services Committee session early Thursday morning by an unlikely pair : Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-FL ) , a top Trump ally , and Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) , a Pentagon official in the Obama administration . “ The notion that the administration has never maintained that there are elements of the 2001 AUMF that would authorize their hostilities toward Iran is not consistent with my understanding of what they said to us , ” said Gaetz . “ We were absolutely presented with a formal presentation on how the AUMF might authorize war on Iran , ” added Slotkin right after , although she noted no one said they would use it to greenlight a fight . `` In alignment with what Rep. Gaetz said , we were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran…Pompeo said it with his own words…a relationship between Iran and al Qaeda. ” pic.twitter.com/LRezIaj5pK — Ryan Goodman ( @ rgoodlaw ) June 13 , 2019 It doesn ’ t help that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , an anti-Iran hardliner , told lawmakers behind closed doors in May that he felt Americans would support a war with Tehran if the US or its allies were attacked , congressional sources familiar with that conversation told me . The Trump administration already blames Iran for multiple attacks on oil tankers in a strategic Middle Eastern waterway , including two Thursday on Japanese- and Norwegian-owned vessels . None of this means the US and Iran are going to war anytime soon , or even at all . But it does mean the administration may feel it has the legal basis to do so if it wanted to . On the surface , al-Qaeda and Iran make an odd pairing . Iran is a Shia Muslim state , and al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni terrorist organization , so it stands to reason that they would have no business interacting with each other . Here ’ s a section from the 9/11 Commission report , the most authoritative account of how the attacks happened and the backstory behind al-Qaeda ’ s rise : In late 1991 or 1992 , discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support — even if only training — for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States . Not long afterward , senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives . In the fall of 1993 , another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security . Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983 . The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations . Iran ’ s proxy group in Lebanon , Hezbollah , also helped train al-Qaeda operatives ahead of its 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . In 2003 , al-Qaeda killed more than 30 people in Saudi Arabia ’ s capital , Riyadh , and the plotters fled to Iran . Eight years later , the Obama administration said there was a “ secret deal ” between Iran and al-Qaeda “ to funnel funds and operatives through its territory . ” The US government maintains that Iran and al-Qaeda remain linked in that way . Take this , from a 2012 State Department report : Iran “ allowed AQ [ al-Qaeda ] members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory , enabling AQ to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere. ” A nearly identical passage exists in the latest version of the annual report from 2018 , although that one specifically mentions “ Syria ” as a destination for the “ facilitators and operatives . ” Those kinds of statements have led some experts to say the AUMF can be invoked to approve a war with Tehran . “ If the facts show Iran or any other nation is harboring al Qaeda , that ’ s a circumstance which would make the argument for the applicability of the 2001 AUMF quite strong , ” retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. , now at Duke University , told the Washington Times in February . But there ’ s also a lot of evidence showing that Iran and al-Qaeda aren ’ t all that close and , crucially , haven ’ t colluded to commit terrorist attacks . Just weeks after 9/11 , then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad falsely accused the US of having organized and carried out the attacks . Al-Qaeda wasn ’ t pleased : “ Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence ? ” the terror group wrote in its English-language magazine Inspire . “ Al Qaeda ... succeeded in what Iran couldn ’ t . ” A 2018 study by the New America think tank , based on roughly 470,000 declassified files obtained from Osama bin Laden ’ s Pakistan compound in 2011 , showed no links between Iran and al-Qaeda to commit terrorist acts . “ In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism , ” Nelly Lahoud , the study ’ s author , wrote in a blog post last September . What the documents do show is that Tehran was deeply uncomfortable having al-Qaeda on its soil , and that bin Laden fiercely distrusted Iran . For example , Iran detained al-Qaeda members — and some in bin Laden ’ s family — for abusing the conditions of their stay in the country . An al-Qaeda operative thought Tehran was keeping some of its members hostage : “ Iranian authorities decided to keep our brothers as a bargaining chip ” after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 , a document reviewed in the study read . In other words , Iran wasn ’ t holding al-Qaeda operatives just for fun ; it was doing so as a way to possibly strike a deal with America down the line . It turns out that Iran and al-Qaeda actually have been at odds for a long time . “ From his safe house in Abbottabad , Osama bin Laden considered Iran ’ s increasing regional footprint to be a menace and weighed plans to counter it , ” Thomas Jocelyn , an Iran expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington , wrote in the Weekly Standard last year . “ Al Qaeda ’ s branches have also fought Iranian proxies , including Hezbollah fighters , on the ground in Syria and Yemen for years . Anti-Iranian rhetoric is a regular feature of al Qaeda ’ s propaganda and other statements . ” The question , then , is what one makes of this history . Does it mean that Iran should be forever linked with al-Qaeda ? Or is it removed enough from the Sunni group that Iran isn ’ t covered in the AUMF ? The Trump administration clearly believes the former — but Congress just as clearly doesn ’ t . Trump faces stiff resistance against using the AUMF for an Iran war When Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 , he started off his announcement with a striking statement . “ The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror . It exports dangerous missiles , fuels conflicts across the Middle East , and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah , Hamas , the Taliban , and al Qaeda , ” he said . In April , Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “ there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda . Period . Full stop. ” He continued : “ They have hosted al-Qaeda . They have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country . ” When pressed by Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) if he thought the 2001 AUMF applied to Iran , Pompeo refused to answer the question , saying he ’ d “ rather leave that to lawyers . ” Also in April , the administration labeled Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard Corps , Iran ’ s hugely influential security and military organization responsible for the protection and survival of the regime , as a “ foreign terrorist organization. ” That means if evidence surfaced of IRGC members working with al-Qaeda operatives , it ’ d be easier to say a terror group is aiding another terror group . And in the same Thursday speech in which Pompeo blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers this week , he listed off a series of assaults he said were “ instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests. ” One of them was a May 31 car bombing in Afghanistan that slightly wounded four US troops and killed Afghan civilians . The Taliban , which controlled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks , took responsibility for the bombing . Pompeo thus linked Iran with the Taliban ’ s plot without providing any evidence . It ’ s unclear why he did that , but some — like Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s ( I-VT ) foreign policy adviser Matthew Duss — say the secretary wanted to build a case that the 2001 AUMF covers Iran . Lawmakers from both parties in Congress , though , have staunchly pushed back against the administration ’ s argument . Sens . Tom Udall ( D-NM ) and Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) put forward an amendment to this year ’ s must-pass defense bill requiring an entirely new AUMF to approve a war with Iran . Rep. Mac Thornberry ( R-TX ) , the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee , also has said the 2001 AUMF doesn ’ t apply to Iran . Others have also come out asking the administration to reconsider its position . If @ POTUS wants to use military force against Iran ( or any nation ) he must first make his case to Congress & seek authorization . It ’ s time to repeal the 2001 AUMF so this POTUS & future admins can ’ t use shaky legal footing to drag us into conflict w/o proper authorization . ( 3/3 ) — Rep. Ted Lieu ( @ RepTedLieu ) June 13 , 2019 It ’ s worth reiterating that the administration continually says it doesn ’ t seek a war with Iran . Instead , officials claim it has applied immense economic pressure on the Islamic Republic solely in hopes of bringing it to the negotiating table — not as a prelude to conflict . But if the administration changes its mind and decides war is necessary , it ’ s possible Trump ’ s team could use the AUMF to launch a strike — and it would be fair to consider that an illegal attack .	The Trump administration keeps saying that it doesn’t want to go to war with Iran. The problem is that some top officials continue to make statements that could pave a dubiously legal and factually challenged pathway to war. If that’s the intention, a major flare-up between Washington and Tehran could lead the administration to say it has the right to launch what would be one of the nastiest, bloodiest conflicts in modern history — even if it really doesn’t legally have that authorization. For months, President Donald Trump and some of his top officials have claimed Iran and al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 terror attacks, are closely linked. That’s been a common refrain despite evidence showing their ties aren’t strong at all. In fact, even al-Qaeda’s own documents detail the weak connection between the two. But insisting there’s a nefarious, continual relationship matters greatly. In 2001, Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), allowing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” Which means that if the Trump administration truly believes Iran and al-Qaeda have been in cahoots before or after 9/11, then it could claim war with Tehran already is authorized by law. That chilling possibility was raised during a House Armed Services Committee session early Thursday morning by an unlikely pair: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a top Trump ally, and Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a Pentagon official in the Obama administration. “The notion that the administration has never maintained that there are elements of the 2001 AUMF that would authorize their hostilities toward Iran is not consistent with my understanding of what they said to us,” said Gaetz. “We were absolutely presented with a formal presentation on how the AUMF might authorize war on Iran,” added Slotkin right after, although she noted no one said they would use it to greenlight a fight. Pompeo thinks can bypass Congress to strike Iran "In alignment with what Rep. Gaetz said, we were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran…Pompeo said it with his own words…a relationship between Iran and al Qaeda.” pic.twitter.com/LRezIaj5pK — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) June 13, 2019 It doesn’t help that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an anti-Iran hardliner, told lawmakers behind closed doors in May that he felt Americans would support a war with Tehran if the US or its allies were attacked, congressional sources familiar with that conversation told me. The Trump administration already blames Iran for multiple attacks on oil tankers in a strategic Middle Eastern waterway, including two Thursday on Japanese- and Norwegian-owned vessels. None of this means the US and Iran are going to war anytime soon, or even at all. But it does mean the administration may feel it has the legal basis to do so if it wanted to. The complicated al-Qaeda-Iran connection, explained On the surface, al-Qaeda and Iran make an odd pairing. Iran is a Shia Muslim state, and al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni terrorist organization, so it stands to reason that they would have no business interacting with each other. But it turns out they have worked together before. Here’s a section from the 9/11 Commission report, the most authoritative account of how the attacks happened and the backstory behind al-Qaeda’s rise: In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support — even if only training — for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. Iran’s proxy group in Lebanon, Hezbollah, also helped train al-Qaeda operatives ahead of its 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2003, al-Qaeda killed more than 30 people in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, and the plotters fled to Iran. Eight years later, the Obama administration said there was a “secret deal” between Iran and al-Qaeda “to funnel funds and operatives through its territory.” The US government maintains that Iran and al-Qaeda remain linked in that way. Take this, from a 2012 State Department report: Iran “allowed AQ [al-Qaeda] members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, enabling AQ to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.” A nearly identical passage exists in the latest version of the annual report from 2018, although that one specifically mentions “Syria” as a destination for the “facilitators and operatives.” Those kinds of statements have led some experts to say the AUMF can be invoked to approve a war with Tehran. “If the facts show Iran or any other nation is harboring al Qaeda, that’s a circumstance which would make the argument for the applicability of the 2001 AUMF quite strong,” retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr., now at Duke University, told the Washington Times in February. But there’s also a lot of evidence showing that Iran and al-Qaeda aren’t all that close and, crucially, haven’t colluded to commit terrorist attacks. Just weeks after 9/11, then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad falsely accused the US of having organized and carried out the attacks. Al-Qaeda wasn’t pleased: “Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?” the terror group wrote in its English-language magazine Inspire. “Al Qaeda ... succeeded in what Iran couldn’t.” A 2018 study by the New America think tank, based on roughly 470,000 declassified files obtained from Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan compound in 2011, showed no links between Iran and al-Qaeda to commit terrorist acts. “In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism,” Nelly Lahoud, the study’s author, wrote in a blog post last September. What the documents do show is that Tehran was deeply uncomfortable having al-Qaeda on its soil, and that bin Laden fiercely distrusted Iran. For example, Iran detained al-Qaeda members — and some in bin Laden’s family — for abusing the conditions of their stay in the country. An al-Qaeda operative thought Tehran was keeping some of its members hostage: “Iranian authorities decided to keep our brothers as a bargaining chip” after the US invaded Iraq in 2003, a document reviewed in the study read. In other words, Iran wasn’t holding al-Qaeda operatives just for fun; it was doing so as a way to possibly strike a deal with America down the line. It turns out that Iran and al-Qaeda actually have been at odds for a long time. “From his safe house in Abbottabad, Osama bin Laden considered Iran’s increasing regional footprint to be a menace and weighed plans to counter it,” Thomas Jocelyn, an Iran expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, wrote in the Weekly Standard last year. “Al Qaeda’s branches have also fought Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah fighters, on the ground in Syria and Yemen for years. Anti-Iranian rhetoric is a regular feature of al Qaeda’s propaganda and other statements.” The question, then, is what one makes of this history. Does it mean that Iran should be forever linked with al-Qaeda? Or is it removed enough from the Sunni group that Iran isn’t covered in the AUMF? The Trump administration clearly believes the former — but Congress just as clearly doesn’t. Trump faces stiff resistance against using the AUMF for an Iran war When Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, he started off his announcement with a striking statement. “The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al Qaeda,” he said. It’s an argument the administration continues to push. In April, Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda. Period. Full stop.” He continued: “They have hosted al-Qaeda. They have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country.” When pressed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) if he thought the 2001 AUMF applied to Iran, Pompeo refused to answer the question, saying he’d “rather leave that to lawyers.” Also in April, the administration labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s hugely influential security and military organization responsible for the protection and survival of the regime, as a “foreign terrorist organization.” That means if evidence surfaced of IRGC members working with al-Qaeda operatives, it’d be easier to say a terror group is aiding another terror group. And in the same Thursday speech in which Pompeo blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers this week, he listed off a series of assaults he said were “instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests.” One of them was a May 31 car bombing in Afghanistan that slightly wounded four US troops and killed Afghan civilians. The Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, took responsibility for the bombing. Pompeo thus linked Iran with the Taliban’s plot without providing any evidence. It’s unclear why he did that, but some — like Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) foreign policy adviser Matthew Duss — say the secretary wanted to build a case that the 2001 AUMF covers Iran. Lawmakers from both parties in Congress, though, have staunchly pushed back against the administration’s argument. Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) put forward an amendment to this year’s must-pass defense bill requiring an entirely new AUMF to approve a war with Iran. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also has said the 2001 AUMF doesn’t apply to Iran. Others have also come out asking the administration to reconsider its position. If @POTUS wants to use military force against Iran (or any nation) he must first make his case to Congress & seek authorization. It’s time to repeal the 2001 AUMF so this POTUS & future admins can’t use shaky legal footing to drag us into conflict w/o proper authorization. (3/3) — Rep. Ted Lieu (@RepTedLieu) June 13, 2019 It’s worth reiterating that the administration continually says it doesn’t seek a war with Iran. Instead, officials claim it has applied immense economic pressure on the Islamic Republic solely in hopes of bringing it to the negotiating table — not as a prelude to conflict. But if the administration changes its mind and decides war is necessary, it’s possible Trump’s team could use the AUMF to launch a strike — and it would be fair to consider that an illegal attack.	www.vox.com	0left	MegTT8QQ4QpD6S3E
race_and_racism	Washington Post	00	https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-not-a-black-woman-consensus-grows-around-bidens-vp/2020/06/19/620589e6-b275-11ea-98b5-279a6479a1e4_story.html	‘Why not a Black woman?’ Consensus grows around Biden’s VP	2020-06-19	Alexandra Jaffe	Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , has already pledged to select a woman as his vice president to energize the party ’ s base with the prospect of making history . But following the outrage over the police killing of George Floyd last month , many Democratic strategists say there ’ s growing consensus that the pick should be a Black woman . “ Like it or not , I think the question is starting to become , ‘ Well , why not a Black woman ? ’ ” said Karen Finney , a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign . Finney , who was one of 200 Black women who signed a letter to Biden encouraging him to select a Black woman for his ticket , warned that the former vice president could face a backlash if he chose a white woman . “ That puts a lot of pressure on Biden . It puts a lot of pressure on who he selects , no question , ” she said . “ The country is recognizing the gravity of this moment , the significance of this moment . ” Biden ’ s team has been vetting potential candidates for weeks and has begun whittling down their list of choices . Several of the potential contenders are Black , including California Sen. Kamala Harris , Florida Rep. Val Demings , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Susan Rice , who served as President Barack Obama ’ s national security adviser . New Mexico Gov . Michelle Lujan Grisham , a Latina , is also in the mix . Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who is white , is also leading contender . Another possibility who is white , Michigan Gov . Gretchen Whitmer , said last month that she had opening conversations with Biden ’ s team about potentially serving as vice president . In a Thursday interview , she said , “ Beyond that , there ’ s just not much new to report . ” Antjuan Seawright , a veteran Democratic strategist , said the current moment calls for someone who understands the challenges faced by Black Americans . “ There ’ s a renewed sense of urgency around the need to have someone who can speak to the experiences of today and advocate for the promises of tomorrow when it comes to populations of constituencies in this country who ’ ve been left out for a very long time , ” he said . Klobuchar ’ s decision was in part a reflection of the fact that her own chances at getting the VP nod diminished after Floyd ’ s killing . She was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis , and during that period , more than two dozen people — mostly people of color — died during encounters with police . Floyd ’ s death last month set off days of protests across the country and criticism that as the county ’ s top prosecutor , Klobuchar didn ’ t charge any of the officers involved in citizen deaths . Officer Derek Chauvin , who was charged with Floyd ’ s murder , was involved in a fatal October 2006 shooting of a man accused of stabbing people and aiming a shotgun at police . Klobuchar ’ s successor as prosecutor , Mike Freeman , sent Chauvin ’ s case to a grand jury , which was customary practice for the office at the time , and the grand jury in 2008 declined to prosecute . Freeman has said Klobuchar , who won election to the Senate in November 2006 and took office in January 2007 , had no involvement in the Chauvin case . But her decision this week to endorse a woman of color is certain to complicate the pitches of other white contenders . In conversations with a half-dozen Democrats , none would rule out Warren , who ’ s been actively engaging with Black activists and leaders since exiting the Democratic presidential race and won plaudits from some former skeptics for her outreach . But privately , many acknowledged that her chances have dimmed following Klobuchar ’ s remarks . “ I think Elizabeth , if she wants the job , has got to make the case for not only why she would be the best vice president of the people he ’ s considering , but why she would be the best person to put on the ticket electorally , ” said Heidi Heitkamp , a former Democratic senator from North Dakota who served with Warren . “ If she can make that persuasive argument , you can ’ t rule her out . Heitkamp said she ’ s long believed Biden should choose a Black woman , in part because of the current political climate , but also because Black women are some of the Democratic Party ’ s most loyal voters . And she suggested Klobuchar ’ s comments Thursday night reflected the views of many of those within the party . “ I think it was incredibly generous of her to bow out and to say what I think a lot of us are thinking , which is that the time has come to recognize the contributions and the capabilities of a lot of women who may otherwise get passed over , ” she said . The debate among Democrats about Biden ’ s vice presidential pick has divided among competing and sometimes contradictory views within the party about the best path to victory in November . Those who believe Biden must take into consideration geographic concerns advocate choosing a candidate from a swing state . Those who believe Biden should focus on winning over and turning out young and liberal voters suggest he should choose a progressive . And those who believe demographics are key argue in favor of a woman of color . Warren was long the favorite of those who felt strongest that Biden needed to win over skeptical progressives . But Seawright argued that Klobuchar ’ s comments helped refocus the conversation . “ I think that when Klobuchar and others use intentional commentary like she did , I think it helps push back on some of these conversations being had about geographics , the flavor within the party , progressive versus moderate , etc. , ” he said . “ When intentional conversations like she had last night come about , it really turns down the noise and really focuses on the lyrics of what ’ s important . ”	Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has already pledged to select a woman as his vice president to energize the party’s base with the prospect of making history. But following the outrage over the police killing of George Floyd last month, many Democratic strategists say there’s growing consensus that the pick should be a Black woman. AD AD “Like it or not, I think the question is starting to become, ‘Well, why not a Black woman?’” said Karen Finney, a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Finney, who was one of 200 Black women who signed a letter to Biden encouraging him to select a Black woman for his ticket, warned that the former vice president could face a backlash if he chose a white woman. “That puts a lot of pressure on Biden. It puts a lot of pressure on who he selects, no question,” she said. “The country is recognizing the gravity of this moment, the significance of this moment.” Biden’s team has been vetting potential candidates for weeks and has begun whittling down their list of choices. Several of the potential contenders are Black, including California Sen. Kamala Harris, Florida Rep. Val Demings, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Susan Rice, who served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Latina, is also in the mix. AD AD Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is white, is also leading contender. Another possibility who is white, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, said last month that she had opening conversations with Biden’s team about potentially serving as vice president. In a Thursday interview, she said, “Beyond that, there’s just not much new to report.” Antjuan Seawright, a veteran Democratic strategist, said the current moment calls for someone who understands the challenges faced by Black Americans. “There’s a renewed sense of urgency around the need to have someone who can speak to the experiences of today and advocate for the promises of tomorrow when it comes to populations of constituencies in this country who’ve been left out for a very long time,” he said. AD Klobuchar’s decision was in part a reflection of the fact that her own chances at getting the VP nod diminished after Floyd’s killing. AD She was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis, and during that period, more than two dozen people — mostly people of color — died during encounters with police. Floyd’s death last month set off days of protests across the country and criticism that as the county’s top prosecutor, Klobuchar didn’t charge any of the officers involved in citizen deaths. Officer Derek Chauvin, who was charged with Floyd’s murder, was involved in a fatal October 2006 shooting of a man accused of stabbing people and aiming a shotgun at police. Klobuchar’s successor as prosecutor, Mike Freeman, sent Chauvin’s case to a grand jury, which was customary practice for the office at the time, and the grand jury in 2008 declined to prosecute. Freeman has said Klobuchar, who won election to the Senate in November 2006 and took office in January 2007, had no involvement in the Chauvin case. AD But her decision this week to endorse a woman of color is certain to complicate the pitches of other white contenders. AD In conversations with a half-dozen Democrats, none would rule out Warren, who’s been actively engaging with Black activists and leaders since exiting the Democratic presidential race and won plaudits from some former skeptics for her outreach. But privately, many acknowledged that her chances have dimmed following Klobuchar’s remarks. “I think Elizabeth, if she wants the job, has got to make the case for not only why she would be the best vice president of the people he’s considering, but why she would be the best person to put on the ticket electorally,” said Heidi Heitkamp, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota who served with Warren. “If she can make that persuasive argument, you can’t rule her out. AD Heitkamp said she’s long believed Biden should choose a Black woman, in part because of the current political climate, but also because Black women are some of the Democratic Party’s most loyal voters. And she suggested Klobuchar’s comments Thursday night reflected the views of many of those within the party. AD “I think it was incredibly generous of her to bow out and to say what I think a lot of us are thinking, which is that the time has come to recognize the contributions and the capabilities of a lot of women who may otherwise get passed over,” she said. The debate among Democrats about Biden’s vice presidential pick has divided among competing and sometimes contradictory views within the party about the best path to victory in November. AD Those who believe Biden must take into consideration geographic concerns advocate choosing a candidate from a swing state. Those who believe Biden should focus on winning over and turning out young and liberal voters suggest he should choose a progressive. And those who believe demographics are key argue in favor of a woman of color. Warren was long the favorite of those who felt strongest that Biden needed to win over skeptical progressives. But Seawright argued that Klobuchar’s comments helped refocus the conversation. AD “I think that when Klobuchar and others use intentional commentary like she did, I think it helps push back on some of these conversations being had about geographics, the flavor within the party, progressive versus moderate, etc.,” he said. “When intentional conversations like she had last night come about, it really turns down the noise and really focuses on the lyrics of what’s important.” AD	www.washingtonpost.com	0left	ehwLJXR3suPVOSIp
politics	Slate	00	https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/joe-biden-character-anita-hill.html	The End of Character Politics	2020-06-17	Lili Loofbourow	One of Watergate ’ s less obvious but lasting effects was that a politician ’ s “ character ” —a capacious term that would eventually encompass all kinds of supposed virtues and flaws—became an object of increasingly obsessive scrutiny for the press and the public . This was a noticeable shift . John F. Kennedy , for instance , was famously unfaithful to his wife , and yet , as Lesley Stahl told Radiolab in 2016 , “ we wouldn ’ t have dreamed of printing that even if the whispers were loud enough to spread around the country . It just wasn ’ t done. ” Those decorous conventions collapsed in the wake of a more invasive press activated by Richard Nixon ’ s crimes . So , in the ensuing years , did whatever illusions the public may have had about its political leadership . Though there were many reasons for Nixon ’ s downfall , the Oval Office tapes that finally incriminated him beyond doubt did something else as well : They revealed the extent of the gap between the private machinations of the men who held office and their public bearing . And once the press had helped reveal that gap , it became impossible to close it up again . As the tacit agreement to keep the private sins of politicians off-limits began to erode , a new political reality emerged . Its strictures—as with all such upheavals—were sometimes a little arbitrary . Many of the scandals were naturally about sex , and few were as much of a legal breach as the Watergate break-in and cover-up . In 1976 , Rep. Wayne Hays resigned when it was discovered he ’ d been keeping a young woman on his staff who turned out , despite his forceful denials , to be his mistress . The financial side of this mattered , of course , but so—to a portion of the public that was coming to see the personal as political—did the cheating and lying , something that used to be dismissed as mere “ scandal. ” The so-called character question only increased in importance over the next few years : Jimmy Carter won in part by contrasting his moral probity with the Nixon-Ford administration ’ s ( in 1979 , James Fallows would backhandedly call Carter “ as admirable a human being as has ever held the job ” ) . And in 1987—charmingly called “ the Year of the Bimbo ” by the Wall Street Journal—Gary Hart , the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination , would be brought down after an affair was deemed ( despite his protestations that infidelity “ hasn ’ t been the business of the American public for 200 years ” ) not just newsworthy but disqualifying . In his book All the Truth Is Out about Hart , Matt Bai suggested—in a passage lamenting the rise of “ this violent compression of politics and celebrity and moral policing ” —that character , as a bucket term for human flaws that reflect on a politician ’ s fitness , had become distressingly and even unsustainably broad . It wasn ’ t just about sex , as it was in Hart ’ s case , but also about whether you uttered a line you wished you could take back or made an investment you probably shouldn ’ t have , about whether you ’ d ever gotten stoned or written something idiotic in a school paper . Nothing mattered more in a politician than his essential character , and no shred of private behavior , no moment of weakness or questionable judgment , was too insignificant to illuminate it . Once a person ’ s private conduct was perceived to impinge on their ability to do their public work , the onus fell on the public to decide what to do about revelations of this sort—in particular , whether they rendered the candidate unfit for public service . Many of us have spent decades being overexposed to the ubiquitous personal shortcomings of politicians . The idea was that we , the judicious public , deserved to know all the facts , ingest the filth , and metabolize it into a sound and democratic electoral result . But it has been a messy change . It ’ s not just that media organizations are neither consistent nor clear about which scandals are newsworthy ; the problem is that we , the members of that vaunted public square , have not been able to reconcile these ugly exposures with the American ideals democracy theoretically serves . And so Americans have been heading , for some time , toward something like moral burnout . Back in 1987 , Gary Hart felt unreasonably targeted . He wasn ’ t alone ; many Americans found the reporters who hid in the bushes to get the story of Hart and Donna Rice guilty of sensational overreach . On the other hand , Cokie Roberts told Radiolab that some female reporters at the time felt that Hart ’ s conduct was more than fair game . “ There were times when you ’ d be in a room where he ’ d hit on every woman in the room , ” she said . “ The way women were treated was something we thought , and I continue to think , is a good gauge of character . … We were expanding the universe of what was a major character flaw . ” There was one other unexpected casualty of that 1987 presidential campaign dominated by the politics of character : Joseph Biden . Biden was forced to end his first presidential campaign after he was found to have copied parts of a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock , even appearing to claim details from Kinnock ’ s life story as his own . He was also found to have borrowed bits of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey , and to have improperly footnoted an assignment in law school . It ’ s unlikely that these discoveries would have ended his campaign two decades earlier . The New York Times called Biden “ the second victim of the character issue in a contest for the White House. ” “ Whatever else it may or may not prove , the withdrawal of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination demonstrates how much the 1988 campaign differs from its predecessors , ” the Times piece noted . “ Never before have candidates ’ alleged character flaws emerged so early or proved so lethal . ” It ’ s possible the character issue truly peaked in 1987 ; that was also the year that Ronald Reagan ’ s failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court ( sunk with the help of Biden ) became shorthand for what were perceived as personal attacks for partisan reasons . Biden was already middle-aged—44 ! —when he first experienced this newfangled backlash to his past failings . Many , political insiders especially , saw those failings as minor : Democrats who stayed mum about Gary Hart spoke up in Biden ’ s defense . Even Republicans defended him . “ I have never seen the Republicans as totally supportive of a person on the opposite end of the spectrum as they have been with Joe , ” Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum , a Democrat from Ohio , told the New York Times . Sen. Strom Thurmond said , “ I ’ ve always found him to be a high-type man. ” The New York Times observed that these defenses “ reflected Mr. Biden ’ s acceptance within the Senate ‘ club , ’ where Mr. Hart was always considered a loner . ” R.W . Apple Jr. ’ s assessment of Biden ’ s 1987 candidacy chose an apt metaphor to describe what went wrong : “ In the early stages of a courtship , transgressions can be fatal , but in a well-rooted marriage , they may be quickly forgiven ; so it is in politics . Almost the first things many voters learned about Mr. Biden , aside from his good looks and articulateness , was that he had done things that most people consider a bit questionable at best. ” In other words , Biden may have been familiar to Washington . But the senator from Delaware wasn ’ t broadly popular , or an especially known quantity , in the rest of America . Character wasn ’ t reducible to one ’ s reputation . It was a more personal amalgam , and one that , in Biden ’ s view , deserved some measure of privacy . Biden is now in just such a “ marriage ” with many American voters—thanks in no small part to his long tenure in the Senate and his close association with President Barack Obama . He ’ s a household name . But as he comes under at least as much scrutiny for his moral character as for his politics , 33 years later , we can see two things : 1 ) that Trump has badly distorted—perhaps beyond recognition—our ability to properly judge the issue of moral personal behavior in American politics ; and 2 ) that we can learn a lot about how Biden himself thinks about the character question by seeing how it played out when he presided over the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings . One can deduce how much Biden hated the rise of “ character ” as a matter of public concern given how reluctant he seemed , a few years after losing the presidential primary on the issue , to see Thomas evaluated on the same terms . Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer write in Strange Justice that Biden was aware early on of Hill ’ s allegations but “ went out of his way to suggest that any charges of improper conduct—he made no mention of Hill or her allegations , of course—were not worthy of debate. ” Indeed , in a speech he gave explaining his choice to vote no on Thomas in committee , he made a point to say “ there is no question with respect to the nominee ’ s character , competence , credentials , or credibility. ” He told the committee before Hill ’ s allegations went public : “ I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all , and that is his character . This is about what he believes , not about who he is . ” Biden ’ s statement betrays some concern over how slippery and powerful the category of “ character ” had gotten . Character wasn ’ t reducible to one ’ s reputation , nor was it defined by one ’ s actions , however objectionable ; it was a more personal amalgam , and one that , in his view , deserved some measure of privacy . Biden draws an extremely curious distinction on these grounds : He posits that Thomas can and should be judged on what he believes—implying that what a person believes is at least theoretically separable from who they are . Biden ’ s strenuous exclusion of character as a criterion for public office was shared by an unlikely party : Anita Hill . According to Abramson and Mayer , Hill was also unhappy that character was becoming a defining issue in American politics . Before her claims went public , she told a friend “ that she had been ‘ appalled ’ by the treatment their old Yale professor Robert Bork had received during his abortive confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1987 . She didn ’ t want to see another nominee ripped apart on the basis of his personal character : ‘ Bork and Thomas should stand or fall on their ideas . ’ ” It ’ s somewhat ironic that Biden—who made a point of rejecting character-based politics in 1991—has been frequently accused of transforming American political culture on those very grounds when he ran Bork ’ s confirmation hearing in 1987 , just as his own presidential campaign was collapsing on character-related charges . ( He withdrew from the race in the middle of the hearings . ) Borking has become a term of art for unfairly attacking a candidate through “ harsh public criticism or vilification. ” Many conservatives blame Biden , specifically , for ushering in an era dominated by the politics of personal destruction , even though the effort to turn public opinion against Bork ( which cited his conservative legal opinions but also his role presumably aiding Nixon in Watergate ’ s Saturday Night Massacre ) was initiated by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a combination of grassroots organizations . In actuality , Biden tried to safeguard Bork ’ s privacy , refusing , for example , to subpoena Bork ’ s video rental history . In 2008 , a former Biden intern described Biden ’ s commitment to the theoretical separation of private and public selves at this crucial moment in 1987 : “ I saw Mr. Biden struggle to focus the hearings on Judge Bork ’ s judicial philosophy rather than his private life , in the face of overwhelming political pressure from interest groups on the left . … He did everything in his power to resist the collapse of boundaries. ” Still , the hearing was one of the first to be televised and Bork himself was underprepared , which did nothing to turn the tide back in his favor . The Senate voted against the nominee by the widest margin in history . This much is accurate : Biden maintained a distinction between public and private life even when it was not politically advantageous to do so . The future vice president ’ s reluctance to act on Hill ’ s account until he was forced to is well documented . So is the fact that he considered burying other ethically troubling allegations about nominees the decent thing to do—to avoid besmirching their characters . Per the New York Times , “ On other occasions as Judiciary Committee chairman , [ Biden ] said he had been made aware of unsubstantiated reports of wrongdoings by nominees that he did not divulge in order to protect their reputations. ” On the whole , Biden seemed to believe that a man ’ s good name needed protection more than his alleged bad actions needed exposure . In a 1992 interview with E.J . Dionne in which he looked back on the confirmation hearings , he said he regretted not defending Hill and “ attacking the attackers , ” but he also made clear that he was worried less about damage to Hill ’ s character than to Thomas ’ . Conceding that he could have paused the hearings in order to investigate whether there was a “ pattern of behavior , ” Biden said that it wouldn ’ t have been fair—to Thomas . He was worried that doing so would allow rumors about Thomas to spread . Biden did , however , pay lip service to the new world everyone was inhabiting . He speechified—to Thomas and to his colleagues—about how private misconduct intersects with public service , and how the judgment of a man accused of such a thing would go : We ’ re big boys . I knew when I ran for president everything was free game . Anybody who runs for the Supreme Court or is appointed to the Supreme Court , to be more precise , should understand . It ’ s not Boy Scouts , it ’ s not Cub Scouts . Biden also clarified then that the hearing was “ not a referendum ” on whether sexual harassment was a grave offense—it was—but about whether it had occurred . “ Now , ” he addressed Thomas , “ we ’ re going to hear more witnesses who are going to come in and corroborate your position and hers . We ’ ll find out whether they ’ re telling the truth or not as best as we are capable of doing , just like you as a judge are when you look them in the eye and make a judgment . ” What emerges is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them . As we now know , Biden did not call three witnesses who could have spoken to whether Thomas had a pattern of sexual harassment . Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett were prepared to testify to Thomas ’ conduct and to the culture at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . So was a third woman , Rose Jourdain , who said she could back up Wright ’ s testimony and was prepared to do so while extremely ill . In 2017 , Biden told Teen Vogue that he wanted the witnesses to testify and that they had refused . “ I wasn ’ t able to convince three women we ’ d subpoenaed to cooperate with testimony . At the last minute , they changed their mind and said they wouldn ’ t do it . I had them sign an affidavit saying , ‘ I want you to come , and you ’ re saying , “ No , I will not come. ” ’ ” A letter to that effect does exist for Wright—it ’ s in the hearing transcript and bears Wright ’ s signature as well as Biden ’ s . But Mayer and Abramson ’ s reporting on how that letter came to be entered into the record does not remotely match Biden ’ s account : An aide from Biden ’ s office called Middlebrooks [ Wright ’ s attorney ] and offered to release Wright from her subpoena—if she was willing to say that she had requested the cancellation . Wright ’ s response was typically blunt : ‘ Bullshit . After I ’ ve been sitting here for three days being called names ? ’ Middlebrooks also refused . ‘ You are not going to make her look like she ’ s cutting and running . She ’ s the key second witness and we want our story aired . ’ Biden ’ s office kept negotiating ways for Wright not to testify , and Wright finally signed . As for Hardnett , she said in a 2018 interview with NPR that she had no idea why she wasn ’ t called . What emerges from all this , it seems to me , is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them . Biden wants to be good , works very hard to look good , and squints very hard to try to make nice and good mean the same thing . But given the choice between exposing a fellow insider ’ s questionable conduct or withholding that information from the public he ostensibly represents , Biden protected the insider . Faced with the assassination of Anita Hill ’ s character ( which was happening in real time , under his watch ) and the potential assassination of Thomas ’ , he protected Thomas and not Hill . Biden prioritized the preservation of the insider ’ s reputation over the public ’ s right to know . Such a man might plagiarize slightly from various speeches ( or in law school ) . Such a man might also massage an unfavorable story into a more flattering one . It ’ s he who desperately wanted Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett to testify , Biden maintains ; it was they who pulled out . Or perhaps , as he has also suggested , it was Hill ’ s preference that Wright keep quiet : “ Biden and several of his top staff members said that it had been Hill and her lawyers who had chiefly opposed calling Wright , ” Mayer and Abramson write . But Hill denied this . “ We were waiting for Angela Wright ’ s testimony , just like everyone else , ” Hill said . “ Apparently something went wrong . I was as surprised as anyone that she didn ’ t testify . ” Biden ’ s stories about all this don ’ t quite add up . He ’ s not out-and-out wrong—the Wright affidavit exists , and she signed it ! —but the whole is sloppy and incomplete , and the omissions and errors accrue in his favor . Biden clearly sensed , even at the time , that not calling Wright might look bad . When Democratic senators decided against calling her , Biden came out and told his staff the result of a full committee vote was 13–1 against her testifying “ with himself as her sole supporter. ” But two other Democratic senators on the committee said they recalled no such vote . Howard Metzenbaum , a Democrat , said , “ I don ’ t think Biden was anxious to bring Angela Wright on . ” Even as Biden tacitly protected Thomas ’ privacy , he publicly told him “ you will not be unaffected by this no matter what happens . Nobody goes through the white-hot glare of this process at any level for any reason and comes out unaffected. ” He also chose a fascinating metaphor for how character ought to be understood : “ But , Judge , nobody ’ s reputation , nobody ’ s reputation , is a snapshot ; it ’ s a motion picture . And the picture is being made , and you ’ ve made a vast part of it the last 43 years . ” I have been reading up on Biden as a “ motion picture ” for obvious reasons—to better understand who Biden was before he was reinvented , during Obama ’ s presidency , as a warm and frank “ Uncle Joe ” whose gaffes are part of his charm . This last snapshot is the muscular public image on which his well-rooted marriage to the American public is based . Looking back a few decades doesn ’ t just reveal a great deal more about who Biden was—it illustrates how the American conversation around what we expect from public officials developed too . I understand why Biden wants to remain laser-focused only on his history since helping to pass the Violence Against Women Act . But the preceding years were crucial . They defined how the nation would and would not grapple with scandals around sex—a sphere whose “ dirtiness ” had functionally created a safe space of sorts for men of all previous generations , but which was becoming contested , political , and public . A minor publishing scandal in 1979 illustrated how sensitive this new focus on private conduct was , and how much the idea of holding male politicians accountable was considered risky , or extreme , or unfair . Ted Kennedy was challenging Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination for president . Suzannah Lessard wrote a 3,000-word essay about Kennedy ’ s philandering called “ Kennedy ’ s Woman Problem , Women ’ s Kennedy Problem ” for the New Republic . It was controversial enough that TNR owner Marty Peretz refused to publish it , prompting editor Michael Kinsley to resign in protest ( he would later be rehired ) . The Washington Monthly picked the column up and made it the cover of its December issue . Lessard ’ s point is by now familiar : She argues that character—in every sphere—counts . While privacy matters , Ted Kennedy ’ s womanizing must be considered fair game if he intends to run for president , she writes . She criticizes “ the fastidious gentlemen ’ s code that holds that the private lives of politicians should be off limits , that what counts are the serious matters , such as a man ’ s position on issues , and that only a very sleazy and trivial reporter would lower himself to write about that sort of dirt. ” She observes , too , that there ’ s more than a whiff of condescension underpinning this attitude about what the voting public needs to know : that if the people knew what politicians were really like , it would “ render them incapable of treating such information properly . They would be excessively shocked , they would overreact , and the political process would be distorted by irrelevancies . ” Today we ’ re all the way on the other side : overexposed to “ that sort of dirt ” about politicians and exhausted from the task of sorting through it . Has the political process been “ distorted by irrelevancies ” ? Or has this painful ongoing process of navigating the “ character ” question been , on the whole , worth it ? The public ’ s answers to these questions have oscillated . Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , for instance , was a Republican effort to make “ character ” sink a president , but it didn ’ t work out that way . Even as , according to polling , Americans became more skeptical of whether the president had “ high moral and ethical standards , ” they still supported his presidency and the roaring economy that buttressed it . Many said they didn ’ t care what Clinton did in his personal life provided he did his job . More recently , Donald Trump has thrown a much larger wrench into these fine distinctions . And indeed , the upcoming election , between two men who have weathered—even broken—the character question , may mark another drastic shift in how we consider it . It ’ s pretty clear by now that Tara Reade ’ s allegation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 will mean little or nothing for Biden ’ s presidential bid . Further reporting has cast some doubt on Reade ’ s credibility , but from an electoral standpoint , it ’ s amazing how little her allegation seemed to matter in the first place . Despite the ethical demands # MeToo made , people ’ s individual rulings on whether they believed Reade didn ’ t seem to much affect whether they would vote for Biden . Lucy Flores , who wrote an essay for the Cut last year describing the discomfort she experienced when he touched her and smelled her hair at a campaign event ; Linda Hirshman ; and many other feminists who spoke up for Reade said that if the presidency comes down to Trump and Biden , they would reluctantly , citing a principle of harm reduction , vote for the latter . “ I won ’ t say it will be easy , ” Hirshman wrote . “ I know how supposedly ‘ liberal ’ men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. ” But she would swallow her reservations and vote for Biden anyway . The neighbor who corroborated Reade ’ s account falls into this category too ; she ’ s a Biden supporter and likely to remain so . I ’ ve never been a Biden supporter , but if he ’ s the candidate , I , too , will vote for him , because the ongoing calamity in the United States must be slowed . Even Reade herself , in her recent interview with Megyn Kelly , said she understands that people who believe her will still vote for Biden . ( She also noted that he “ should not be running on character for the president of the United States . ” ) These statements suggest that “ character ” might have run its course as a decisive issue in American politics . There are too many tangible emergencies . There is a pandemic . Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims . More than 100,000 people who were alive three months ago are dead . Black people are being killed on video with little to no accountability while the president defends Confederate monuments and generals . Despite the dangers , the streets are wild with people ’ s desperation and unhappiness . In the middle of all of this , Biden is deploying one of his unique strengths—his empathy , born from the many familial tragedies he ’ s suffered through while in politics . America is grieving right now , and Joe Biden is good at grief . There are too many tangible emergencies . There is a pandemic . Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims . He is also , arguably , using the character issue to reroute Americans ’ character concerns into institutional questions . When Biden says “ character is on the ballot , ” the line isn ’ t about his character as much as it is about the moral character of America . His campaign is not personality-driven . At this particular point in history , that lack of emphasis on the self may be a welcome change . Trump and Biden , who have both been public figures for decades , have each weathered the character question by rejecting its premises . But they ’ ve done so in different ways . Trump has flouted ethical prescriptions both publicly and privately . He screwed people who worked for him by not paying them , knowing they ’ d never be able to make him do so in court . He sued enemies until they gave up , bribed porn stars , and used Trump University to further immiserate vulnerable people who didn ’ t see through the fraud . He ’ s the ultimate expression of the American id freed of any remaining Puritan constraints , and of American capitalism freed from any regulation at all , whether legal , ethical , or social . Biden , by contrast , has long battled from inside the crosshairs of the character crisis , as both administrator and subject . His record is mixed ; the flaws that cost him the Democratic nomination in 1987 are still there . New issues like his handsiness have emerged . As for Reade : Much has been written about her credibility , but it ’ s worth reiterating that Biden ’ s credibility is in question too . The strange lies he repeatedly tells—about being arrested en route to visiting Nelson Mandela even though he wasn ’ t , about marching in the civil rights movement even though he did not—are as injurious as his reluctance to give them up is baffling . But on this front , as with so many , Trump has bottomed out the curve . Biden ’ s ethical infractions exist , but he still responds to at least a few external standards besides his naked self-interest . He wants to be considered a good and decent man by people of all political persuasions , Republicans included . This last is key . Whatever else one might say about him—and I ’ ve said plenty—he worked very hard during the Thomas hearings to be considered fair—by Republicans even more than by Democrats . If character were still a top-tier issue for Americans , other candidates in the Democratic primary would have fared better than they have . Biden isn ’ t the character candidate . He might be the decency candidate ( decency being a flattering category that forgives and overlooks much that character exacts and excludes ) . Given the current political terrain , many Americans seem to regard having ethical aspirations at all—even if you don ’ t live up to them , even if you fudge facts in your striving toward them , even if you have at times sacrificed righteousness for reputation—as enough . There is an upside to this low bar . If Biden wins , his will not be a cultish victory , and some diminished passion toward the presidency might be a healthy corrective to a country whose character might be damaged beyond repair . No doubt a President Biden would see his character come under assault by the opposing party , but it ’ s not likely to be able to do much damage . Much of the public is exhausted , furious , and sickened by the yawning gap between American ideals and American realities . Standards have been shredded to such an extent that it ’ s hard to imagine a candidate dropping out over a character issue now . Maybe this is OK . The mythmaking urge to turn our leaders into idols of history—whether Clinton or Reagan or Kennedy—was always in tension with the ugly facts that kept emerging about them . Of course the cognitive dissonance was insupportable . Of course American idealism did not survive the ongoing public exposure of the political system that built it . But if we can start treating presidents as functionaries rather than celebrities—if the reality TV president ends the celebrity presidency—that will have been a good thing . And if Biden ’ s first presidential run was one of the first casualties of character politics , his late career ascent might mark its end .	One of Watergate’s less obvious but lasting effects was that a politician’s “character”—a capacious term that would eventually encompass all kinds of supposed virtues and flaws—became an object of increasingly obsessive scrutiny for the press and the public. This was a noticeable shift. John F. Kennedy, for instance, was famously unfaithful to his wife, and yet, as Lesley Stahl told Radiolab in 2016, “we wouldn’t have dreamed of printing that even if the whispers were loud enough to spread around the country. It just wasn’t done.” Those decorous conventions collapsed in the wake of a more invasive press activated by Richard Nixon’s crimes. So, in the ensuing years, did whatever illusions the public may have had about its political leadership. Though there were many reasons for Nixon’s downfall, the Oval Office tapes that finally incriminated him beyond doubt did something else as well: They revealed the extent of the gap between the private machinations of the men who held office and their public bearing. And once the press had helped reveal that gap, it became impossible to close it up again. As the tacit agreement to keep the private sins of politicians off-limits began to erode, a new political reality emerged. Its strictures—as with all such upheavals—were sometimes a little arbitrary. Many of the scandals were naturally about sex, and few were as much of a legal breach as the Watergate break-in and cover-up. In 1976, Rep. Wayne Hays resigned when it was discovered he’d been keeping a young woman on his staff who turned out, despite his forceful denials, to be his mistress. The financial side of this mattered, of course, but so—to a portion of the public that was coming to see the personal as political—did the cheating and lying, something that used to be dismissed as mere “scandal.” The so-called character question only increased in importance over the next few years: Jimmy Carter won in part by contrasting his moral probity with the Nixon-Ford administration’s (in 1979, James Fallows would backhandedly call Carter “as admirable a human being as has ever held the job”). And in 1987—charmingly called “the Year of the Bimbo” by the Wall Street Journal—Gary Hart, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, would be brought down after an affair was deemed (despite his protestations that infidelity “hasn’t been the business of the American public for 200 years”) not just newsworthy but disqualifying. In his book All the Truth Is Out about Hart, Matt Bai suggested—in a passage lamenting the rise of “this violent compression of politics and celebrity and moral policing”—that character, as a bucket term for human flaws that reflect on a politician’s fitness, had become distressingly and even unsustainably broad. It wasn’t just about sex, as it was in Hart’s case, but also about whether you uttered a line you wished you could take back or made an investment you probably shouldn’t have, about whether you’d ever gotten stoned or written something idiotic in a school paper. Nothing mattered more in a politician than his essential character, and no shred of private behavior, no moment of weakness or questionable judgment, was too insignificant to illuminate it. Once a person’s private conduct was perceived to impinge on their ability to do their public work, the onus fell on the public to decide what to do about revelations of this sort—in particular, whether they rendered the candidate unfit for public service. Many of us have spent decades being overexposed to the ubiquitous personal shortcomings of politicians. The idea was that we, the judicious public, deserved to know all the facts, ingest the filth, and metabolize it into a sound and democratic electoral result. But it has been a messy change. It’s not just that media organizations are neither consistent nor clear about which scandals are newsworthy; the problem is that we, the members of that vaunted public square, have not been able to reconcile these ugly exposures with the American ideals democracy theoretically serves. And so Americans have been heading, for some time, toward something like moral burnout. Back in 1987, Gary Hart felt unreasonably targeted. He wasn’t alone; many Americans found the reporters who hid in the bushes to get the story of Hart and Donna Rice guilty of sensational overreach. On the other hand, Cokie Roberts told Radiolab that some female reporters at the time felt that Hart’s conduct was more than fair game. “There were times when you’d be in a room where he’d hit on every woman in the room,” she said. “The way women were treated was something we thought, and I continue to think, is a good gauge of character. … We were expanding the universe of what was a major character flaw.” There was one other unexpected casualty of that 1987 presidential campaign dominated by the politics of character: Joseph Biden. Biden was forced to end his first presidential campaign after he was found to have copied parts of a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock, even appearing to claim details from Kinnock’s life story as his own. He was also found to have borrowed bits of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, and to have improperly footnoted an assignment in law school. It’s unlikely that these discoveries would have ended his campaign two decades earlier. The New York Times called Biden “the second victim of the character issue in a contest for the White House.” “Whatever else it may or may not prove, the withdrawal of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination demonstrates how much the 1988 campaign differs from its predecessors,” the Times piece noted. “Never before have candidates’ alleged character flaws emerged so early or proved so lethal.” It’s possible the character issue truly peaked in 1987; that was also the year that Ronald Reagan’s failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (sunk with the help of Biden) became shorthand for what were perceived as personal attacks for partisan reasons. Biden was already middle-aged—44!—when he first experienced this newfangled backlash to his past failings. Many, political insiders especially, saw those failings as minor: Democrats who stayed mum about Gary Hart spoke up in Biden’s defense. Even Republicans defended him. “I have never seen the Republicans as totally supportive of a person on the opposite end of the spectrum as they have been with Joe,” Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, told the New York Times. Sen. Strom Thurmond said, “I’ve always found him to be a high-type man.” The New York Times observed that these defenses “reflected Mr. Biden’s acceptance within the Senate ‘club,’ where Mr. Hart was always considered a loner.” R.W. Apple Jr.’s assessment of Biden’s 1987 candidacy chose an apt metaphor to describe what went wrong: “In the early stages of a courtship, transgressions can be fatal, but in a well-rooted marriage, they may be quickly forgiven; so it is in politics. Almost the first things many voters learned about Mr. Biden, aside from his good looks and articulateness, was that he had done things that most people consider a bit questionable at best.” In other words, Biden may have been familiar to Washington. But the senator from Delaware wasn’t broadly popular, or an especially known quantity, in the rest of America. Character wasn’t reducible to one’s reputation. It was a more personal amalgam, and one that, in Biden’s view, deserved some measure of privacy. Biden is now in just such a “marriage” with many American voters—thanks in no small part to his long tenure in the Senate and his close association with President Barack Obama. He’s a household name. But as he comes under at least as much scrutiny for his moral character as for his politics, 33 years later, we can see two things: 1) that Trump has badly distorted—perhaps beyond recognition—our ability to properly judge the issue of moral personal behavior in American politics; and 2) that we can learn a lot about how Biden himself thinks about the character question by seeing how it played out when he presided over the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings. One can deduce how much Biden hated the rise of “character” as a matter of public concern given how reluctant he seemed, a few years after losing the presidential primary on the issue, to see Thomas evaluated on the same terms. Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer write in Strange Justice that Biden was aware early on of Hill’s allegations but “went out of his way to suggest that any charges of improper conduct—he made no mention of Hill or her allegations, of course—were not worthy of debate.” Indeed, in a speech he gave explaining his choice to vote no on Thomas in committee, he made a point to say “there is no question with respect to the nominee’s character, competence, credentials, or credibility.” He told the committee before Hill’s allegations went public: “I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all, and that is his character. This is about what he believes, not about who he is.” Biden’s statement betrays some concern over how slippery and powerful the category of “character” had gotten. Character wasn’t reducible to one’s reputation, nor was it defined by one’s actions, however objectionable; it was a more personal amalgam, and one that, in his view, deserved some measure of privacy. Biden draws an extremely curious distinction on these grounds: He posits that Thomas can and should be judged on what he believes—implying that what a person believes is at least theoretically separable from who they are. Biden’s strenuous exclusion of character as a criterion for public office was shared by an unlikely party: Anita Hill. According to Abramson and Mayer, Hill was also unhappy that character was becoming a defining issue in American politics. Before her claims went public, she told a friend “that she had been ‘appalled’ by the treatment their old Yale professor Robert Bork had received during his abortive confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1987. She didn’t want to see another nominee ripped apart on the basis of his personal character: ‘Bork and Thomas should stand or fall on their ideas.’ ” It’s somewhat ironic that Biden—who made a point of rejecting character-based politics in 1991—has been frequently accused of transforming American political culture on those very grounds when he ran Bork’s confirmation hearing in 1987, just as his own presidential campaign was collapsing on character-related charges. (He withdrew from the race in the middle of the hearings.) Borking has become a term of art for unfairly attacking a candidate through “harsh public criticism or vilification.” Many conservatives blame Biden, specifically, for ushering in an era dominated by the politics of personal destruction, even though the effort to turn public opinion against Bork (which cited his conservative legal opinions but also his role presumably aiding Nixon in Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre) was initiated by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a combination of grassroots organizations. In actuality, Biden tried to safeguard Bork’s privacy, refusing, for example, to subpoena Bork’s video rental history. In 2008, a former Biden intern described Biden’s commitment to the theoretical separation of private and public selves at this crucial moment in 1987: “I saw Mr. Biden struggle to focus the hearings on Judge Bork’s judicial philosophy rather than his private life, in the face of overwhelming political pressure from interest groups on the left. … He did everything in his power to resist the collapse of boundaries.” Still, the hearing was one of the first to be televised and Bork himself was underprepared, which did nothing to turn the tide back in his favor. The Senate voted against the nominee by the widest margin in history. This much is accurate: Biden maintained a distinction between public and private life even when it was not politically advantageous to do so. The future vice president’s reluctance to act on Hill’s account until he was forced to is well documented. So is the fact that he considered burying other ethically troubling allegations about nominees the decent thing to do—to avoid besmirching their characters. Per the New York Times, “On other occasions as Judiciary Committee chairman, [Biden] said he had been made aware of unsubstantiated reports of wrongdoings by nominees that he did not divulge in order to protect their reputations.” On the whole, Biden seemed to believe that a man’s good name needed protection more than his alleged bad actions needed exposure. In a 1992 interview with E.J. Dionne in which he looked back on the confirmation hearings, he said he regretted not defending Hill and “attacking the attackers,” but he also made clear that he was worried less about damage to Hill’s character than to Thomas’. Conceding that he could have paused the hearings in order to investigate whether there was a “pattern of behavior,” Biden said that it wouldn’t have been fair—to Thomas. He was worried that doing so would allow rumors about Thomas to spread. Biden did, however, pay lip service to the new world everyone was inhabiting. He speechified—to Thomas and to his colleagues—about how private misconduct intersects with public service, and how the judgment of a man accused of such a thing would go: We’re big boys. I knew when I ran for president everything was free game. Anybody who runs for the Supreme Court or is appointed to the Supreme Court, to be more precise, should understand. It’s not Boy Scouts, it’s not Cub Scouts. Biden also clarified then that the hearing was “not a referendum” on whether sexual harassment was a grave offense—it was—but about whether it had occurred. “Now,” he addressed Thomas, “we’re going to hear more witnesses who are going to come in and corroborate your position and hers. We’ll find out whether they’re telling the truth or not as best as we are capable of doing, just like you as a judge are when you look them in the eye and make a judgment.” What emerges is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them. As we now know, Biden did not call three witnesses who could have spoken to whether Thomas had a pattern of sexual harassment. Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett were prepared to testify to Thomas’ conduct and to the culture at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So was a third woman, Rose Jourdain, who said she could back up Wright’s testimony and was prepared to do so while extremely ill. In 2017, Biden told Teen Vogue that he wanted the witnesses to testify and that they had refused. “I wasn’t able to convince three women we’d subpoenaed to cooperate with testimony. At the last minute, they changed their mind and said they wouldn’t do it. I had them sign an affidavit saying, ‘I want you to come, and you’re saying, “No, I will not come.” ’ ” A letter to that effect does exist for Wright—it’s in the hearing transcript and bears Wright’s signature as well as Biden’s. But Mayer and Abramson’s reporting on how that letter came to be entered into the record does not remotely match Biden’s account: An aide from Biden’s office called Middlebrooks [Wright’s attorney] and offered to release Wright from her subpoena—if she was willing to say that she had requested the cancellation. Wright’s response was typically blunt: ‘Bullshit. After I’ve been sitting here for three days being called names?’ Middlebrooks also refused. ‘You are not going to make her look like she’s cutting and running. She’s the key second witness and we want our story aired.’ Biden’s office kept negotiating ways for Wright not to testify, and Wright finally signed. As for Hardnett, she said in a 2018 interview with NPR that she had no idea why she wasn’t called. What emerges from all this, it seems to me, is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them. Biden wants to be good, works very hard to look good, and squints very hard to try to make nice and good mean the same thing. But given the choice between exposing a fellow insider’s questionable conduct or withholding that information from the public he ostensibly represents, Biden protected the insider. Faced with the assassination of Anita Hill’s character (which was happening in real time, under his watch) and the potential assassination of Thomas’, he protected Thomas and not Hill. Biden prioritized the preservation of the insider’s reputation over the public’s right to know. Such a man might plagiarize slightly from various speeches (or in law school). Such a man might also massage an unfavorable story into a more flattering one. It’s he who desperately wanted Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett to testify, Biden maintains; it was they who pulled out. Or perhaps, as he has also suggested, it was Hill’s preference that Wright keep quiet: “Biden and several of his top staff members said that it had been Hill and her lawyers who had chiefly opposed calling Wright,” Mayer and Abramson write. But Hill denied this. “We were waiting for Angela Wright’s testimony, just like everyone else,” Hill said. “Apparently something went wrong. I was as surprised as anyone that she didn’t testify.” Biden’s stories about all this don’t quite add up. He’s not out-and-out wrong—the Wright affidavit exists, and she signed it!—but the whole is sloppy and incomplete, and the omissions and errors accrue in his favor. Biden clearly sensed, even at the time, that not calling Wright might look bad. When Democratic senators decided against calling her, Biden came out and told his staff the result of a full committee vote was 13–1 against her testifying “with himself as her sole supporter.” But two other Democratic senators on the committee said they recalled no such vote. Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat, said, “I don’t think Biden was anxious to bring Angela Wright on.” Even as Biden tacitly protected Thomas’ privacy, he publicly told him “you will not be unaffected by this no matter what happens. Nobody goes through the white-hot glare of this process at any level for any reason and comes out unaffected.” He also chose a fascinating metaphor for how character ought to be understood: “But, Judge, nobody’s reputation, nobody’s reputation, is a snapshot; it’s a motion picture. And the picture is being made, and you’ve made a vast part of it the last 43 years.” I have been reading up on Biden as a “motion picture” for obvious reasons—to better understand who Biden was before he was reinvented, during Obama’s presidency, as a warm and frank “Uncle Joe” whose gaffes are part of his charm. This last snapshot is the muscular public image on which his well-rooted marriage to the American public is based. Looking back a few decades doesn’t just reveal a great deal more about who Biden was—it illustrates how the American conversation around what we expect from public officials developed too. I understand why Biden wants to remain laser-focused only on his history since helping to pass the Violence Against Women Act. But the preceding years were crucial. They defined how the nation would and would not grapple with scandals around sex—a sphere whose “dirtiness” had functionally created a safe space of sorts for men of all previous generations, but which was becoming contested, political, and public. A minor publishing scandal in 1979 illustrated how sensitive this new focus on private conduct was, and how much the idea of holding male politicians accountable was considered risky, or extreme, or unfair. Ted Kennedy was challenging Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination for president. Suzannah Lessard wrote a 3,000-word essay about Kennedy’s philandering called “Kennedy’s Woman Problem, Women’s Kennedy Problem” for the New Republic. It was controversial enough that TNR owner Marty Peretz refused to publish it, prompting editor Michael Kinsley to resign in protest (he would later be rehired). The Washington Monthly picked the column up and made it the cover of its December issue. Lessard’s point is by now familiar: She argues that character—in every sphere—counts. While privacy matters, Ted Kennedy’s womanizing must be considered fair game if he intends to run for president, she writes. She criticizes “the fastidious gentlemen’s code that holds that the private lives of politicians should be off limits, that what counts are the serious matters, such as a man’s position on issues, and that only a very sleazy and trivial reporter would lower himself to write about that sort of dirt.” She observes, too, that there’s more than a whiff of condescension underpinning this attitude about what the voting public needs to know: that if the people knew what politicians were really like, it would “render them incapable of treating such information properly. They would be excessively shocked, they would overreact, and the political process would be distorted by irrelevancies.” Today we’re all the way on the other side: overexposed to “that sort of dirt” about politicians and exhausted from the task of sorting through it. Has the political process been “distorted by irrelevancies”? Or has this painful ongoing process of navigating the “character” question been, on the whole, worth it? The public’s answers to these questions have oscillated. Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, for instance, was a Republican effort to make “character” sink a president, but it didn’t work out that way. Even as, according to polling, Americans became more skeptical of whether the president had “high moral and ethical standards,” they still supported his presidency and the roaring economy that buttressed it. Many said they didn’t care what Clinton did in his personal life provided he did his job. More recently, Donald Trump has thrown a much larger wrench into these fine distinctions. And indeed, the upcoming election, between two men who have weathered—even broken—the character question, may mark another drastic shift in how we consider it. It’s pretty clear by now that Tara Reade’s allegation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 will mean little or nothing for Biden’s presidential bid. Further reporting has cast some doubt on Reade’s credibility, but from an electoral standpoint, it’s amazing how little her allegation seemed to matter in the first place. Despite the ethical demands #MeToo made, people’s individual rulings on whether they believed Reade didn’t seem to much affect whether they would vote for Biden. Lucy Flores, who wrote an essay for the Cut last year describing the discomfort she experienced when he touched her and smelled her hair at a campaign event; Linda Hirshman; and many other feminists who spoke up for Reade said that if the presidency comes down to Trump and Biden, they would reluctantly, citing a principle of harm reduction, vote for the latter. “I won’t say it will be easy,” Hirshman wrote. “I know how supposedly ‘liberal’ men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way.” But she would swallow her reservations and vote for Biden anyway. The neighbor who corroborated Reade’s account falls into this category too; she’s a Biden supporter and likely to remain so. I’ve never been a Biden supporter, but if he’s the candidate, I, too, will vote for him, because the ongoing calamity in the United States must be slowed. Even Reade herself, in her recent interview with Megyn Kelly, said she understands that people who believe her will still vote for Biden. (She also noted that he “should not be running on character for the president of the United States.”) These statements suggest that “character” might have run its course as a decisive issue in American politics. There are too many tangible emergencies. There is a pandemic. Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims. More than 100,000 people who were alive three months ago are dead. Black people are being killed on video with little to no accountability while the president defends Confederate monuments and generals. Despite the dangers, the streets are wild with people’s desperation and unhappiness. In the middle of all of this, Biden is deploying one of his unique strengths—his empathy, born from the many familial tragedies he’s suffered through while in politics. America is grieving right now, and Joe Biden is good at grief. There are too many tangible emergencies. There is a pandemic. Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims. He is also, arguably, using the character issue to reroute Americans’ character concerns into institutional questions. When Biden says “character is on the ballot,” the line isn’t about his character as much as it is about the moral character of America. His campaign is not personality-driven. At this particular point in history, that lack of emphasis on the self may be a welcome change. Trump and Biden, who have both been public figures for decades, have each weathered the character question by rejecting its premises. But they’ve done so in different ways. Trump has flouted ethical prescriptions both publicly and privately. He screwed people who worked for him by not paying them, knowing they’d never be able to make him do so in court. He sued enemies until they gave up, bribed porn stars, and used Trump University to further immiserate vulnerable people who didn’t see through the fraud. He’s the ultimate expression of the American id freed of any remaining Puritan constraints, and of American capitalism freed from any regulation at all, whether legal, ethical, or social. Biden, by contrast, has long battled from inside the crosshairs of the character crisis, as both administrator and subject. His record is mixed; the flaws that cost him the Democratic nomination in 1987 are still there. New issues like his handsiness have emerged. As for Reade: Much has been written about her credibility, but it’s worth reiterating that Biden’s credibility is in question too. The strange lies he repeatedly tells—about being arrested en route to visiting Nelson Mandela even though he wasn’t, about marching in the civil rights movement even though he did not—are as injurious as his reluctance to give them up is baffling. But on this front, as with so many, Trump has bottomed out the curve. Biden’s ethical infractions exist, but he still responds to at least a few external standards besides his naked self-interest. He wants to be considered a good and decent man by people of all political persuasions, Republicans included. This last is key. Whatever else one might say about him—and I’ve said plenty—he worked very hard during the Thomas hearings to be considered fair—by Republicans even more than by Democrats. If character were still a top-tier issue for Americans, other candidates in the Democratic primary would have fared better than they have. Biden isn’t the character candidate. He might be the decency candidate (decency being a flattering category that forgives and overlooks much that character exacts and excludes). Given the current political terrain, many Americans seem to regard having ethical aspirations at all—even if you don’t live up to them, even if you fudge facts in your striving toward them, even if you have at times sacrificed righteousness for reputation—as enough. There is an upside to this low bar. If Biden wins, his will not be a cultish victory, and some diminished passion toward the presidency might be a healthy corrective to a country whose character might be damaged beyond repair. No doubt a President Biden would see his character come under assault by the opposing party, but it’s not likely to be able to do much damage. Much of the public is exhausted, furious, and sickened by the yawning gap between American ideals and American realities. Standards have been shredded to such an extent that it’s hard to imagine a candidate dropping out over a character issue now. Maybe this is OK. The mythmaking urge to turn our leaders into idols of history—whether Clinton or Reagan or Kennedy—was always in tension with the ugly facts that kept emerging about them. Of course the cognitive dissonance was insupportable. Of course American idealism did not survive the ongoing public exposure of the political system that built it. But if we can start treating presidents as functionaries rather than celebrities—if the reality TV president ends the celebrity presidency—that will have been a good thing. And if Biden’s first presidential run was one of the first casualties of character politics, his late career ascent might mark its end.	www.slate.com	0left	ufF6EOpmOlwcwSwE
terrorism	CNN (Web News)	00	http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/politics/obama-kerry-paris/index.html	Kerry defends absence from unity rally, will go to Paris on Thursday	2015-01-12	Eric Bradner	Washington ( CNN ) President Barack Obama 's administration admitted it erred by failing to send a higher-ranking representative of the United States to the Paris unity march on Sunday . `` I think it 's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there , '' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon . He said Obama himself would have liked to attend the march `` had the circumstances been a little different . '' But planning began Friday night , 36 hours before the event began , and there was n't enough time for the `` onerous and significant '' security work that needed to take place ahead of a presidential visit , Earnest said . He said Obama 's presence also would have meant extra restrictions on the people who were there . `` That said , there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stand foursquare behind our allies in France as they face down this threat , '' he said . `` And that was evident throughout last week . '' More than 40 world leaders , including the British , German and Israeli heads of state and Russia 's foreign minister , joined at least 1.5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity march that became France 's biggest-ever public demonstration . But Obama and his administration 's top hands were nowhere to be found -- an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity . The United States appeared to have options to send to the march : Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule . Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend , also with a blank public schedule . Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings -- and even recorded interviews with several U.S. Sunday morning programs -- but he did n't attend the march . A Secret Service official said the agency was not asked to draw up security plans for a potential presidential trip to Paris in advance of Sunday 's march . `` We were n't asked or notified about a trip , '' the official said . But the agency had Secret Service agents on the ground in Paris , per its standard operating procedure . `` It would have been a challenging advance ... based on what we know , '' Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said . But Leary did not say that such an advance would have been impossible . During the White House briefing , Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris . But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off . An agency official noted previous `` last minute '' presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency , including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela . The White House noted that it was represented in Paris on Sunday -- and has offered support to France in recent days . U.S . Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march , as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland . At a security summit , Holder was joined in those security meetings by deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas . Obama personally visited the French Embassy in Washington last week to offer his support . Secretary of State John Kerry , meanwhile , will visit Paris on Friday . Kerry skipped Monday 's march because he was in India on Monday for a long-planned event there with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi -- a key relationship as the United States tries to improve long-strained trade ties with the country . Kerry brushed the criticism off as `` quibbling , '' saying he 'll visit Paris on his way back to the United States to make `` crystal clear how passionately we feel '' about the attacks and response . `` The U.S. has been deeply engaged with the people of France since this incident occurred , '' Kerry told reporters , adding that the United States has offered intelligence and law enforcement help . `` This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched , our ambassador was there and marched , many people from the embassy were there and marched . '' France 's ambassador to the United States , Gerard Araud , sought to show there are no hard feelings , tweeting on Monday : `` I am extremely grateful for the overwhelming support France has received from everybody here , from the President to the ordinary American . '' The White House 's push-back comes as Obama takes heat -- particularly from Republicans considering 2016 presidential bids -- for his absence . Rick Perry tweeted that Obama `` should have stood with France in person to defend Western values and show support for victims . '' Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) wrote for Time : `` Our President should have been there , because we must never hesitate to stand with our allies . '' And Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) said Monday that `` it was a mistake not to send someone . '' Rubio said on CBS ' `` This Morning '' that he understands that the President 's security detail can be problem in mass gatherings like the rally , but suggested Holder or Kerry should have gone in his place . `` I think in hindsight , I would hope , that they would do it differently , '' Rubio said . JUST WATCHED Millions gather against terrorism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Millions gather against terrorism 01:00 British Prime Minister David Cameron , German Chancellor Angela Merkel , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended , along with religious leaders . Fareed Zakaria , host of CNN 's `` Global Public Square , '' called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake . France is the United States ' `` deepest ideological ally , '' he said , and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member , or the President , standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders . Zakaria noted that security concerns did n't dissuade Netanyahu or Abbas or other leaders from showing up . But Obama 's absence did show that the struggle against radical Islam is `` not all about America , '' Zakaria said . `` Many people have tended to think that Islamic terrorism would n't exist without America , '' Zakaria said . `` This is really a struggle between the civilized world and a band of extremists . Even if you take the U.S. out of it ... the civilized world is up in arms . '' And Jake Tapper , host of CNN 's `` The Lead , '' said American leaders were conspicuously absent from historic Paris rally , perhaps the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation . Tapper not only called out the President and his administration , but also prospective 2016 hopefuls from both parties , for missing the opportunity to share in the global moment . Obama spoke about the Paris attacks on Friday , saying he wants the people of France to know the United States `` stands with you today , stands with you tomorrow . '' The White House also announced Sunday that it will host a February 18 summit aimed at countering violent extremism . Earnest said that event will `` highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing , recruiting or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence , efforts made even more imperative in light of recent , tragic attacks in Ottawa , Sydney and Paris . '' He said the summit will include presentations , panel discussions and small group meetings , focused on the local , state and federal government levels .	Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama's administration admitted it erred by failing to send a higher-ranking representative of the United States to the Paris unity march on Sunday. "I think it's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon. He said Obama himself would have liked to attend the march "had the circumstances been a little different." But planning began Friday night, 36 hours before the event began, and there wasn't enough time for the "onerous and significant" security work that needed to take place ahead of a presidential visit, Earnest said. He said Obama's presence also would have meant extra restrictions on the people who were there. "That said, there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stand foursquare behind our allies in France as they face down this threat," he said. "And that was evident throughout last week." More than 40 world leaders, including the British, German and Israeli heads of state and Russia's foreign minister, joined at least 1.5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity march that became France's biggest-ever public demonstration. But Obama and his administration's top hands were nowhere to be found -- an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity. The United States appeared to have options to send to the march: Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule. Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend, also with a blank public schedule. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings -- and even recorded interviews with several U.S. Sunday morning programs -- but he didn't attend the march. A Secret Service official said the agency was not asked to draw up security plans for a potential presidential trip to Paris in advance of Sunday's march. "We weren't asked or notified about a trip," the official said. But the agency had Secret Service agents on the ground in Paris, per its standard operating procedure. "It would have been a challenging advance ... based on what we know," Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said. But Leary did not say that such an advance would have been impossible. During the White House briefing, Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris. But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off. An agency official noted previous "last minute" presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency, including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela. The White House noted that it was represented in Paris on Sunday -- and has offered support to France in recent days. U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march, as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. At a security summit, Holder was joined in those security meetings by deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Obama personally visited the French Embassy in Washington last week to offer his support. Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, will visit Paris on Friday. Kerry skipped Monday's march because he was in India on Monday for a long-planned event there with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi -- a key relationship as the United States tries to improve long-strained trade ties with the country. Kerry brushed the criticism off as "quibbling," saying he'll visit Paris on his way back to the United States to make "crystal clear how passionately we feel" about the attacks and response. "The U.S. has been deeply engaged with the people of France since this incident occurred," Kerry told reporters, adding that the United States has offered intelligence and law enforcement help. "This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched." France's ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, sought to show there are no hard feelings, tweeting on Monday: "I am extremely grateful for the overwhelming support France has received from everybody here, from the President to the ordinary American." The White House's push-back comes as Obama takes heat -- particularly from Republicans considering 2016 presidential bids -- for his absence. Rick Perry tweeted that Obama "should have stood with France in person to defend Western values and show support for victims." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote for Time: "Our President should have been there, because we must never hesitate to stand with our allies." And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Monday that "it was a mistake not to send someone." Rubio said on CBS' "This Morning" that he understands that the President's security detail can be problem in mass gatherings like the rally, but suggested Holder or Kerry should have gone in his place. "I think in hindsight, I would hope, that they would do it differently," Rubio said. JUST WATCHED Millions gather against terrorism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Millions gather against terrorism 01:00 Who did go British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended, along with religious leaders. Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "Global Public Square," called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake. France is the United States' "deepest ideological ally," he said, and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member, or the President, standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders. Zakaria noted that security concerns didn't dissuade Netanyahu or Abbas or other leaders from showing up. But Obama's absence did show that the struggle against radical Islam is "not all about America," Zakaria said. "Many people have tended to think that Islamic terrorism wouldn't exist without America," Zakaria said. "This is really a struggle between the civilized world and a band of extremists. Even if you take the U.S. out of it ... the civilized world is up in arms." And Jake Tapper, host of CNN's "The Lead," said American leaders were conspicuously absent from historic Paris rally, perhaps the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation. Tapper not only called out the President and his administration, but also prospective 2016 hopefuls from both parties, for missing the opportunity to share in the global moment. What Obama said Obama spoke about the Paris attacks on Friday, saying he wants the people of France to know the United States "stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow." The White House also announced Sunday that it will host a February 18 summit aimed at countering violent extremism. Earnest said that event will "highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney and Paris." He said the summit will include presentations, panel discussions and small group meetings, focused on the local, state and federal government levels.	www.cnn.com	0left	oUOpcIBYqcvl9gHI
economy_and_jobs	Guest Writer - Right	22	http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/07/what-if-minimum-wage-increase-is-fraud.html	OPINION: What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud?	2016-04-07	Andrew Napolitano, Andrew P. Napolitano	What if the latest craze among the big-government crowd in both major political parties is to use the power of government to force employers to pay some of their employees more than their services are worth to the employers ? What if this represents an intrusion by government into the employer-employee relationship ? What if this consists of the government 's effectively saying that it knows the financial worth of employees ’ services better than the employers and the employees do ? What if the minimum wage , now on the verge of being raised to $ 15 per hour everywhere in the land , is really the government 's using threats of ruin and force to transfer wealth ? What if the $ 15-per-hour figure is based on a political compromise rather than on free market forces or economic realities ? What if these wealth transfers will have profound unintended economic consequences and will negatively affect everyone ? What if one of the politically intended consequences is that the employees whose salaries will rise will show gratitude not to their employers , who will be paying them more than they earn , by working better but to the politicians who will have forced the employers to pay them more by voting for those politicians ? What if the right of an employee to sell labor by going to work and the right of an employer to purchase that labor by paying a salary are part of the natural right to exchange goods and services , which the Constitution was written to protect ? What if during America ’ s most prosperous periods , that right was protected by the courts ? What if there are clauses in the Constitution that protect that right but the modern courts have ignored them ? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with freely entered-into contracts but the government does so anyway ? What if the courts have approved this ? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from taking property from people without charging them with wrongdoing and proving the charge to a jury but the government does so anyway ? What if the courts have declined to interfere with all this theft ? What if it is none of the government ’ s business how an employer and an employee decide on salary ? What if the employer and the employee know far more about the worth of the employee ’ s services and the needs of the employer than the politicians in the government do ? What if the government has fundamental misunderstandings of the way businesses earn money , create wealth and pay salaries ? What if the government 's mindset is stuck on the governmental economic model ? What if that model has no competition , guaranteed revenue and no creation of wealth ? What if that governmental mindset is one of control and central planning rather than appealing to the needs of consumers by providing goods and services better , faster and more cheaply than the competition ? What if the government has no need to be better , faster and cheaper because taxpayers are forced to pay it for services they often don ’ t use and the government has no competition ? What if forcing employers to pay employees more than their services are worth results in higher prices for the goods and services the employers produce ? What if the effect of the minimum wage rise is to transfer wealth not from employers to employees but from consumers to employees ? What if the rising prices of goods and services , caused by the forced increase in wages , put some of those goods and services beyond the reach of some folks who rely upon them ? What if the folks who can no longer afford some goods and services on which they have come to rely are the very same people whom the politicians have boasted they are helping by the increase in the minimum wage ? What if the politicians who have done this do not know what they are talking about ? What if they believe they can use minimum wage increases to bribe the poor for votes -- just as they bribe the wealthy with bailouts and the middle class with tax cuts ? What if there are other unintended consequences to the governmental imposition of a minimum wage ? What if , rather than pay employees more than they are worth , employers stop employing some of them ? What if this results in higher unemployment ? What if the rise in the minimum wage has the unintended consequence of harming the folks it is supposed to help ? What if the poor are better off being gainfully employed and earning less than $ 15 an hour , with an opportunity for advancement , than not working , earning nothing and relying on welfare ? What if that welfare burden adds to already overtaxed state budgets ? What if states raise taxes to care for the newly unemployed ? What if the newly unemployed lose the self-esteem they once enjoyed when they were gainfully employed ? What if all this came about not because of market forces , such as supply and demand , and not because people worked harder and produced more but because of lawless , greedy politicians -- heedless of basic economics -- who think they can write any law , regulate any behavior and tax any event without adverse consequences ? What if the politicians who caused this did so just to win the votes of those they promised to help ? What if these politicians only helped themselves ? What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud ? What do we do about it ?	What if the latest craze among the big-government crowd in both major political parties is to use the power of government to force employers to pay some of their employees more than their services are worth to the employers? What if this represents an intrusion by government into the employer-employee relationship? What if this consists of the government's effectively saying that it knows the financial worth of employees’ services better than the employers and the employees do? What if the minimum wage, now on the verge of being raised to $15 per hour everywhere in the land, is really the government's using threats of ruin and force to transfer wealth? What if the $15-per-hour figure is based on a political compromise rather than on free market forces or economic realities? What if these wealth transfers will have profound unintended economic consequences and will negatively affect everyone? What if one of the politically intended consequences is that the employees whose salaries will rise will show gratitude not to their employers, who will be paying them more than they earn, by working better but to the politicians who will have forced the employers to pay them more by voting for those politicians? What if the right of an employee to sell labor by going to work and the right of an employer to purchase that labor by paying a salary are part of the natural right to exchange goods and services, which the Constitution was written to protect? What if during America’s most prosperous periods, that right was protected by the courts? What if there are clauses in the Constitution that protect that right but the modern courts have ignored them? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with freely entered-into contracts but the government does so anyway? What if the courts have approved this? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from taking property from people without charging them with wrongdoing and proving the charge to a jury but the government does so anyway? What if the courts have declined to interfere with all this theft? What if it is none of the government’s business how an employer and an employee decide on salary? What if the employer and the employee know far more about the worth of the employee’s services and the needs of the employer than the politicians in the government do? What if the government has fundamental misunderstandings of the way businesses earn money, create wealth and pay salaries? What if the government's mindset is stuck on the governmental economic model? What if that model has no competition, guaranteed revenue and no creation of wealth? What if that governmental mindset is one of control and central planning rather than appealing to the needs of consumers by providing goods and services better, faster and more cheaply than the competition? What if the government has no need to be better, faster and cheaper because taxpayers are forced to pay it for services they often don’t use and the government has no competition? What if forcing employers to pay employees more than their services are worth results in higher prices for the goods and services the employers produce? What if the effect of the minimum wage rise is to transfer wealth not from employers to employees but from consumers to employees? What if the rising prices of goods and services, caused by the forced increase in wages, put some of those goods and services beyond the reach of some folks who rely upon them? What if the folks who can no longer afford some goods and services on which they have come to rely are the very same people whom the politicians have boasted they are helping by the increase in the minimum wage? What if the politicians who have done this do not know what they are talking about? What if they believe they can use minimum wage increases to bribe the poor for votes -- just as they bribe the wealthy with bailouts and the middle class with tax cuts? What if there are other unintended consequences to the governmental imposition of a minimum wage? What if, rather than pay employees more than they are worth, employers stop employing some of them? What if this results in higher unemployment? What if the rise in the minimum wage has the unintended consequence of harming the folks it is supposed to help? What if the poor are better off being gainfully employed and earning less than $15 an hour, with an opportunity for advancement, than not working, earning nothing and relying on welfare? What if that welfare burden adds to already overtaxed state budgets? What if states raise taxes to care for the newly unemployed? What if the newly unemployed lose the self-esteem they once enjoyed when they were gainfully employed? What if all this came about not because of market forces, such as supply and demand, and not because people worked harder and produced more but because of lawless, greedy politicians -- heedless of basic economics -- who think they can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event without adverse consequences? What if the politicians who caused this did so just to win the votes of those they promised to help? What if these politicians only helped themselves? What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud? What do we do about it?	www.foxnews.com	1right	GbeYXIXkTDMXjN6X
education	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/30/louisville-cold-weather-kentucky-governor-matt-bevin/2719925002/	Kentucky governor: Schools closing for wind chill is a sign we're 'soft'	2019-01-30	Phillip M. Bailey	CLOSE As Louisville dips into single digit weather , here are some things to keep in mind . Nikki Boliaux , Louisville Courier Journal LOUISVILLE , Ky. – Kentucky Gov . Matt Bevin prodded Kentucky school districts to toughen up in the face of dangerously frigid winds that are blowing through the region . Speaking on WHAS-AM ( 840 AM ) Tuesday , host Terry Meiners reminded Bevin that he would be up late with his children because of classes being canceled Wednesday . `` Now we cancel school for cold , I mean — `` Bevin said . `` Come on , now , '' Bevin said . `` There 's no ice going with it or any snow . What happens to America . We 're getting soft , Terry , we 're getting soft . '' The Kentucky Education Association , which has jousted with Bevin over pension reform , did n't take kindly to the governor 's comment . The teachers union tweeted : `` We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky 's children . Always . '' We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky ’ s children . Always . https : //t.co/y0UlCd7VYL — KEA ( @ KYEducators ) January 29 , 2019 Jessica Dueñas , a teacher at the W.E.B . Du Bois Academy in Louisville , did not react warmly to the governor 's comments . Jan. 30 : It feels like 51 below zero in Chicago : Polar vortex strikes Midwest Jan. 30 : The Chicago River is 'smoking ' and freezing . Here 's what it looks like in sub-zero temperatures She said via Twitter that she should like to see Bevin , `` prove how 'hard ' he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing , like many of ( Kentucky 's students ) would have been due to their lack of resources . '' I ’ d like to see @ MattBevin prove how “ hard ” he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing , like many of KY ’ s Ss would have been due to their lack of resources . https : //t.co/gyIDo16g03 — Jessica Dueñas Ed.S . ( @ JDuenas24 ) January 29 , 2019 Tiffany Dunn , another Louisville teacher who is a self-described conservative and co-founder of `` Save Our Schools KY '' the public education advocacy group , said Bevin 's `` elitist comments do n't shock me anymore , but they 're still appalling . '' `` I ’ m thankful for our school systems taking student safety so seriously , '' she said . `` We have to remember the safety of every child — not just those who have the means to dress warmly in this type of weather . '' Arctic air from the polar vortex has gripped the country , causing several school districts throughout the country to be closed or have delayed starts Wednesday as temperatures and wind chills dipped below zero . Jan. 30 : How to keep your furnace running and your pipes from freezing during the dangerous cold Jan. 29 : Airlines resorting to 'extraordinary measures ' to protect airport workers in extreme cold With the wind chill on Wednesday morning , forecasters say that it could feel as cold as 10 or 20 degrees below zero in parts of Louisville . Meteorologists have said when the polar vortex plunges into the U.S. , it will be warmer in parts of the Arctic than in places like Chicago and Minneapolis . Some cities are seeing their lowest temperatures in more than two decades . The subzero wind chills and single-digit temperatures set to hit Louisville have the potential to make it one of the coldest days on record , according to the National Weather Service . The weather service is advising residents to drip faucets to prevent pipes from freezing , limit their exposure outside and wear extra layers . Bevin admitted during the interview that it is better for school districts to take the side of caution , but he said he is increasingly troubled by how the country reacts to adversity . `` I 'm being only slightly facetious , '' he said , `` but it does concern me a little bit that in America on this and any number of other fronts , we 're sending messages to our young people that if life is hard you can curl up in the fetal position — somewhere in a warm place — and wait till it stops being hard , and that just is n't reality , it just is n't . '' But that did n't stop Bevin 's political rivals on both sides of the aisle from also pouncing on his interview comments . Jan. 29 : As historic cold blasts Midwest , cities focus on vulnerable , homeless Jan. 29 : How long does it take for hypothermia , mummified skin to set in during extreme cold ? Democrat Adam Edelen , who is running for governor , said he wished `` there were better words to describe the things our governor says than 'dumb and mean . ' But there aren ’ t . '' Republican state . Rep. Robert Goforth , who is running against Bevin in the GOP primary , also slammed the remarks on Twitter . He said the comments were `` Easy for a guy to say who went to the ( Gould Academy ) - a $ 60k/yr prep school . I ’ m with KY 's kids ! '' Political strategist Doug Stafford , who serves as a senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , also mocked the governor 's comments . `` Oh hush , '' Stafford , a Republican , tweeted . `` It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow . Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that . No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid . '' Oh hush . It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow . Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that . No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid . — Doug Stafford ( @ dougstafford ) January 29 , 2019 Contributing : Thomas Novelly , ( Louisville , Ky. ) Courier Journal . Follow Phillip M. Bailey on Twitter : @ phillipmbailey	CLOSE As Louisville dips into single digit weather, here are some things to keep in mind. Nikki Boliaux, Louisville Courier Journal LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin prodded Kentucky school districts to toughen up in the face of dangerously frigid winds that are blowing through the region. Speaking on WHAS-AM (840 AM) Tuesday, host Terry Meiners reminded Bevin that he would be up late with his children because of classes being canceled Wednesday. "Now we cancel school for cold, I mean — " Bevin said. "It's deep freeze; this is serious business," Meiners responded. "Come on, now," Bevin said. "There's no ice going with it or any snow. What happens to America. We're getting soft, Terry, we're getting soft." The Kentucky Education Association, which has jousted with Bevin over pension reform, didn't take kindly to the governor's comment. The teachers union tweeted: "We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky's children. Always." We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky’s children. Always. https://t.co/y0UlCd7VYL — KEA (@KYEducators) January 29, 2019 Jessica Dueñas, a teacher at the W.E.B. Du Bois Academy in Louisville, did not react warmly to the governor's comments. Jan. 30: It feels like 51 below zero in Chicago: Polar vortex strikes Midwest Jan. 30: The Chicago River is 'smoking' and freezing. Here's what it looks like in sub-zero temperatures She said via Twitter that she should like to see Bevin, "prove how 'hard' he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing, like many of (Kentucky's students) would have been due to their lack of resources." I’d like to see @MattBevin prove how “hard” he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing, like many of KY’s Ss would have been due to their lack of resources. https://t.co/gyIDo16g03 — Jessica Dueñas Ed.S. (@JDuenas24) January 29, 2019 Tiffany Dunn, another Louisville teacher who is a self-described conservative and co-founder of "Save Our Schools KY" the public education advocacy group, said Bevin's "elitist comments don't shock me anymore, but they're still appalling." "I’m thankful for our school systems taking student safety so seriously," she said. "We have to remember the safety of every child — not just those who have the means to dress warmly in this type of weather." Arctic air from the polar vortex has gripped the country, causing several school districts throughout the country to be closed or have delayed starts Wednesday as temperatures and wind chills dipped below zero. Jan. 30: How to keep your furnace running and your pipes from freezing during the dangerous cold Jan. 29: Airlines resorting to 'extraordinary measures' to protect airport workers in extreme cold With the wind chill on Wednesday morning, forecasters say that it could feel as cold as 10 or 20 degrees below zero in parts of Louisville. Meteorologists have said when the polar vortex plunges into the U.S., it will be warmer in parts of the Arctic than in places like Chicago and Minneapolis. Some cities are seeing their lowest temperatures in more than two decades. The subzero wind chills and single-digit temperatures set to hit Louisville have the potential to make it one of the coldest days on record, according to the National Weather Service. The weather service is advising residents to drip faucets to prevent pipes from freezing, limit their exposure outside and wear extra layers. Bevin admitted during the interview that it is better for school districts to take the side of caution, but he said he is increasingly troubled by how the country reacts to adversity. "I'm being only slightly facetious," he said, "but it does concern me a little bit that in America on this and any number of other fronts, we're sending messages to our young people that if life is hard you can curl up in the fetal position — somewhere in a warm place — and wait till it stops being hard, and that just isn't reality, it just isn't." But that didn't stop Bevin's political rivals on both sides of the aisle from also pouncing on his interview comments. Jan. 29: As historic cold blasts Midwest, cities focus on vulnerable, homeless Jan. 29: How long does it take for hypothermia, mummified skin to set in during extreme cold? Democrat Adam Edelen, who is running for governor, said he wished "there were better words to describe the things our governor says than 'dumb and mean.' But there aren’t." Republican state. Rep. Robert Goforth, who is running against Bevin in the GOP primary, also slammed the remarks on Twitter. He said the comments were "Easy for a guy to say who went to the (Gould Academy) - a $60k/yr prep school. I’m with KY's kids!" Political strategist Doug Stafford, who serves as a senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, also mocked the governor's comments. "Oh hush," Stafford, a Republican, tweeted. "It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow. Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that. No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid." Oh hush. It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow. Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that. No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid. — Doug Stafford (@dougstafford) January 29, 2019 You can listen to Bevin's full interview here. Contributing: Thomas Novelly, (Louisville, Ky.) Courier Journal. Follow Phillip M. Bailey on Twitter: @phillipmbailey Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/30/louisville-cold-weather-kentucky-governor-matt-bevin/2719925002/	www.usatoday.com	2center	blnAYmPWRZfd82zJ
immigration	Washington Times	22	http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/jeb-bush-not-much-daylight-between-immigration-pla/	Jeb Bush: Not much daylight between immigration plans	2013-03-10	David Sherfinski	Former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush , blanketing the Sunday talk shows , vigorously denied charges leveled at him in the past week that he ’ s shifted his views on immigration reform as other Republicans eyeing potential 2016 presidential bids jockey for position on the issue . Mr. Bush said he still favors a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and is on the same page with a bipartisan group of senators crafting such a bill after his new book outlining a “ pathway to residency ” for those in the country illegally drew fire from both the right and the left last week . “ I … think that a path to citizenship , so long as the ability of someone to come legally is easier and less costly than coming illegally , then a path to citizenship is appropriate , and I applaud the work of the senators and others in the Congress that are working to try to craft a consensus and a compromise on this issue , ” Mr. Bush said on “ Fox News Sunday . ” But in his new book , “ Immigration Wars : Forging an American Solution , ” Mr. Bush writes that he favors a path to residency , rather than citizenship , for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country , and that they should have to leave the country and reapply if they truly want to get U.S. citizenship . Sen. Lindsey Graham , South Carolina Republican and a member of the “ Gang of Eight , ” said last week that such a stance “ undercuts ” what the senators are trying to accomplish . But Mr. Bush said he had talked with Mr. Graham and they are on the same page — and that his views on the issue have been consistent despite backing a pathway to citizenship earlier in his career . “ I haven ’ t changed , ” he said on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation. ” “ I support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people that have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less , the legal entrance to our country , than illegal entrance . ” “ Let ’ s wait for a few minutes and see how Jeb Bush changes his mind , again , ” Mr. Reid told reporters last week . “ His opinion on immigration is not evolving ; it ’ s devolving . He keeps going backwards . ” President Obama , who had pledged to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first term , has made the issue one of his top priorities for his second . But Republicans working on the issue have a tricky needle to thread between distancing themselves from the president and potentially alienating Latino voters . Republican Sens . Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky immediately blasted a framework for immigration reform leaked by the White House last month that included a path to citizenship as part of the plan . Mr. Rubio has been widely viewed as a potential 2016 nominee , and Mr. Paul ’ s stock rose tremendously in that regard after waging a filibuster that lasted nearly 13 hours last week and ended up as a scathing critique of the White House ’ s policy on drone aircraft . Mr. Rubio , whose parents emigrated to the United States from Cuba , favors a pathway to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally , and Mr. Bush said his views “ absolutely ” coincide with those . “ I applaud what Senator Rubio ’ s doing , the other members of the so-called Gang of Eight — they ’ re making a major contribution , ” Mr. Bush said on “ Face the Nation. ” “ And there ’ s also efforts in the House of Representatives as well . This is a very encouraging time , because if we can get immigration right , imagine , there ’ s possibilities of cats and dogs living with one another in other policy areas as well . ” But Mr. Bush flatly dismissed the notion that the events of the past week or his book had anything to do with political maneuvering for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination . “ Yeah , see , that ’ s the Washington world , the world of everything has to have a personal political ambition , motive , ” he said . “ That ’ s not the case . The book was written last year at a time when the tenor of the debate on immigration was dramatically different than it is today . ”	Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, blanketing the Sunday talk shows, vigorously denied charges leveled at him in the past week that he’s shifted his views on immigration reform as other Republicans eyeing potential 2016 presidential bids jockey for position on the issue. Mr. Bush said he still favors a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and is on the same page with a bipartisan group of senators crafting such a bill after his new book outlining a “pathway to residency” for those in the country illegally drew fire from both the right and the left last week. “I … think that a path to citizenship, so long as the ability of someone to come legally is easier and less costly than coming illegally, then a path to citizenship is appropriate, and I applaud the work of the senators and others in the Congress that are working to try to craft a consensus and a compromise on this issue,” Mr. Bush said on “Fox News Sunday.” But in his new book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” Mr. Bush writes that he favors a path to residency, rather than citizenship, for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and that they should have to leave the country and reapply if they truly want to get U.S. citizenship. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said last week that such a stance “undercuts” what the senators are trying to accomplish. But Mr. Bush said he had talked with Mr. Graham and they are on the same page — and that his views on the issue have been consistent despite backing a pathway to citizenship earlier in his career. “I haven’t changed,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people that have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less, the legal entrance to our country, than illegal entrance.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, disagreed. “Let’s wait for a few minutes and see how Jeb Bush changes his mind, again,” Mr. Reid told reporters last week. “His opinion on immigration is not evolving; it’s devolving. He keeps going backwards.” President Obama, who had pledged to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first term, has made the issue one of his top priorities for his second. But Republicans working on the issue have a tricky needle to thread between distancing themselves from the president and potentially alienating Latino voters. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky immediately blasted a framework for immigration reform leaked by the White House last month that included a path to citizenship as part of the plan. Mr. Rubio has been widely viewed as a potential 2016 nominee, and Mr. Paul’s stock rose tremendously in that regard after waging a filibuster that lasted nearly 13 hours last week and ended up as a scathing critique of the White House’s policy on drone aircraft. Mr. Rubio, whose parents emigrated to the United States from Cuba, favors a pathway to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally, and Mr. Bush said his views “absolutely” coincide with those. “I applaud what Senator Rubio’s doing, the other members of the so-called Gang of Eight — they’re making a major contribution,” Mr. Bush said on “Face the Nation.” “And there’s also efforts in the House of Representatives as well. This is a very encouraging time, because if we can get immigration right, imagine, there’s possibilities of cats and dogs living with one another in other policy areas as well.” But Mr. Bush flatly dismissed the notion that the events of the past week or his book had anything to do with political maneuvering for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. “Yeah, see, that’s the Washington world, the world of everything has to have a personal political ambition, motive,” he said. “That’s not the case. The book was written last year at a time when the tenor of the debate on immigration was dramatically different than it is today.” Sign up for Daily Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	Uy7A9dAi693HqGGo
environment	Christian Science Monitor	11	https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2019/0403/After-California-wildfires-what-survivors-say-they-gained-from-loss	After California wildfires, what survivors say they gained from loss	2019-04-03	Martin Kuz	“ I take more things in stride now , ” says Georgina Logue , who lost her house in the fire . The Andersons have yet to decide whether to rebuild their home , but where they once felt unmoored , they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity . Says Ms. Anderson , “ There ’ s almost a sense of freedom now . ” The changes illustrate a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth . The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose and a greater appreciation of life . “ There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster , ” says Dr. Carol North , a professor of psychiatry . Those changes can range from greater self-confidence to deeper spiritual beliefs . Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California ’ s wine country , destroying more than 5,300 homes . One was Evelyn and Keith Anderson ’ s house in Santa Rosa . As Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds , she finds herself aware of subtle shifts in her approach to life . She savors the quiet evening hours after work and her bond with the couple ’ s two college-age children has deepened . The sorrow surges at unexpected moments . Evelyn Anderson recalls a visit to the outdoor store REI a few months ago when she noticed a jacket for sale similar to one she used to own . The coat tripped a cascade of memories of everything else she and her family lost when a wildfire destroyed their home in 2017 . The thoughts soon receded , a sign of progress from the first year after the fire , when the distress felt chronic , draining her spirit day after endless day . As more time passes , and Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds , she finds herself aware of other subtle shifts in her mindset and approach to life . She makes an effort to slow down in the evenings after work to savor the quiet hours with her husband . The already close bond she shared with the couple ’ s two college-age children has deepened . Her empathy has grown for those driven from their homes – by natural disasters or drought , by religious persecution or war – and she better understands the anxiety of uncertainty . “ What ’ s important has changed a lot , ” says Ms. Anderson , the interim co-principal of a French-American charter school in Santa Rosa . “ And the sense that we ’ ve come such a long way since the fire – that feels good . There ’ s a sense of moving forward . ” Her evolving perspective illustrates a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth . The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of natural disasters , mass shootings , and other life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose , gaining strength from overcoming the adversity imposed upon them . The process of healing from psychological trauma varies by individual , and the arc of recovery can prove long , uneven , and at times , profoundly discouraging . Yet if a natural disaster exposes the vulnerability of survivors , slogging through the aftermath can uncover hidden reserves of resolve , explains Dr. Carol North , a professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas . “ There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster , ” says Dr. North , who has studied the effects of trauma on survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks . “ Those can be things like ‘ I realize how many people care about me ’ or ‘ I realize I ’ m a lot stronger than I knew. ’ For some people , their relationships or religious faith can get stronger . ” Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California ’ s wine country , claiming 22 lives and razing more than 5,300 homes in and around Sonoma County , including the Andersons ’ house in Santa Rosa . The fire was one of several in fall 2017 that forced mass evacuations in the region , and thousands of people still lack permanent housing . As they attempt to restore the order of life , their internal journey could hold lessons for the residents of Paradise , California , where a wildfire in November killed 85 people and incinerated some 14,000 homes . Ms. Anderson and her husband , Keith Anderson , an electrical engineer , moved into a rental house after the Tubbs fire . The couple has yet to decide whether to rebuild their home , but where they once felt unmoored , they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity . “ There ’ s almost a sense of freedom now , ” she says . “ We ’ ve realized that we can do anything . ” Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee/AP/AP Rhonda Readen , left , hugs her crying partner , Tim Shirley , after they arrived to find their residence in Santa Rosa , Calif. , totally destroyed on Oct. 10 , 2017 . Their Frank Lloyd Wright style home was burned in the Tubbs Fire . The Tubbs fire ranks as the second-most destructive blaze in state history , behind the wildfire that wiped out much of Paradise . The sluggish pace of new housing construction in Santa Rosa has begun to pick up in the past six months . The emotional recovery of residents remains more difficult to gauge . The demand for mental health services offers one measure of the trauma caused by the fires two years ago . A disaster crisis counseling program in Sonoma County , funded by the Federal Emergency and Management Agency ( FEMA ) , has provided free services to more than 85,000 residents since October 2017 . Wendy Wheelwright , the program ’ s project manager , supervises 36 counselors who traverse the county to aid fire survivors coping with what she calls “ the disaster after the disaster. ” The phrase refers to the exhausting process residents face as they try to rebuild , including the almost inevitable battles with FEMA and insurance companies over disaster claims . Many displaced homeowners have learned that the San Francisco Bay Area ’ s exploding housing costs will prevent them from building a similar home – or at all – on the same property . Those who opt to stay must weigh the risks of living in an area twice ravaged by fire since 1964 and in a state where the size , number , and intensity of wildfires appears on the rise . The choices can sharpen the despair of residents as they languish between an irretrievable past and an unsettled present . “ It ’ s not just a house and the stuff we lose , ” Ms. Wheelwright says . “ It ’ s also losing the feeling of security and the routines we have as part of our daily lives . ” The Tubbs fire reduced to ashes the Santa Rosa home where Georgina and John Logue had lived since 1984 . One of their neighbors died in the blaze . The retired couple ’ s insurance covered only 70 percent of their losses . They bought a smaller house soon after the fire . The space afforded them stability without alleviating their grief . “ Losing our house was almost like a death , ” Ms. Logue says . “ The first year was very hard and very long . ” Recent research into the resilience of crisis survivors has expanded to the realm of post-traumatic growth . The theory ’ s broad principles range from greater self-confidence , appreciation for life , and compassion for others to closer personal relationships and deeper spiritual beliefs . A crucial aspect of that internal change involves the degree of hardship survivors confront as they seek to reclaim their lives . One study found that New York residents who reported severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after Hurricane Sandy showed more capacity to grow from their experience . Several studies of Hurricane Katrina survivors yielded similar results . Behavioral health researchers emphasize that post-traumatic growth generally occurs only after people resurface from a wrenching crisis and make peace with their fate . “ It ’ s hard for good things to happen when we ’ re still feeling damaged , ” Dr. North says . “ The positive change comes with time and perspective . ” Ms. Logue sought solace from her faith and family , including five grandchildren . In recent months , with the couple ’ s new home under construction , she has perceived a difference in her disposition from before the fire . “ I take more things in stride now , ” she says . “ It ’ s just more of an awareness of what ’ s important . I know people who are living in trailers or with family . We ’ re fortunate to be where we are . ” Madonna Day had lived in her home for 49 years when she fled the Tubbs fire . She returned to piles of scorched rubble and the prospect of starting life over as an octogenarian . Her visceral connection to the pastoral , Edwardian-style retreat , built in 1908 , spans memories of her two late husbands , the three children she raised , and the small dairy farm she ran to produce goat cheese . Ms. Day admits her anguish quickened her temper . She scoffed at the well-meaning sympathy of friends and groused about the first rental house her daughter , Marie-Louise Clark , found for her . She moved into another rental home more to her liking earlier this year , and with stubborn persistence and Ms. Clark ’ s patient help , she has pursued plans to rebuild . Mother and daughter visited the property last week , and while the blackened landscape brought Ms. Day to tears , more light infuses her outlook compared with six months ago . “ I lost everything , ” she says . “ But I ’ ve realized I don ’ t need all the things I had before. ” As much as the house project and family support , she ascribes the gradual lifting of her mood to a renewed devotion to visiting friends whose physical frailties leave them housebound . “ I have a very upbeat feeling when I ’ m with them because I ’ m trying to raise their spirits . That feels good because it takes my mind off my situation . It ’ s a way for me to feel like I can help , ” she says . Studies suggest that people who seek out contact with family , friends , and neighbors after a disaster show higher potential for post-traumatic growth . An analysis of survivors of a deadly tornado in Missouri in 2011 found that more than a third reported post-traumatic growth within 30 months of the storm . In evaluating the responses of residents , researchers concluded that “ family and social networks may help individuals make sense of the traumatic experience by talking together . ” Samuel Bernier , a psychotherapist who provides individual and group counseling to fire survivors in Santa Rosa , describes creating and repairing social connections as essential to emotional recovery in a disaster ’ s aftermath . “ With a big wildfire , it ’ s basically like a refugee crisis , ” he says . “ People are dislocated from their homes , their neighborhoods , their communities . Coming together to talk can reduce their sense of isolation and build up their inner strength . ” Evelyn Anderson escaped her home with little more than her purse and a work laptop . She soon began attending block meetings with other displaced residents from her neighborhood . The sessions acted as a catharsis . Early on , they shared stories of evacuation chaos , swapped insurance tips , and vented about FEMA . At a meeting two weeks ago , they talked about progress and found reasons to laugh , even as many remain in limbo . “ Being part of a group of fire survivors does provide strength , ” Ms. Anderson says . “ There ’ s a level of understanding that helps with healing . ” Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy She never wanted to endure the trauma that the fire inflicted . She intends to always remember what she has gained from loss . “ I have more of a sense of how adrift one can be without their home , and that ’ s given me more of an appreciation of what it means to be living with purpose . ”	“I take more things in stride now,” says Georgina Logue, who lost her house in the fire. The Andersons have yet to decide whether to rebuild their home, but where they once felt unmoored, they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity. Says Ms. Anderson, “There’s almost a sense of freedom now.” The changes illustrate a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth. The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose and a greater appreciation of life. “There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster,” says Dr. Carol North, a professor of psychiatry. Those changes can range from greater self-confidence to deeper spiritual beliefs. Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California’s wine country, destroying more than 5,300 homes. One was Evelyn and Keith Anderson’s house in Santa Rosa. As Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds, she finds herself aware of subtle shifts in her approach to life. She savors the quiet evening hours after work and her bond with the couple’s two college-age children has deepened. The sorrow surges at unexpected moments. Evelyn Anderson recalls a visit to the outdoor store REI a few months ago when she noticed a jacket for sale similar to one she used to own. The coat tripped a cascade of memories of everything else she and her family lost when a wildfire destroyed their home in 2017. The thoughts soon receded, a sign of progress from the first year after the fire, when the distress felt chronic, draining her spirit day after endless day. As more time passes, and Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds, she finds herself aware of other subtle shifts in her mindset and approach to life. She makes an effort to slow down in the evenings after work to savor the quiet hours with her husband. The already close bond she shared with the couple’s two college-age children has deepened. Her empathy has grown for those driven from their homes – by natural disasters or drought, by religious persecution or war – and she better understands the anxiety of uncertainty. “What’s important has changed a lot,” says Ms. Anderson, the interim co-principal of a French-American charter school in Santa Rosa. “And the sense that we’ve come such a long way since the fire – that feels good. There’s a sense of moving forward.” Her evolving perspective illustrates a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth. The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of natural disasters, mass shootings, and other life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose, gaining strength from overcoming the adversity imposed upon them. The process of healing from psychological trauma varies by individual, and the arc of recovery can prove long, uneven, and at times, profoundly discouraging. Yet if a natural disaster exposes the vulnerability of survivors, slogging through the aftermath can uncover hidden reserves of resolve, explains Dr. Carol North, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. “There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster,” says Dr. North, who has studied the effects of trauma on survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “Those can be things like ‘I realize how many people care about me’ or ‘I realize I’m a lot stronger than I knew.’ For some people, their relationships or religious faith can get stronger.” Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California’s wine country, claiming 22 lives and razing more than 5,300 homes in and around Sonoma County, including the Andersons’ house in Santa Rosa. The fire was one of several in fall 2017 that forced mass evacuations in the region, and thousands of people still lack permanent housing. As they attempt to restore the order of life, their internal journey could hold lessons for the residents of Paradise, California, where a wildfire in November killed 85 people and incinerated some 14,000 homes. Ms. Anderson and her husband, Keith Anderson, an electrical engineer, moved into a rental house after the Tubbs fire. The couple has yet to decide whether to rebuild their home, but where they once felt unmoored, they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity. “There’s almost a sense of freedom now,” she says. “We’ve realized that we can do anything.” Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee/AP/AP Rhonda Readen, left, hugs her crying partner, Tim Shirley, after they arrived to find their residence in Santa Rosa, Calif., totally destroyed on Oct. 10, 2017. Their Frank Lloyd Wright style home was burned in the Tubbs Fire. Time and perspective The Tubbs fire ranks as the second-most destructive blaze in state history, behind the wildfire that wiped out much of Paradise. The sluggish pace of new housing construction in Santa Rosa has begun to pick up in the past six months. The emotional recovery of residents remains more difficult to gauge. The demand for mental health services offers one measure of the trauma caused by the fires two years ago. A disaster crisis counseling program in Sonoma County, funded by the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA), has provided free services to more than 85,000 residents since October 2017. Wendy Wheelwright, the program’s project manager, supervises 36 counselors who traverse the county to aid fire survivors coping with what she calls “the disaster after the disaster.” The phrase refers to the exhausting process residents face as they try to rebuild, including the almost inevitable battles with FEMA and insurance companies over disaster claims. Many displaced homeowners have learned that the San Francisco Bay Area’s exploding housing costs will prevent them from building a similar home – or at all – on the same property. Those who opt to stay must weigh the risks of living in an area twice ravaged by fire since 1964 and in a state where the size, number, and intensity of wildfires appears on the rise. The choices can sharpen the despair of residents as they languish between an irretrievable past and an unsettled present. “It’s not just a house and the stuff we lose,” Ms. Wheelwright says. “It’s also losing the feeling of security and the routines we have as part of our daily lives.” The Tubbs fire reduced to ashes the Santa Rosa home where Georgina and John Logue had lived since 1984. One of their neighbors died in the blaze. The retired couple’s insurance covered only 70 percent of their losses. They bought a smaller house soon after the fire. The space afforded them stability without alleviating their grief. “Losing our house was almost like a death,” Ms. Logue says. “The first year was very hard and very long.” Recent research into the resilience of crisis survivors has expanded to the realm of post-traumatic growth. The theory’s broad principles range from greater self-confidence, appreciation for life, and compassion for others to closer personal relationships and deeper spiritual beliefs. A crucial aspect of that internal change involves the degree of hardship survivors confront as they seek to reclaim their lives. One study found that New York residents who reported severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after Hurricane Sandy showed more capacity to grow from their experience. Several studies of Hurricane Katrina survivors yielded similar results. Behavioral health researchers emphasize that post-traumatic growth generally occurs only after people resurface from a wrenching crisis and make peace with their fate. “It’s hard for good things to happen when we’re still feeling damaged,” Dr. North says. “The positive change comes with time and perspective.” Ms. Logue sought solace from her faith and family, including five grandchildren. In recent months, with the couple’s new home under construction, she has perceived a difference in her disposition from before the fire. “I take more things in stride now,” she says. “It’s just more of an awareness of what’s important. I know people who are living in trailers or with family. We’re fortunate to be where we are.” Living with purpose Madonna Day had lived in her home for 49 years when she fled the Tubbs fire. She returned to piles of scorched rubble and the prospect of starting life over as an octogenarian. Her visceral connection to the pastoral, Edwardian-style retreat, built in 1908, spans memories of her two late husbands, the three children she raised, and the small dairy farm she ran to produce goat cheese. Ms. Day admits her anguish quickened her temper. She scoffed at the well-meaning sympathy of friends and groused about the first rental house her daughter, Marie-Louise Clark, found for her. She moved into another rental home more to her liking earlier this year, and with stubborn persistence and Ms. Clark’s patient help, she has pursued plans to rebuild. Mother and daughter visited the property last week, and while the blackened landscape brought Ms. Day to tears, more light infuses her outlook compared with six months ago. “I lost everything,” she says. “But I’ve realized I don’t need all the things I had before.” As much as the house project and family support, she ascribes the gradual lifting of her mood to a renewed devotion to visiting friends whose physical frailties leave them housebound. “I have a very upbeat feeling when I’m with them because I’m trying to raise their spirits. That feels good because it takes my mind off my situation. It’s a way for me to feel like I can help,” she says. Studies suggest that people who seek out contact with family, friends, and neighbors after a disaster show higher potential for post-traumatic growth. An analysis of survivors of a deadly tornado in Missouri in 2011 found that more than a third reported post-traumatic growth within 30 months of the storm. In evaluating the responses of residents, researchers concluded that “family and social networks may help individuals make sense of the traumatic experience by talking together.” Samuel Bernier, a psychotherapist who provides individual and group counseling to fire survivors in Santa Rosa, describes creating and repairing social connections as essential to emotional recovery in a disaster’s aftermath. “With a big wildfire, it’s basically like a refugee crisis,” he says. “People are dislocated from their homes, their neighborhoods, their communities. Coming together to talk can reduce their sense of isolation and build up their inner strength.” Evelyn Anderson escaped her home with little more than her purse and a work laptop. She soon began attending block meetings with other displaced residents from her neighborhood. The sessions acted as a catharsis. Early on, they shared stories of evacuation chaos, swapped insurance tips, and vented about FEMA. At a meeting two weeks ago, they talked about progress and found reasons to laugh, even as many remain in limbo. “Being part of a group of fire survivors does provide strength,” Ms. Anderson says. “There’s a level of understanding that helps with healing.” Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy She never wanted to endure the trauma that the fire inflicted. She intends to always remember what she has gained from loss. “I have more of a sense of how adrift one can be without their home, and that’s given me more of an appreciation of what it means to be living with purpose.”	www.csmonitor.com	2center	sMfPjUduAq65lEsa
environment	USA TODAY	11	http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/10/04/california-drought-nasa-satellite-images/16675981/	NASA images show California's drought deepening	2014-10-04	Doyle Rice	CLOSE Images from NASA satellites show California 's drought deepening . All of the state is in drought , and more than half is in 'exceptional ' drought . Trevor Hughes Corrections & Clarifications : An earlier version of this report misstated the month of the 2002 NASA image . All of California is in a historic drought , and images taken from a NASA satellite show the dramatic decrease in the state 's water storage since 2002 . The three images were taken in June 2002 , June 2008 and June 2014 . Orange and red colors represent greater water loss . California 's Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins , which includes the Central Valley , have suffered the most significant losses , in part due to increased groundwater pumping to support agriculture . Between 2011 and 2014 , these river basins have lost 4 trillion gallons of water each year . It 's also much more than California 's 38 million residents use in cities and homes annually . As of Thursday , 100 % of the state of California was in a drought , according to the U.S. Drought Monitor . More than 58 % is in `` exceptional '' drought , the worst level . Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895 , according to data from the National Climatic Data Center . Calif. Gov . Jerry Brown declared a statewide drought emergency earlier this year . Since then , reservoir storage levels have continued to fall , and as of Thursday , they were down to about 52 % of the historical average . Regulations restricting outdoor water use were put in place in late July for the entire state . People are n't allowed to hose down driveways or sidewalks , nor are they allowed to water lawns and landscapes ( if there is excess runoff ) . There are reports of wells running dry in central California . About 1,000 more wildfires than usual have charred the state , including some unusual ones in the spring .	CLOSE Images from NASA satellites show California's drought deepening. All of the state is in drought, and more than half is in 'exceptional' drought. Trevor Hughes Satellite images taken from NASA show the sharp drop in California's water storage levels. (Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of California, Irvine) Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this report misstated the month of the 2002 NASA image. All of California is in a historic drought, and images taken from a NASA satellite show the dramatic decrease in the state's water storage since 2002. The three images were taken in June 2002, June 2008 and June 2014. Orange and red colors represent greater water loss. California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which includes the Central Valley, have suffered the most significant losses, in part due to increased groundwater pumping to support agriculture. Between 2011 and 2014, these river basins have lost 4 trillion gallons of water each year. It's also much more than California's 38 million residents use in cities and homes annually. As of Thursday, 100% of the state of California was in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than 58% is in "exceptional" drought, the worst level. Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895, according to data from the National Climatic Data Center. Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a statewide drought emergency earlier this year. Since then, reservoir storage levels have continued to fall, and as of Thursday, they were down to about 52% of the historical average. Regulations restricting outdoor water use were put in place in late July for the entire state. People aren't allowed to hose down driveways or sidewalks, nor are they allowed to water lawns and landscapes (if there is excess runoff). There are reports of wells running dry in central California. About 1,000 more wildfires than usual have charred the state, including some unusual ones in the spring. MORE FROM USA TODAY Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1vETGOC	www.usatoday.com	2center	RibE3NxNTl65mzSK
us_congress	The Hill	11	http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369870-senate-rejects-funding-bill-hours-before-shutdown-deadline	Senate rejects funding bill, partial shutdown begins	2018-01-19		Senators voted late Friday to reject a House-passed bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 16 , beginning a partial government shutdown . Most Democrats voted to block the bill as part of a risky strategy to force Republicans to negotiate with them on a legislative fix for `` Dreamers , '' immigrants who illegally came to the country at a young age and now face the prospect of deportation . The procedural motion on the bill failed 50-49 . Only five Democrats voted to advance the bill — Sens . Joe Manchin Joseph ( Joe ) ManchinFormer coal exec Don Blankenship launches third-party presidential bid Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren 's agenda Overnight Energy : Senate eyes nixing 'forever chemicals ' fix from defense bill \| Former Obama EPA chief named CEO of green group \| Senate reviews Interior , FERC nominees criticized on ethics MORE ( W.Va. ) , Joe Donnelly Joseph ( Joe ) Simon DonnellyWatchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren , Sanders , Gillibrand MORE ( Ind . ) , Heidi Heitkamp Mary ( Heidi ) Kathryn HeitkampThe Hill 's Morning Report — Biden steadies in third debate as top tier remains the same Trump wins 60 percent approval in rural areas of key states Pence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa MORE ( N.D. ) and Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillGOP senator rips into Pelosi at Trump rally : 'It must suck to be that dumb ' Iranian attacks expose vulnerability of campaign email accounts Ex-CIA chief worries campaigns falling short on cybersecurity MORE ( Mo . ) , who are all up for reelection this year in states carried by President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes MORE in 2016 election , and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones ( D-Ala. ) . Republicans were also not united , as Sens . Rand Paul Randal ( Rand ) Howard PaulSenate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges McConnell discounts quick dismissal of Trump impeachment articles : 'We 'll have to have a trial ' GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower MORE ( Ky. ) , Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( S.C. ) , Mike Lee Michael ( Mike ) Shumway LeeFed chief urges Congress to expand US workforce while economy still strong On The Money : Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments \| Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight \| Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war Retirement bill blocked in Senate amid fight over amendments MORE ( Utah ) and Jeff Flake Jeffrey ( Jeff ) Lane FlakeLindsey Graham basks in the impeachment spotlight Kelly , McSally virtually tied in Arizona Senate race : poll ███ 's 12:30 Report — Presented by Nareit — White House cheers Republicans for storming impeachment hearing MORE ( Ariz. ) also voted against advancing the legislation . Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCain2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes The Memo : Democrats confront prospect of long primary Defending their honor as we hear their testimony MORE ( R-Ariz. ) , who is battling brain cancer , was absent . The procedural vote remained open for roughly two hours on Friday night , remaining well below the needed 60 votes to pass . Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) Director Mick Mulvaney John ( Mick ) Michael MulvaneyKent , Taylor say they 're not 'Never Trumpers ' after Trump Twitter offensive GOP counsel acknowledges 'irregular channel ' between U.S. and Ukraine ███ 's 12:30 Report : Democrats open televised impeachment hearings MORE issued a memorandum instructing agencies to begin a shutdown . The memo said that because OMB does not have a clear signal from Congress that it will act to fund the government , it is necessary to execute plans `` for an orderly shutdown '' due to the absence of appropriations . While a partial shutdown has started , Mulvaney earlier in the day suggested the negative effects of a shutdown would not completely be felt until Monday , when hundreds of thousands of workers would be furloughed . The closure will mark the first time that the government has been shuttered since 2013 , when a shutdown carried on for 16 days as a band of Republicans tried to dismantle ObamaCare . Republicans are blaming Senate Democrats for the latest shutdown , arguing their refusal to agree to a one-month stopgap passed on a largely party-line vote in the House caused the shutdown . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnellGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( R-Ky. ) delayed the vote until late Friday evening as part of an effort to raise pressure on Democrats . A meeting at the White House earlier on Friday between Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal \| House panel advances flavored e-cig ban \| Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action MORE ( N.Y. ) and President Trump failed to break the stalemate , though both sides said some progress had been made . In a speech on the Senate floor , Schumer said he had made concessions in the talks with Trump , even offering to consider his proposal for a southern border wall — an idea that Democrats had long called a non-starter . `` During the meeting , in exchange for strong [ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ] protections , I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for the discussion . Even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal , '' Schumer said from the Senate floor . `` In my heart , I thought we might have a deal tonight . That was how far we had come . That 's how positive our discussion felt . We had a good meeting , '' he said . McConnell in his own floor speech castigated Democrats , saying they have forced a `` completely avoidable '' shutdown . `` What we have just witnessed on the floor was a cynical decision by Senate Democrats to shove aside millions of Americans for the sake of irresponsible , political games , '' he said from the Senate floor . The funding fight is set to spill over into Saturday , when both the House and Senate will be in session . McConnell late Friday announced he would move to amend the government funding bill so that it funds the government until Feb. 8 . A vote on that bill could be held Saturday , but it 's unclear whether it will pass . Schumer said congressional leaders should meet at the White House with Trump to finalize an agreement on immigration and the broader government funding package . Republicans and Democrats spent most of Friday blaming each other for the looming shutdown . “ This is completely unfair and uncompassionate for my Democratic colleagues to filibuster government funding , harm our troops and jeopardize health coverage for 9 million children because extreme elements of their base want illegal immigration to crowd out every other priority , ” McConnell said . He says immigration reform should be handled separately from the spending bills and wants Trump to sign off on an immigration deal before it comes to the Senate floor . Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin Richard ( Dick ) Joseph DurbinPentagon watchdog declines to investigate hold on Ukraine aid Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action Five things to watch at Supreme Court 's DACA hearings MORE ( Ill. ) took to the floor after McConnell to blast Republicans for failing to make substantial progress after Trump tasked Congress with replacing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program . “ So what has the Republican majority in the House and Senate done in the four and a half months since we received that challenge from President Trump ? Nothing . Nothing , ” he said Trump administration officials hoped up until the last moment that Democrats would change their mind and vote for the House-passed stopgap , even though they made it clear they saw it as unacceptable . White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters Friday evening that he still hoped that Democrats would let the House bill pass . Negotiations on an immigration proposal to grant legal status to `` Dreamers '' and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border seemed to go backwards . The No . 2-ranking leaders in both chambers , Durbin , Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Overnight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal \| House panel advances flavored e-cig ban \| Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges MORE ( Texas ) , House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring , ' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay ███ 's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump , Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE ( R-Calif. ) , and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton Hoyer Hoyer calls GOP efforts to out whistleblower 'despicable ' Live coverage : House holds first public impeachment hearing Congress hunts for path out of spending stalemate MORE ( D-Md . ) , had been tasked with leading the immigration talks . But a meeting of these four leaders that had been scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Friday , and then postponed to 1 p.m. , never happened . Instead , Cornyn and McCarthy met separately and reported making some progress . Cornyn applauded Trump for rejecting a bipartisan Senate deal crafted by three Democrats and three Republicans , including Durbin , Flake and Graham . “ The president did the right thing . He told him look , you go back and you talk to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader and you guys work that out , ” Cornyn said , summarizing Trump ’ s conversation with Schumer about immigration earlier in the day . Facing a stalemate on immigration , Schumer has shifted the argument slightly by arguing that Democrats are justified in opposing the short-term spending bill because funding the government with a series of stopgaps creates uncertainty for defense and nondefense programs . In an unusual move , the Democratic leader decried the potential impact on the military , which is usually a Republican talking point . “ The Pentagon thinks this [ continuing resolution ] is wrong for our military , ” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday night , reading a statement from a Dana White , the chief Defense Department spokeswoman , who called the succession of stopgap spending measures “ wasteful and destructive . ” Schumer also wants to negotiate an extension of the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program for longer than the six-years included in the House bill , as well as higher spending caps for domestic federal programs . But the stalemate over immigration policy is the biggest holdup . Republicans oppose the bipartisan bill favored by the Senate Democratic leadership , arguing it does not do enough to enhance border security .	Senators voted late Friday to reject a House-passed bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 16, beginning a partial government shutdown. Most Democrats voted to block the bill as part of a risky strategy to force Republicans to negotiate with them on a legislative fix for "Dreamers," immigrants who illegally came to the country at a young age and now face the prospect of deportation. The procedural motion on the bill failed 50-49. Only five Democrats voted to advance the bill — Sens. Joe Manchin Joseph (Joe) ManchinFormer coal exec Don Blankenship launches third-party presidential bid Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren's agenda Overnight Energy: Senate eyes nixing 'forever chemicals' fix from defense bill \| Former Obama EPA chief named CEO of green group \| Senate reviews Interior, FERC nominees criticized on ethics MORE (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly Joseph (Joe) Simon DonnellyWatchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand MORE (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp Mary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampThe Hill's Morning Report — Biden steadies in third debate as top tier remains the same Trump wins 60 percent approval in rural areas of key states Pence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa MORE (N.D.) and Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillGOP senator rips into Pelosi at Trump rally: 'It must suck to be that dumb' Iranian attacks expose vulnerability of campaign email accounts Ex-CIA chief worries campaigns falling short on cybersecurity MORE (Mo.), who are all up for reelection this year in states carried by President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes MORE in 2016 election, and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.). ADVERTISEMENT Republicans were also not united, as Sens. Rand Paul Randal (Rand) Howard PaulSenate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges McConnell discounts quick dismissal of Trump impeachment articles: 'We'll have to have a trial' GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower MORE (Ky.), Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham: Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE (S.C.), Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeFed chief urges Congress to expand US workforce while economy still strong On The Money: Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments \| Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight \| Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war Retirement bill blocked in Senate amid fight over amendments MORE (Utah) and Jeff Flake Jeffrey (Jeff) Lane FlakeLindsey Graham basks in the impeachment spotlight Kelly, McSally virtually tied in Arizona Senate race: poll The Hill's 12:30 Report — Presented by Nareit — White House cheers Republicans for storming impeachment hearing MORE (Ariz.) also voted against advancing the legislation. Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCain2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes The Memo: Democrats confront prospect of long primary Defending their honor as we hear their testimony MORE (R-Ariz.), who is battling brain cancer, was absent. The procedural vote remained open for roughly two hours on Friday night, remaining well below the needed 60 votes to pass. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney John (Mick) Michael MulvaneyKent, Taylor say they're not 'Never Trumpers' after Trump Twitter offensive GOP counsel acknowledges 'irregular channel' between U.S. and Ukraine The Hill's 12:30 Report: Democrats open televised impeachment hearings MORE issued a memorandum instructing agencies to begin a shutdown. The memo said that because OMB does not have a clear signal from Congress that it will act to fund the government, it is necessary to execute plans "for an orderly shutdown" due to the absence of appropriations. It said OMB would offer additional guidance as appropriate. While a partial shutdown has started, Mulvaney earlier in the day suggested the negative effects of a shutdown would not completely be felt until Monday, when hundreds of thousands of workers would be furloughed. The closure will mark the first time that the government has been shuttered since 2013, when a shutdown carried on for 16 days as a band of Republicans tried to dismantle ObamaCare. Republicans are blaming Senate Democrats for the latest shutdown, arguing their refusal to agree to a one-month stopgap passed on a largely party-line vote in the House caused the shutdown. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham: Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE (R-Ky.) delayed the vote until late Friday evening as part of an effort to raise pressure on Democrats. A meeting at the White House earlier on Friday between Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal \| House panel advances flavored e-cig ban \| Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight, seeking larger action MORE (N.Y.) and President Trump failed to break the stalemate, though both sides said some progress had been made. In a speech on the Senate floor, Schumer said he had made concessions in the talks with Trump, even offering to consider his proposal for a southern border wall — an idea that Democrats had long called a non-starter. "During the meeting, in exchange for strong [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for the discussion. Even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal," Schumer said from the Senate floor. "In my heart, I thought we might have a deal tonight . That was how far we had come. That's how positive our discussion felt. We had a good meeting," he said. McConnell in his own floor speech castigated Democrats, saying they have forced a "completely avoidable" shutdown. "What we have just witnessed on the floor was a cynical decision by Senate Democrats to shove aside millions of Americans for the sake of irresponsible, political games," he said from the Senate floor. The funding fight is set to spill over into Saturday, when both the House and Senate will be in session. McConnell late Friday announced he would move to amend the government funding bill so that it funds the government until Feb. 8. A vote on that bill could be held Saturday, but it's unclear whether it will pass. Schumer said congressional leaders should meet at the White House with Trump to finalize an agreement on immigration and the broader government funding package. Republicans and Democrats spent most of Friday blaming each other for the looming shutdown. “This is completely unfair and uncompassionate for my Democratic colleagues to filibuster government funding, harm our troops and jeopardize health coverage for 9 million children because extreme elements of their base want illegal immigration to crowd out every other priority,” McConnell said. He says immigration reform should be handled separately from the spending bills and wants Trump to sign off on an immigration deal before it comes to the Senate floor. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin Richard (Dick) Joseph DurbinPentagon watchdog declines to investigate hold on Ukraine aid Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight, seeking larger action Five things to watch at Supreme Court's DACA hearings MORE (Ill.) took to the floor after McConnell to blast Republicans for failing to make substantial progress after Trump tasked Congress with replacing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. “So what has the Republican majority in the House and Senate done in the four and a half months since we received that challenge from President Trump? Nothing. Nothing,” he said Trump administration officials hoped up until the last moment that Democrats would change their mind and vote for the House-passed stopgap, even though they made it clear they saw it as unacceptable. White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters Friday evening that he still hoped that Democrats would let the House bill pass. Negotiations on an immigration proposal to grant legal status to "Dreamers" and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border seemed to go backwards. The No. 2-ranking leaders in both chambers, Durbin, Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Overnight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal \| House panel advances flavored e-cig ban \| Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges MORE (Texas), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring,' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay The Hill's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump, Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE (R-Calif.), and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton Hoyer Hoyer calls GOP efforts to out whistleblower 'despicable' Live coverage: House holds first public impeachment hearing Congress hunts for path out of spending stalemate MORE (D-Md.), had been tasked with leading the immigration talks. But a meeting of these four leaders that had been scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Friday, and then postponed to 1 p.m., never happened. Instead, Cornyn and McCarthy met separately and reported making some progress. Cornyn applauded Trump for rejecting a bipartisan Senate deal crafted by three Democrats and three Republicans, including Durbin, Flake and Graham. “The president did the right thing. He told him look, you go back and you talk to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader and you guys work that out,” Cornyn said, summarizing Trump’s conversation with Schumer about immigration earlier in the day. Facing a stalemate on immigration, Schumer has shifted the argument slightly by arguing that Democrats are justified in opposing the short-term spending bill because funding the government with a series of stopgaps creates uncertainty for defense and nondefense programs. In an unusual move, the Democratic leader decried the potential impact on the military, which is usually a Republican talking point. “The Pentagon thinks this [continuing resolution] is wrong for our military,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday night, reading a statement from a Dana White, the chief Defense Department spokeswoman, who called the succession of stopgap spending measures “wasteful and destructive.” Schumer also wants to negotiate an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program for longer than the six-years included in the House bill, as well as higher spending caps for domestic federal programs. But the stalemate over immigration policy is the biggest holdup. Republicans oppose the bipartisan bill favored by the Senate Democratic leadership, arguing it does not do enough to enhance border security. Updated at 1:30 a.m.	www.thehill.com	2center	xcxsqWkIvfLaVHWw
republican_party	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2016-election-republican-technology-hurdle-113200.html?hp=t3_r	GOP's tech hurdle: They don't always get it	2014-11-20	Tony Romm	Republican presidential prospects like Ted Cruz , Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have tapped the tech industry ’ s fat wallets and mined its big-data expertise — but these 2016 hopefuls couldn ’ t be further from Silicon Valley when it comes to policy . A series of major divides — from the fate of net neutrality to the future of surveillance reform — still splits this trio of prominent pols from Internet giants in the country ’ s tech heartland , which helped catapult President Barack Obama to well-funded victories in 2008 and 2012 . Web companies , for example , are pressing the Federal Communications Commission for new rules that would require Internet providers to treat all online traffic equally . But Cruz , Paul and Rubio are anything but neutral on net neutrality — they hate it , much less any government regulation at all . Republicans also have a rift with the tech industry over domestic spying . More than a year of work by tech leaders like Facebook and Google to curtail the National Security Agency ’ s surveillance authorities failed this month in part because Rubio joined Paul , usually a supporter , in voting against it . And tech executives who have clamored for more high-skilled workers have heard only criticism lately from most Republicans , who slammed Obama after he issued an executive order on immigration reform . Even the GOP acknowledges it has plenty of work to do to woo Silicon Valley . “ If you look historically at who people donate to , it ’ s really been 9 or 10 to 1 , Democrat to Republican — we haven ’ t done as well , ” said Paul , who has been working to set up a new West Coast outpost . But the senator stressed the GOP still has plenty to offer , especially on tax issues that matter to tech titans ’ bottom lines . “ Republicans are actually going to try to do something to help the economy , ” he said . Technology companies represent some of the most successful firms in the country , and their executives form the ranks of the nation ’ s richest . That means there ’ s plenty of campaign cash for candidates to milk — and Democrats long have dominated that well . Beyond money , Democrats also have outpaced Republicans in attracting the sort of tech talent required to run modern , data-intensive campaigns . Obama in his first presidential campaign formed powerful alliances at companies like Google , and his team by 2012 had set up an entire apparatus — Technology 4 Obama — to solicit donations from the likes of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman . Entering the 2014 midterms , Democrats again returned repeatedly to Silicon Valley and San Francisco for a series of high-dollar fundraisers . Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Sam Altman , the leader of Y Combinator , for example , hosted the president earlier this year ; so did Mark Pincus , who founded Zynga . “ We ’ re talking about some very deep pockets here , ” said Larry Gerston , a professor focusing on U.S. public policy at San Jose State University . “ They ’ re just figuring out that money can buy them things they never imagined . ” But , Gerston added , “ For all their efforts , certainly , Republican tech types and folks close to the Republican Party haven ’ t managed well . ” The poor political odds have only spurred the GOP to action . Paul this summer began work to set up a technology hub of sorts in San Francisco — and the Kentucky senator returned there in October for a fundraiser alongside other prominent Senate Republicans . Cisco CEO John Chambers helped host the event at the Woodside , California , home of Oracle ’ s Larry Ellison . These tech hardware players — and others , like new Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz and HP CEO Meg Whitman , who unsuccessfully ran for governor in California — long have backed and funded Republican candidates . “ He ’ s hopeful it ’ s a libertarian incubator of future Ayn Rands , ” said Shawn Steel , a past chairman of the California Republican Party , when asked about Paul ’ s strategy . But even Steel acknowledged that many Internet company executives are “ deeply in the infrastructure of progressive Democrats . ” Rubio , meanwhile , has tried to align himself with businesses — speaking , for example , at Uber ’ s Beltway headquarters about the threat of government regulation to ride-sharing apps and other tech disrupters . The Florida senator has also spoken at Google ’ s Washington office about immigration , and he ’ s paid a visit to 1776 , D.C. ’ s start-up incubator . And Cruz has ported his firebrand conservative style to tech : The Texas Republican traveled this month down to a start-up hub in Austin , where he plopped a rotary telephone down on a podium in a heated diatribe against what he called the FCC ’ s archaic approach to the Internet . For many Republicans , their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture . \| AP Photo For all their efforts , though , there ’ s still a widening policy gap between national Republicans and the Internet giants they ’ re trying to court . Companies like Facebook , Google , Yahoo and Yelp — through their Washington trade group , the Internet Association — are public backers of net neutrality . They together have praised Obama for endorsing an approach that might subject the Internet to utility-like regulation . All three Republicans , however , rejected the president ’ s suggestion . Rubio hammered it as “ government regulation of the Internet ” that “ threatens to restrict Internet growth and increase costs on Internet users. ” And Cruz lambasted net neutrality as “ Obamacare for the Internet ” in a tweet that went viral — and drew plenty of criticism . A high-stakes vote over the future of the NSA further tested Republicans ’ relationships in the Valley . Paul and others had supported a major overhaul of the agency ’ s authorities to collect Americans ’ communications in bulk — but the senator shocked tech giants and civil-liberties groups when he pulled support at the last minute , as the so-called USA Freedom Act reached the Senate floor for a key procedural vote . Cruz did support the measure ; Rubio long had stated his opposition , citing emerging terrorist threats and the need for more intelligence . And for all the talk about the tech set ’ s need for more high-skilled workers , all three Republican stalwarts slammed Obama last week for acting on his own to advance immigration reform . Cruz and Paul previously voted against an immigration bill that tech companies had backed . To hear Paul tell it , the party hasn ’ t hurt its standing among the tech crowd . He and others , for example , have backed high-skilled labor reforms in the past . The GOP senator also stressed that support for net neutrality is “ not actually uniform throughout Silicon Valley . ” Paul further defended his vote on surveillance reform , stressing in an interview he “ couldn ’ t vote for it because it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act ” — a law he described as “ heinous. ” And in doing so , the senator appeared to take an indirect shot at his colleague , Rubio : Paul said the only gap between his party and tech companies might involve “ Republicans who believe in vast and overwhelming government surveillance. ” Without naming anyone , Paul continued : “ I don ’ t think they have much in common at all . ” Republican insiders also assure that the party still has plenty to offer Silicon Valley , especially on business issues — like lowering the taxes that companies pay when they return profits from overseas . “ The parties have raised substantial resources [ in the Valley ] , both parties have substantial allies , and both parties have been appreciated on some issues and less so on others , ” said Bruce Mehlman , the leader of the Technology CEO Council and a former top tech adviser during the George W. Bush administration . “ Republicans have been better on tax ; Republicans have [ been ] better on trade ; Democrats have been better on research funding and STEM education , ” Mehlman continued . “ Both historically have been good on high-skilled immigration , but it ’ s stuck right now . … As a result , the tech industry has always been , and remains to be , a jump ball as a political constituency . ” For many Republicans , though , their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture . When national Republicans have opposed gay marriage , fought climate change and taken conservative stands on hot-button social issues — the topics that tend to resonate in California — they ’ ve created a divide with the very Valley tech executives they might be trying to attract . That schism in part prompted Google , Yahoo and Yelp to depart the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council earlier this year . The group , comprised of state legislators and top companies , had lobbied extensively against renewable-energy mandates . A community of Web entrepreneurs have come to realize that if “ it doesn ’ t fit with our employees , it doesn ’ t fit with our customers , it doesn ’ t fit with who we are , ” Gerston said .	Republican presidential prospects like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have tapped the tech industry’s fat wallets and mined its big-data expertise — but these 2016 hopefuls couldn’t be further from Silicon Valley when it comes to policy. A series of major divides — from the fate of net neutrality to the future of surveillance reform — still splits this trio of prominent pols from Internet giants in the country’s tech heartland, which helped catapult President Barack Obama to well-funded victories in 2008 and 2012. Story Continued Below Web companies, for example, are pressing the Federal Communications Commission for new rules that would require Internet providers to treat all online traffic equally. But Cruz, Paul and Rubio are anything but neutral on net neutrality — they hate it, much less any government regulation at all. Republicans also have a rift with the tech industry over domestic spying. More than a year of work by tech leaders like Facebook and Google to curtail the National Security Agency’s surveillance authorities failed this month in part because Rubio joined Paul, usually a supporter, in voting against it. And tech executives who have clamored for more high-skilled workers have heard only criticism lately from most Republicans, who slammed Obama after he issued an executive order on immigration reform. ( Also on POLITICO: Rick Perry ramps up) Even the GOP acknowledges it has plenty of work to do to woo Silicon Valley. “If you look historically at who people donate to, it’s really been 9 or 10 to 1, Democrat to Republican — we haven’t done as well,” said Paul, who has been working to set up a new West Coast outpost. But the senator stressed the GOP still has plenty to offer, especially on tax issues that matter to tech titans’ bottom lines. “Republicans are actually going to try to do something to help the economy,” he said. Technology companies represent some of the most successful firms in the country, and their executives form the ranks of the nation’s richest. That means there’s plenty of campaign cash for candidates to milk — and Democrats long have dominated that well. Beyond money, Democrats also have outpaced Republicans in attracting the sort of tech talent required to run modern, data-intensive campaigns. Obama in his first presidential campaign formed powerful alliances at companies like Google, and his team by 2012 had set up an entire apparatus — Technology 4 Obama — to solicit donations from the likes of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. Entering the 2014 midterms, Democrats again returned repeatedly to Silicon Valley and San Francisco for a series of high-dollar fundraisers. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Sam Altman, the leader of Y Combinator, for example, hosted the president earlier this year; so did Mark Pincus, who founded Zynga. ( Also on POLITICO: Online education run amok?) “We’re talking about some very deep pockets here,” said Larry Gerston, a professor focusing on U.S. public policy at San Jose State University. “They’re just figuring out that money can buy them things they never imagined.” But, Gerston added, “For all their efforts, certainly, Republican tech types and folks close to the Republican Party haven’t managed well.” The poor political odds have only spurred the GOP to action. Paul this summer began work to set up a technology hub of sorts in San Francisco — and the Kentucky senator returned there in October for a fundraiser alongside other prominent Senate Republicans. Cisco CEO John Chambers helped host the event at the Woodside, California, home of Oracle’s Larry Ellison. These tech hardware players — and others, like new Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz and HP CEO Meg Whitman, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in California — long have backed and funded Republican candidates. “He’s hopeful it’s a libertarian incubator of future Ayn Rands,” said Shawn Steel, a past chairman of the California Republican Party, when asked about Paul’s strategy. But even Steel acknowledged that many Internet company executives are “deeply in the infrastructure of progressive Democrats.” ( Also on POLITICO: Portman for (vice) president) Rubio, meanwhile, has tried to align himself with businesses — speaking, for example, at Uber’s Beltway headquarters about the threat of government regulation to ride-sharing apps and other tech disrupters. The Florida senator has also spoken at Google’s Washington office about immigration, and he’s paid a visit to 1776, D.C.’s start-up incubator. And Cruz has ported his firebrand conservative style to tech: The Texas Republican traveled this month down to a start-up hub in Austin, where he plopped a rotary telephone down on a podium in a heated diatribe against what he called the FCC’s archaic approach to the Internet. For many Republicans, their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture. \| AP Photo Both senators declined to be interviewed for this story. For all their efforts, though, there’s still a widening policy gap between national Republicans and the Internet giants they’re trying to court. Companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Yelp — through their Washington trade group, the Internet Association — are public backers of net neutrality. They together have praised Obama for endorsing an approach that might subject the Internet to utility-like regulation. All three Republicans, however, rejected the president’s suggestion. Rubio hammered it as “government regulation of the Internet” that “threatens to restrict Internet growth and increase costs on Internet users.” And Cruz lambasted net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet” in a tweet that went viral — and drew plenty of criticism. A high-stakes vote over the future of the NSA further tested Republicans’ relationships in the Valley. Paul and others had supported a major overhaul of the agency’s authorities to collect Americans’ communications in bulk — but the senator shocked tech giants and civil-liberties groups when he pulled support at the last minute, as the so-called USA Freedom Act reached the Senate floor for a key procedural vote. Cruz did support the measure; Rubio long had stated his opposition, citing emerging terrorist threats and the need for more intelligence. ( Also on POLITICO: Paul on Ferguson: Criminal justice reforms part of answer) And for all the talk about the tech set’s need for more high-skilled workers, all three Republican stalwarts slammed Obama last week for acting on his own to advance immigration reform. Cruz and Paul previously voted against an immigration bill that tech companies had backed. To hear Paul tell it, the party hasn’t hurt its standing among the tech crowd. He and others, for example, have backed high-skilled labor reforms in the past. The GOP senator also stressed that support for net neutrality is “not actually uniform throughout Silicon Valley.” Paul further defended his vote on surveillance reform, stressing in an interview he “couldn’t vote for it because it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act” — a law he described as “heinous.” And in doing so, the senator appeared to take an indirect shot at his colleague, Rubio: Paul said the only gap between his party and tech companies might involve “Republicans who believe in vast and overwhelming government surveillance.” Without naming anyone, Paul continued: “I don’t think they have much in common at all.” Republican insiders also assure that the party still has plenty to offer Silicon Valley, especially on business issues — like lowering the taxes that companies pay when they return profits from overseas. ( Also on POLITICO: Obama makes immigration joke at turkey pardon) “The parties have raised substantial resources [in the Valley], both parties have substantial allies, and both parties have been appreciated on some issues and less so on others,” said Bruce Mehlman, the leader of the Technology CEO Council and a former top tech adviser during the George W. Bush administration. “Republicans have been better on tax; Republicans have [been] better on trade; Democrats have been better on research funding and STEM education,” Mehlman continued. “Both historically have been good on high-skilled immigration, but it’s stuck right now. … As a result, the tech industry has always been, and remains to be, a jump ball as a political constituency.” For many Republicans, though, their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture. When national Republicans have opposed gay marriage, fought climate change and taken conservative stands on hot-button social issues — the topics that tend to resonate in California — they’ve created a divide with the very Valley tech executives they might be trying to attract. That schism in part prompted Google, Yahoo and Yelp to depart the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council earlier this year. The group, comprised of state legislators and top companies, had lobbied extensively against renewable-energy mandates. A community of Web entrepreneurs have come to realize that if “it doesn’t fit with our employees, it doesn’t fit with our customers, it doesn’t fit with who we are,” Gerston said. Follow @politico	www.politico.com	0left	nHB55EsJwcZ93KFm
environment	Newsmax	22	http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/	Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists	2014-05-20	Cheryl K. Chumley	While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight , 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project , saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled . `` There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide , methane , or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth 's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth 's climate , '' the petition says . `` The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science ' and an overwhelming 'consensus ' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong , '' the petition asserts . `` No such consensus or settled science exists . `` Over 9,000 of the petition 's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.For all the talk of `` settled science , '' all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited `` hockey stick '' graphic that pointed to exponential warming , to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers , receding rain forests , increases in hurricane activity , and the end of snow.Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises , leading to widespread flooding and death.But those are all myths , according to the World Climate Report , whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels , a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind 's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best , and `` after removing biases caused by urbanization , thermometer relocations , instrument changes , and so on , it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years '' in the United States , the World Climate Report found . In fact , `` aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930 , when trace-gas concentrations were low , the trend is essentially zero . `` The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated , and `` based on the best available temperature records , '' the region has actually warmed only `` about 0.65 degrees Celsius [ about 1.1 degree F. ] since 1860 . `` The report noted , `` We were n't producing much [ carbon dioxide ] prior to 1945 , so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years . But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945 . `` Todd Myers , director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center , said : `` It 's true , temperatures have risen , but not in the last 15 years . `` `` We 've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide . `` As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters , the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica , `` there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s . `` What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears , owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space ? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies , other scientists and researchers say . `` We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds , including lobby groups and activist scientists , '' Susan Crockford , a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria , Canada , said in a previously published statement . `` Many of these tales of imminent doom , however , have important facts left out , glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed , '' she said.One more fallacy that the climate-change movement does n't like to remember is the infamous `` hockey stick '' predictor , said Christopher Horner , a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute . `` That 's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases . `` `` They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial ' on record : rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [ temperatures ] did n't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed . `` Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside , a victim of factual evidence . `` The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption , that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet , '' Horner said.Nevertheless , President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies , declaring in his State of the Union address that `` climate change is fact '' and embracing the notion that the issue is `` settled science . `` White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that `` 97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity . `` But even the White House 's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate , as the Petition Project demonstrates.Adherents of the `` science-is-settled '' argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming , while two-thirds expressed no position.In 2013 , Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent . Craig D. Idso , chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change , was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented , he said it was `` not an accurate representation of my paper '' and that it `` would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming . `` The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009 , showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters . `` Once you grasp who and what they are , their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense , '' Horner , an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics , told ███.However , daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues , often isolated and derided for their findings.Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of `` McCarthyist '' -type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning , the Daily Mail reported.Bengtsson , a research fellow at the University of Reading in England , joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 's claim that the Earth 's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.Bengtsson 's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to `` reduce the underlying uncertainty '' of its findings . `` The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist , '' said Bengtsson , who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper . `` It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views . The reality has n't been keeping up with the models . `` Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore , who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world 's first `` carbon billionaire '' for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.But to at least one environmental analyst , the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money . `` My basic argument is that climate change is an identity , and changing their mind about science means changing their identity , '' Myers told ███ , referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts . `` That 's too much for people to do — to say ' I 've been living a lie . ' It 's become all about who they are as a person , as their identity . And that 's why the attacks have become so personal . ''	Urgent: Who Is Your Choice for the GOP's 2016 Nominee? Urgent: Assess Your Heart Attack Risk in Minutes. Click Here. Urgent: Who Is Your Choice for the GOP's 2016 Nominee? While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled."There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition says."The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong," the petition asserts. "No such consensus or settled science exists."Over 9,000 of the petition's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.For all the talk of "settled science," all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited "hockey stick" graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow.Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises, leading to widespread flooding and death.But those are all myths, according to the World Climate Report, whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best, and "after removing biases caused by urbanization, thermometer relocations, instrument changes, and so on, it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years" in the United States, the World Climate Report found. In fact, "aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930, when trace-gas concentrations were low, the trend is essentially zero."The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and "based on the best available temperature records," the region has actually warmed only "about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860."The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years.""We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears, owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies, other scientists and researchers say."We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds, including lobby groups and activist scientists," Susan Crockford, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria, Canada, said in a previously published statement."Many of these tales of imminent doom, however, have important facts left out, glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed," she said.One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases.""They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence."The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.Nevertheless, President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies, declaring in his State of the Union address that "climate change is fact" and embracing the notion that the issue is "settled science."White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that "97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity."But even the White House's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate, as the Petition Project demonstrates.Adherents of the "science-is-settled" argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.In 2013, Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented, he said it was "not an accurate representation of my paper" and that it "would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009, showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters."Once you grasp who and what they are, their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense," Horner, an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics, told Newsmax.However, daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues, often isolated and derided for their findings.Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of "McCarthyist"-type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning, the Daily Mail reported.Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in England, joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's claim that the Earth's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.Bengtsson's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to "reduce the underlying uncertainty" of its findings."The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models."Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore, who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world's first "carbon billionaire" for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.But to at least one environmental analyst, the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money."My basic argument is that climate change is an identity, and changing their mind about science means changing their identity," Myers told Newsmax, referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts."That's too much for people to do — to say 'I've been living a lie.' It's become all about who they are as a person, as their identity. And that's why the attacks have become so personal."	www.newsmax.com	1right	NkYCQmfNNmep1wIh
russia	Associated Press	11	https://www.apnews.com/06c8721db0b944d192cddef2bfdaa8a6	Barr’s testimony to House on Mueller in doubt amid dispute	2019-04-28	Mary Clare Jalonick	Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Justice Department has informed the House Judiciary Committee that Attorney General William Barr may skip a Thursday hearing on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report if committee lawyers seek to question him . The Democratic-run committee plans to allow counsels from both sides to ask Barr about the Russia probe after the traditional round of questioning by lawmakers . Department officials also told the committee that they opposed a plan to go into a closed session if members wanted to discuss redacted portions of Mueller ’ s report , according to a senior Democratic aide on the committee , who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential communications with the department . Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said given that Barr had agreed to testify , lawmakers “ should be the ones doing the questioning . He remains happy to engage with members on their questions regarding the Mueller report . ” Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House panel on Thursday . The GOP-led Senate committee is expected to have normal rounds of member questioning . It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness . But committees can generally make their own rules , and other panels have made similar exceptions . In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year , for example , Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault . The dispute comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access Mueller ’ s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify . Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller ’ s findings with their own investigations into the president . House Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation . In response , the Justice Department has said they will make the full report , minus grand jury material , available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused . The dispute could eventually end up in court . A spokeswoman for the top Republican on the committee , Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia , noted that Barr ’ s testimony is voluntary and criticized the Democrats for not reading the full report . “ Democrats have yet to prove their demands are anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee , ” Jessica Andrews said . Democrats have criticized Barr for drawing his own conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice after Mueller found he couldn ’ t exonerate the president on that point . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Barr is involved in a “ staggering public effort ” by the Trump administration to put a positive face on Mueller ’ s findings . House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , has also invited Mueller to testify and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn . McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report , which recounted the president ’ s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it . The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena .	Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report during a news conference, Thursday, April 18, 2019, at the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report during a news conference, Thursday, April 18, 2019, at the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has informed the House Judiciary Committee that Attorney General William Barr may skip a Thursday hearing on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report if committee lawyers seek to question him. The Democratic-run committee plans to allow counsels from both sides to ask Barr about the Russia probe after the traditional round of questioning by lawmakers. Department officials also told the committee that they opposed a plan to go into a closed session if members wanted to discuss redacted portions of Mueller’s report, according to a senior Democratic aide on the committee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential communications with the department. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said given that Barr had agreed to testify, lawmakers “should be the ones doing the questioning. He remains happy to engage with members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.” Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House panel on Thursday. The GOP-led Senate committee is expected to have normal rounds of member questioning. It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year, for example, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault. The dispute comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access Mueller’s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify. Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller’s findings with their own investigations into the president. House Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation. In response, the Justice Department has said they will make the full report, minus grand jury material, available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused. The dispute could eventually end up in court. A spokeswoman for the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, noted that Barr’s testimony is voluntary and criticized the Democrats for not reading the full report. “Democrats have yet to prove their demands are anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee,” Jessica Andrews said. Democrats have criticized Barr for drawing his own conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice after Mueller found he couldn’t exonerate the president on that point. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Barr is involved in a “staggering public effort” by the Trump administration to put a positive face on Mueller’s findings. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has also invited Mueller to testify and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn. McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report, which recounted the president’s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it. The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena. ___ Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.	www.apnews.com	2center	Hxh0WbJz33iyQVv5
national_defense	Christian Science Monitor	11	http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0509/Report-Iran-tests-missile-capable-of-reaching-Israel	Report: Iran tests missile capable of reaching Israel	2016-05-09	Madison Margolin	The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has allegedly tested a ballistic missile capable of traveling up to 1,250 miles , far enough to reach Israel , according to a Monday report by the Islamic republic 's quasi-official Tasnim News Agency that the minister of defense subsequently denied . If true , the test is the latest in a series of short- , medium- , and long-range missile exercises in the past few months since reaching a nuclear deal in July 2015 . The latest missile tested within eight meters , said Gen. Ali Abdollahi , deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier , according to the news agency , adding that the supposed exercise took place two weeks ago . `` Eight meters means nothing , it means it 's without error , '' he said , according to the Associated Press . CBS News reports that the state-run Iranian News Agency ( IRNA ) called the missiles a `` deterrence power , '' in hopes that their ability to reach American military bases in the region , as well as Israel , would deter an attack on Iran . After the story broke , Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan castigated what IRNA described as `` US-Saudi propaganda campaign over missile capability . '' Gen. Dehghan told IRNA that Iran had not conducted a missile test `` with the range that was published in the media , '' but would not confirm or deny if the military had conducted any recent missile tests . Tasnim , which produced the earlier report , is said to have close ties to Iran 's Revolutionary Guard , which oversees Iran 's ballistic missile program . The nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this year does not prohibit missile tests . A United Nations Security Council resolution adopted in July does , however . In that resolution , which holds until 2023 , the United Nations states : `` Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons , including launches using such ballistic missile technology . '' When the nuclear deal became effective on January 16 , the United Nations Security Council lifted most of Tehran 's international sanctions . With its missile tests , Iran is now showing progress in its ballistic program after having scaled it back after the deal . Iran 's first missile testing since the July nuclear agreement came in October , when US officials said the country had tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon , which they said was in violation of a UN Security Council resolution . In November , Iran also launched a missile from near the Gulf of Oman that could travel as far as 1,200 miles . During another missile test in March , Iran sent out tow missiles decorated with the Hebrew words , `` Israel must be wiped out . '' Following this incident , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the countries that agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program — the United States , Russia , China , France , Britain , and Germany — to punish Iran . Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy While Iran so far has not violated the deal , Mark Toner , United States Deputy State Department spokesman , said the American government was aware of Iran 's alleged actions and closely following reports . `` If confirmed , we intend to raise the matter in the UN Security Council . We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response , '' said Mr. Toner . `` This development underscores why we continue to work closely with partners around the world to slow and degrade Iran 's missile program . ''	The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has allegedly tested a ballistic missile capable of traveling up to 1,250 miles, far enough to reach Israel, according to a Monday report by the Islamic republic's quasi-official Tasnim News Agency that the minister of defense subsequently denied. If true, the test is the latest in a series of short-, medium-, and long-range missile exercises in the past few months since reaching a nuclear deal in July 2015. The latest missile tested within eight meters, said Gen. Ali Abdollahi, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier, according to the news agency, adding that the supposed exercise took place two weeks ago. "Eight meters means nothing, it means it's without error," he said, according to the Associated Press. CBS News reports that the state-run Iranian News Agency (IRNA) called the missiles a "deterrence power," in hopes that their ability to reach American military bases in the region, as well as Israel, would deter an attack on Iran. After the story broke, Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan castigated what IRNA described as "US-Saudi propaganda campaign over missile capability." Gen. Dehghan told IRNA that Iran had not conducted a missile test "with the range that was published in the media," but would not confirm or deny if the military had conducted any recent missile tests. Tasnim, which produced the earlier report, is said to have close ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which oversees Iran's ballistic missile program. The nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this year does not prohibit missile tests. A United Nations Security Council resolution adopted in July does, however. In that resolution, which holds until 2023, the United Nations states: "Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology." When the nuclear deal became effective on January 16, the United Nations Security Council lifted most of Tehran's international sanctions. With its missile tests, Iran is now showing progress in its ballistic program after having scaled it back after the deal. Iran's first missile testing since the July nuclear agreement came in October, when US officials said the country had tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, which they said was in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. In November, Iran also launched a missile from near the Gulf of Oman that could travel as far as 1,200 miles. During another missile test in March, Iran sent out tow missiles decorated with the Hebrew words, "Israel must be wiped out." Following this incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the countries that agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany — to punish Iran. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy While Iran so far has not violated the deal, Mark Toner, United States Deputy State Department spokesman, said the American government was aware of Iran's alleged actions and closely following reports. "If confirmed, we intend to raise the matter in the UN Security Council. We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response," said Mr. Toner. "This development underscores why we continue to work closely with partners around the world to slow and degrade Iran's missile program."	www.csmonitor.com	2center	EHf5Exkns5wqkLXk
coronavirus	CBN	22	https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2020/april/new-stimulus-bill-works-through-congress-as-20-states-eye-re-opening-economies-nbsp	New Stimulus Bill Works Through Congress as 20 States Eye Re-Opening Economies	2020-04-22		Known as the `` Phase 3.5 '' coronavirus stimulus package , lawmakers are hopeful a new $ 484 billion bill will be enough to keep American small business going , but Republican leaders say it 's just a stop-gap . `` Unless we get our economy up and running again there is not any way we can spend enough to continue to prop up the country , '' said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , ( R-KY ) . $ 383 billion of this latest stimulus bill will be earmarked specifically for small business programs , including the Paycheck Protection Program . `` We want to make sure this money is available to small businesses that need it , people who have invested their entire life savings , '' Secretary of the Treasury , Steven Mnuchin said at Tuesday 's White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing . The new legislation is on its way to the House after being passed Tuesday by the Senate . Meanwhile , much of the country is working to re-open . `` Twenty states representing 40 percent of the population , have announced that they are making plans and preparations to safely restart their economies in the very near future , '' President Trump announced Tuesday . Still , some of the states rushing to re-open do n't meet the White House guidelines . Georgia 's governor is preparing to open gyms , bowling alley 's , and barbershops this week , despite not seeing a two-week decline in cases of COVID-19 . `` When we have more people moving around we 're probably going to see more cases continue to go up but we 're a lot better prepared now than we were over a month ago , '' Gov . Brian Kemp said . `` I certainly can not in good conscience say that I agree with his order and I will continue to use my voice as mayor of Atlanta to ask people to continue to stay home , follow the science , and exercise common sense , '' said Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms . CDC Director Robert Redfield warned that a second wave of COVID-19 could coincide with the start of flu season and prove to be even more devastating than what we now face . Dr. Deborah Birx says , if there is another wave , the country will be much better prepared . `` We are going to continue that surveillance from now all the way through the fall to be able to give us that early warning signal , '' Birx said during Tuesday 's briefing . Meanwhile , the FDA says its granted emergency clearance to the first in-home test for COVID-19 . And , in the United Kingdom , researchers at Oxford University are beginning the first human trials on a potential vaccine .	Known as the "Phase 3.5" coronavirus stimulus package, lawmakers are hopeful a new $484 billion bill will be enough to keep American small business going, but Republican leaders say it's just a stop-gap. "Unless we get our economy up and running again there is not any way we can spend enough to continue to prop up the country," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY). $383 billion of this latest stimulus bill will be earmarked specifically for small business programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program. "We want to make sure this money is available to small businesses that need it, people who have invested their entire life savings," Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin said at Tuesday's White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing. The new legislation is on its way to the House after being passed Tuesday by the Senate. Meanwhile, much of the country is working to re-open. "Twenty states representing 40 percent of the population, have announced that they are making plans and preparations to safely restart their economies in the very near future," President Trump announced Tuesday. Still, some of the states rushing to re-open don't meet the White House guidelines. Georgia's governor is preparing to open gyms, bowling alley's, and barbershops this week, despite not seeing a two-week decline in cases of COVID-19. "When we have more people moving around we're probably going to see more cases continue to go up but we're a lot better prepared now than we were over a month ago," Gov. Brian Kemp said. Atlanta's mayor plans to disregard the order. "I certainly cannot in good conscience say that I agree with his order and I will continue to use my voice as mayor of Atlanta to ask people to continue to stay home, follow the science, and exercise common sense," said Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. CDC Director Robert Redfield warned that a second wave of COVID-19 could coincide with the start of flu season and prove to be even more devastating than what we now face. Dr. Deborah Birx says, if there is another wave, the country will be much better prepared. "We are going to continue that surveillance from now all the way through the fall to be able to give us that early warning signal," Birx said during Tuesday's briefing. Meanwhile, the FDA says its granted emergency clearance to the first in-home test for COVID-19. And, in the United Kingdom, researchers at Oxford University are beginning the first human trials on a potential vaccine. FOR CBN NEWS CONTINUING COVERAGE ON COVID-19, CLICK HERE.	www1.cbn.com	1right	hvA6QNsa66M050nQ
israel	National Review	22	http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443325/us-abstains-un-resolution-condemning-israel-settlements-passes-obama	Obama’s Shameful Parting Shot at Israel	2016-12-23	John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Mairead Mcardle, Robert Verbruggen, Carrie Severino, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, John Fund	In a parting , spiteful shot at Israel , the Obama administration permitted a U.N. Security Council resolution to pass that seeks to permanently change the international legal status of so-called Israeli “ settlements ” in Jerusalem and the disputed West Bank . Departing from almost 50 years of bipartisan American precedent — and from the administration ’ s own past practice — the Obama administration abstained from a vote for the resolution demanding that Israel “ cease all settlement activities ” and declaring that all existing settlements were in “ flagrant violation ” of international law . Just yesterday the resolution appeared dead , as Egypt , the resolution ’ s original sponsor , withdrew it under pressure from the incoming Trump administration . The president-elect took the unusual step of injecting himself into a U.N. controversy before taking office precisely because the Obama foreign-policy team was broadcasting its intent to abstain . Incredibly , however , four nations with precisely zero security interests at stake in the Middle East — New Zealand , Malaysia , Venezuela , and Senegal — revived the resolution and forced a vote . The administration ’ s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace . Moreover , the Trump administration is powerless to revoke the resolution : It would have to introduce and pass a new resolution , and either Russia or China would be sure to veto it . Thus , Israel will find itself at the bargaining table in any future peace negotiation with Palestinian territorial demands backed by the U.N. ’ s most powerful body . By declaring that settlements — including “ settlements ” in Israel ’ s capital — violate international law , the resolution purports to carve into stone the armistice lines that existed at the end of Israel ’ s war for independence . Yet these lines didn ’ t become lawful permanent borders precisely because hostile Arab nations specifically refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel ’ s border , specifically declined to create a Palestinian state , and instead maintained a posture of armed hostility to Israel . Indeed , since the West Bank hasn ’ t been part of a sovereign nation since the fall of the Ottoman Empire , the so-called occupied territories aren ’ t truly “ occupied ” under international law . They ’ re more accurately termed “ disputed ” territories , with the precise resolution of the dispute to be negotiated by the relevant parties . The administration ’ s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace . There are implications for ordinary Israelis as well . If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem , is he or she now a criminal ? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals ? Radical U.N. action will only harden Palestinian intransigence and worsen already rising anti-Semitism ( thinly disguised as anti-Zionism ) on the international left . To put this radical resolution in context , under its terms , it is now an alleged violation of international law that the Western Wall remains in Israeli hands . It ’ s difficult to interpret the Obama administration ’ s actions as anything other than a parting shot at Israel and its prime minister , Benjamin Netanyahu . The Obama administration ’ s frustrations with the Netanyahu government are well known , but now was hardly the time to break with almost 50 years of American policy , and frustration or spite were hardly sufficient reasons . As Trump said in his statement , if there is to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians , “ it will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations . ” The world will soon move on from Barack Obama , but he ’ s doing his best to extend his legacy of failure and appeasement . The Palestinians deserved a rebuke . Instead they received a gift . Our closest Middle Eastern ally will pay the price .	President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House in 2011. (Reuters photo: Jim Young) In a parting, spiteful shot at Israel, the Obama administration permitted a U.N. Security Council resolution to pass that seeks to permanently change the international legal status of so-called Israeli “settlements” in Jerusalem and the disputed West Bank. Departing from almost 50 years of bipartisan American precedent — and from the administration’s own past practice — the Obama administration abstained from a vote for the resolution demanding that Israel “cease all settlement activities” and declaring that all existing settlements were in “flagrant violation” of international law. Advertisement Advertisement Just yesterday the resolution appeared dead, as Egypt, the resolution’s original sponsor, withdrew it under pressure from the incoming Trump administration. The president-elect took the unusual step of injecting himself into a U.N. controversy before taking office precisely because the Obama foreign-policy team was broadcasting its intent to abstain. Incredibly, however, four nations with precisely zero security interests at stake in the Middle East — New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal — revived the resolution and forced a vote. The administration’s fecklessness has harmed Israel, endangers ordinary Israelis, and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace. Moreover, the Trump administration is powerless to revoke the resolution: It would have to introduce and pass a new resolution, and either Russia or China would be sure to veto it. Thus, Israel will find itself at the bargaining table in any future peace negotiation with Palestinian territorial demands backed by the U.N.’s most powerful body. By declaring that settlements — including “settlements” in Israel’s capital — violate international law, the resolution purports to carve into stone the armistice lines that existed at the end of Israel’s war for independence. Yet these lines didn’t become lawful permanent borders precisely because hostile Arab nations specifically refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel’s border, specifically declined to create a Palestinian state, and instead maintained a posture of armed hostility to Israel. Indeed, since the West Bank hasn’t been part of a sovereign nation since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the so-called occupied territories aren’t truly “occupied” under international law. They’re more accurately termed “disputed” territories, with the precise resolution of the dispute to be negotiated by the relevant parties. The administration’s fecklessness has harmed Israel, endangers ordinary Israelis, and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace. There are implications for ordinary Israelis as well. If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem, is he or she now a criminal? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals? Radical U.N. action will only harden Palestinian intransigence and worsen already rising anti-Semitism (thinly disguised as anti-Zionism) on the international left. To put this radical resolution in context, under its terms, it is now an alleged violation of international law that the Western Wall remains in Israeli hands. Advertisement It’s difficult to interpret the Obama administration’s actions as anything other than a parting shot at Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration’s frustrations with the Netanyahu government are well known, but now was hardly the time to break with almost 50 years of American policy, and frustration or spite were hardly sufficient reasons. As Trump said in his statement, if there is to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, “it will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.” Advertisement The world will soon move on from Barack Obama, but he’s doing his best to extend his legacy of failure and appeasement. The Palestinians deserved a rebuke. Instead they received a gift. Our closest Middle Eastern ally will pay the price.	www.nationalreview.com	1right	dFg7ivZ0Ik6u5uG3
national_security	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/23/trump-team-looks-revoking-security-clearances-obama-officials/820923002/	President Trump considers revoking security clearances for former U.S. officials	2018-07-23		WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is exploring `` mechanisms '' to revoke security clearances for former U.S. officials who have criticized him for his handling of the Russia investigation and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin , White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday . Sanders said the administration is reviewing clearances for former CIA director John Brennan , former FBI director director James Comey , former national intelligence director James Clapper , former CIA director Michael Hayden , former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe . `` They politicize and in some cases actually monetize their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia , '' Sanders said . More : Exclusive : James Comey strikes back against 'morally unfit ' Donald Trump More : In war of words with Trump , fired McCabe says he will no longer be silent Brennan , who worked in senior roles in President George W. Bush 's administration and was a CIA director under President Barack Obama , offered particularly incendiary criticism of Trump 's handling of his meeting in Helsinki with Putin . After a news conference in Helsinki in which Trump appeared to favor Putin 's denials over the findings of the intelligence community , Brennan wrote on Twitter that the president 's performance was `` nothing short of treasonous . '' Security clearances can allow government officials to work with companies on classified defense programs and advise private contractors . They also can be something of a professional courtesy , allowing former national security officials to talk to their successors . Having a security clearance does not entitle anyone to access classified information . Clapper , the former director of national intelligence , told CNN his clearance `` has nothing to do with how I or any of us feel about the president . And I do n't get the briefings . I do n't have access to classified information . '' Susan Hennessy , executive editor of the blog Lawfare , tweeted that `` former high-ranking national security officials typically stay in access in order to support their successors and provide insight and continuity when necessary . '' In announcing the review of security clearances , Sanders said that `` making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate . '' Melissa Schwartz , a spokeswoman for McCabe , said in a statement that his clearance `` was deactivated when he was terminated , according to what we were told was FBI policy . You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps . '' Hayden tweeted : `` I do n't go back for classified briefings . Won ’ t have any effect on what I say or write . '' Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , said he has urged Trump to revoke clearances because `` public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking-head fees . '' Republican consultant Liz Mair said , `` Using executive authority to punish critics sets a bad precedent and looks abusive and overpunitive , '' and the Trump administration `` already has a bad rap where that ’ s concerned . Why worsen it ? '' Asked whether the administration would look into any security clearances for Obama himself or Vice President Joe Biden , Sanders said : `` I 'm not aware of any plans for that at this point . '' It 's not known how Trump might revoke the clearances , if he wants to move forward . Steven Aftergood , a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists , said Trump probably has the legal authority to do it , given his status as commander-in-chief . As a technical matter , he might have to order the agencies that granted the clearances to terminate them . `` He might encounter resistance at that point , '' Aftergood said , if the requests are seen as some kind of `` vendetta . ''	David Jackson USA TODAY WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is exploring "mechanisms" to revoke security clearances for former U.S. officials who have criticized him for his handling of the Russia investigation and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday. Sanders said the administration is reviewing clearances for former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director director James Comey, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe. "They politicize and in some cases actually monetize their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia," Sanders said. More:Ex-CIA Director John Brennan compares Trump to Bernie Madoff More:Exclusive: James Comey strikes back against 'morally unfit' Donald Trump More:In war of words with Trump, fired McCabe says he will no longer be silent Brennan, who worked in senior roles in President George W. Bush's administration and was a CIA director under President Barack Obama, offered particularly incendiary criticism of Trump's handling of his meeting in Helsinki with Putin. After a news conference in Helsinki in which Trump appeared to favor Putin's denials over the findings of the intelligence community, Brennan wrote on Twitter that the president's performance was "nothing short of treasonous." Security clearances can allow government officials to work with companies on classified defense programs and advise private contractors. They also can be something of a professional courtesy, allowing former national security officials to talk to their successors. Having a security clearance does not entitle anyone to access classified information. Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, told CNN his clearance "has nothing to do with how I or any of us feel about the president. And I don't get the briefings. I don't have access to classified information." Susan Hennessy, executive editor of the blog Lawfare, tweeted that "former high-ranking national security officials typically stay in access in order to support their successors and provide insight and continuity when necessary." In announcing the review of security clearances, Sanders said that "making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate." Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for McCabe, said in a statement that his clearance "was deactivated when he was terminated, according to what we were told was FBI policy. You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps." Hayden tweeted: "I don't go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write." Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he has urged Trump to revoke clearances because "public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking-head fees." Republican consultant Liz Mair said, "Using executive authority to punish critics sets a bad precedent and looks abusive and overpunitive," and the Trump administration "already has a bad rap where that’s concerned. Why worsen it?" Asked whether the administration would look into any security clearances for Obama himself or Vice President Joe Biden, Sanders said: "I'm not aware of any plans for that at this point." It's not known how Trump might revoke the clearances, if he wants to move forward. Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Trump probably has the legal authority to do it, given his status as commander-in-chief. As a technical matter, he might have to order the agencies that granted the clearances to terminate them. "He might encounter resistance at that point," Aftergood said, if the requests are seen as some kind of "vendetta."	www.usatoday.com	2center	klTuTwjoOx2E7e94
elections	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/kansas-2014-elections-greg-orman-pat-roberts-111616.html?hp=t1_3	Role reversal: Greg Orman’s wealth gives GOP fodder	2014-10-06	Manu Raju	Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign . Orman 's wealth gives GOP fodder OLATHE , Kan. — Greg Orman wanted to turn the capital of shrimp cocktails into a shrimp-producing powerhouse . A few years ago , the businessman-turned-independent Kansas Senate candidate had become a director of Ganix Biotechnologies . With the help of $ 2.5 million in federal loan guarantees and $ 128,000 in state tax breaks , he and fellow investors pledged to build a $ 5 million- $ 6 million organic shrimp farm smack dab in the Nevada desert . “ We consume more shrimp per capita in Las Vegas than anywhere else in the world — 22 million pounds of it annually , ” Orman told Las Vegas ’ KLAS-TV in 2011 . The venture collapsed within a year . Ganix defaulted on a $ 725,000 bank loan , and a Kansas bank foreclosed on the shrimp farm property , according to public documents . The project had been pegged to create 30 jobs and eventually pump millions into the coffers of financially struggling North Las Vegas , according to news reports at the time . The sudden frontrunner against GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in the most competitive Senate race no one saw coming , Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign . The 45-year-old Princeton graduate tells voters he knows what it takes to create jobs and that he ’ d bring much-needed business savvy to Washington . And there ’ s no question about this : Orman has become spectacularly wealthy over the course of a two-decade-plus career that includes investments in ventures as far flung as energy-efficient lighting , spinal surgery screws and an obscure Jeff Goldblum film . Any successful investor is bound to have some failures , but Orman appears to have more wins than losses , creating several successful companies along the way . But triumph in the business world , as Mitt Romney learned , doesn ’ t necessarily translate into success on the campaign trail . And Republicans are seizing on the less-flattering aspects of his business past to bring Orman ’ s campaign back to earth . In addition to his well-publicized business and personal relationship with a person convicted of securities fraud , Orman has ties to companies that took advantage of offshore or low-tax havens and was once sued by a woman who alleged that Orman threatened to wipe out her children ’ s college fund if he wasn ’ t included in a deal , records show . The outcome of the race may well turn on which portrayal of Orman ’ s background prevails : the non-ideological entrepreneur or the shady investor who won ’ t level with voters about where he stands on issues . Going after a candidate ’ s business record is an unusual turn for Republicans , considering they ’ re typically the ones fending off rich-guy attacks . But it ’ s the hand they ’ ve been dealt and they are playing it . “ Greg Orman ’ s offshore tax havens , business partnerships with a convicted Wall Street banker and ties to liberal Democrats raise serious questions , ” said Corry Bliss , campaign manager for Roberts . Said Orman campaign manager Jim Jonas : “ We ’ re happy to compare Greg ’ s successful record as a businessman creating jobs with Sen. Roberts ’ failed record as a Washington politician any day . ” Orman ’ s emergence also puts Democrats in the peculiar position of at least tacitly backing the candidate of the 1 percent . Not that there ’ s another alternative . Asked if Orman ’ s past business dealings might turn off Democrats , the party ’ s state chairwoman , Joan Wagnon , said : “ Where would they go ? ” She predicted the GOP attacks “ won ’ t work on Republicans because Republicans are not offended by rich people . ” Orman , who has avoided saying which party he ’ d caucus with in an evenly split Senate , declined to be interviewed for this story . At a coffee shop in Topeka , Kansas last week , he was asked if he thought his wealth would be an asset or liability for his campaign . “ You know , I haven ’ t thought of it , ” he told reporters . Orman has amassed a personal fortune of at least $ 21.5 million , according to his financial disclosure documents — and likely much more because assets and liabilities are reported in broad ranges . He would be the fifth-wealthiest senator , based on a 2012 ranking by the Center for Responsive Politics . Fresh out of Princeton in 1991 , Orman joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and wasted little time methodically building a diverse array of business interests . He created Environmental Lighting Concepts in 1992 , growing the firm to $ 10 million in annual revenue then selling it to Kansas City Power & Light in 1996 . He created a successful Minnesota commercial real estate firm , FRM Associates , in which he now holds between $ 5 million and $ 25 million in assets . Since 2004 , Orman has worked at his private equity firm , Denali Partners , investing in small and mid-sized firms . In 2012 , Orman purchased a Kansas boxing equipment company , Combat Brands , saying he helped “ save the brand ” and protect 50 jobs . ( He owns between $ 1 million to $ 5 million in the company . ) Orman is now named as a defendant in a $ 30 million lawsuit with a rival company , Everlast , which the campaign dismisses as frivolous . All told , Orman reports holding assets and positions in 43 companies . At least 17 are incorporated in Nevada , two are in Delaware and one in the Cayman Islands ; all three locales give corporations preferable tax treatments . ( Other companies are incorporated in Kansas , Missouri and Minnesota . ) Orman also has ties to Hollywood : he ’ s listed as executive producer of Goldblum ’ s 2006 film “ Pittsburgh , ” and one of his companies made a loan of $ 250,000- $ 500,000 to ROAR , the Hollywood talent management firm run by veteran showbiz executive Bernie Cahill . Orman ’ s rise has been marked by multiple court battles , including a particularly nasty showdown last year stemming from a 2009 business deal . One of Orman ’ s companies , Design X Studios , had been brought in to help restructure a graphics company ’ s outstanding loan . But the arrangement went south , and a Kansas businesswoman , Jennifer Hopkins , accused Orman of trying to bleed dry her children ’ s college funds by seeking to withhold money into her bank accounts , according to court documents . Hopkins alleged that Orman had been “ harassing ” her colleague and violated an attorney-client privilege . “ Since July 2012 , if not earlier , Greg Orman has attempted to strong-arm Jennifer Hopkins , ” Hopkins ’ attorney , Robert Flynn , alleged in a March 2013 court document . “ If Ms. Hopkins didn ’ t agree to cut Orman into the deal , Orman threatened that he could delay the distribution of litigation proceeds , thereby causing Ms. Hopkins to incur financial damages . ”	Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign. Orman's wealth gives GOP fodder OLATHE, Kan. — Greg Orman wanted to turn the capital of shrimp cocktails into a shrimp-producing powerhouse. A few years ago, the businessman-turned-independent Kansas Senate candidate had become a director of Ganix Biotechnologies. With the help of $2.5 million in federal loan guarantees and $128,000 in state tax breaks, he and fellow investors pledged to build a $5 million-$6 million organic shrimp farm smack dab in the Nevada desert. Story Continued Below “We consume more shrimp per capita in Las Vegas than anywhere else in the world — 22 million pounds of it annually,” Orman told Las Vegas’ KLAS-TV in 2011. The venture collapsed within a year. Ganix defaulted on a $725,000 bank loan, and a Kansas bank foreclosed on the shrimp farm property, according to public documents. The project had been pegged to create 30 jobs and eventually pump millions into the coffers of financially struggling North Las Vegas, according to news reports at the time. (Also on POLITICO: The man behind the GOP’s Senate drive) The sudden frontrunner against GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in the most competitive Senate race no one saw coming, Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign. The 45-year-old Princeton graduate tells voters he knows what it takes to create jobs and that he’d bring much-needed business savvy to Washington. And there’s no question about this: Orman has become spectacularly wealthy over the course of a two-decade-plus career that includes investments in ventures as far flung as energy-efficient lighting, spinal surgery screws and an obscure Jeff Goldblum film. Any successful investor is bound to have some failures, but Orman appears to have more wins than losses, creating several successful companies along the way. But triumph in the business world, as Mitt Romney learned, doesn’t necessarily translate into success on the campaign trail. And Republicans are seizing on the less-flattering aspects of his business past to bring Orman’s campaign back to earth. In addition to his well-publicized business and personal relationship with a person convicted of securities fraud, Orman has ties to companies that took advantage of offshore or low-tax havens and was once sued by a woman who alleged that Orman threatened to wipe out her children’s college fund if he wasn’t included in a deal, records show. ( Also on POLITICO: Court rebuffs Kansas GOP on Senate race) The outcome of the race may well turn on which portrayal of Orman’s background prevails: the non-ideological entrepreneur or the shady investor who won’t level with voters about where he stands on issues. Going after a candidate’s business record is an unusual turn for Republicans, considering they’re typically the ones fending off rich-guy attacks. But it’s the hand they’ve been dealt and they are playing it. “Greg Orman’s offshore tax havens, business partnerships with a convicted Wall Street banker and ties to liberal Democrats raise serious questions,” said Corry Bliss, campaign manager for Roberts. Said Orman campaign manager Jim Jonas: “We’re happy to compare Greg’s successful record as a businessman creating jobs with Sen. Roberts’ failed record as a Washington politician any day.” Orman’s emergence also puts Democrats in the peculiar position of at least tacitly backing the candidate of the 1 percent. Not that there’s another alternative. Asked if Orman’s past business dealings might turn off Democrats, the party’s state chairwoman, Joan Wagnon, said: “Where would they go?” (Also on POLITICO: Poll: Republicans trail in Kansas) She predicted the GOP attacks “won’t work on Republicans because Republicans are not offended by rich people.” Orman, who has avoided saying which party he’d caucus with in an evenly split Senate, declined to be interviewed for this story. At a coffee shop in Topeka, Kansas last week, he was asked if he thought his wealth would be an asset or liability for his campaign. “You know, I haven’t thought of it,” he told reporters. Orman has amassed a personal fortune of at least $21.5 million, according to his financial disclosure documents — and likely much more because assets and liabilities are reported in broad ranges. He would be the fifth-wealthiest senator, based on a 2012 ranking by the Center for Responsive Politics. Fresh out of Princeton in 1991, Orman joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and wasted little time methodically building a diverse array of business interests. He created Environmental Lighting Concepts in 1992, growing the firm to $10 million in annual revenue then selling it to Kansas City Power & Light in 1996. He created a successful Minnesota commercial real estate firm, FRM Associates, in which he now holds between $5 million and $25 million in assets. Since 2004, Orman has worked at his private equity firm, Denali Partners, investing in small and mid-sized firms. In 2012, Orman purchased a Kansas boxing equipment company, Combat Brands, saying he helped “save the brand” and protect 50 jobs. (He owns between $1 million to $5 million in the company.) Orman is now named as a defendant in a $30 million lawsuit with a rival company, Everlast, which the campaign dismisses as frivolous. All told, Orman reports holding assets and positions in 43 companies. At least 17 are incorporated in Nevada, two are in Delaware and one in the Cayman Islands; all three locales give corporations preferable tax treatments. (Other companies are incorporated in Kansas, Missouri and Minnesota.) Orman also has ties to Hollywood: he’s listed as executive producer of Goldblum’s 2006 film “Pittsburgh,” and one of his companies made a loan of $250,000-$500,000 to ROAR, the Hollywood talent management firm run by veteran showbiz executive Bernie Cahill. Orman’s rise has been marked by multiple court battles, including a particularly nasty showdown last year stemming from a 2009 business deal. One of Orman’s companies, Design X Studios, had been brought in to help restructure a graphics company’s outstanding loan. But the arrangement went south, and a Kansas businesswoman, Jennifer Hopkins, accused Orman of trying to bleed dry her children’s college funds by seeking to withhold money into her bank accounts, according to court documents. Hopkins alleged that Orman had been “harassing” her colleague and violated an attorney-client privilege. “Since July 2012, if not earlier, Greg Orman has attempted to strong-arm Jennifer Hopkins,” Hopkins’ attorney, Robert Flynn, alleged in a March 2013 court document. “If Ms. Hopkins didn’t agree to cut Orman into the deal, Orman threatened that he could delay the distribution of litigation proceeds, thereby causing Ms. Hopkins to incur financial damages.”	www.politico.com	0left	iWD9U2m18p4xSYW0
media_bias	Fox News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/accused-nsa-leaker-reality-winners-motives-mystery-at-least-to-abc-nbc-and-cbs.html	Accused NSA leaker Reality Winner's motives a 'mystery' -- At least to ABC, NBC and CBS	2017-06-07		Not long after top-secret documents from the National Security Agency made their way onto the Internet news site The Intercept on Monday , the Justice Department arrested NSA contractor Reality Winner . The 25-year-old Air Force veteran worked on a military base in Georgia , but online she had a long history of being heavily anti-Trump , an apparent social justice warrior , and a supporter of Iran over the U.S. During their evening broadcasts , the Big Three Networks ( ABC , CBS , and NBC ) either played down her political attitudes , or outright ignored them as they reported on what she did . During his report on “ NBC Nightly News , ” Justice Correspondent Pete Williams passed along her family ’ s claim that “ she was n't highly political , ” and anchor Lester Holt claimed her “ motive is a mystery. ” But in reality , Winner was anything but silent about her political views . In a tweet she wrote earlier this year , she smeared Trump , saying : “ the most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the White House . ” She had tweeted profanities targeting Trump , such as # F * ckingWall , # TrumpIsAC * * t , and she tweeted the anti-Trump rallying cry of # notmypresident . Winner also was a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and had said on Twitter that “ being white is terrorism . ” And in a response to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , who said “ We will never use our weapons against anyone , except in self-defense , ” Winner proclaimed her support for Iran , writing : “ There are many Americans protesting U.S. govt aggression towards Iran . If our Tangerine in Chief declares war , we stand with you ! ” The closest Williams came to reporting Winner ’ s left-wing ideology was a mention about how “ on Twitter , she 's no fan of Donald Trump , once calling him an ‘ orange fascist. ’ ” But he played a clip of her mother , Billie Winner-Davis defending her daughter . “ She is a good person . She volunteers , she does whatever she can to make the community and the world better , ” she told the press . On the “ CBS Evening News , ” Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett merely brushed over her anti-Trump hatred . “ Winner , whose social media postings sharply criticized President Trump , faces up to 10 years in prison , ” he said . Garrett followed that up with a clip of Winner 's stepfather , saying : “ She 's dedicated , you know , to trying to make the world a better place. ” CBS framed the story as Trump cracking down on government leaks . `` Well , President Trump promised to crack down and now a government contractor has been charged with leaking about Russian interference with the U.S. election , '' bemoaned anchor Scott Pelley with the headline `` Leak Crackdown '' behind him . ABC ’ s “ World News Tonight ” ignored Winner ’ s political leanings all together , but on four different times , they mentioned that she was a veteran . “ Reality Leigh Winner , an NSA linguist trained in Farsi and Pashto , who received an Air Force commendation medal , described by family as a patriot , ” reported Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas . Winner ’ s social media accounts were crawling with her radical political posts , but Thomas couldn ’ t be bothered to report on it . Instead , he was more interested in her workout and yoga videos on Facebook . “ A young woman into fitness , seen here on Facebook discussing yoga instruction and competing in weightlifting , ” he noted . And for the Spanish-language networks , Univision also failed to report Winner ’ s radical left-wing ideology . Meanwhile , on Telemundo , they thought it wise to not report on Winner nor the NSA leaks altogether . Winner ’ s political philosophy should have been a major part of the story because it can explain why she leaked classified secrets . But by omitting it from their reports , or playing it down , they falsely painted her as an apolitical person doing it for a just cause when she was likely doing it to hurt Trump . And that makes us all Losers . Nicholas Fondacaro is a media analyst for NewsBusters and the Media Research Center .	Editor's note: The following column originally appeared on NewsBusters.org. Not long after top-secret documents from the National Security Agency made their way onto the Internet news site The Intercept on Monday, the Justice Department arrested NSA contractor Reality Winner. The 25-year-old Air Force veteran worked on a military base in Georgia, but online she had a long history of being heavily anti-Trump, an apparent social justice warrior, and a supporter of Iran over the U.S. During their evening broadcasts, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) either played down her political attitudes, or outright ignored them as they reported on what she did. During his report on “NBC Nightly News,” Justice Correspondent Pete Williams passed along her family’s claim that “she wasn't highly political,” and anchor Lester Holt claimed her “motive is a mystery.” But in reality, Winner was anything but silent about her political views. *Caution, Winner's social media posts contain very strong language* In a tweet she wrote earlier this year, she smeared Trump, saying: “the most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the White House.” She had tweeted profanities targeting Trump, such as #FckingWall, #TrumpIsAC*t, and she tweeted the anti-Trump rallying cry of #notmypresident. Winner also was a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and had said on Twitter that “being white is terrorism.” And in a response to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who said “We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense,” Winner proclaimed her support for Iran, writing: “There are many Americans protesting U.S. govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you!” The closest Williams came to reporting Winner’s left-wing ideology was a mention about how “on Twitter, she's no fan of Donald Trump, once calling him an ‘orange fascist.’” But he played a clip of her mother, Billie Winner-Davis defending her daughter. “She is a good person. She volunteers, she does whatever she can to make the community and the world better,” she told the press. On the “CBS Evening News,” Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett merely brushed over her anti-Trump hatred. “Winner, whose social media postings sharply criticized President Trump, faces up to 10 years in prison,” he said. Garrett followed that up with a clip of Winner's stepfather, saying: “She's dedicated, you know, to trying to make the world a better place.” CBS framed the story as Trump cracking down on government leaks. "Well, President Trump promised to crack down and now a government contractor has been charged with leaking about Russian interference with the U.S. election," bemoaned anchor Scott Pelley with the headline "Leak Crackdown" behind him. ABC’s “World News Tonight” ignored Winner’s political leanings all together, but on four different times, they mentioned that she was a veteran. “Reality Leigh Winner, an NSA linguist trained in Farsi and Pashto, who received an Air Force commendation medal, described by family as a patriot,” reported Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas. Winner’s social media accounts were crawling with her radical political posts, but Thomas couldn’t be bothered to report on it. Instead, he was more interested in her workout and yoga videos on Facebook. “A young woman into fitness, seen here on Facebook discussing yoga instruction and competing in weightlifting,” he noted. And for the Spanish-language networks, Univision also failed to report Winner’s radical left-wing ideology. Meanwhile, on Telemundo, they thought it wise to not report on Winner nor the NSA leaks altogether. Winner’s political philosophy should have been a major part of the story because it can explain why she leaked classified secrets. But by omitting it from their reports, or playing it down, they falsely painted her as an apolitical person doing it for a just cause when she was likely doing it to hurt Trump. And that makes us all Losers. Nicholas Fondacaro is a media analyst for NewsBusters and the Media Research Center.	www.foxnews.com	1right	srxpl045dPCQNO3N
white_house	CNN (Web News)	00	https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/politics/trump-personal-assistant-madeleine-westerhout/index.html	Trump's personal assistant abruptly exits White House after sharing details about President's family	2019-08-29	Jim Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, Noah Gray, Pamela Brown, Paul Leblanc	Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump 's personal assistant , who 's been with him since the start of his administration , has abruptly left the White House after sharing intimate details about the President 's family with reporters , multiple people tell CNN . A former White House official told CNN that Trump was close with Westerhout -- whose office was directly in front of the Oval Office -- but discussing personal information about his family was a red line . Her ouster marks yet another departure from an administration beset by a series of exits by high-ranking officials . It also underlines the President 's battle against the extensive leaks out of the White House and his greater campaign against the press , and could have a chilling effect on future contacts between members of the administration and reporters . A person familiar with the dinner at the Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights , New Jersey -- where reporters stay during Trump 's visits -- said Westerhout and deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley attended a dinner alongside several reporters during his most recent trip . CNN was not among the news organizations represented at the dinner . These dinners are common during the President 's trips and are typically treated as off the record , as was this one . Westerhout 's abrupt departure came as a surprise to her colleagues who had no idea about the matter , several people told CNN . She was seen as someone loyal to Trump and a true believer in his policies , sources said , though it has been reported in two books she was in tears when he won on Election Night . Before joining the Trump administration , Westerhout served as the assistant to Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Katie Walsh , who later became a senior adviser to the Trump transition team . In this role , Westerhout was frequently seen escorting key members of the Trump 's transition team through the Trump Tower lobby . `` The President-elect wanted to make sure all of his meetings were very transparent , so it became a little bit more public than I originally thought it was going to be , '' she told CNN in 2016 .	Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's personal assistant, who's been with him since the start of his administration, has abruptly left the White House after sharing intimate details about the President's family with reporters, multiple people tell CNN. A former White House official told CNN that Trump was close with Westerhout -- whose office was directly in front of the Oval Office -- but discussing personal information about his family was a red line. Her ouster marks yet another departure from an administration beset by a series of exits by high-ranking officials . It also underlines the President's battle against the extensive leaks out of the White House and his greater campaign against the press , and could have a chilling effect on future contacts between members of the administration and reporters. A person familiar with the dinner at the Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey -- where reporters stay during Trump's visits -- said Westerhout and deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley attended a dinner alongside several reporters during his most recent trip. CNN was not among the news organizations represented at the dinner. These dinners are common during the President's trips and are typically treated as off the record, as was this one. Westerhout's abrupt departure came as a surprise to her colleagues who had no idea about the matter, several people told CNN. She was seen as someone loyal to Trump and a true believer in his policies, sources said, though it has been reported in two books she was in tears when he won on Election Night. Before joining the Trump administration, Westerhout served as the assistant to Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Katie Walsh, who later became a senior adviser to the Trump transition team. In this role, Westerhout was frequently seen escorting key members of the Trump's transition team through the Trump Tower lobby. "The President-elect wanted to make sure all of his meetings were very transparent, so it became a little bit more public than I originally thought it was going to be," she told CNN in 2016.	www.cnn.com	0left	ivjNrorJLlcgFpfh
us_senate	Wall Street Journal - News	11	http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579210483046769634	Sen. Harry Reid is widely expected to rally Democrats to pass new filibuster rules		Kristina Peterson, Janet Hook, Kristina.Peterson Wsj.Com	WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is rallying Democrats to pass new rules easing the confirmation process for executive-branch nominations and for many federal judges , despite a risk it could further sour relations between the parties . The Nevada Democrat is widely expected on Thursday to call a vote on changing the Senate rules on the use of the filibuster , in a move that is often called the `` nuclear option . '' Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid , shown this week , pushed a change in filibuster rules earlier this year . Associated Press Mr. Reid now has the needed 51 votes to change the rules , said Sen. Michael Bennet ( D. , Colo. ) , a member of the Senate Democratic leadership . He said it was `` a real possibility '' that Mr. Reid would call a vote on Thursday . `` And if he does , he has the votes . '' Mr. Reid pushed his party to change the rules earlier this year , only to pull back after coming to an agreement with GOP senators on a set of nominations . The change would curb the minority party 's main source of leverage in the Senate 's frequent battles over confirming the president 's nominees to executive and most judicial posts . Republicans , now in the minority , have often required a 60-vote threshold to consider nominees . The change under consideration would allow a confirmation to proceed with just 51 votes . Democrats would still allow the minority party to demand 60 votes to advance Supreme Court nominations , which could protect their own leverage should the GOP take control of the Senate and White House . But Republicans warned that if Democrats change the rules , they ca n't expect Republicans to abide by any special carve-outs for the high court , if they gain the upper hand in the chamber . If Mr. Reid `` changes the rules for some judicial nominees , he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees , including the Supreme Court , '' said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa , the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee , in a written statement on Wednesday . The White House is deferring to Mr. Reid on how he wants to handle Senate filibuster procedures , a White House official said . Sen. John McCain ( R. , Ariz. ) on Wednesday made a last-ditch effort to cut a deal to avert the rules change—as he did successfully last summer , when Republicans agreed to allow several contested nominations to clear the Senate . But many Democrats remain wary of any such deal , because they believe last summer 's arrangement did little to make the GOP stand down . Since late October , Republican senators have blocked Mr. Obama 's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . Those nominations would likely advance after any rules change . In recent years , lawmakers from both parties have sought more frequently to block the president 's picks . Between 1967 and 1992 , the Senate took steps to set up a cloture vote—a move usually intended to overcome a filibuster—on only eight judicial nominees and four executive-branch nominees . By contrast , between 2003 and 2012 , the Senate began cloture proceedings on 50 judicial nominees and 37 executive nominees . Some Democrats said they worried that even if they pull back from altering the rules now , Republicans might not show the same deference . `` I just do n't think we should be so optimistic that Republicans are going to afford Democrats the protections traditionally afforded the minority if they get control of the Senate , '' Sen. Chris Murphy ( D. , Conn. ) said on Wednesday . Sen. John Cornyn of Texas , the Senate 's second-highest-ranking Republican , said it was `` pure fantasy '' that Democrats were taking this step now to anticipate a similar move by the GOP later . `` There 's no basis for that , '' he said . Boyden Gray , former White House counsel under President George H.W . Bush , said it could ultimately benefit Republicans if Democrats make the controversial change . `` Let them go ahead , and then the Republicans will have a free hand if and when they take the Senate and White House , '' he said . Some lawmakers worried Wednesday that implementing the proposed rules change would inflame partisan tensions in the Senate , as well as relations with the GOP-led House .	WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is rallying Democrats to pass new rules easing the confirmation process for executive-branch nominations and for many federal judges, despite a risk it could further sour relations between the parties. The Nevada Democrat is widely expected on Thursday to call a vote on changing the Senate rules on the use of the filibuster, in a move that is often called the "nuclear option." Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, shown this week, pushed a change in filibuster rules earlier this year. Associated Press Mr. Reid now has the needed 51 votes to change the rules, said Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. He said it was "a real possibility'' that Mr. Reid would call a vote on Thursday. "And if he does, he has the votes." Mr. Reid pushed his party to change the rules earlier this year, only to pull back after coming to an agreement with GOP senators on a set of nominations. The change would curb the minority party's main source of leverage in the Senate's frequent battles over confirming the president's nominees to executive and most judicial posts. Republicans, now in the minority, have often required a 60-vote threshold to consider nominees. The change under consideration would allow a confirmation to proceed with just 51 votes. Democrats would still allow the minority party to demand 60 votes to advance Supreme Court nominations, which could protect their own leverage should the GOP take control of the Senate and White House. But Republicans warned that if Democrats change the rules, they can't expect Republicans to abide by any special carve-outs for the high court, if they gain the upper hand in the chamber. If Mr. Reid "changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a written statement on Wednesday. The White House is deferring to Mr. Reid on how he wants to handle Senate filibuster procedures, a White House official said. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on Wednesday made a last-ditch effort to cut a deal to avert the rules change—as he did successfully last summer, when Republicans agreed to allow several contested nominations to clear the Senate. But many Democrats remain wary of any such deal, because they believe last summer's arrangement did little to make the GOP stand down. Since late October, Republican senators have blocked Mr. Obama's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Those nominations would likely advance after any rules change. In recent years, lawmakers from both parties have sought more frequently to block the president's picks. Between 1967 and 1992, the Senate took steps to set up a cloture vote—a move usually intended to overcome a filibuster—on only eight judicial nominees and four executive-branch nominees. By contrast, between 2003 and 2012, the Senate began cloture proceedings on 50 judicial nominees and 37 executive nominees. Some Democrats said they worried that even if they pull back from altering the rules now, Republicans might not show the same deference. "I just don't think we should be so optimistic that Republicans are going to afford Democrats the protections traditionally afforded the minority if they get control of the Senate," Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said on Wednesday. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-highest-ranking Republican, said it was "pure fantasy" that Democrats were taking this step now to anticipate a similar move by the GOP later. "There's no basis for that," he said. Boyden Gray, former White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush, said it could ultimately benefit Republicans if Democrats make the controversial change. "Let them go ahead, and then the Republicans will have a free hand if and when they take the Senate and White House," he said. Some lawmakers worried Wednesday that implementing the proposed rules change would inflame partisan tensions in the Senate, as well as relations with the GOP-led House. —Peter Nicholas contributed to this article. Write to Kristina Peterson at [email protected] and Janet Hook at [email protected]	www.online.wsj.com	2center	Gmv65JWh6JkESamr
asia	NPR Online News	11	http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/22/358032257/hong-kong-students-march-on-chief-executives-residence	Hong Kong Students March On Chief Executive's Residence	2014-10-22	Scott Neuman	Activists in Hong Kong , angered by what they perceive as little progress in talks on democratic reforms with the government , marched to the home of the territory 's chief executive to demand his ouster . Reuters says : `` Others continued to occupy main streets in the Chinese-controlled city , where they have camped for nearly a month in protest against a central government plan that would give Hong Kong people the chance to vote for their own leader in 2017 but tightly restrict the candidates to Beijing loyalists . '' About 200 protesters held signs at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying 's home . The BBC reports that many were also angered by Leung 's recent remarks arguing that `` universal suffrage '' in the former British colony would lead to the poorer segments of society gaining control . As we reported on Tuesday , the government held a televised meeting with student activists in an effort to defuse the crisis , but the results were inconclusive . According to the South China Morning Post , police had to intervene on Wednesday in Mong Kok , one of three main protest sites , to prevent taxi drivers from tearing down barriers . `` Rubbish bins , fences , wooden pallets and bamboo poles were ripped up by members of the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association and loaded onto the back of a truck with a crane , as angry protesters rushed to stop the destruction at the Dundas Street end of Nathan Road . '' The cabbies are angry at the blocked streets that have resulted from the weeks of protests . The SCMP also reports that Hong Kong 's Commerce Secretary Greg So Kam-leung has told the territory 's lawmakers that more than 70 government websites have been hacked . The commerce secretary said hackers identifying themselves as from the group Anonymous `` issued a warning to the government and police force on October 2 after tear gas was fired at pro-democracy demonstrators in the city , '' SCMP says .	Hong Kong Students March On Chief Executive's Residence Enlarge this image toggle caption Bobby Yip/Reuters/Landov Bobby Yip/Reuters/Landov Activists in Hong Kong, angered by what they perceive as little progress in talks on democratic reforms with the government, marched to the home of the territory's chief executive to demand his ouster. Reuters says: "Others continued to occupy main streets in the Chinese-controlled city, where they have camped for nearly a month in protest against a central government plan that would give Hong Kong people the chance to vote for their own leader in 2017 but tightly restrict the candidates to Beijing loyalists." About 200 protesters held signs at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's home. The BBC reports that many were also angered by Leung's recent remarks arguing that "universal suffrage" in the former British colony would lead to the poorer segments of society gaining control. As we reported on Tuesday, the government held a televised meeting with student activists in an effort to defuse the crisis, but the results were inconclusive. According to the South China Morning Post, police had to intervene on Wednesday in Mong Kok, one of three main protest sites, to prevent taxi drivers from tearing down barriers. "Rubbish bins, fences, wooden pallets and bamboo poles were ripped up by members of the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association and loaded onto the back of a truck with a crane, as angry protesters rushed to stop the destruction at the Dundas Street end of Nathan Road." The cabbies are angry at the blocked streets that have resulted from the weeks of protests. The SCMP also reports that Hong Kong's Commerce Secretary Greg So Kam-leung has told the territory's lawmakers that more than 70 government websites have been hacked. The commerce secretary said hackers identifying themselves as from the group Anonymous "issued a warning to the government and police force on October 2 after tear gas was fired at pro-democracy demonstrators in the city," SCMP says.	www.npr.org	2center	dgDrlwDqWaUOoekz
economy_and_jobs	The Hill	11	http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/293725-powerful-under-used-tool-for-reducing-income-inequality	Powerful, under-used tool for reducing income-inequality: broad-based ownership	2016-08-30		When income inequality in the United States is reportedly the highest it has ever been , it ’ s little wonder that the average American ’ s confidence in the economy is low and dropping . Gallup recently reported that the Economic Confidence Index in mid-July had plunged nearly 20 percent from 18 months earlier . The American Dream is seen as beyond reach by most Americans . If the baby boomer generation grew up in a world where many middle class families were headed by small business owners , today that path to prosperity has been largely foreclosed . The top 10 percent of the wealthiest now hold two-thirds of national wealth . Instead of being broadly shared , wealth is flowing to folks like the highest paid CEOs managing some of the worst performing companies . Meanwhile , much of the rest of America is barely getting by , with a disturbing 40 percent of jobs in the U.S. today as part-time , temporary , or contingent . It ’ s past time to keep leaning on old , tired solutions and recognize that if we are to have a hopeful future , it lies with tackling wealth inequality at its source , which means moving asset ownership from the hands of the few to the hands of the many . A movement to do just that has already quietly begun at the community level . In dozens of communities nationwide , broad , local coalitions of civic , advocacy , city and state leaders are taking steps to return wealth to our communities by embracing policies and practices that create broad-based ownership . A shift in public policy from wealth concentration and extraction to one of assets rooted in communities is both feasible and broadly beneficial . Employee-owned businesses , for example , pay 5 to 12 percent more in wages than traditionally owned companies . Workers at these firms have more than double the retirement accounts , and are one-fourth as likely to be laid off . Employee Stock Ownership Plan ( ESOP ) companies , over a ten-year period , showed 2.5 percent higher job growth than other firms . Employee ownership also brings increased productivity and higher profitability to companies . An ESOP is a form of employee ownership where employee shares are held in a retirement trust . One of the most successful is Recology in San Francisco , a firm with $ 800 million in revenues , which is 100 percent owned by its 3,000 employees , who perform waste collection and recycling services for tens of thousands of municipalities and businesses . Nationally , there are more than 7,000 companies with ESOPs , covering more than 10 million employees , who collectively have assets of nearly $ 1 trillion . Employee ownership is just one model of broad-based ownership . Other models include social enterprises , municipally owned enterprises , and emerging hybrids like B Corporations ( which are profit-making firms with a professed aim of social benefit ) . The nation ’ s largest banks can be key allies in promoting these kinds of job-creating models , for they are already committed , under the framework of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act , to invest in low- and moderate-income communities . Employee ownership is a model that has been proven over many decades , but is uniquely poised to go to scale today , with the coming wave of company sales from aging baby boomer entrepreneurs . At least 7 million owners of privately held businesses will reach retirement age between now and 2030 . We are on the brink of the largest generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind . How will this affect communities ? It depends on who buys these businesses . If sold to private equity , these company transfers will create more wealth for the already wealthy . But if sold to employees , these companies can represent new wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans . We can begin to restore the American Dream . Working collaboratively toward that end is the aim of a new initiative called 50 by 50 , with a goal of 50 million employee owners by 2050 . Members of the 50 by 50 campaign are as diverse as the Democracy at Work Institute , the City of Madison , Wisconsin , Citi Community Development and Prairie Capital Advisors . Already working towards this shift in broad-based ownership are cities like New York , which has allocated $ 3.3 million over two years to develop worker cooperatives . The city is already home to the nation ’ s largest worker cooperative , Cooperative Home Health Care Associates , which has revenues of $ 60 million and employs over 2,300 people , many of them women of color . The company ’ s mission is not profit maximization but providing quality home care at living wages . Beyond municipal policy , another tool for advancing broad-based ownership is the nation ’ s nearly 1,000 Community Development Finance Institutions ( CDFIs ) , chartered to aid disadvantaged communities . If adequately capitalized and focused , these CDFIs are a resource for facilitating and financing business conversions to ESOPs or cooperatives . For example , in 2014 , the Cooperative Fund of New England and Coastal Enterprises , Inc. , of Maine joined forces to finance a $ 5.6 million worker buyout from retiring business owners of three rural Maine businesses , converting those businesses into the 45-member worker-owned Island Employee Cooperatives . At the national level , H.R . 2096 , the Promotion and Expansion of Employee Ownership Act , would aid in spreading the development of ESOPs by providing further tax incentives for conversion and technical assistance for making the transition . Sixty-eight percent of Americans support employee ownership . And it ’ s no surprise why , since employee ownership offers greater protection against layoffs , keeps companies rooted locally over the long term , and works to spread wealth to many . Proven to be stable and sustainable models for economic growth , broad-based ownership models provide an important new strategy for reversing income inequality . As more and more cities and states develop cooperative economic models , financing of broad-based ownership is no longer on the fringe of economic debate ; it ’ s just good business . Marjorie Kelly is a Senior Fellow and Executive Vice-President of the Democracy Collaborative .	When income inequality in the United States is reportedly the highest it has ever been, it’s little wonder that the average American’s confidence in the economy is low and dropping. Gallup recently reported that the Economic Confidence Index in mid-July had plunged nearly 20 percent from 18 months earlier. The American Dream is seen as beyond reach by most Americans. If the baby boomer generation grew up in a world where many middle class families were headed by small business owners, today that path to prosperity has been largely foreclosed. The top 10 percent of the wealthiest now hold two-thirds of national wealth. Instead of being broadly shared, wealth is flowing to folks like the highest paid CEOs managing some of the worst performing companies. Meanwhile, much of the rest of America is barely getting by, with a disturbing 40 percent of jobs in the U.S. today as part-time, temporary, or contingent. It’s past time to keep leaning on old, tired solutions and recognize that if we are to have a hopeful future, it lies with tackling wealth inequality at its source, which means moving asset ownership from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. A movement to do just that has already quietly begun at the community level. In dozens of communities nationwide, broad, local coalitions of civic, advocacy, city and state leaders are taking steps to return wealth to our communities by embracing policies and practices that create broad-based ownership. ADVERTISEMENT A shift in public policy from wealth concentration and extraction to one of assets rooted in communities is both feasible and broadly beneficial. Employee-owned businesses, for example, pay 5 to 12 percent more in wages than traditionally owned companies. Workers at these firms have more than double the retirement accounts, and are one-fourth as likely to be laid off. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) companies, over a ten-year period, showed 2.5 percent higher job growth than other firms. Employee ownership also brings increased productivity and higher profitability to companies. An ESOP is a form of employee ownership where employee shares are held in a retirement trust. One of the most successful is Recology in San Francisco, a firm with $800 million in revenues, which is 100 percent owned by its 3,000 employees, who perform waste collection and recycling services for tens of thousands of municipalities and businesses. Nationally, there are more than 7,000 companies with ESOPs, covering more than 10 million employees, who collectively have assets of nearly $1 trillion. Employee ownership is just one model of broad-based ownership. Other models include social enterprises, municipally owned enterprises, and emerging hybrids like B Corporations (which are profit-making firms with a professed aim of social benefit). The nation’s largest banks can be key allies in promoting these kinds of job-creating models, for they are already committed, under the framework of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to invest in low- and moderate-income communities. Employee ownership is a model that has been proven over many decades, but is uniquely poised to go to scale today, with the coming wave of company sales from aging baby boomer entrepreneurs. At least 7 million owners of privately held businesses will reach retirement age between now and 2030. We are on the brink of the largest generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind. How will this affect communities? It depends on who buys these businesses. If sold to private equity, these company transfers will create more wealth for the already wealthy. But if sold to employees, these companies can represent new wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans. We can begin to restore the American Dream. Working collaboratively toward that end is the aim of a new initiative called 50 by 50, with a goal of 50 million employee owners by 2050. Members of the 50 by 50 campaign are as diverse as the Democracy at Work Institute, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, Citi Community Development and Prairie Capital Advisors. Already working towards this shift in broad-based ownership are cities like New York, which has allocated $3.3 million over two years to develop worker cooperatives. The city is already home to the nation’s largest worker cooperative, Cooperative Home Health Care Associates, which has revenues of $60 million and employs over 2,300 people, many of them women of color. The company’s mission is not profit maximization but providing quality home care at living wages. Beyond municipal policy, another tool for advancing broad-based ownership is the nation’s nearly 1,000 Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), chartered to aid disadvantaged communities. If adequately capitalized and focused, these CDFIs are a resource for facilitating and financing business conversions to ESOPs or cooperatives. For example, in 2014, the Cooperative Fund of New England and Coastal Enterprises, Inc., of Maine joined forces to finance a $5.6 million worker buyout from retiring business owners of three rural Maine businesses, converting those businesses into the 45-member worker-owned Island Employee Cooperatives. At the national level, H.R. 2096, the Promotion and Expansion of Employee Ownership Act, would aid in spreading the development of ESOPs by providing further tax incentives for conversion and technical assistance for making the transition. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support employee ownership. And it’s no surprise why, since employee ownership offers greater protection against layoffs, keeps companies rooted locally over the long term, and works to spread wealth to many. Proven to be stable and sustainable models for economic growth, broad-based ownership models provide an important new strategy for reversing income inequality. As more and more cities and states develop cooperative economic models, financing of broad-based ownership is no longer on the fringe of economic debate; it’s just good business. Marjorie Kelly is a Senior Fellow and Executive Vice-President of the Democracy Collaborative.	www.thehill.com	2center	XMoCNEfqRGZZudQX
culture	CNN (Web News)	00	https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/politics/trump-churches-base-memorial-day-weekend/index.html	Trump stokes base with call to reopen churches as Americans head into uncertain holiday weekend	2020-05-23	Analysis Maeve Reston	( CNN ) President Donald Trump made another play to his base Friday , declaring churches and houses of worship `` essential '' and sharply warning the nation 's governors that he would `` override '' any actions they take that interfere with the resumption of religious services . It was a move meant to shore up the support of his core supporters at a time when Trump 's reelection prospects look uncertain in the midst of declining approval of his handling of the virus and the economic meltdown . Adding fuel to the latest controversy on the right -- just as he did when he supported protesters at state capitols who rebelled against their states ' lockdowns -- Trump tried to assert authority he does not have as part of his relentless push for normalcy . His comments came as the nation headed into Memorial Day weekend , a time when health experts worry that Americans ' vigilance will give way to complacency with the potential for crowded beaches , pools , parks , holiday barbecues -- and now churches -- across the country . An updated predictions model from the PolicyLab at Children 's Hospital of Philadelphia this week forecasts that Miami and parts of Alabama , Tennessee and Texas will see rapid surges in new cases Neither the President nor his press secretary explained Friday how he plans to follow through on his threat to governors , which he issued shortly before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released voluntary recommendations for religious institutions . Still , Trump 's remarks Friday were threaded with his impatience for the cautionary warnings of the scientists and medical experts within his own administration , who are worried about a resurgence of coronavirus cases and have highlighted the risks of large gatherings ( which many religious services could entail ) . Throughout the week , he has courted his evangelical supporters with his charge that governors are treating churches unfairly and his insistence that he wants to `` get the churches open . '' Trump said Friday that some governors have `` deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential , '' but have left out churches and other houses of worship . `` It 's not right . So I 'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential , '' he said during a brief statement at the White House . `` I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now . If there 's any question , they 're going to have to call me , but they 're not going to be successful in that call , '' Trump said . `` The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now , for this weekend . If they do n't do it , I will override the governors . In America we need more prayer , not less , '' he said , taking no questions from reporters . As his general election campaign with former Vice President Joe Biden heats up , Trump has increasingly invoked America 's culture wars . During a `` Rolling to Remember '' ceremony earlier on Friday to honor the nation 's veterans , prisoners of war and those missing in action -- where he spoke to bikers who then rode two laps around the White House driveway -- Trump noted his political support from bikers . `` Always there , the bikers , '' he said . `` What do I have ? 98 % ? 95 ? We 're trying to find who are the 3 % or the 2 % . We 're looking for them , right ? '' `` November 3rd is a big day , '' Trump said , referring to the November election after they lapped the South Lawn Drive . `` We do n't want to destroy this country . We 're going to make it bigger , better , greater than ever before . '' Though the Memorial Day weekend traditionally kicks off summer , this year 's holiday will be anything but normal with many governors , mayors and local officials calling on their states ' residents to continue social distancing , wear masks and stay as close to home as possible . Speaking from the briefing room podium later on Friday , Dr. Deborah Birx , the administration 's coronavirus response coordinator , tempered some of Trump 's enthusiasm for reopening -- emphasizing both the social distancing guidelines that churches should adhere to in order to reopen as well as the safety precautions Americans must take to enjoy their favorite pastimes this weekend . In encouraging news , Birx noted that 42 states now have less a less than 10 % positivity rate of cases as a rolling seven-day average . But she noted that Maryland , the District of Columbia and Virginia are still the top states with high numbers of cases , followed by Nebraska , Illinois and Minnesota . `` There is still significant virus circulating here , '' she said of the Washington area . Birx also highlighted the top metropolitan areas where the rate of positive cases has stalled or increased as places where Americans should be especially cautious this weekend . The DC metro area topped that list , followed by Baltimore , Chicago and Minneapolis . ( All of the others were below the 10 % threshold , which Birx said , showed `` great progress . '' ) Despite the encouraging news from Birx about the decline in the rate of positive cases , the holiday weekend could also mark another grim moment in the pandemic as the number of deaths in the US approached 100,000 . `` We think we 're going to hit the milestone of 100,000 deaths over the four-day weekend , '' said Dr. Chris Murray , the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , which has produced one of the most influential coronavirus models . Looking ahead to the holiday weekend , Birx said Americans could get outside with a long list of caveats . Some Americans could play golf , she said , for example , if they are `` very careful '' and `` do n't touch the flags . '' She suggested playing tennis with `` marked balls '' and just one other person so `` you 're only touching your ball . '' This weekend , if Americans want to do some kind of social gathering , `` it 's very important to maintain that six feet distance and very important to have your mask with you in case that six feet distance can not be maintained , '' Birx said . `` We are asking continuously for you all to be outside , to enjoy your Memorial Day weekend ; to play golf ; to hike as Dr. ( Anthony ) Fauci said ; to play tennis with marked balls -- and to be out with your families that you have been in the household with ; and even consider sharing socially distanced space as long as you have utensils that belong to individuals and that maybe can be thrown out immediately , '' Birx said . `` There 's a lot of things to think through . I know you can do this . I know the American people can do it . '' When asked about Trump 's declaration that churches and houses of worship should reopen , Birx said faith community leaders should be in touch with their local health departments to check the number of new cases in their zip codes , so they can communicate the risks to congregants . `` Certainly people that have significant co-morbidities , we want them protected . I know those houses of worship want to protect them , '' Birx said . `` So really ensuring that -- maybe they ca n't go this week if there 's high number of Covid cases . Maybe they wait another week , but there is a way to social distance like you are here , '' she said , gesturing to the reporters who were spaced several seats apart in the White House briefing room , `` in places of worship . '' Though Baltimore is one of the areas of concern for public health officials like Birx , Trump and first lady Melania Trump plan to travel to Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Monday to commemorate Memorial Day . They will do so in spite of a plea from Baltimore 's Mayor Bernard `` Jack '' Young who said the trip will send the wrong message at a time when he is asking the city 's residents not to travel . `` I 'm asking the President to rethink his trip . It sends a bad , bad message to the citizens of Baltimore because I 'm asking them to stay home and only come out for essential reasons , '' Young told CNN 's John King . `` I just want him to set the example for the rest of the country and not do this trip , because it 's not essential . '' White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere responded to earlier criticism from Young by stating that `` the brave men and women who have preserved our freedoms for generations did not stay home and the President will not either as he honors their sacrifice by visiting such a historic landmark in our Nation 's history . ''	(CNN) President Donald Trump made another play to his base Friday, declaring churches and houses of worship "essential" and sharply warning the nation's governors that he would "override" any actions they take that interfere with the resumption of religious services. It was a move meant to shore up the support of his core supporters at a time when Trump's reelection prospects look uncertain in the midst of declining approval of his handling of the virus and the economic meltdown. Adding fuel to the latest controversy on the right -- just as he did when he supported protesters at state capitols who rebelled against their states' lockdowns -- Trump tried to assert authority he does not have as part of his relentless push for normalcy. His comments came as the nation headed into Memorial Day weekend, a time when health experts worry that Americans' vigilance will give way to complacency with the potential for crowded beaches, pools , parks, holiday barbecues -- and now churches -- across the country. An updated predictions model from the PolicyLab at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia this week forecasts that Miami and parts of Alabama, Tennessee and Texas will see rapid surges in new cases Neither the President nor his press secretary explained Friday how he plans to follow through on his threat to governors, which he issued shortly before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released voluntary recommendations for religious institutions. Still, Trump's remarks Friday were threaded with his impatience for the cautionary warnings of the scientists and medical experts within his own administration, who are worried about a resurgence of coronavirus cases and have highlighted the risks of large gatherings (which many religious services could entail). Throughout the week, he has courted his evangelical supporters with his charge that governors are treating churches unfairly and his insistence that he wants to "get the churches open." Trump said Friday that some governors have "deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential," but have left out churches and other houses of worship. "It's not right. So I'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential," he said during a brief statement at the White House. "I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If there's any question, they're going to have to call me, but they're not going to be successful in that call," Trump said. "The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend. If they don't do it, I will override the governors. In America we need more prayer, not less," he said, taking no questions from reporters. As his general election campaign with former Vice President Joe Biden heats up, Trump has increasingly invoked America's culture wars. During a "Rolling to Remember" ceremony earlier on Friday to honor the nation's veterans, prisoners of war and those missing in action -- where he spoke to bikers who then rode two laps around the White House driveway -- Trump noted his political support from bikers. "Always there, the bikers," he said. "What do I have? 98%? 95? We're trying to find who are the 3% or the 2%. We're looking for them, right?" "November 3rd is a big day," Trump said, referring to the November election after they lapped the South Lawn Drive. "We don't want to destroy this country. We're going to make it bigger, better, greater than ever before." Birx urges safety precautions Though the Memorial Day weekend traditionally kicks off summer, this year's holiday will be anything but normal with many governors, mayors and local officials calling on their states' residents to continue social distancing, wear masks and stay as close to home as possible. Speaking from the briefing room podium later on Friday, Dr. Deborah Birx, the administration's coronavirus response coordinator, tempered some of Trump's enthusiasm for reopening -- emphasizing both the social distancing guidelines that churches should adhere to in order to reopen as well as the safety precautions Americans must take to enjoy their favorite pastimes this weekend. In encouraging news, Birx noted that 42 states now have less a less than 10% positivity rate of cases as a rolling seven-day average. But she noted that Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia are still the top states with high numbers of cases, followed by Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota. "There is still significant virus circulating here," she said of the Washington area. Birx also highlighted the top metropolitan areas where the rate of positive cases has stalled or increased as places where Americans should be especially cautious this weekend. The DC metro area topped that list, followed by Baltimore, Chicago and Minneapolis. (All of the others were below the 10% threshold, which Birx said, showed " great progress .") Despite the encouraging news from Birx about the decline in the rate of positive cases, the holiday weekend could also mark another grim moment in the pandemic as the number of deaths in the US approached 100,000. "We think we're going to hit the milestone of 100,000 deaths over the four-day weekend," said Dr. Chris Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, which has produced one of the most influential coronavirus models. Looking ahead to the holiday weekend, Birx said Americans could get outside with a long list of caveats. Some Americans could play golf, she said, for example, if they are "very careful" and "don't touch the flags." She suggested playing tennis with "marked balls" and just one other person so "you're only touching your ball." This weekend, if Americans want to do some kind of social gathering, "it's very important to maintain that six feet distance and very important to have your mask with you in case that six feet distance cannot be maintained," Birx said. "We are asking continuously for you all to be outside, to enjoy your Memorial Day weekend; to play golf; to hike as Dr. (Anthony) Fauci said; to play tennis with marked balls -- and to be out with your families that you have been in the household with; and even consider sharing socially distanced space as long as you have utensils that belong to individuals and that maybe can be thrown out immediately," Birx said. "There's a lot of things to think through. I know you can do this. I know the American people can do it." When asked about Trump's declaration that churches and houses of worship should reopen, Birx said faith community leaders should be in touch with their local health departments to check the number of new cases in their zip codes, so they can communicate the risks to congregants. "Certainly people that have significant co-morbidities, we want them protected. I know those houses of worship want to protect them," Birx said. "So really ensuring that -- maybe they can't go this week if there's high number of Covid cases. Maybe they wait another week, but there is a way to social distance like you are here," she said, gesturing to the reporters who were spaced several seats apart in the White House briefing room, "in places of worship." Though Baltimore is one of the areas of concern for public health officials like Birx, Trump and first lady Melania Trump plan to travel to Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Monday to commemorate Memorial Day. They will do so in spite of a plea from Baltimore's Mayor Bernard "Jack" Young who said the trip will send the wrong message at a time when he is asking the city's residents not to travel. "I'm asking the President to rethink his trip. It sends a bad, bad message to the citizens of Baltimore because I'm asking them to stay home and only come out for essential reasons," Young told CNN's John King. "I just want him to set the example for the rest of the country and not do this trip, because it's not essential." White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere responded to earlier criticism from Young by stating that "the brave men and women who have preserved our freedoms for generations did not stay home and the President will not either as he honors their sacrifice by visiting such a historic landmark in our Nation's history."	www.cnn.com	0left	jiuCOvhqXhBeudX5
immigration	Washington Times	22	https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/6/trump-signs-memo-vowing-end-to-catch-and-release-o/	Trump signs memo vowing end to ‘catch-and-release’ of illegal immigrants	2018-04-06	Stephen Dinan	President Trump signed a directive Friday ordering the government to end the so-called “ catch-and-release ” policy at the border , moving to combat what the administration says is a growing “ crisis ” of illegal immigration . He called for illegal immigrants nabbed at the border to be held in custody , to the fullest extent possible . He also ordered more asylum officers to head to detention centers so they can rule on cases faster , calculating that if they can clear the cases they can send undeserving migrants home without having to release them . In a memo to his attorney general and secretaries of the State , Defense , Homeland and Health and Human Services departments , Mr. Trump also demanded regular updates on progress , and told them to submit requests for any new resources they need . “ The safety and security of the American people is the president ’ s highest priority , and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected , ” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said . Catch-and-release is the name Border Patrol agents and others involved in the immigration debate have given to the practice of arresting illegal immigrants , processing them and then having to set them free in the U.S. , with the order that they return for a deportation hearing some time in the future . They disappear into the shadows and most never bother to show for their hearings , which can be years later . The Bush administration had tried to end catch-and-release by speeding up deportations of Mexicans . But a shift in migration patterns , with a surge in people from Central America — particularly children and families — has caused the issue to raise its head again . U.S. law , court cases and Obama administration decisions have made it much tougher to deport those people , with a host of legal protections built up around them pushing for them to be released from custody if their cases can ’ t be cleared quickly . Earlier Friday Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the southwest border to bring criminal misdemeanor charges against people who jump the border . Mr. Trump ’ s new memo calls on Mr . Sessions and the other departments to crack down on abuse of the asylum system , after illegal immigrants have learned how to game the system by using “ magic words ” indicating they fear being sent back home . Before 2013 , only about 1 percent of migrants showing up on the border claimed asylum . Now the number is higher than 10 percent , Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said this week . “ Smugglers themselves are gaming the system , pure and simple . They take advantage of the loopholes in our laws . They know that we can not prosecute as we need to to stop their behavior , ” she said .	President Trump signed a directive Friday ordering the government to end the so-called “catch-and-release” policy at the border, moving to combat what the administration says is a growing “crisis” of illegal immigration. He called for illegal immigrants nabbed at the border to be held in custody, to the fullest extent possible. He also ordered more asylum officers to head to detention centers so they can rule on cases faster, calculating that if they can clear the cases they can send undeserving migrants home without having to release them. In a memo to his attorney general and secretaries of the State, Defense, Homeland and Health and Human Services departments, Mr. Trump also demanded regular updates on progress, and told them to submit requests for any new resources they need. “The safety and security of the American people is the president’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. Catch-and-release is the name Border Patrol agents and others involved in the immigration debate have given to the practice of arresting illegal immigrants, processing them and then having to set them free in the U.S., with the order that they return for a deportation hearing some time in the future. They disappear into the shadows and most never bother to show for their hearings, which can be years later. The Bush administration had tried to end catch-and-release by speeding up deportations of Mexicans. But a shift in migration patterns, with a surge in people from Central America — particularly children and families — has caused the issue to raise its head again. U.S. law, court cases and Obama administration decisions have made it much tougher to deport those people, with a host of legal protections built up around them pushing for them to be released from custody if their cases can’t be cleared quickly. Earlier Friday Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the southwest border to bring criminal misdemeanor charges against people who jump the border. Mr. Trump’s new memo calls on Mr. Sessions and the other departments to crack down on abuse of the asylum system, after illegal immigrants have learned how to game the system by using “magic words” indicating they fear being sent back home. Before 2013, only about 1 percent of migrants showing up on the border claimed asylum. Now the number is higher than 10 percent, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said this week. “Smugglers themselves are gaming the system, pure and simple. They take advantage of the loopholes in our laws. They know that we cannot prosecute as we need to to stop their behavior,” she said. Sign up for Daily Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	Vm5nSrZoUgrTgXfh
education	Politico	00	https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/07/white-house-cdc-pediatricians-reopening-schools-350655	DeVos blasts school districts that hesitate at reopening	2020-07-07		███ Dispatch : July 8 The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in families considered food insecure — and that ’ s true across demographic groups . But for Black and Hispanic families , the numbers are unprecedented . DeVos , who has been criticized for standing on the sidelines during the crisis , took a tough tone . During a call with governors , DeVos slammed the Fairfax , Va. , district for its distance learning “ disaster ” in the spring and offering a choice of only zero or two days of in-person instruction moving forward , according to notes of a call , led by Vice President Mike Pence , with governors obtained by ███ . Earlier in the pandemic , DeVos had been more open to kids learning both online and during in-person classes . “ Education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk . … Risk is involved in everything we do , from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between , ” she said . But a statement Tuesday night from teachers unions , the PTA , special education administrators and secondary school principals indicated that their relationship with the White House has hit a new low . `` Throughout this pandemic , the administration has failed to address the needs of students , especially those students who need the most support . They have failed to listen to families and public school educators who have been on the frontlines serving their communities , '' the statement read . `` Public school educators , students and parents must have a voice in critical conversations and decisions on reopening schools . The president should not be brazenly making these decisions . '' Trump and DeVos praised Florida ’ s new reopening plan , which orders the state ’ s public schools to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students . `` We will put out the fires as they come up , but we have to open our schools , ” Trump said , and he decried “ political statements ” that will keep schools closed . “ They think it 's going to be good for them politically , so they keep the schools closed . No way , ” he said during a roundtable discussion at the White House . “ So we 're very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools , to get them open . And it 's very important . It 's very important for our country . It 's very important for the well-being of the student and the parents . ” Trump had tweeted on Monday : `` Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don ’ t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons , not for health reasons ! They think it will help them in November . Wrong , the people get it ! '' The push to reopen comes as parents agonize over whether it will be safe to send their kids back to school this fall and districts wrestle with whether and how to conduct classes . The reopening of schools is vital not just to getting the economy going , but to Trump ’ s reelection prospects . The campaign may be banking on the issue as a way to revive his appeal among disaffected suburban women , whose support will be key . The Trump campaign is also seizing on former Vice President Joe Biden 's support of teachers unions that are stalwarts of Democratic politics and challenging Biden ’ s commitment to helping parents get their kids back to school . The campaign ’ s “ question of the day ” on Tuesday for the presumptive Democratic nominee is “ Will you side with union bosses who want to keep schools closed or parents who want their kids to keep learning ? '' Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar backed up DeVos , saying parents should expect schools to deliver a safe learning environment for their children , even during a pandemic . “ We must reopen , ” he said during a White House event on reopening schools . “ We ’ ve got to get people back to work , back to school , back to health care , because we ca n't stay locked in our homes forever . It 's bad for our physical and mental and emotional health — us as adults , as well as for our kids . ” But Lily Eskelsen García , president of the National Education Association , said `` the reality is no one should listen to Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos when it comes to what is best for students . '' After Trump tweeted , “ SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL ! ! ! , ” García fired back on Monday , “ You forgot to add the word ‘ SAFELY. ’ ” Biden , speaking to the NEA on Friday , pledged his administration will have a `` teacher-oriented '' Department of Education . Meanwhile , American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted on Tuesday that , to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19 , schools need `` double the staff and double the space to teach in person . But with state budgets facing massive cuts as a result of the pandemic , we need federal funding to # ReopenSafely , '' she wrote . The White House hosted events throughout Tuesday on safely reopening , culminating with the roundtable discussion with Trump , first lady Melania Trump , administration officials and teachers , administrators and students from around the country . House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) wrote an op-ed published in USA Today advocating liability protections for schools in any upcoming emergency relief package and underlining GOP support for helping parents with child care problems . Last spring , DeVos , in a slight departure from Trump , suggested through a spokesperson that schools may have to stick with virtual learning if they ’ re not ready to fully reopen . But on Tuesday , during the panel discussion at the White House , she praised Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran for issuing a “ very comprehensive ” plan to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students . “ There may be other states and other communities that want to look at that , but again , with the expectation that students are together and that families will be able to count on a five-day school week if that ’ s the right answer for them , ” she said . During the later panel discussion with Trump , DeVos said too many students `` were trapped in schools that do n't meet their needs '' even before the virus , and that this is the time to reopen and rethink education — a common refrain for the school choice advocate . `` This moment demands actions , '' she said . `` Not excuse-making or fearmongering . '' The White House is leaning on CDC reopening guidance and a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that details the importance of in-person learning and “ strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school . ” CDC Director Robert Redfield said during another White House panel discussion that reopening plans should minimize the risk of Covid-19 while providing students the critical services , academic resources , and social and emotional support they need . And plans should anticipate that Covid cases `` will in fact occur . '' `` The CDC encourages all schools , all schools to do what they need to reopen , '' he said , adding that the agency ’ s guidance viewed as a recommendation to reopen . `` Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school district or school use our guidance as a reason not to reopen . ''	POLITICO Dispatch: July 8 The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in families considered food insecure — and that’s true across demographic groups. But for Black and Hispanic families, the numbers are unprecedented. DeVos, who has been criticized for standing on the sidelines during the crisis, took a tough tone. During a call with governors, DeVos slammed the Fairfax, Va., district for its distance learning “disaster” in the spring and offering a choice of only zero or two days of in-person instruction moving forward, according to notes of a call, led by Vice President Mike Pence, with governors obtained by POLITICO. Earlier in the pandemic, DeVos had been more open to kids learning both online and during in-person classes. “Education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk. … Risk is involved in everything we do, from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between,” she said. But a statement Tuesday night from teachers unions, the PTA, special education administrators and secondary school principals indicated that their relationship with the White House has hit a new low. "Throughout this pandemic, the administration has failed to address the needs of students, especially those students who need the most support. They have failed to listen to families and public school educators who have been on the frontlines serving their communities," the statement read. "Public school educators, students and parents must have a voice in critical conversations and decisions on reopening schools. The president should not be brazenly making these decisions." Trump and DeVos praised Florida’s new reopening plan, which orders the state’s public schools to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students. "We will put out the fires as they come up, but we have to open our schools,” Trump said, and he decried “political statements” that will keep schools closed. “They think it's going to be good for them politically, so they keep the schools closed. No way,” he said during a roundtable discussion at the White House. “So we're very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools, to get them open. And it's very important. It's very important for our country. It's very important for the well-being of the student and the parents.” Trump had tweeted on Monday: "Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don’t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons, not for health reasons! They think it will help them in November. Wrong, the people get it!" The push to reopen comes as parents agonize over whether it will be safe to send their kids back to school this fall and districts wrestle with whether and how to conduct classes. The reopening of schools is vital not just to getting the economy going, but to Trump’s reelection prospects. The campaign may be banking on the issue as a way to revive his appeal among disaffected suburban women, whose support will be key. The Trump campaign is also seizing on former Vice President Joe Biden's support of teachers unions that are stalwarts of Democratic politics and challenging Biden’s commitment to helping parents get their kids back to school. The campaign’s “question of the day” on Tuesday for the presumptive Democratic nominee is “Will you side with union bosses who want to keep schools closed or parents who want their kids to keep learning?" Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar backed up DeVos, saying parents should expect schools to deliver a safe learning environment for their children, even during a pandemic. “We must reopen,” he said during a White House event on reopening schools. “We’ve got to get people back to work, back to school, back to health care, because we can't stay locked in our homes forever. It's bad for our physical and mental and emotional health — us as adults, as well as for our kids.” But Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association, said "the reality is no one should listen to Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos when it comes to what is best for students." After Trump tweeted, “SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL!!!,” García fired back on Monday, “You forgot to add the word ‘SAFELY.’” Biden, speaking to the NEA on Friday, pledged his administration will have a "teacher-oriented" Department of Education. Meanwhile, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted on Tuesday that, to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19, schools need "double the staff and double the space to teach in person. But with state budgets facing massive cuts as a result of the pandemic, we need federal funding to #ReopenSafely," she wrote. The White House hosted events throughout Tuesday on safely reopening, culminating with the roundtable discussion with Trump, first lady Melania Trump, administration officials and teachers, administrators and students from around the country. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wrote an op-ed published in USA Today advocating liability protections for schools in any upcoming emergency relief package and underlining GOP support for helping parents with child care problems. Last spring, DeVos, in a slight departure from Trump, suggested through a spokesperson that schools may have to stick with virtual learning if they’re not ready to fully reopen. But on Tuesday, during the panel discussion at the White House, she praised Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran for issuing a “very comprehensive” plan to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students. “There may be other states and other communities that want to look at that, but again, with the expectation that students are together and that families will be able to count on a five-day school week if that’s the right answer for them,” she said. During the later panel discussion with Trump, DeVos said too many students "were trapped in schools that don't meet their needs" even before the virus, and that this is the time to reopen and rethink education — a common refrain for the school choice advocate. "This moment demands actions," she said. "Not excuse-making or fearmongering." The White House is leaning on CDC reopening guidance and a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that details the importance of in-person learning and “strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.” CDC Director Robert Redfield said during another White House panel discussion that reopening plans should minimize the risk of Covid-19 while providing students the critical services, academic resources, and social and emotional support they need. And plans should anticipate that Covid cases "will in fact occur." "The CDC encourages all schools, all schools to do what they need to reopen," he said, adding that the agency’s guidance viewed as a recommendation to reopen. "Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school district or school use our guidance as a reason not to reopen."	www.politico.com	0left	Shf6NAW8cYvMxRuc
white_house	CNN (Web News)	00	http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/13/were-talking-about-practice/?hpt=po_t1	Washington preps for inauguration	2013-01-13		( CNN ) - `` Practice makes perfect , '' or so the saying goes , and it was practice time in Washington on Sunday , one week ahead of Inauguration Day . Hundreds of band members , military personnel , media and law enforcement took part in an exercise to rehearse both the swearing-in ceremony and the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue , scheduled to take place a week from Monday , helping to make sure they get the real thing right . The practice swearing-in ceremony took place in what would be real time – but eight days off - complete with stand-ins filling in for the actual participants , including both Barack and Michelle Obama . Inauguration Day is January 20 . Obama will take the oath of office that day at the White House to begin his second term , since the date falls on a Sunday . The bigger , ceremonial swearing-in and inaugural address will take place the next day at the Capitol . This year 's inauguration figures to be a little different from the one four years ago . For starters , officials are expecting around half as many people as in 2009 , when a record 1.8 million attended . Barbara Lang , president and CEO of the DC Chamber of Commerce , said business leaders would love to see almost 2 million people again this year , but the expected lower attendance is at least good news for those who are looking for a place to stay . `` We are told that the hotels are not sold out . So that 's very different than it was four years ago . So there 's still availability in all of the major hotels around the city , '' Lang said . Lang also gave a few tips for those coming into Washington for the big event : Wear comfortable shoes , bring maps and try to avoid bringing backpacks , as security personnel will have a long list of prohibited items . Most importantly though , Lang said , `` Just really enjoy the moment . This is a terrific city . Obviously , I am the cheerleader in chief , but it is a wonderful city , and we want people to come here and enjoy themselves . Spend a lot of money and come back often . '' As for practicing , there 's no word on whether Obama or Chief Justice John Roberts is rehearsing the oath of office this time around . The pair notably flubbed the recitation in front of millions during Obama 's first inauguration .	7 years ago (CNN) - "Practice makes perfect," or so the saying goes, and it was practice time in Washington on Sunday, one week ahead of Inauguration Day. Hundreds of band members, military personnel, media and law enforcement took part in an exercise to rehearse both the swearing-in ceremony and the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, scheduled to take place a week from Monday, helping to make sure they get the real thing right. Follow @politicalticker The practice swearing-in ceremony took place in what would be real time – but eight days off - complete with stand-ins filling in for the actual participants, including both Barack and Michelle Obama. Inauguration Day is January 20. Obama will take the oath of office that day at the White House to begin his second term, since the date falls on a Sunday. The bigger, ceremonial swearing-in and inaugural address will take place the next day at the Capitol. This year's inauguration figures to be a little different from the one four years ago. For starters, officials are expecting around half as many people as in 2009, when a record 1.8 million attended. Barbara Lang, president and CEO of the DC Chamber of Commerce, said business leaders would love to see almost 2 million people again this year, but the expected lower attendance is at least good news for those who are looking for a place to stay. "We are told that the hotels are not sold out. So that's very different than it was four years ago. So there's still availability in all of the major hotels around the city," Lang said. Lang also gave a few tips for those coming into Washington for the big event: Wear comfortable shoes, bring maps and try to avoid bringing backpacks, as security personnel will have a long list of prohibited items. Most importantly though, Lang said, "Just really enjoy the moment. This is a terrific city. Obviously, I am the cheerleader in chief, but it is a wonderful city, and we want people to come here and enjoy themselves. Spend a lot of money and come back often." As for practicing, there's no word on whether Obama or Chief Justice John Roberts is rehearsing the oath of office this time around. The pair notably flubbed the recitation in front of millions during Obama's first inauguration.	www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com	0left	27rWSKZM4uACrMTb
middle_east	Associated Press	11	https://apnews.com/2fd2efad28f41f82f8204d4d3ae05ba6	The Latest: US forces halt anti-IS operations in Iraq	2020-01-05		Mourners carry the coffins of Iran 's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf , Iraq , Saturday , Jan. 4 , 2020 . Iran has vowed `` harsh retaliation '' for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad 's airport that killed Tehran 's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East , as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing . ( AP Photo/Anmar Khalil ) Mourners carry the coffins of Iran 's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf , Iraq , Saturday , Jan. 4 , 2020 . Iran has vowed `` harsh retaliation '' for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad 's airport that killed Tehran 's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East , as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing . ( AP Photo/Anmar Khalil ) BEIRUT ( AP ) — The latest on U.S.-Iran tensions ( all times local ) : Residents of the Iraq ’ s capital of Baghdad say three explosions rang out heard inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone , home to the U.S. Embassy and the seat of Iraq ’ s government . This is was the second such attack in recent days . Alert sirens were sounded Sunday in the area on the west bank of the Tigris river . There was no immediate confirmation from authorities but the explosions were believed to have been from mortars or rockets that struck the area . The strikes come after top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad . His killing has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S . Turkey ’ s president called for de-escalation between Iran and the U.S. following America ’ s killing of an Iranian general . He says the slaying of a top commander will likely not go unanswered , and voiced concern about regional security risks . Recep Tayyip Erdogan ’ s first public comments on the killing came in a televised interview Sunday . He says he was surprised because the strike occurred just hours after a phone call with President Donald Trump . Erdogan said he “ especially had suggested to ( Trump ) that tensions with Iran should not be heightened ” during that call . Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani ’ s killing in a drone strike in Baghdad has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S . Tehran has since abandoned all limits of its 2015 nuclear deal , and Iraq ’ s parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil . Iranian state television reports that Iran will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal . The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad . It ’ s unclear what this means for the program , especially when it comes to enrichment of uranium . Authorities did not immediately elaborate . A former leader of Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard says the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa can be targeted to avenge a general killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad . Mohsen Rezaee made the comment Sunday in Tehran at a ceremony in honor of the slain leader Qassem Soleimani . He has previously alleged Israel somehow leaked information about Soleimani ’ s whereabouts to U.S. forces , who killed him Friday in a drone strike . The U.S-led coalition in Iraq says it is pausing operations in support of Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State militants . The coalition says it ’ s focus will now be on protecting U.S. personnel and bases in Iraq , and it is suspending training for Iraqi forces . The coalition ’ s decision Sunday comes days after a U.S. drone strike killed Iran ’ s top commander in Baghdad . The killing has heightened tensions in the region and tested the U.S.-Iraq alliance . Attacks on bases that house U.S. forces are expected to increase . Iraqi lawmakers also voted Sunday in favor of a new bill that calls for the expulsion of all 5,000 US troops from Iraq . Iraq ’ s parliament has voted to expel the U.S. military from the country . Lawmakers voted Sunday in favor of a resolution that calls for ending foreign military presence in the country . The resolution ’ s main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in different parts of Iraq . The vote comes two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani inside Iraq , dramatically increasing regional tensions . The Iraqi resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group . The resolution was backed by most Shiite members of parliament , who hold a majority of seats . Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session , apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal . The leader of Lebanon ’ s Hezbollah group says America ’ s military in the Middle East region , including U.S. bases , warships and soldiers are fair targets following the U.S. killing of Iran ’ s top general . Hassan Nasrallah says evicting U.S. military forces from the region is now a priority . The U.S. military , which recently killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani “ will pay the price , ” he added in a speech Sunday . “ The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave from our region in the past are still here and their numbers have increased , ” Nasrallah added . Pope Francis is calling for dialogue and self-restraint in his first public comments amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran , after a U.S. airstrike killed Iran ’ s top general in Iraq . During his Sunday noon blessing , Francis warned : “ War brings only death and destruction. ” He led the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter ’ s Square in a silent prayer for peace . Speaking off the cuff , Francis said : “ I call on all side to keep alive the flame of dialogue and self-control , and to avoid the shadows of enmity . ” Francis had hoped to visit Iraq this year to minister to the Christian minorities that have been targeted by the Islamic State group . Vatican officials and local Catholic bishops in Iraq have voiced concern about the impact of any new conflict on the weakest and most marginal in Iraq . Iraq ’ s parliament has begun an emergency session and will likely vote on a resolution requiring the government to ask foreign forces to leave Iraq . The resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group . The resolution is backed by most Shiite members of parliament , who hold a majority of seats . The request was put forward Sunday by the largest bloc in the legislature , known as Fatah . That bloc includes leaders associated with the Iran-backed paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units , which were a major force in the fight against IS . Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session , apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal . At the start of the session , 180 legislators of the 329-member parliament were present . The leader of Lebanon ’ s Hezbollah group says the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general puts the entire region at the beginning of a “ completely new phase . ” Speaking before thousands of supports at a rally in southern Beirut , Hassan Nasrallah has called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani a “ clear , blatant crime ” that will transform the Middle East . Sunday ’ s comments were his first public statements since Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq Friday . The Shiite militant group is Iran ’ s key proxy and most successful military export . Nasrallah , who has been in hiding fearing Israeli assassination since 2006 , spoke to supporters through a large screen via satellite link . The daughter of Iran ’ s Gen. Qassem Soleimani says the death of her father will “ not break us ” and the United States should know that his blood will not go for free . Zeinab Soleimani told Lebanon ’ s Al-Manar TV — which is linked with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group — that the “ filthy ” President Donald Trump will not be able to wipe out the achievements of the slain Iranian leader . In the short interview aired Sunday , Zeinab Soleimani said Trump is not courageous because her father was targeted by missiles from afar and the U.S. president should have “ stood face to face in front of him . ” The young woman , who spoke in Farsi with Arabic voice over , said that she knows that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will avenge the death of her father . The U.S. has warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia “ of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks ” amid soaring tensions with Iran . A security alert message sent Sunday by the U.S. mission there said that in the past “ regional actors hostile to Saudi Arabia have conducted missile and drone attacks against both civilian and military targets inside the kingdom . ” It warned that U.S. citizens living and working near military bases , oil and gas facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure are at heightened risk of attack , particularly in the Eastern Province where the oil giant Aramco is headquartered and areas near the border with Yemen . Britain ’ s foreign minister says it is trying to “ de-escalate ” a volatile situation after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday in an interview with broadcaster Sky News that Soleimani “ was a regional menace . ” Raab added that the UK understood the U.S. ’ s “ position ” and “ right to exercise self-defense . ” But Raab said the UK was discussing with top officials in the U.S. and Europe , as well as Iran and Iraq , about how to avoid a war , which he said wouldn ’ t be in anyone ’ s interests . Britain ’ s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said late Saturday that he had ordered two British Navy warships , the HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer , to return to the Strait of Hormuz amid the soaring regional tensions . Iran ’ s Foreign Ministry spokesman says that officials in the Islamic Republic plan to meet Sunday night to discuss their next step out of the nuclear deal and that it will be even bigger than initially planned . Abbas Mousavi made the comment Sunday during a briefing with journalists after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani . Mousavi said the step would be greater than planned as “ in the world of politics , all developments are interconnected . ” If taken , it would be the fifth step to break terms of Tehran ’ s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers , which saw Iran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions . Mousavi did not elaborate on what that step could be . Iran previously has broken limits of its enrichment , its stockpiles and its centrifuges , as well as restarted enrichment at an underground facility . Major stock markets in the Middle East are trading down on fears of a conflict between Iran and the U.S. after an American drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani . The Boursa Kuwait closed down 4 % . The Dubai Financial Market closed down just over 3 % . Riyadh ’ s Tadawul was down over 2 % as trading continued . The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange fell 1.42 % . Meanwhile , oil prices continued to rise . Brent crude traded up 3.5 % to $ 68.60 a barrel . The U.S. killed Soleimani on Friday . Early Sunday , as Iran threatened “ harsh retaliation , ” President Donald Trump tweeted the U.S. was prepared to strike 52 sites in the Islamic Republic if any Americans are harmed . Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says President Donald Trump is “ worthy of all appreciation ” for ordering the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani . Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that Soleimani “ initiated , planned and carried out many terror attacks ” in the Middle East and beyond . Israel has long accused Soleimani of being the mastermind of Iran ’ s belligerency in the region . Netanyahu said Israel stood alongside the United States in its current campaign against Iran . Netanyahu has been among the strongest voices against Iran ’ s Islamic rulers in recent years . The Israeli leader pushed hard against the nuclear deal Western powers signed with Tehran in 2015 and which Trump later reversed . The United States killed Soleimani in a drone airstrike at Baghdad ’ s international airport early Friday . The Iranian commander was widely seen as the architect of Tehran ’ s proxy wars in the Middle East . The deputy leader of Lebanon ’ s militant Hezbollah group says the United States carried out a “ very stupid act ” by killing Iran ’ s Gen. Qassem Soleimani . Sheikh Naim Kassem made his comments on Sunday after paying a visit to the Iranian embassy in Beirut where he paid condolences . He said the attack will make Tehran and its allies stronger . Kassem told reporters “ now we have more responsibilities ” adding that the United States will discover that “ its calculations ” were wrong . Heazbollah is a close ally of Iran ’ s and considered part of a regional Iranian-backed alliance of proxy militias . Iranian officials are criticizing President Donald Trump ’ s threats to target sites important to Iran ’ s culture . Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites would be hit fast and hard if Tehran attacks U.S. assets to avenge the killing of a powerful Iranian general . Iran ’ s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter Sunday that after committing “ grave breaches ” in the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , Trump is threatening new breaches of international law . Telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi compared Trump ’ s threats to the Islamic State group , Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan . “ They all hate cultures . Trump is a ‘ terrorist in a suit ’ , ” Jahromi wrote on Twitter , warning that nobody can defeat Iran . Iraq ’ s Iran-backed militias say that some remains of the Iranian top general and Iraqi militant leader killed in the U.S. drone strike in Iraq were sent to Iran for DNA tests to identify their corpses . The Popular Mobilization Forces said in a statement Sunday that the bodies of the two commanders as well as an Iraqi bodyguard were torn to pieces and mangled by the explosion of the American missiles near Baghdad ’ s international airport . It said the test will take few days after which the remains of the Iraqi commander , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , will be brought back to Iraq for burial in the holy Shiite city of Najaf . Iran has declared three days of public mourning over Gen. Qassem Soleimani ’ s death in the U.S. attack . The body of a top Iranian commander , who was killed in a U.S. drone strike , has arrived in Iran as the crisis between the two countries escalates . Throngs of mourners carried Sunday the flag-draped casket of Gen. Qassem Soleimani off a plane in Ahvaz in southwestern Iran . The U.S. drone strike targeting Soleimani in Iraq Friday also killed a leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis . President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 sites in Iran if it retaliates by attacking Americans . The tensions take root in Trump pulling out of Iran ’ s nuclear deal with world powers . That accord soon likely will further unravel as Tehran is expected to announce as soon as Sunday another set of atomic limits the country will break .	Mourners carry the coffins of Iran's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020. Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation" for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad's airport that killed Tehran's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East, as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing. (AP Photo/Anmar Khalil) Mourners carry the coffins of Iran's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020. Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation" for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad's airport that killed Tehran's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East, as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing. (AP Photo/Anmar Khalil) BEIRUT (AP) — The latest on U.S.-Iran tensions (all times local): 9:50 p.m. Residents of the Iraq’s capital of Baghdad say three explosions rang out heard inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone, home to the U.S. Embassy and the seat of Iraq’s government. This is was the second such attack in recent days. Alert sirens were sounded Sunday in the area on the west bank of the Tigris river. There was no immediate confirmation from authorities but the explosions were believed to have been from mortars or rockets that struck the area. The strikes come after top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. His killing has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S. ___ 9:20 p.m. Turkey’s president called for de-escalation between Iran and the U.S. following America’s killing of an Iranian general. He says the slaying of a top commander will likely not go unanswered, and voiced concern about regional security risks. Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s first public comments on the killing came in a televised interview Sunday. He says he was surprised because the strike occurred just hours after a phone call with President Donald Trump. Erdogan said he “especially had suggested to (Trump) that tensions with Iran should not be heightened” during that call. Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s killing in a drone strike in Baghdad has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S. Tehran has since abandoned all limits of its 2015 nuclear deal, and Iraq’s parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil. Turkey shares a border with Iran, Iraq and Syria. ___ 8:05 p.m. Iranian state television reports that Iran will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal. The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad. It’s unclear what this means for the program, especially when it comes to enrichment of uranium. Authorities did not immediately elaborate. ___ 6:30 p.m. A former leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa can be targeted to avenge a general killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. Mohsen Rezaee made the comment Sunday in Tehran at a ceremony in honor of the slain leader Qassem Soleimani. He has previously alleged Israel somehow leaked information about Soleimani’s whereabouts to U.S. forces, who killed him Friday in a drone strike. Israel and Iran are longtime foes. ___ 5:50 p.m. The U.S-led coalition in Iraq says it is pausing operations in support of Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State militants. The coalition says it’s focus will now be on protecting U.S. personnel and bases in Iraq, and it is suspending training for Iraqi forces. The coalition’s decision Sunday comes days after a U.S. drone strike killed Iran’s top commander in Baghdad. The killing has heightened tensions in the region and tested the U.S.-Iraq alliance. Attacks on bases that house U.S. forces are expected to increase. Iraqi lawmakers also voted Sunday in favor of a new bill that calls for the expulsion of all 5,000 US troops from Iraq. ___ 4:45 p.m. Iraq’s parliament has voted to expel the U.S. military from the country. Lawmakers voted Sunday in favor of a resolution that calls for ending foreign military presence in the country. The resolution’s main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in different parts of Iraq. The vote comes two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani inside Iraq, dramatically increasing regional tensions. The Iraqi resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group. The resolution was backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal. ___ 4:20 p.m. The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says America’s military in the Middle East region, including U.S. bases, warships and soldiers are fair targets following the U.S. killing of Iran’s top general. Hassan Nasrallah says evicting U.S. military forces from the region is now a priority. The U.S. military, which recently killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani “will pay the price,” he added in a speech Sunday. “The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave from our region in the past are still here and their numbers have increased,” Nasrallah added. ___ 4:10 p.m. Pope Francis is calling for dialogue and self-restraint in his first public comments amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran, after a U.S. airstrike killed Iran’s top general in Iraq. During his Sunday noon blessing, Francis warned: “War brings only death and destruction.” He led the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square in a silent prayer for peace. Speaking off the cuff, Francis said: “I call on all side to keep alive the flame of dialogue and self-control, and to avoid the shadows of enmity.” Francis had hoped to visit Iraq this year to minister to the Christian minorities that have been targeted by the Islamic State group. Vatican officials and local Catholic bishops in Iraq have voiced concern about the impact of any new conflict on the weakest and most marginal in Iraq. ___ 3:55 p.m. Iraq’s parliament has begun an emergency session and will likely vote on a resolution requiring the government to ask foreign forces to leave Iraq. The resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group. The resolution is backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats. The request was put forward Sunday by the largest bloc in the legislature, known as Fatah. That bloc includes leaders associated with the Iran-backed paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units, which were a major force in the fight against IS. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal. At the start of the session, 180 legislators of the 329-member parliament were present. 3:40 p.m. The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general puts the entire region at the beginning of a “completely new phase.” Speaking before thousands of supports at a rally in southern Beirut, Hassan Nasrallah has called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani a “clear, blatant crime” that will transform the Middle East. Sunday’s comments were his first public statements since Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq Friday. The Shiite militant group is Iran’s key proxy and most successful military export. Nasrallah, who has been in hiding fearing Israeli assassination since 2006, spoke to supporters through a large screen via satellite link. __ 2:10 p.m. The daughter of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani says the death of her father will “not break us” and the United States should know that his blood will not go for free. Zeinab Soleimani told Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV — which is linked with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group — that the “filthy” President Donald Trump will not be able to wipe out the achievements of the slain Iranian leader. In the short interview aired Sunday, Zeinab Soleimani said Trump is not courageous because her father was targeted by missiles from afar and the U.S. president should have “stood face to face in front of him.” The young woman, who spoke in Farsi with Arabic voice over, said that she knows that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will avenge the death of her father. ___ 2:00 p.m. The U.S. has warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks” amid soaring tensions with Iran. A security alert message sent Sunday by the U.S. mission there said that in the past “regional actors hostile to Saudi Arabia have conducted missile and drone attacks against both civilian and military targets inside the kingdom.” It warned that U.S. citizens living and working near military bases, oil and gas facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure are at heightened risk of attack, particularly in the Eastern Province where the oil giant Aramco is headquartered and areas near the border with Yemen. ___ 1:55 p.m. Britain’s foreign minister says it is trying to “de-escalate” a volatile situation after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday in an interview with broadcaster Sky News that Soleimani “was a regional menace.” Raab added that the UK understood the U.S.’s “position” and “right to exercise self-defense.” But Raab said the UK was discussing with top officials in the U.S. and Europe, as well as Iran and Iraq, about how to avoid a war, which he said wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests. Britain’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said late Saturday that he had ordered two British Navy warships, the HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer, to return to the Strait of Hormuz amid the soaring regional tensions. ___ 1:40 p.m. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman says that officials in the Islamic Republic plan to meet Sunday night to discuss their next step out of the nuclear deal and that it will be even bigger than initially planned. Abbas Mousavi made the comment Sunday during a briefing with journalists after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Mousavi said the step would be greater than planned as “in the world of politics, all developments are interconnected.” If taken, it would be the fifth step to break terms of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which saw Iran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Mousavi did not elaborate on what that step could be. Iran previously has broken limits of its enrichment, its stockpiles and its centrifuges, as well as restarted enrichment at an underground facility. ___ 12:15 p.m. Major stock markets in the Middle East are trading down on fears of a conflict between Iran and the U.S. after an American drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The Boursa Kuwait closed down 4%. The Dubai Financial Market closed down just over 3%. Riyadh’s Tadawul was down over 2% as trading continued. The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange fell 1.42%. Egypt’s stock exchange also fell 4%. Meanwhile, oil prices continued to rise. Brent crude traded up 3.5% to $68.60 a barrel. The U.S. killed Soleimani on Friday. Early Sunday, as Iran threatened “harsh retaliation,” President Donald Trump tweeted the U.S. was prepared to strike 52 sites in the Islamic Republic if any Americans are harmed. ___ 11:50 a.m. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says President Donald Trump is “worthy of all appreciation” for ordering the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that Soleimani “initiated, planned and carried out many terror attacks” in the Middle East and beyond. Israel has long accused Soleimani of being the mastermind of Iran’s belligerency in the region. Netanyahu said Israel stood alongside the United States in its current campaign against Iran. Netanyahu has been among the strongest voices against Iran’s Islamic rulers in recent years. The Israeli leader pushed hard against the nuclear deal Western powers signed with Tehran in 2015 and which Trump later reversed. The United States killed Soleimani in a drone airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport early Friday. The Iranian commander was widely seen as the architect of Tehran’s proxy wars in the Middle East. ___ 11:45 a.m. The deputy leader of Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group says the United States carried out a “very stupid act” by killing Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Sheikh Naim Kassem made his comments on Sunday after paying a visit to the Iranian embassy in Beirut where he paid condolences. He said the attack will make Tehran and its allies stronger. Kassem told reporters “now we have more responsibilities” adding that the United States will discover that “its calculations” were wrong. Heazbollah is a close ally of Iran’s and considered part of a regional Iranian-backed alliance of proxy militias. ___ 11:40 a.m. Iranian officials are criticizing President Donald Trump’s threats to target sites important to Iran’s culture. Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites would be hit fast and hard if Tehran attacks U.S. assets to avenge the killing of a powerful Iranian general. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter Sunday that after committing “grave breaches” in the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Trump is threatening new breaches of international law. Zarif wrote: “Targeting cultural sites is a WAR CRIME.” Telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi compared Trump’s threats to the Islamic State group, Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan. “They all hate cultures. Trump is a ‘terrorist in a suit’,” Jahromi wrote on Twitter, warning that nobody can defeat Iran. ___ 11:30 a.m. Iraq’s Iran-backed militias say that some remains of the Iranian top general and Iraqi militant leader killed in the U.S. drone strike in Iraq were sent to Iran for DNA tests to identify their corpses. The Popular Mobilization Forces said in a statement Sunday that the bodies of the two commanders as well as an Iraqi bodyguard were torn to pieces and mangled by the explosion of the American missiles near Baghdad’s international airport. It said the test will take few days after which the remains of the Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, will be brought back to Iraq for burial in the holy Shiite city of Najaf. Al-Muhandis was closely allied with Iran for decades. Iran has declared three days of public mourning over Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s death in the U.S. attack. ___ 6:45 a.m. The body of a top Iranian commander, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike, has arrived in Iran as the crisis between the two countries escalates. Throngs of mourners carried Sunday the flag-draped casket of Gen. Qassem Soleimani off a plane in Ahvaz in southwestern Iran. The U.S. drone strike targeting Soleimani in Iraq Friday also killed a leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 sites in Iran if it retaliates by attacking Americans. The tensions take root in Trump pulling out of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers. That accord soon likely will further unravel as Tehran is expected to announce as soon as Sunday another set of atomic limits the country will break.	www.apnews.com	2center	gJ3FMPfRX9MdpeDg
trade	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/08/trump-planning-make-formal-tariff-announcement/406065002/	Trump planning to make formal tariff announcement	2018-03-08	David Jackson	CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty , President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement . ( March 8 ) AP WASHINGTON — Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide , President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries . In statements from the White House , Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs , pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations , and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties . `` We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries , while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours , '' Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House . CLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S. , things did n't go well for the economy . Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum ? Here are the facts . Just the FAQs He also described the move as `` vital to our national security , '' and said more trade policy changes are on the way . Trump said there would be 25 % tariffs on steel and 10 % on aluminum , but there would be exemptions and possible changes . `` I 'll have a right to go up or down , depending on the country , and I 'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries , '' he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day . `` We just want fairness . Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries . '' When Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago , aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs . The European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products , from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon . Trump 's decision `` will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response , '' said Cecilia Malmström , the EU commissioner for trade . In addition to threatening to go after American products , other countries ridiculed Trump 's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense , saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China . Many fellow Republicans also objected to Trump 's tariffs , predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere . Outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz. , who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump 's action , ridiculed the notion of `` flexible '' tariffs : `` What does that mean ? One day you wake up and you say , ‘ I don ’ t like Australia ? ’ ... That ’ s unbelievable . ” Looking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House . We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 8 , 2018 The critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wisc. , who said that `` I 'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences . '' Trump justified the decision by citing `` shuttered plants and mills , '' laid-off workers , and `` the decimation of entire communities , '' all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries . Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs , and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy . During the signing ceremony , Trump invited some of the steel workers , hard hats in hands , to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry . The trade debate played a major role in Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign . During the Cabinet meeting , Trump said he would flexible with `` real friends . '' In addition to Canada and Mexico , Trump mentioned Australia — `` we have a trade surplus with Australia '' — while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending . `` We have some friends and some enemies , where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years , on trade , and on military , '' Trump said . More : Trump claims 'trade wars ' are 'easy to win ' day after tariff talk roils stock market More : Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs Trump said Canada and Mexico , the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement , could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA , a trade deal the president has long criticized . `` With Mexico and Canada , we 're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop , '' Trump told his Cabinet , though officials in those countries have denounced the president 's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal . Trump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago , telling a group of executives he would impose 25 % tariffs on steel imports and 10 % on aluminum imports . The tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself , and led in part to this week 's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn . During his session with aides , Trump noted that it would be Cohn 's last Cabinet meeting . He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide 's support of free trade , saying that Cohn “ may be a globalist , but I still like him . '' A number of Republicans , nominal allies of Trump , have criticized the tariffs . More : Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump 's White House House Republicans focused on trade , however , were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues . Rep. Kevin Brady , the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , said exempting Canada and Mexico was “ a good first step . ” “ I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target – and not U.S. workers , businesses , and families , ” Brady said . Rep. David Reichert , R-Wash. , said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective . “ With 40 % of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington , we can not take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world , ” said Reichert , chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means . In a letter released Wednesday , 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to “ tailor ” the tariffs to punish “ bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America ” such as China . Sen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , minority leader in the Senate , said he sympathizes with Trump 's criticism of trade rules , but the main culprit is China . Trump 's plan does n't address the Chinese , he said , because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S . `` Instead of getting right at China , the president ’ s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries , '' Schumer said . He also hit `` the haphazard way these tariffs were put together , '' and that Trump `` makes up his mind one day and changes it the next . '' Trump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes . During the signing ceremony , he outlined a `` reciprocal tax '' to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products . Like other business groups , the National Retail Federation called the tariffs `` a self-inflicted wound '' that will lead to `` higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics . '' Some economists defended Trump 's plan , saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing . Peter Morici , a business professor at the University of Maryland , tweeted that Trump `` is not starting a trade war '' because `` we are already in one , '' especially with China . `` The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols , '' Morici said . `` China has targeted one U.S. industry after another , thrown millions of Americans out of work . Time to fight back . ''	CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty, President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement. (March 8) AP President Trump (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP) WASHINGTON — Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide, President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries. In statements from the White House, Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs, pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations, and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties. "We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries, while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours," Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House. CLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S., things didn't go well for the economy. Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum? Here are the facts. Just the FAQs He also described the move as "vital to our national security," and said more trade policy changes are on the way. Trump said there would be 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum, but there would be exemptions and possible changes. "I'll have a right to go up or down, depending on the country, and I'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries," he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day. "We just want fairness. Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries." The new tariffs take effect in 15 days. When Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago, aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs. The European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products, from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon. Trump's decision "will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response," said Cecilia Malmström, the EU commissioner for trade. In addition to threatening to go after American products, other countries ridiculed Trump's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense, saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China. Many fellow Republicans also objected to Trump's tariffs, predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere. Outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump's action, ridiculed the notion of "flexible" tariffs: "What does that mean? One day you wake up and you say, ‘I don’t like Australia?’ ... That’s unbelievable.” Looking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House. We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2018 The critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., who said that "I'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences." Trump justified the decision by citing "shuttered plants and mills," laid-off workers, and "the decimation of entire communities," all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries. Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs, and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy. During the signing ceremony, Trump invited some of the steel workers, hard hats in hands, to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry. The trade debate played a major role in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. During the Cabinet meeting, Trump said he would flexible with "real friends." In addition to Canada and Mexico, Trump mentioned Australia — "we have a trade surplus with Australia" — while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending. "We have some friends and some enemies, where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years, on trade, and on military," Trump said. More: Trump claims 'trade wars' are 'easy to win' day after tariff talk roils stock market More: Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs Trump said Canada and Mexico, the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement, could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA, a trade deal the president has long criticized. "With Mexico and Canada, we're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop," Trump told his Cabinet, though officials in those countries have denounced the president's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal. Trump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago, telling a group of executives he would impose 25% tariffs on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports. The tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself, and led in part to this week's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn. During his session with aides, Trump noted that it would be Cohn's last Cabinet meeting. He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide's support of free trade, saying that Cohn “may be a globalist, but I still like him." A number of Republicans, nominal allies of Trump, have criticized the tariffs. More: Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump's White House House Republicans focused on trade, however, were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues. Rep. Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, said exempting Canada and Mexico was “a good first step.” “I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target – and not U.S. workers, businesses, and families,” Brady said. Rep. David Reichert, R-Wash., said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective. “With 40% of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington, we cannot take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world,” said Reichert, chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means. In a letter released Wednesday, 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to “tailor” the tariffs to punish “bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America” such as China. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., minority leader in the Senate, said he sympathizes with Trump's criticism of trade rules, but the main culprit is China. Trump's plan doesn't address the Chinese, he said, because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S. "Instead of getting right at China, the president’s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries," Schumer said. He also hit "the haphazard way these tariffs were put together," and that Trump "makes up his mind one day and changes it the next." Trump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes. During the signing ceremony, he outlined a "reciprocal tax" to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products. Like other business groups, the National Retail Federation called the tariffs "a self-inflicted wound" that will lead to "higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics." Some economists defended Trump's plan, saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing. Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, tweeted that Trump "is not starting a trade war" because "we are already in one," especially with China. "The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols," Morici said. "China has targeted one U.S. industry after another, thrown millions of Americans out of work. Time to fight back." Contributing: Herb Jackson Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2oZ93Uy	www.usatoday.com	2center	Bcok1Vmli5usKNPi
elections	The Atlantic	00	https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/tulsi-gabbard-2020-candidate/597226/	The Enduring Mystery of Tulsi Gabbard	2019-09-05	Edward-Isaac Dovere	Many of Gabbard ’ s current supporters are former Sanders supporters , who first came to know her when she quit as a DNC vice chair in 2016 , saying that the process was rigged and she would endorse Sanders over Clinton . “ I don ’ t know if [ Sanders ] has enough fight in him to go against the powers that be , ” Dean Mincer , a 2016 Sanders delegate from Glidden , Iowa , told me at that coffee shop in Ames , worrying about how people would respond to the senator ’ s socialist views . “ Tulsi ’ s more of a realist . ” Gabbard ’ s supporters are a mix of old hippie peaceniks , cryptocurrency enthusiasts , people who obsess over American imperialism , and former Trump voters . They are also people who just love that she ’ s a young woman of color who always talks about “ what we in Hawaii call that spirit of Aloha , ” as she ’ d said at the Wing Ding . “ Aloha means so much more than ‘ hello ’ and ‘ goodbye , ’ as some of you may be familiar . What it really means is love and respect and a recognition that we are all connected , that we are all children of God , we are all brothers and sisters , regardless of the color of our skin , or where we come from , or who we love , or how we worship or if we worship. ” At a recent event in Los Angeles , a woman told Gabbard she had cancer , and attributed it to a wire on her roof . “ I ’ m now electrosensitive , ” the woman said . She told Gabbard that she lived in her car and wanted to know what the candidate would do about Federal Communications Commission standards . “ This is something I ’ m looking more into as I ’ m hearing from people like you who are raising these concerns , ” Gabbard replied . A 16-year-old at the event told Gabbard he is frustrated that no one seems to care about the concerns of young people . “ I ’ m smiling , ” she told him , “ because I ’ ve lost track of how many times I ’ ve been told that . ” She ’ s a presidential candidate and a member of Congress , but tracking down Gabbard wasn ’ t easy . In July , when she was in Milwaukee to speak at a veterans ’ breakfast during a League of United Latin American Citizens conference—where I ’ d heard she ’ d been well received , talking about her own service—I ran into her while she was waiting in line for a vegan sandwich at the Milwaukee Public Market . She was serious about this race , she told me , and she wouldn ’ t be in it if she thought anyone else running could be commander in chief . I said we should do an interview , and she told me to get in touch with her new press secretary , but she couldn ’ t remember his last name , and neither could any of the staffers standing nearby whom she asked . Contrast that with how her sister and a small circle of aides wear earpieces and cluster around her like a security detail . Gabbard ’ s husband , Abraham Williams , a trained videographer , uses a special camera stabilizer that gives a cinematic feel to the live-streams of her events . Her website features coding that isn ’ t quite sophisticated , but is slightly more than meets the eye : In the final days of trying to qualify for the September debate , it would generate random numbers just short of 130,000—the donor number she needed to hit—every time the page was refreshed , and then for weeks after had a one-minute countdown urging : “ If you contribute in the next minute , we can hit our weekly goal. ” The countdown reset with every refresh . ( These tactics aren ’ t typical for candidates ’ websites . ) Her campaign now claims to have well over 130,000 donors . A spokesman wouldn ’ t say how many people are currently on staff , though her second-quarter Federal Elections Commission report showed salaries going to just six employees , for a total of $ 50,000 over three months , in addition to a few consulting fees .	Many of Gabbard’s current supporters are former Sanders supporters, who first came to know her when she quit as a DNC vice chair in 2016, saying that the process was rigged and she would endorse Sanders over Clinton. “I don’t know if [Sanders] has enough fight in him to go against the powers that be,” Dean Mincer, a 2016 Sanders delegate from Glidden, Iowa, told me at that coffee shop in Ames, worrying about how people would respond to the senator’s socialist views. “Tulsi’s more of a realist.” Gabbard’s supporters are a mix of old hippie peaceniks, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, people who obsess over American imperialism, and former Trump voters. They are also people who just love that she’s a young woman of color who always talks about “what we in Hawaii call that spirit of Aloha,” as she’d said at the Wing Ding. “Aloha means so much more than ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye,’ as some of you may be familiar. What it really means is love and respect and a recognition that we are all connected, that we are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of the color of our skin, or where we come from, or who we love, or how we worship or if we worship.” At a recent event in Los Angeles, a woman told Gabbard she had cancer, and attributed it to a wire on her roof. “I’m now electrosensitive,” the woman said. She told Gabbard that she lived in her car and wanted to know what the candidate would do about Federal Communications Commission standards. “This is something I’m looking more into as I’m hearing from people like you who are raising these concerns,” Gabbard replied. A 16-year-old at the event told Gabbard he is frustrated that no one seems to care about the concerns of young people. “I’m smiling,” she told him, “because I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been told that.” She’s a presidential candidate and a member of Congress, but tracking down Gabbard wasn’t easy. In July, when she was in Milwaukee to speak at a veterans’ breakfast during a League of United Latin American Citizens conference—where I’d heard she’d been well received, talking about her own service—I ran into her while she was waiting in line for a vegan sandwich at the Milwaukee Public Market. She was serious about this race, she told me, and she wouldn’t be in it if she thought anyone else running could be commander in chief. I said we should do an interview, and she told me to get in touch with her new press secretary, but she couldn’t remember his last name, and neither could any of the staffers standing nearby whom she asked. Contrast that with how her sister and a small circle of aides wear earpieces and cluster around her like a security detail. Gabbard’s husband, Abraham Williams, a trained videographer, uses a special camera stabilizer that gives a cinematic feel to the live-streams of her events. Her website features coding that isn’t quite sophisticated, but is slightly more than meets the eye: In the final days of trying to qualify for the September debate, it would generate random numbers just short of 130,000—the donor number she needed to hit—every time the page was refreshed, and then for weeks after had a one-minute countdown urging: “If you contribute in the next minute, we can hit our weekly goal.” The countdown reset with every refresh. (These tactics aren’t typical for candidates’ websites.) Her campaign now claims to have well over 130,000 donors. A spokesman wouldn’t say how many people are currently on staff, though her second-quarter Federal Elections Commission report showed salaries going to just six employees, for a total of $50,000 over three months, in addition to a few consulting fees.	www.theatlantic.com	0left	yvNj9I3r7tqICyOt
banking_and_finance	Salon	00	http://www.salon.com/2014/10/09/exclusive_bank_of_americas_horrid_customer_service_scandal/	EXCLUSIVE: Bank of America’s horrid “customer service” scandal	2014-10-09	Sarah Jaffe	Tony ( last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job ) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate . He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills , and he tries to help them solve their problems . And Tony and his coworkers are organizing . Bank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution , according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine . And according to Tony , many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers , who instead feel squeezed , wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong . Tired of the inadequate training they receive , tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they did n't know were mistakes , tired of feeling like they 're hurting customers rather than helping them , a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make , in Tony 's words , a positive change . “ We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out , ” Tony says . “ It 's tough when you 've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder , say 'Can you come to a meeting ? ' and as you walk away , another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff . If you look over your shoulder , you see them packing your stuff as you walk away . And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do ? ' ” He continues , “ When we 're not trained properly it 's hurting the customer , it 's hurting us . What 's sad is that , when we 're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank , when we 're trained properly we do n't favor the bank . Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor . ” For example , he says , associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers ' accounts . For a while , he was n't aware that at the end of the call , a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer , a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer . Instead , he says , they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished , so if the customer ended the call , the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing . One of his coworkers , he says , was fired when the quality control department , which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they 're doing their jobs correctly , caught her not reading the disclosure . “ This disclosure where the customer can say ' I do n't want a 4 % fee , ' this favors the bank when we do n't read it to them , ” he says . “ You 've already got the balance transfer , we ca n't do anything about the fee . ” Another person , he says , was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager . The managers , he notes , get the same training on the system as the associates , but often have even less time to pay attention to them . Tony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate . Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions , he says , they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take . Additionally , he says , “ The first thing it does is tell you 'here 's what the training is about , acknowledge you 've taken it and you know the subject matter . ' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter . After you take the course , if you do n't understand it , they go 'Well you learned about it , you clicked that button . ' There 's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it . We feel that 's their way of saying it 's on you now . It 's not the bank , you acknowledged you know it , so you do it wrong , that 's your fault . ” The training they do get , he says , is often about how to “ deepen the relationship , ” with the customer . “ Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something , ” he says . Instead of upgrading a customer 's credit card , for instance , they are pushed to open a new card , one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card . According to Chi Chi Wu , a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center , this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act , which prohibits “ unsolicited issuance ” of a credit card . “ Deepening the relationship ” means something different , perhaps , to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups . He says , “ I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards , how to 'deepen that relationship , ' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card . One of the associates in the meeting says , 'This woman 's overdrawn , she 's told me she 's unemployed , I ca n't sell her a credit card , she ca n't afford to pay any of her bills now , that 's going to hurt her . ' The manager said 'How do you know she does n't need the credit card to buy milk or formula ? This could be just right at the right time . Sell her the credit card , it is n't our responsibility if she ca n't pay it . ' ” “ That 's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy , ” Tony adds . With the help of the Committee for Better Banks , a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York ( ALIGN ) , Make the Road New York , New York Communities for Change ( NYCC ) and the Communications Workers of America union ( CWA ) , Tony 's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June . The petition calls for “ independent , federally-guided training be implemented immediately , for employees and managers alike . ” Tony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers . As David Dayen reported for ███ in June of 2013 , former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs , given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure , and pressed to lie to customers . Tony says , “ Maybe they 're like us , maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank . As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas , making their numbers , maybe that 's all they care about . ” “ I look at Bank of America and like I said I 've worked there for years , I see them , they 're selling things off left and right , they 're selling branches in Michigan , they 're selling branches in Maine , we 're shrinking the bank , ” Tony continues . “ I wonder if they 're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good ? Because it 's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders . Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt ? No , I really do n't . They 're more concerned with the return on their stock . Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers , it would be much better world . ” They began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs , being better able to serve their customers , and Tony says that though it 's slow , they are seeing some results . No one has acknowledged their petition , though he says he 's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing , but after the workers took their yearly “ associate engagement survey , ” the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed . This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they 'd never have done if they were trained properly . Once the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems , Tony says , there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication , though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information . Tony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other , they can change the banking industry. “ Our customers are all our families , our friends , our communities , this country is in a dire situation because so many systems , of which banking is one , are failing them , because banking has become more about greed , ” he says . “ This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this is n't going to change . ”	Tony (last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate. He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills, and he tries to help them solve their problems. And Tony and his coworkers are organizing. Bank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution, according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine. And according to Tony, many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers, who instead feel squeezed, wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong. Tired of the inadequate training they receive, tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they didn't know were mistakes, tired of feeling like they're hurting customers rather than helping them, a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make, in Tony's words, a positive change. Advertisement: “We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out,” Tony says. “It's tough when you've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder, say 'Can you come to a meeting?' and as you walk away, another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff. If you look over your shoulder, you see them packing your stuff as you walk away. And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do?'” He continues, “When we're not trained properly it's hurting the customer, it's hurting us. What's sad is that, when we're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank, when we're trained properly we don't favor the bank. Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor.” For example, he says, associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers' accounts. For a while, he wasn't aware that at the end of the call, a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer, a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer. Instead, he says, they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished, so if the customer ended the call, the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing. One of his coworkers, he says, was fired when the quality control department, which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they're doing their jobs correctly, caught her not reading the disclosure. “This disclosure where the customer can say 'I don't want a 4% fee,' this favors the bank when we don't read it to them,” he says. “You've already got the balance transfer, we can't do anything about the fee.” Advertisement: Another person, he says, was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager. The managers, he notes, get the same training on the system as the associates, but often have even less time to pay attention to them. Tony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate. Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions, he says, they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take. Additionally, he says, “The first thing it does is tell you 'here's what the training is about, acknowledge you've taken it and you know the subject matter.' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter. After you take the course, if you don't understand it, they go 'Well you learned about it, you clicked that button.' There's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it. We feel that's their way of saying it's on you now. It's not the bank, you acknowledged you know it, so you do it wrong, that's your fault.” The training they do get, he says, is often about how to “deepen the relationship,” with the customer. “Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something,” he says. Instead of upgrading a customer's credit card, for instance, they are pushed to open a new card, one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card. According to Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act, which prohibits “unsolicited issuance” of a credit card. Advertisement: “Deepening the relationship” means something different, perhaps, to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups. He says, “I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards, how to 'deepen that relationship,' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card. One of the associates in the meeting says, 'This woman's overdrawn, she's told me she's unemployed, I can't sell her a credit card, she can't afford to pay any of her bills now, that's going to hurt her.' The manager said 'How do you know she doesn't need the credit card to buy milk or formula? This could be just right at the right time. Sell her the credit card, it isn't our responsibility if she can't pay it.'” “That's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy,” Tony adds. Advertisement: With the help of the Committee for Better Banks, a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York (ALIGN), Make the Road New York,New York Communities for Change (NYCC) and the Communications Workers of America union (CWA), Tony's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June. The petition calls for “independent, federally-guided training be implemented immediately, for employees and managers alike.” Tony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers. As David Dayen reported for Salon in June of 2013, former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs, given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure, and pressed to lie to customers. Tony says, “Maybe they're like us, maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank. As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas, making their numbers, maybe that's all they care about.” “I look at Bank of America and like I said I've worked there for years, I see them, they're selling things off left and right, they're selling branches in Michigan, they're selling branches in Maine, we're shrinking the bank,” Tony continues. “I wonder if they're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good? Because it's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders. Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt? No, I really don't. They're more concerned with the return on their stock. Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers, it would be much better world.” Advertisement: They began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs, being better able to serve their customers, and Tony says that though it's slow, they are seeing some results. No one has acknowledged their petition, though he says he's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing, but after the workers took their yearly “associate engagement survey,” the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed. This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they'd never have done if they were trained properly. Once the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems, Tony says, there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication, though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information. Tony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other, they can change the banking industry.“Our customers are all our families, our friends, our communities, this country is in a dire situation because so many systems, of which banking is one, are failing them, because banking has become more about greed,” he says. “This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this isn't going to change.”	www.salon.com	0left	QkdR7Irhuh5FR7Ih
elections	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/09/blankenship-trump-primary-west-virginia-north-carolina-ohio-indiana/593722002/	Blankenship is out and sucking up to Trump may not be enough: 4 takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries	2018-05-09	Eliza Collins	CLOSE Former Coal Executive Don Blankenship , who called himself `` Trumpier than Trump , '' finished third in West Virginia 's Republican Senate Primary . President Trump opposed him . Attorney General Patrick Morrisey will face Democratic Senator Joe Manchin . ( May 9 ) AP WASHINGTON – Four states held primaries Tuesday night , all in states President Trump won in 2016 . Republicans avoided electing someone many thought would sink their chances of flipping the Senate seat in West Virginia . In North Carolina , an incumbent congressman lost his party 's nomination for his re-election and in Indiana two sitting congressmen lost the GOP nod for the Senate to an outsider businessman . In Ohio , establishment candidates in both parties took the nominations . Trump declared Tuesday 's elections `` a great night '' and said `` all candidates are those who have a great chance of winning in November . '' Republicans — and particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — woke up Wednesday with a weight off their shoulders . West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won Tuesday ’ s marquee race . In West Virginia ’ s Republican Senate primary , Morrisey came in 6 percentage points ahead of Rep. Evan Jenkins and beat former convict Don Blankenship by 15 percentage points . Republicans had been wringing their hands over Blankenship , who appeared to be surging in the final days of the race . Blankenship was the former Massey Energy CEO convicted of a misdemeanor related to a mine explosion that killed 29 men . During the primary , he had been on supervised release , which ended Wednesday . Blankenship also made headlines by attacking McConnell and his “ China family , ” a reference to the family of McConnell 's wife , Elaine Chao , the current secretary of Transportation . Trump won West Virginia during the 2016 election by 42 points and Republicans see Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin as a prime pick-off opportunity in the fall . Many worried that Blankenship would hurt their chances . Republicans , traumatized by the Senate seat they lost in Alabama because of a damaged candidate , had been sounding the alarm about Blankenship in the final days and Trump issued an eleventh hour tweet telling voters he was unelectable in the general election . To the great people of West Virginia we have , together , a really great chance to keep making a big difference . Problem is , Don Blankenship , currently running for Senate , can ’ t win the General Election in your State ... No way ! Remember Alabama . Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 7 , 2018 Getting Morrisey may have bolstered Republicans ’ chances in the state , but it ’ s still not a slam dunk , said Terry Sullivan a Republican strategist and former campaign manager for Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s 2016 presidential run . “ I think that candidates matter in races and I think people are underestimating Joe Manchin to be honest with you , ” Sullivan said . “ Yes , Blankenship would have an even harder time beating Manchin than any other candidate … but I think anybody is going to have a tough time beating Joe Manchin in West Virginia . ” Then again , Manchin lost 30 % of the Democratic vote to challenger Paula Jean Swearengin , a point the Republican National Committee hammered Tuesday night with a email titled “ Trouble in WV ... ? ” House members went down all over the place Tuesday night . In North Carolina ’ s 9th Congressional District , Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger became the first sitting congressman of the cycle to lose his primary . Mark Harris , a conservative pastor who came very close to beating Pittenger in 2016 , labeled Pittenger a member of the “ Washington swamp ” and beat him by 3 percentage points Tuesday . In West Virginia , Jenkins , a current House member , came in second in his bid for his party ’ s nomination for Senate . And in Indiana , Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita both lost by double-digits to businessman Mike Braun . Braun , himself , a former state lawmaker , played up his credentials as an outsider businessman . Braun argued that Messer and Rokita were basically the same career politician . In one ad , Braun carried cardboard cutouts of his opponents around his hometown of Jasper , where voters struggled to tell them apart . But one congressman , Republican Rep. Jim Renacci in Ohio , captured his party ’ s nomination for the Senate with 47 % of the vote . Trump won all four of Tuesday ’ s primary states during the 2016 election and he remains popular with the GOP electorate , but voters didn ’ t reward candidates just because they aligned themselves with him . It wasn ’ t that Tuesday ’ s winners had rebuked Trump , it ’ s just that the most overt Trump supporters were not necessarily rewarded . In Indiana , an analysis by Kantar Media 's Campaign Media Analysis Group for ███ NETWORK found that all of Messer ’ s and Rokita ’ s ads that aired through April included a reference to Trump , only 12 % of Braun ’ s did . Blankenship had fashioned himself in the mold of Trump , even declaring he was `` Trumpier than Trump ” after the president urged voters to vote against him . Renacci may have easily won his primary in Ohio , but the fact that unknown businessman Bob Gibbons got 32 % could be a red flag . Renacci was endorsed by the president , who came and campaigned for him multiple times . ( Morrisey ’ s clear victory sent McConnell and his allies on a victory lap Tuesday night with the Kentucky Republican ’ s campaign team tweeting a photoshopped picture of McConnell surrounded by cocaine fashioned after the promo pictures of the Netflix show Narcos . The photo was a reference to Blankenship calling McConnell `` Cocaine Mitch '' based on a 2014 report that cocaine was discovered aboard a vessel owned by his father-in-law 's company . ) But there were plenty of other reasons for the establishment — in both parties — to celebrate Tuesday . In Ohio , two conservative Republicans aligned with the hard-line House Freedom Caucus , went down to more mainstream candidates . State Sen . Troy Balderson , who had been backed by retired Rep. Pat Tiberi , won both primaries for the special election ( to fill the remainder of the term ) and the midterm election ( for next year ) for Ohio ’ s 12th Congressional District . Balderson beat Melanie Leneghan — a businesswoman and local government official — in both elections by just 1 percentage point . Leneghan had been backed by former Freedom Caucus chair Jim Jordan of Ohio . Former NFL football player Anthony Gonzalez also beat state Sen. Christina Hagan in Ohio ’ s 16th Congressional District . The House Freedom Fund , the Freedom Caucus-aligned super PAC started by Jordan , had donated to Hagen . In the Ohio , both parties got well-known establishment politicians for their gubernatorial race . Democrat Richard Cordray , the state ’ s former attorney general and the former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , crushed the other candidates in his primary including former congressman Dennis Kucinich , by 39 percentage points . On the Republican side , Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov . Mary Taylor by 20 percentage points . The race will be a rematch of the 2010 attorney general race which DeWine narrowly won . Contributing : Nicole Gaudiano in Washington ; Tony Cook and Maureen Groppe in Indiana ; and Jason Williams in Ohio	CLOSE Former Coal Executive Don Blankenship, who called himself "Trumpier than Trump," finished third in West Virginia's Republican Senate Primary. President Trump opposed him. Attorney General Patrick Morrisey will face Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. (May 9) AP Former Massey CEO and West Virginia Republican Senatorial candidate, Don Blankenship, kicks off his campaign in Logan, W.Va., on Jan. 18, 2018. (Photo: Steve Helber, AP) WASHINGTON – Four states held primaries Tuesday night, all in states President Trump won in 2016. Republicans avoided electing someone many thought would sink their chances of flipping the Senate seat in West Virginia. In North Carolina, an incumbent congressman lost his party's nomination for his re-election and in Indiana two sitting congressmen lost the GOP nod for the Senate to an outsider businessman. In Ohio, establishment candidates in both parties took the nominations. Trump declared Tuesday's elections "a great night" and said "all candidates are those who have a great chance of winning in November." Here are our four big takeaways from Tuesday's primaries: Republicans still have a chance in West Virginia Republicans — and particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — woke up Wednesday with a weight off their shoulders. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won Tuesday’s marquee race. In West Virginia’s Republican Senate primary, Morrisey came in 6 percentage points ahead of Rep. Evan Jenkins and beat former convict Don Blankenship by 15 percentage points. Republicans had been wringing their hands over Blankenship, who appeared to be surging in the final days of the race. Blankenship was the former Massey Energy CEO convicted of a misdemeanor related to a mine explosion that killed 29 men. During the primary, he had been on supervised release, which ended Wednesday. Blankenship also made headlines by attacking McConnell and his “China family,” a reference to the family of McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, the current secretary of Transportation. Trump won West Virginia during the 2016 election by 42 points and Republicans see Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin as a prime pick-off opportunity in the fall. Many worried that Blankenship would hurt their chances. Republicans, traumatized by the Senate seat they lost in Alabama because of a damaged candidate, had been sounding the alarm about Blankenship in the final days and Trump issued an eleventh hour tweet telling voters he was unelectable in the general election. To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference. Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can’t win the General Election in your State...No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018 Getting Morrisey may have bolstered Republicans’ chances in the state, but it’s still not a slam dunk, said Terry Sullivan a Republican strategist and former campaign manager for Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential run. “I think that candidates matter in races and I think people are underestimating Joe Manchin to be honest with you,” Sullivan said. “Yes, Blankenship would have an even harder time beating Manchin than any other candidate … but I think anybody is going to have a tough time beating Joe Manchin in West Virginia.” Then again, Manchin lost 30% of the Democratic vote to challenger Paula Jean Swearengin, a point the Republican National Committee hammered Tuesday night with a email titled “Trouble in WV...?” Voters still want to drain the swamp House members went down all over the place Tuesday night. In North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger became the first sitting congressman of the cycle to lose his primary. Mark Harris, a conservative pastor who came very close to beating Pittenger in 2016, labeled Pittenger a member of the “Washington swamp” and beat him by 3 percentage points Tuesday. In West Virginia, Jenkins, a current House member, came in second in his bid for his party’s nomination for Senate. And in Indiana, Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita both lost by double-digits to businessman Mike Braun. Braun, himself, a former state lawmaker, played up his credentials as an outsider businessman. Braun argued that Messer and Rokita were basically the same career politician. In one ad, Braun carried cardboard cutouts of his opponents around his hometown of Jasper, where voters struggled to tell them apart. But one congressman, Republican Rep. Jim Renacci in Ohio, captured his party’s nomination for the Senate with 47% of the vote. Being close to Trump isn’t enough Trump won all four of Tuesday’s primary states during the 2016 election and he remains popular with the GOP electorate, but voters didn’t reward candidates just because they aligned themselves with him. It wasn’t that Tuesday’s winners had rebuked Trump, it’s just that the most overt Trump supporters were not necessarily rewarded. In Indiana, an analysis by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group for USA TODAY NETWORK found that all of Messer’s and Rokita’s ads that aired through April included a reference to Trump, only 12% of Braun’s did. Blankenship had fashioned himself in the mold of Trump, even declaring he was "Trumpier than Trump” after the president urged voters to vote against him. Renacci may have easily won his primary in Ohio, but the fact that unknown businessman Bob Gibbons got 32% could be a red flag. Renacci was endorsed by the president, who came and campaigned for him multiple times. The establishment's big night Establishment Republicans were obviously gleeful over Blankenship’s loss. (Morrisey’s clear victory sent McConnell and his allies on a victory lap Tuesday night with the Kentucky Republican’s campaign team tweeting a photoshopped picture of McConnell surrounded by cocaine fashioned after the promo pictures of the Netflix show Narcos. The photo was a reference to Blankenship calling McConnell "Cocaine Mitch" based on a 2014 report that cocaine was discovered aboard a vessel owned by his father-in-law's company.) But there were plenty of other reasons for the establishment — in both parties — to celebrate Tuesday. In Ohio, two conservative Republicans aligned with the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, went down to more mainstream candidates. State Sen. Troy Balderson, who had been backed by retired Rep. Pat Tiberi, won both primaries for the special election (to fill the remainder of the term) and the midterm election (for next year) for Ohio’s 12th Congressional District. Balderson beat Melanie Leneghan — a businesswoman and local government official — in both elections by just 1 percentage point. Leneghan had been backed by former Freedom Caucus chair Jim Jordan of Ohio. Former NFL football player Anthony Gonzalez also beat state Sen. Christina Hagan in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District. The House Freedom Fund, the Freedom Caucus-aligned super PAC started by Jordan, had donated to Hagen. In the Ohio, both parties got well-known establishment politicians for their gubernatorial race. Democrat Richard Cordray, the state’s former attorney general and the former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, crushed the other candidates in his primary including former congressman Dennis Kucinich, by 39 percentage points. On the Republican side, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor by 20 percentage points. The race will be a rematch of the 2010 attorney general race which DeWine narrowly won. Contributing: Nicole Gaudiano in Washington; Tony Cook and Maureen Groppe in Indiana; and Jason Williams in Ohio Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2rwPnsn	www.usatoday.com	2center	lq2RdBzz2jF284eh
culture	New York Post	22	https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/the-best-calming-cbd-products-to-buy-in-honor-of-4-20/	The best CBD products to buy in honor of 4/20	2020-04-20		NY Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you buy through our links . If you ’ ve been feeling anxiety over current events , it might be time to browse a few soothing CBD products — especially in honor of this week ’ s cheeky 4/20 holiday , celebrated by cannabis lovers around the globe . Besides their scintillating aroma , CBD ( cannabidiol ) products promise to reduce inflammation , calm nerves and alleviate pain . While few of these benefits are backed up by medical studies , the cannabis craze shows no signs of slowing down . From CBD-infused oils and eye masks to gummies and skin-care potions , chill out with our favorite plant-based picks . Say hasta la vista to dark under-eye circles with these hydrogel eye masks . Infused with cannabis sativa seed oil , green tea extract , chamomile and sodium hyaluronate , these miracle masks nourish , smooth and brighten delicate skin under the eyes . No Puff Zone Hydrating Hemp Hydrogel Under Eye Mask , $ 9 Nails Inc . Constantly washing and sanitizing your hands can take a real toll on your skin . Let this natural CBD skin cream be your handy hydrating hero . Natural CBD skin cream , $ 65 ( 2 oz . ) at Dr. Kerklaan This shampoo and conditioner set — infused with hemp-derived CBD — gently cleanses , detangles and hydrates locks , leaving you with the ultimate hair high . The only thing worth inhaling this 4/20 are the mild floral scents and rich , spicy and herbaceous aromas of this candle . Self-soothe with this restorative body oil , packed with powerful ingredients such as full-spectrum CBD and French maritime pine bark extract . Ellis Brooklyn Marvelous CBD Massage & Body Oil , $ 65 at Standard Dose This budding bundle will keep you calm and organized . The all-in-one kit includes a sleek leather pouch , a starter pack of CBD gummies and a gift card to a meditation app . Enjoy the stress-relieving benefits of this sophisticated skin-care cream . Its rich blend of terpenes , CBD and natural compounds delivers instant relief to dry and itchy skin . Get baked and bronzed with the first luxurious CBD-infused tanning mousse . Nourishing botanical ingredients leave skin with a long-lasting sun-kissed glow — and a fresh scent . This facial mist uses the finest THC-free cannabidiol ( in combination with aloe , green tea , coffee and peppermint ) to reduce redness and leave you fresh-faced for your next video call . Bask in the glow of your own complexion with this CBD face oil . Infused with Colorado-grown , organic , full-spectrum CBD , it offers TLC to dry , irritated or stressed-out skin . Emerald CBD Adaptogens Deep Moisture Glow Oil , $ 98 at Herbivore Botanicals Add a tranquil touch to virtual happy hour by stirring one of these soothing sachets into your drink . Packed with powerful anti-inflammatories agents such as turmeric , ginger and boswellia , along with CBD and tart cherry powder , the powders promise to optimize relaxation and ease sore and achy joints . Soothing sachets , $ 50 ( box of 12 ) at Nature of Things Soak up the healing benefits of these CBD- and botanical-infused bath salts , designed to alleviate aches and pains . Ingredients such as sulfur detoxify and draw out impurities , while active botanicals soothe muscles and promote relaxation . Let this earthy eau de grassy vetiver , with calming violet leaf and fresh lemon , be the high note of your fragrance collection . The debut of this bubbling face tonic ( from vegan and cruelty-free skin-care brand Wldkat ) comes just in time for 4/20 . Charged with powerful ingredients such as broad-spectrum CBD , kombucha and ginger root extract , the potion leaves skin looking bright and radiant . Ginger + Kombucha Bubbling Skin Tonic , $ 28 ( available 4/20 ) at Wldkat	NY Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you buy through our links. If you’ve been feeling anxiety over current events, it might be time to browse a few soothing CBD products — especially in honor of this week’s cheeky 4/20 holiday, celebrated by cannabis lovers around the globe. Besides their scintillating aroma, CBD (cannabidiol) products promise to reduce inflammation, calm nerves and alleviate pain. While few of these benefits are backed up by medical studies, the cannabis craze shows no signs of slowing down. From CBD-infused oils and eye masks to gummies and skin-care potions, chill out with our favorite plant-based picks. Puff begone Say hasta la vista to dark under-eye circles with these hydrogel eye masks. Infused with cannabis sativa seed oil, green tea extract, chamomile and sodium hyaluronate, these miracle masks nourish, smooth and brighten delicate skin under the eyes. No Puff Zone Hydrating Hemp Hydrogel Under Eye Mask, $9 Nails Inc. Hydrated high Constantly washing and sanitizing your hands can take a real toll on your skin. Let this natural CBD skin cream be your handy hydrating hero. Natural CBD skin cream, $65 (2 oz.) at Dr. Kerklaan Herbal essence This shampoo and conditioner set — infused with hemp-derived CBD — gently cleanses, detangles and hydrates locks, leaving you with the ultimate hair high. Super Garden shampoo and conditioner set, $72 at R+Co Get lit The only thing worth inhaling this 4/20 are the mild floral scents and rich, spicy and herbaceous aromas of this candle. Cannabis candle, $55 at Malin + Goetz Strike oil Self-soothe with this restorative body oil, packed with powerful ingredients such as full-spectrum CBD and French maritime pine bark extract. Ellis Brooklyn Marvelous CBD Massage & Body Oil, $65 at Standard Dose Chew on this This budding bundle will keep you calm and organized. The all-in-one kit includes a sleek leather pouch, a starter pack of CBD gummies and a gift card to a meditation app. The Bee & Kit, $99 at Bee & Kin Serenity now Enjoy the stress-relieving benefits of this sophisticated skin-care cream. Its rich blend of terpenes, CBD and natural compounds delivers instant relief to dry and itchy skin. CBD 300 Face and Body Cream, $125 at Chantecaille Always sunny Get baked and bronzed with the first luxurious CBD-infused tanning mousse. Nourishing botanical ingredients leave skin with a long-lasting sun-kissed glow — and a fresh scent. Tanning Mousse, $55 at Opalens Beauty Mist Mary Jane This facial mist uses the finest THC-free cannabidiol (in combination with aloe, green tea, coffee and peppermint) to reduce redness and leave you fresh-faced for your next video call. Tone Down spray, $29 at Fitish Go green Bask in the glow of your own complexion with this CBD face oil. Infused with Colorado-grown, organic, full-spectrum CBD, it offers TLC to dry, irritated or stressed-out skin. Emerald CBD Adaptogens Deep Moisture Glow Oil, $98 at Herbivore Botanicals Powder hour Add a tranquil touch to virtual happy hour by stirring one of these soothing sachets into your drink. Packed with powerful anti-inflammatories agents such as turmeric, ginger and boswellia, along with CBD and tart cherry powder, the powders promise to optimize relaxation and ease sore and achy joints. Soothing sachets, $50 (box of 12) at Nature of Things Rub-a-dub-dub Soak up the healing benefits of these CBD- and botanical-infused bath salts, designed to alleviate aches and pains. Ingredients such as sulfur detoxify and draw out impurities, while active botanicals soothe muscles and promote relaxation. Botanicals bath salts, $29 at Vertly Just a spritz Let this earthy eau de grassy vetiver, with calming violet leaf and fresh lemon, be the high note of your fragrance collection. Dirty Grass eau de parfum, $185 at Heretic Chronic tonic The debut of this bubbling face tonic (from vegan and cruelty-free skin-care brand Wldkat) comes just in time for 4/20. Charged with powerful ingredients such as broad-spectrum CBD, kombucha and ginger root extract, the potion leaves skin looking bright and radiant. Ginger + Kombucha Bubbling Skin Tonic, $28 (available 4/20) at Wldkat	www.nypost.com	1right	3rftYU2xcUdyb12i
environment	National Review	22	https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/san-francisco-straws-ban-bubble-tea-business-hurt/	San Francisco Bans Plastic Straws and Cocktail Swords	2018-07-27	Katherine Timpf, David French, Jordan Sillars, Jay Nordlinger, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, Victor Davis Hanson, Yuval Levin	The city is placing a burden on its businesses for very little environmental benefit . San Francisco ’ s supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to ban plastic straws , toothpicks , cocktail swords , and stirrers . The ordinance goes into effect in July of 2020 and will punish violators with a fine ranging from $ 100 to $ 500 . Although it doesn ’ t include a specific exemption for the disabled , it does state that “ strict compliance . . . is not required in instances where it would interfere with accommodating for any person ’ s medical needs . ” This ban is not quite as severe as the one that was just passed in Santa Barbara , which will punish violators with a maximum penalty of a $ 1,000 fine or six months in jail per straw . What ’ s more , Santa Barbara legislation ’ s does not contain language about reduced requirements for compliance when dealing with people who are disabled . ( It is still , as Reason notes , stricter than the one in Seattle , because it bans compostable plastics as well as regular ones . ) Just because San Francisco ’ s ban is less strict than Santa Barbara ’ s , however , does not mean that it is not going to cause any problems . In fact , there is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban : bubble-tea shops . There is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban : bubble-tea shops . If you ’ re not familiar with bubble tea — also known as “ boba ” — it ’ s tea-based drink with tapioca pearls — or “ bubbles ” — at the bottom . It ’ s a very popular drink in San Francisco ; according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle , 250 local bubble-tea businesses are mentioned in Yelp reviews for the area . The tea not only requires a straw , but it also requires a special kind of straw , a larger one that allows the consumer to sip up the bubbles . According to the Chronicle , bubble-tea-shop owners have been running into more than a few hurdles when trying to figure out how they will comply with the new ordinance . One chain , Boba Guys , was delighted to find a supplier that makes straws out of polylactic acid — a degradable plastic also known as PLA — only to find that PLA was also banned by the ordinance . There are still , of course , other options — such as bamboo , metal , or paper . But the Chronicle notes that all of these options are far more expensive : Plastic straws cost between one to three cents apiece , while paper straws cost between seven and nine cents . It might not seem like the hugest deal , but when Boba Guys is handing out around 2 million straws per year , that increased cost is certainly going to add up . There is also the additional problem of supply . According to the Chronicle , Boba Guys staff say they know of three options for compliant straws : paper straws from a company called Aardvark , paper straws from a company called Worldcentric , and seaweed-based plastic straws from a company called Loliware . There ’ s just one issue : Aardvark has a backlog of orders , and jumbo straws from the other two companies are not on the market yet . To be fair , the San Francisco Department of the Environment has told the Chronicle that they ’ re willing to help the boba-tea businesses . “ If there is a moment when this goes into effect when you ’ re unable to source the straws you need , ” Department of the Environment director Debbie Raphael said . “ Let ’ s talk about it and see what we can do to help . ” Hopefully all of the bubble-tea shops can figure out a way to survive this ban , but the whole thing seems a little ridiculous when you consider how minimal the environmental impact of the straw ban will have in the first place . As I ’ ve noted before , straws represent only 0.02 percent of the plastic waste that is estimated to go into the ocean each year , and the United States is responsible for only about 1 percent of the total plastic waste in the ocean overall . It seems as though San Francisco is placing a hell of a burden on its businesses for something where the benefit isn ’ t even worth it .	(Mario Anzuoni/Reuters) The city is placing a burden on its businesses for very little environmental benefit. San Francisco’s supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to ban plastic straws, toothpicks, cocktail swords, and stirrers. The ordinance goes into effect in July of 2020 and will punish violators with a fine ranging from $100 to $500. Although it doesn’t include a specific exemption for the disabled, it does state that “strict compliance . . . is not required in instances where it would interfere with accommodating for any person’s medical needs.” Advertisement This ban is not quite as severe as the one that was just passed in Santa Barbara, which will punish violators with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail per straw. What’s more, Santa Barbara legislation’s does not contain language about reduced requirements for compliance when dealing with people who are disabled. (It is still, as Reason notes, stricter than the one in Seattle, because it bans compostable plastics as well as regular ones.) Just because San Francisco’s ban is less strict than Santa Barbara’s, however, does not mean that it is not going to cause any problems. In fact, there is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban: bubble-tea shops. There is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban: bubble-tea shops. If you’re not familiar with bubble tea — also known as “boba” — it’s tea-based drink with tapioca pearls — or “bubbles” — at the bottom. It’s a very popular drink in San Francisco; according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, 250 local bubble-tea businesses are mentioned in Yelp reviews for the area. The tea not only requires a straw, but it also requires a special kind of straw, a larger one that allows the consumer to sip up the bubbles. Advertisement According to the Chronicle, bubble-tea-shop owners have been running into more than a few hurdles when trying to figure out how they will comply with the new ordinance. One chain, Boba Guys, was delighted to find a supplier that makes straws out of polylactic acid — a degradable plastic also known as PLA — only to find that PLA was also banned by the ordinance. There are still, of course, other options — such as bamboo, metal, or paper. But the Chronicle notes that all of these options are far more expensive: Plastic straws cost between one to three cents apiece, while paper straws cost between seven and nine cents. It might not seem like the hugest deal, but when Boba Guys is handing out around 2 million straws per year, that increased cost is certainly going to add up. Advertisement Advertisement There is also the additional problem of supply. According to the Chronicle, Boba Guys staff say they know of three options for compliant straws: paper straws from a company called Aardvark, paper straws from a company called Worldcentric, and seaweed-based plastic straws from a company called Loliware. There’s just one issue: Aardvark has a backlog of orders, and jumbo straws from the other two companies are not on the market yet. Advertisement To be fair, the San Francisco Department of the Environment has told the Chronicle that they’re willing to help the boba-tea businesses. “If there is a moment when this goes into effect when you’re unable to source the straws you need,” Department of the Environment director Debbie Raphael said. “Let’s talk about it and see what we can do to help.” Hopefully all of the bubble-tea shops can figure out a way to survive this ban, but the whole thing seems a little ridiculous when you consider how minimal the environmental impact of the straw ban will have in the first place. As I’ve noted before, straws represent only 0.02 percent of the plastic waste that is estimated to go into the ocean each year, and the United States is responsible for only about 1 percent of the total plastic waste in the ocean overall. It seems as though San Francisco is placing a hell of a burden on its businesses for something where the benefit isn’t even worth it. NOW WATCH: ‘Democrats Target Plastic Straws’	www.nationalreview.com	1right	vdZpdpPmqCeiZcek
elections	The Flip Side	11	https://www.theflipside.io/archives/joe-biden-2021	Joe Biden			The left is divided about Reade ’ s allegation and Biden ’ s plan . “ There have been a number of sneering columns accusing liberal feminists of hypocrisy for not championing Reade as fervently as they did Christine Blasey Ford , who claimed , during Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court nomination fight , that he ’ d sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school… “ The truth is , if Blasey had been so inconsistent in telling her story , feminists might still have believed her , but they likely wouldn ’ t have made her a cause célèbre , and Democrats on Capitol Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly . Advocates for victims of sexual harassment and assault would worry that using such an ambiguous case as a political weapon would undermine their cause… It would be easier to know what to do with Tara Reade ’ s accusation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her if her tale were more solid , or if it were less . ” “ The Times article attempts to address the inevitable calculus voters will have to make in November by providing a thorough accounting of the ‘ pattern of behavior ’ laid out by the more than 20 women who ’ ve accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault . Indeed , before they describe Reade ’ s allegation in any detail , Lerer and Ember write that the allegations against Trump go ‘ far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden. ’ It ’ s not wrong to consider how a sexual assault allegation might affect a political candidate ’ s chances . But Lerer and Ember chose to forgo any informed political analysis in favor of a simpler comparison : Whose sexual assault allegations are worse ? … “ There ’ s a reason why Trump brought Bill Clinton ’ s accusers to a 2016 presidential debate . By reminding voters of another set of sexual abuse allegations , Trump sought to minimize and deflect from his own . There may well be voters who ’ ll choose their vote for president based on who has drawn a longer list of sexual assault allegations , and they should feel free to compare Biden and Trump by that measure . But journalists should know better than to engage in this obfuscating exercise of relativity . ” Regarding Biden ’ s plan , critics note that “ Biden ’ s response to [ the ] young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won ’ t help any of them for decades . And to understand just how pitifully stingy this ‘ concession ’ is , remember that dozens of Democratic senators , including plenty of ‘ moderates ’ , have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 . You can find an op-ed in Forbes ( not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter ) suggesting 50 would be a better age… Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998 , and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016… [ Biden ’ s plan is ] not nothing , but it ’ s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing , and it shows that Biden isn ’ t serious about courting the left . ” Others , however , point out that “ In state after state , young voters ’ enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders failed to translate into cold , hard votes… Fair or not , their inability to deliver on his behalf will not go unnoticed in political circles , and going forward , candidates will be that much more hesitant to pin their chances on this demographic… Sitting this election out for whatever reason would not serve young voters ’ interests in the short or long term . They need to show up and be counted like never before , even if only to write in a protest candidate . Once they establish themselves as a reliable force , they won ’ t again have to beg and bargain with politicians to take them seriously . ”	From the Left The left is divided about Reade’s allegation and Biden’s plan. “There have been a number of sneering columns accusing liberal feminists of hypocrisy for not championing Reade as fervently as they did Christine Blasey Ford, who claimed, during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination fight, that he’d sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school… “The truth is, if Blasey had been so inconsistent in telling her story, feminists might still have believed her, but they likely wouldn’t have made her a cause célèbre, and Democrats on Capitol Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly. Advocates for victims of sexual harassment and assault would worry that using such an ambiguous case as a political weapon would undermine their cause… It would be easier to know what to do with Tara Reade’s accusation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her if her tale were more solid, or if it were less.” Michelle Goldberg, New York Times “The Times article attempts to address the inevitable calculus voters will have to make in November by providing a thorough accounting of the ‘pattern of behavior’ laid out by the more than 20 women who’ve accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault. Indeed, before they describe Reade’s allegation in any detail, Lerer and Ember write that the allegations against Trump go ‘far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden.’ It’s not wrong to consider how a sexual assault allegation might affect a political candidate’s chances. But Lerer and Ember chose to forgo any informed political analysis in favor of a simpler comparison: Whose sexual assault allegations are worse?… “There’s a reason why Trump brought Bill Clinton’s accusers to a 2016 presidential debate. By reminding voters of another set of sexual abuse allegations, Trump sought to minimize and deflect from his own. There may well be voters who’ll choose their vote for president based on who has drawn a longer list of sexual assault allegations, and they should feel free to compare Biden and Trump by that measure. But journalists should know better than to engage in this obfuscating exercise of relativity.” Christina Cauterucci, Slate Regarding Biden’s plan, critics note that “Biden’s response to [the] young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won’t help any of them for decades. And to understand just how pitifully stingy this ‘concession’ is, remember that dozens of Democratic senators, including plenty of ‘moderates’, have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55. You can find an op-ed in Forbes (not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter) suggesting 50 would be a better age… Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998, and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016… [Biden’s plan is] not nothing, but it’s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing, and it shows that Biden isn’t serious about courting the left.” Nathan Robinson, The Guardian Others, however, point out that “In state after state, young voters’ enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders failed to translate into cold, hard votes… Fair or not, their inability to deliver on his behalf will not go unnoticed in political circles, and going forward, candidates will be that much more hesitant to pin their chances on this demographic… Sitting this election out for whatever reason would not serve young voters’ interests in the short or long term. They need to show up and be counted like never before, even if only to write in a protest candidate. Once they establish themselves as a reliable force, they won’t again have to beg and bargain with politicians to take them seriously.” Editorial Board, New York Times	www.theflipside.io	2center	IkqZBwS28dfkOQoN
culture	Yahoo! The 360	11	https://news.yahoo.com/what-happens-when-videos-of-police-violence-go-viral-165242076.html	What happens when videos of police violence go viral?	2020-07-06	Julia Munslow	“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates . On May 25 , a 17-year-old recorded a video that changed the world . Darnella Frazier ’ s video of the police killing of George Floyd sparked mass protests across the United States , leading to a racial reckoning that is continuing to affect nearly all parts of society . The video and clips from it drew the attention of millions . The officers onscreen have been arrested and charged , and in the weeks since , countless videos of police brutality have appeared on social media . Other videos of police brutality against Black people , including Philando Castile , Eric Garner , Tamir Rice and countless others , have also spurred calls for police reform and antiracism . There ’ s a long history of widely shared images of Black people in pain or dying . During the Civil War era , an image of the raised scars on the back of an escaped slave galvanized Northerners to sympathize with abolitionist movements . But in the late 1800s and early 1900s , white people created “ lynching postcards , ” sharing images of the killings of Black people with friends and family . As technology evolved , more Black people started documenting atrocities themselves — from Ida B. Wells ’ s work chronicling lynchings to photos of Emmett Till ’ s mutilated body . The images of Till , which were published in Black newspapers , are credited with helping shock people into supporting the civil rights movement . Most people agree that the documentation of these incidents is historically valuable . Videos provide proof of what happened , acting as evidence in the pursuit of justice . However , there is debate over how such videos should be treated by the general public and the press , especially in the age of social media . Some say there is value in videos like these going viral . They can galvanize movements and bring attention to an incident , which helps pressure authorities to respond . In recent weeks , several videos have led to disciplinary action . Images and videos also force people to face the truth : Though decades apart , the mothers of both Till and Elijah McClain said they want people to see photos of their dead Black sons and bear witness to what happened to them . But others point out that videos of police brutality have been going viral for years and there hasn ’ t been systemic change . The circumstances that led to the incident in the first place are still in place , they say . Millions of views and shares aren ’ t the same as a conviction , they say . Plus , Black , indigenous and people of color ( BIPOC ) shouldn ’ t have to film police brutality and racism to prove they exist . The mass dissemination of these videos also leads to ethical questions over who has the privilege of suffering in private , as the bulk are BIPOC — it ’ s rare to see a viral video of a white person in pain . Finally , there ’ s the psychological effects of these videos . Psychologists say Black people can be traumatized by viewing these videos repeatedly . Experts also worry that watching too many videos of police brutality leads to dehumanization of Black people in the videos and desensitizes non-BIPOC to their pain . As the racial reckoning continues and more videos of police brutality and other incidents emerge , some experts recommend that we consume and engage with these videos in a more thoughtful manner . “ It powerfully shapes our discourse , much like the images of African-American youth in the South who were being sprayed with powerful water hoses and bitten by police dogs when they protested during the Civil Rights Movement . As disturbing as these images are , as tragic as it is for individuals who ’ ve lost their lives , or who have been abused in these circumstances , the reality is that their victimization is not in vain . '' — Brian Smedley to USA Today “ It wasn ’ t until things were made visual in the civil rights movement that we really saw folks come out and being shocked into movement . ... To publish those photographs [ of Emmett Till ] in black publications so the entire Black world , like our Facebook or our Twitter now , right , so that the whole Black world could see what had happened. ” — Melina Abdullah in documentary 13th	“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates. What’s happening On May 25, a 17-year-old recorded a video that changed the world. Darnella Frazier’s video of the police killing of George Floyd sparked mass protests across the United States, leading to a racial reckoning that is continuing to affect nearly all parts of society. The video and clips from it drew the attention of millions. The officers onscreen have been arrested and charged, and in the weeks since, countless videos of police brutality have appeared on social media. Other videos of police brutality against Black people, including Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and countless others, have also spurred calls for police reform and antiracism. There’s a long history of widely shared images of Black people in pain or dying. During the Civil War era, an image of the raised scars on the back of an escaped slave galvanized Northerners to sympathize with abolitionist movements. But in the late 1800s and early 1900s, white people created “lynching postcards,” sharing images of the killings of Black people with friends and family. As technology evolved, more Black people started documenting atrocities themselves — from Ida B. Wells’s work chronicling lynchings to photos of Emmett Till’s mutilated body. The images of Till, which were published in Black newspapers, are credited with helping shock people into supporting the civil rights movement. Why there’s debate Most people agree that the documentation of these incidents is historically valuable. Videos provide proof of what happened, acting as evidence in the pursuit of justice. However, there is debate over how such videos should be treated by the general public and the press, especially in the age of social media. Some say there is value in videos like these going viral. They can galvanize movements and bring attention to an incident, which helps pressure authorities to respond. In recent weeks, several videos have led to disciplinary action. Images and videos also force people to face the truth: Though decades apart, the mothers of both Till and Elijah McClain said they want people to see photos of their dead Black sons and bear witness to what happened to them. But others point out that videos of police brutality have been going viral for years and there hasn’t been systemic change. The circumstances that led to the incident in the first place are still in place, they say. Millions of views and shares aren’t the same as a conviction, they say. Plus, Black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) shouldn’t have to film police brutality and racism to prove they exist. The mass dissemination of these videos also leads to ethical questions over who has the privilege of suffering in private, as the bulk are BIPOC — it’s rare to see a viral video of a white person in pain. Finally, there’s the psychological effects of these videos. Psychologists say Black people can be traumatized by viewing these videos repeatedly. Experts also worry that watching too many videos of police brutality leads to dehumanization of Black people in the videos and desensitizes non-BIPOC to their pain. What’s next As the racial reckoning continues and more videos of police brutality and other incidents emerge, some experts recommend that we consume and engage with these videos in a more thoughtful manner. Perspectives These images are important and shape our national conversation “It powerfully shapes our discourse, much like the images of African-American youth in the South who were being sprayed with powerful water hoses and bitten by police dogs when they protested during the Civil Rights Movement. As disturbing as these images are, as tragic as it is for individuals who’ve lost their lives, or who have been abused in these circumstances, the reality is that their victimization is not in vain." — Brian Smedley to USA Today Images can catalyze movements and need to be seen “It wasn’t until things were made visual in the civil rights movement that we really saw folks come out and being shocked into movement. ... To publish those photographs [of Emmett Till] in black publications so the entire Black world, like our Facebook or our Twitter now, right, so that the whole Black world could see what had happened.” — Melina Abdullah in documentary 13th	www.news.yahoo.com	2center	uWHOmRQwsNLIGvWf
race_and_racism	Reuters	11	https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-minneapolis-police-atlanta/protesters-burn-down-wendys-in-atlanta-where-black-man-was-slain-by-police-idUKKBN23K0RS	Protesters burn down Wendy's in Atlanta after police shooting	2020-06-15	Brad Brooks	( ███ ) - Protesters shut down a major highway in Atlanta on Saturday and burned down a Wendy ’ s restaurant where a black man was shot dead by police as he tried to escape arrest , an incident likely to fuel more nationwide tensions over race and police tactics . The restaurant was in flames for more than 45 minutes before fire crews arrived to extinguish the blaze , protected by a line of police officers , local television showed . By that time the building was reduced to charred rubble next to a gas station . Other demonstrators marched onto Interstate-75 , stopping traffic , before police used a line of squad cars to hold them back . The city ’ s police chief , Erika Shields , resigned earlier on Saturday over the shooting on Friday night of 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks , which was captured on video . The police department has fired the officer who allegedly shot and killed Brooks , police spokesman Carlos Campos said late on Saturday . Another officer involved in the incident was put on administrative leave . Both of the officers were white . Brooks ’ death followed weeks of demonstrations in major cities across the United States sparked by the death of George Floyd , an African American who died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes while detaining him . The Atlanta officer fired after Friday ’ s incident was identified by the police department as Garrett Rolfe , who joined the department in October 2013 . The officer placed on administrative duty is Devin Bronsan , who was hired in September 2018 . Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said she had accepted the prompt resignation of police chief Shields . “ I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force and have called for the immediate termination of the officer , ” Bottoms said at an afternoon news conference . People watch as a Wendy ’ s burns following a rally against racial inequality and the police shooting death of Rayshard Brooks , in Atlanta , Georgia , U.S. June 13 , 2020 . ███/Elijah Nouvelage Brooks was the father of a young daughter who was celebrating her birthday on Saturday , his lawyers said . Near the scene of the shooting , street protests began on Saturday , with more than 100 people calling for the officers to be charged criminally in the case . Friday ’ s shooting came after police were called to the Wendy ’ s over reports that Brooks had fallen asleep in the drive-thru line . Officers attempted to take him into custody after he failed a field sobriety test , according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation . A bystander ’ s video showed Brooks struggling with two officers on the ground outside the Wendy ’ s before breaking free and running across the parking lot with what appears to be a police TASER in his hand . A second videotape from the restaurant ’ s cameras shows Brooks turning as he runs and possibly aiming the TASER at the pursuing officers before one of them fires his gun and Brooks falls to the ground . Brooks ran the length of about six cars when he turned back toward an officer and pointed what he had in his hand at the policeman , Vic Reynolds , director of the GBI , told a press conference . “ At that point , the Atlanta officer reaches down and retrieves his weapon from his holster , discharges it , strikes Mr. Brooks there on the parking lot and he goes down , ” Reynolds said . Lawyers representing the family of Brooks told reporters that Atlanta police had no right to use deadly force even if he had fired the TASER , a non-lethal weapon , in their direction . “ You can ’ t shoot somebody unless they are pointing a gun at you , ” attorney Chris Stewart said . Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard , Jr. , said in an emailed statement that his office “ has already launched an intense , independent investigation of the incident ” while it awaits the findings of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation . Bottoms said Shields , a white woman appointed police chief in December 2016 , would be replaced by deputy chief Rodney Bryant , a black man who will serve as interim chief .	(Reuters) - Protesters shut down a major highway in Atlanta on Saturday and burned down a Wendy’s restaurant where a black man was shot dead by police as he tried to escape arrest, an incident likely to fuel more nationwide tensions over race and police tactics. The restaurant was in flames for more than 45 minutes before fire crews arrived to extinguish the blaze, protected by a line of police officers, local television showed. By that time the building was reduced to charred rubble next to a gas station. Other demonstrators marched onto Interstate-75, stopping traffic, before police used a line of squad cars to hold them back. The city’s police chief, Erika Shields, resigned earlier on Saturday over the shooting on Friday night of 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks, which was captured on video. The police department has fired the officer who allegedly shot and killed Brooks, police spokesman Carlos Campos said late on Saturday. Another officer involved in the incident was put on administrative leave. Both of the officers were white. Brooks’ death followed weeks of demonstrations in major cities across the United States sparked by the death of George Floyd, an African American who died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes while detaining him. The Atlanta officer fired after Friday’s incident was identified by the police department as Garrett Rolfe, who joined the department in October 2013. The officer placed on administrative duty is Devin Bronsan, who was hired in September 2018. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said she had accepted the prompt resignation of police chief Shields. “I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force and have called for the immediate termination of the officer,” Bottoms said at an afternoon news conference. People watch as a Wendy’s burns following a rally against racial inequality and the police shooting death of Rayshard Brooks, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. June 13, 2020. REUTERS/Elijah Nouvelage Brooks was the father of a young daughter who was celebrating her birthday on Saturday, his lawyers said. Near the scene of the shooting, street protests began on Saturday, with more than 100 people calling for the officers to be charged criminally in the case. PARKING LOT Friday’s shooting came after police were called to the Wendy’s over reports that Brooks had fallen asleep in the drive-thru line. Officers attempted to take him into custody after he failed a field sobriety test, according to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. A bystander’s video showed Brooks struggling with two officers on the ground outside the Wendy’s before breaking free and running across the parking lot with what appears to be a police TASER in his hand. A second videotape from the restaurant’s cameras shows Brooks turning as he runs and possibly aiming the TASER at the pursuing officers before one of them fires his gun and Brooks falls to the ground. Brooks ran the length of about six cars when he turned back toward an officer and pointed what he had in his hand at the policeman, Vic Reynolds, director of the GBI, told a press conference. “At that point, the Atlanta officer reaches down and retrieves his weapon from his holster, discharges it, strikes Mr. Brooks there on the parking lot and he goes down,” Reynolds said. Lawyers representing the family of Brooks told reporters that Atlanta police had no right to use deadly force even if he had fired the TASER, a non-lethal weapon, in their direction. Slideshow (34 Images) “You can’t shoot somebody unless they are pointing a gun at you,” attorney Chris Stewart said. Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, Jr., said in an emailed statement that his office “has already launched an intense, independent investigation of the incident” while it awaits the findings of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Bottoms said Shields, a white woman appointed police chief in December 2016, would be replaced by deputy chief Rodney Bryant, a black man who will serve as interim chief.	www.uk.reuters.com	2center	unyuIszTFWKfpBv8
trade	BBC News	11	https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48309703	US lifts steel and aluminium tariffs on Canada			The US has reached a deal with Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium imports in a move that could lead to approval for a new North American trade deal . In a joint statement , the US and Canada announced that a 25 % tariff on steel imports , and of 10 % on aluminium , will end in 48 hours . It is widely expected the US and Mexico will make a similar announcement soon . The US implemented the tariffs last year on grounds of `` national security '' . Under the agreement , there will be no quotas on how much steel or aluminium the three countries buy from overseas . However , the US and Canada will monitor imports and if a country is determined to be buying in too much , one of the other nations can request a consultation and potentially re-impose tariffs . Getting rid of the tariffs is viewed as a key hurdle to approval for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) trade deal which was signed in 2018 . It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement . Providing that Washington and Mexico City also announce an agreement to lift levies on steel and aluminium , the US , Mexico and Canada will ask their respective governments to ratify USMCA . Canada also announced that it would lift tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium that it implemented last year in retaliation for the Trump administration 's levies . The spotlight had been on rising trade tensions between the US and China . So America 's decision to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium coming from Canada and Mexico was a surprise bit of good news . As it holds the line with China , the US is now pushing forward with a trade deal much closer to home . Remember the USMCA trade agreement - meant to replace NAFTA ? No ? Hardly a surprise . It has been languishing in the background . For almost a year now these tariffs had been an obstacle to ratification of the deal . Canada and Mexico had vowed not to move ahead as long as they were in place . And several members of Congress had also raised objections . This now raises the odds of it crossing the finishing line , opening up a new era of trade expansion in North America . For Mr Trump , who loves tariffs so much he called himself the 'tariff man ' , this would be a big win . And who knows , trade peace in North America might even strengthen his hand in negotiations with China . It also targeted US farm goods as well as items like tomato ketchup and household products . Canada 's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday : `` These tariffs were harming workers and consumers on both sides of the border . As we look at moving forward with the new NAFTA , it did n't make a lot of sense to continue to have tariffs on steel and aluminium between our countries . '' European Union steel and aluminium exports to the US are still subject to the tariffs , but there has been some good news for trade relations between the two - on Friday President Donald Trump delayed a decision on whether to impose levies on cars and car part imports . The White House has put back the decision by six months to allow more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan . Tariffs of up to 25 % on imported cars and car parts were under consideration . A report by the Commerce Department claimed that imports of foreign-made cars and auto parts into the US were a threat to national security . The report has not been published , but in Friday 's announcement Mr Trump cited its findings which conclude that US carmakers are missing out on revenues to invest in research and development ( R & D ) . It said : `` The lag in R & D expenditures by American-owned producers is weakening innovation and , accordingly , threatening to impair our national security . '' The president said he agreed with the study 's finding that imported cars and trucks were `` weakening our internal economy '' . The deal with Canada , as well as the delay in higher tariffs on EU and Japanese cars and auto parts , come at a critical time for the US and China - the world 's two biggest economies . On Monday , Beijing implemented retaliatory tariffs on US imports after Mr Trump imposed levies on a further $ 200bn of Chinese goods , following a breakdown in trade talks between the two nations . However , shortly afterwards , Mr Trump declared a `` national emergency '' to protect US computer networks from `` foreign adversaries '' . While the announcement did not name any individual companies , it was widely perceived to be directed at Huawei , the Chinese telecoms equipment maker , which has faced claims its products could be used by China for surveillance .	Image copyright Getty Images The US has reached a deal with Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium imports in a move that could lead to approval for a new North American trade deal. In a joint statement, the US and Canada announced that a 25% tariff on steel imports, and of 10% on aluminium, will end in 48 hours. It is widely expected the US and Mexico will make a similar announcement soon. The US implemented the tariffs last year on grounds of "national security". Under the agreement, there will be no quotas on how much steel or aluminium the three countries buy from overseas. However, the US and Canada will monitor imports and if a country is determined to be buying in too much, one of the other nations can request a consultation and potentially re-impose tariffs. What does the agreement mean? Getting rid of the tariffs is viewed as a key hurdle to approval for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal which was signed in 2018. It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement. Providing that Washington and Mexico City also announce an agreement to lift levies on steel and aluminium, the US, Mexico and Canada will ask their respective governments to ratify USMCA. Image copyright Getty Images Canada also announced that it would lift tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium that it implemented last year in retaliation for the Trump administration's levies. A win awaits for the 'tariff man' Analysis by Michelle Fleury, New York business correspondent The spotlight had been on rising trade tensions between the US and China. So America's decision to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium coming from Canada and Mexico was a surprise bit of good news. Image copyright Reuters Image caption (L-R) Mexico's then President Enrique Pena Nieto, US President Donald Trump, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sign the USMCA deal As it holds the line with China, the US is now pushing forward with a trade deal much closer to home. Remember the USMCA trade agreement - meant to replace NAFTA? No? Hardly a surprise. It has been languishing in the background. For almost a year now these tariffs had been an obstacle to ratification of the deal. Canada and Mexico had vowed not to move ahead as long as they were in place. And several members of Congress had also raised objections. This now raises the odds of it crossing the finishing line, opening up a new era of trade expansion in North America. For Mr Trump, who loves tariffs so much he called himself the 'tariff man', this would be a big win. And who knows, trade peace in North America might even strengthen his hand in negotiations with China. It also targeted US farm goods as well as items like tomato ketchup and household products. Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday: "These tariffs were harming workers and consumers on both sides of the border. As we look at moving forward with the new NAFTA, it didn't make a lot of sense to continue to have tariffs on steel and aluminium between our countries." What about other countries hit with US tariffs? European Union steel and aluminium exports to the US are still subject to the tariffs, but there has been some good news for trade relations between the two - on Friday President Donald Trump delayed a decision on whether to impose levies on cars and car part imports. The White House has put back the decision by six months to allow more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan. Tariffs of up to 25% on imported cars and car parts were under consideration. A report by the Commerce Department claimed that imports of foreign-made cars and auto parts into the US were a threat to national security. The report has not been published, but in Friday's announcement Mr Trump cited its findings which conclude that US carmakers are missing out on revenues to invest in research and development (R&D). It said: "The lag in R&D expenditures by American-owned producers is weakening innovation and, accordingly, threatening to impair our national security." The president said he agreed with the study's finding that imported cars and trucks were "weakening our internal economy". How are US relations with major trading partners? The deal with Canada, as well as the delay in higher tariffs on EU and Japanese cars and auto parts, come at a critical time for the US and China - the world's two biggest economies. Image copyright Getty Images On Monday, Beijing implemented retaliatory tariffs on US imports after Mr Trump imposed levies on a further $200bn of Chinese goods, following a breakdown in trade talks between the two nations. The US President characterised it as a "little squabble". However, shortly afterwards, Mr Trump declared a "national emergency" to protect US computer networks from "foreign adversaries". While the announcement did not name any individual companies, it was widely perceived to be directed at Huawei, the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, which has faced claims its products could be used by China for surveillance. Huawei has vehemently denied the allegations.	www.bbc.com	2center	5GWeH7VOEPSipHIv
justice_department	Christian Science Monitor	11	http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0518/IRS-scandal-becomes-Republican-battering-ram-against-Obamacare-video	IRS scandal becomes Republican battering ram against Obamacare	2013-05-18	Mark Trumbull	Now playing in a political theater near you : The IRS scandal meets Obamacare . Republicans in Congress are saying the scandal over Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups raises new doubts about President Obama ’ s health-insurance reform law . The reason is that the health-care law gives the IRS an important role in things like administering tax credits , verifying whether people are eligible for subsidies , and checking whether citizens have complied with a new mandate to carry insurance or pay a fine . “ The power in our health-care system should belong to patients and their families , not politicians – and certainly not the tax man , ” Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland said Saturday in the Republican Party ’ s weekly radio address . “ Americans should be able to choose the coverage they need at a cost they can afford . ” This battle over Obamacare , officially known as the Affordable Care Act , is not new . House Republicans voted just this week to repeal it – their 37th such vote since its 2010 passage . Their criticisms have long included worries about an expansion of IRS power and overreach . But the latest controversy about the IRS comes as the Obama administration is in a difficult home stretch of implementing the health law ’ s biggest elements – notably ensuring that health insurance “ exchanges ” exist in each state for Americans to use in sign-ups that begin later this year . Even Democrats acknowledge that the administrative task is daunting . Republicans are painting the implementation as a tangle of bureaucracy that ’ s impeding job creation . Congressman Harris introduced his brief address by saying that he was standing next to “ Red Tape Tower , ” some 20,000 pages of regulations tied to Obamacare . Then he brought up the role the IRS will play in implementation and enforcement of the act ’ s provisions . “ If we ’ ve learned anything this week , it ’ s that the IRS needs less power , not more , ” said Harris . He added : “ It turns out that the IRS official who oversaw the operation that ’ s under scrutiny for targeting conservatives is now in charge of the IRS ’ s Obamacare office . You can ’ t make this stuff up . ” Republicans and Democrats alike have denounced the IRS in recent days for scrutinizing conservative groups seeking a tax exemption but not similar liberal groups . It ’ s not that the IRS has no business weighing the tax status of political groups – the lines for qualifying for a tax exemption can be fuzzy . But the widespread perception is that the IRS stepped over a line . By extension , some IRS critics say , this raises the fear that some aspects of Obamacare implementation could be handled along partisan lines . Some Democrats say it ’ s Republicans , not the IRS , that is overreaching when it comes to the health-care law . The head of the IRS health-care office , Sarah Hall Ingram , was in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 , when agents first started improperly targeting conservative groups over their applications for tax-exempt status , according to The Associated Press . `` [ But ] there is n't any evidence that Sarah Ingram had any inkling of the problems '' before she changed jobs to help implement the health-care law , Rep. Sander Levin ( D ) of Michigan said , according to the AP . Biased or not , the tax agency has a large new role to play under the Affordable Care Act . But its job is just part of the law ’ s labyrinthine scope , which extends from an expansion of Medicaid for the poor to new rules that bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of someone ’ s health status . Republican critics say the Affordable Care Act , with its numerous regulations , will make health care more expensive and is making many businesses reluctant to hire new workers or to keep offering coverage to employees . Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy Supporters of Obamacare say that most businesses will continue health benefits , and that some 30 million more Americans will have health insurance under the law . Premium costs may rise for individuals buying insurance , but the law provides subsidies to help moderate-income households pay for it . The law ’ s connection with the IRS was underscored in a 2012 US Supreme Court decision , which ruled that the law ’ s mandate on individuals – to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is constitutional because the penalty is in effect a tax .	Now playing in a political theater near you: The IRS scandal meets Obamacare. Republicans in Congress are saying the scandal over Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups raises new doubts about President Obama’s health-insurance reform law. The reason is that the health-care law gives the IRS an important role in things like administering tax credits, verifying whether people are eligible for subsidies, and checking whether citizens have complied with a new mandate to carry insurance or pay a fine. “The power in our health-care system should belong to patients and their families, not politicians – and certainly not the tax man,” Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland said Saturday in the Republican Party’s weekly radio address. “Americans should be able to choose the coverage they need at a cost they can afford.” This battle over Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, is not new. House Republicans voted just this week to repeal it – their 37th such vote since its 2010 passage. Their criticisms have long included worries about an expansion of IRS power and overreach. But the latest controversy about the IRS comes as the Obama administration is in a difficult home stretch of implementing the health law’s biggest elements – notably ensuring that health insurance “exchanges” exist in each state for Americans to use in sign-ups that begin later this year. Even Democrats acknowledge that the administrative task is daunting. Republicans are painting the implementation as a tangle of bureaucracy that’s impeding job creation. Congressman Harris introduced his brief address by saying that he was standing next to “Red Tape Tower,” some 20,000 pages of regulations tied to Obamacare. Then he brought up the role the IRS will play in implementation and enforcement of the act’s provisions. “If we’ve learned anything this week, it’s that the IRS needs less power, not more,” said Harris. He added: “It turns out that the IRS official who oversaw the operation that’s under scrutiny for targeting conservatives is now in charge of the IRS’s Obamacare office. You can’t make this stuff up.” Republicans and Democrats alike have denounced the IRS in recent days for scrutinizing conservative groups seeking a tax exemption but not similar liberal groups. It’s not that the IRS has no business weighing the tax status of political groups – the lines for qualifying for a tax exemption can be fuzzy. But the widespread perception is that the IRS stepped over a line. By extension, some IRS critics say, this raises the fear that some aspects of Obamacare implementation could be handled along partisan lines. Some Democrats say it’s Republicans, not the IRS, that is overreaching when it comes to the health-care law. The head of the IRS health-care office, Sarah Hall Ingram, was in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010, when agents first started improperly targeting conservative groups over their applications for tax-exempt status, according to The Associated Press. "[But] there isn't any evidence that Sarah Ingram had any inkling of the problems" before she changed jobs to help implement the health-care law, Rep. Sander Levin (D) of Michigan said, according to the AP. Biased or not, the tax agency has a large new role to play under the Affordable Care Act. But its job is just part of the law’s labyrinthine scope, which extends from an expansion of Medicaid for the poor to new rules that bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of someone’s health status. Republican critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its numerous regulations, will make health care more expensive and is making many businesses reluctant to hire new workers or to keep offering coverage to employees. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy Supporters of Obamacare say that most businesses will continue health benefits, and that some 30 million more Americans will have health insurance under the law. Premium costs may rise for individuals buying insurance, but the law provides subsidies to help moderate-income households pay for it. The law’s connection with the IRS was underscored in a 2012 US Supreme Court decision, which ruled that the law’s mandate on individuals – to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is constitutional because the penalty is in effect a tax.	www.csmonitor.com	2center	qwgmDYIRZQ4I5JaG
justice_department	Fox Online News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/16/investigate-investigators-gop-lawmakers-urge-probe-irs-scandal-review/	Investigate the investigators? GOP lawmakers urge probe of IRS scandal review	2014-01-16		Republican lawmakers , frustrated by the Justice Department 's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and `` conflict of interest '' concerns , are now calling for the investigators to be investigated . Reps. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , and Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department 's inspector general launch his own probe into the department 's review of IRS activities . The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department 's conduct and , specifically , a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation . `` The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct , '' Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz . Such complaints have come to a head this week , as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status . In their letter , Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns , including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely . But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe . Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $ 6,000 to Obama 's two presidential campaigns . `` Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter , '' they wrote , also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009 . Separately , the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement , given his prior position as Bosserman 's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department . The Justice Department , though , has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman 's fitness for the role . One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she 's not acting professionally . Officials stressed that they can not consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments . `` It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions , '' the department said in a statement . On Monday , a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team , which was described as `` typical '' given their `` technical support '' on the bill .	Republican lawmakers, frustrated by the Justice Department's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and "conflict of interest" concerns, are now calling for the investigators to be investigated. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department's inspector general launch his own probe into the department's review of IRS activities. The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department's conduct and, specifically, a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation. "The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct," Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Such complaints have come to a head this week, as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. In their letter, Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns, including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely. But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe. Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $6,000 to Obama's two presidential campaigns. "Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter," they wrote, also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009. Separately, the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement, given his prior position as Bosserman's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The Justice Department, though, has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman's fitness for the role. One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she's not acting professionally. Officials stressed that they cannot consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments. "It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions," the department said in a statement. On Monday, a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team, which was described as "typical" given their "technical support" on the bill.	www.foxnews.com	1right	gZqTuVZdacoBJxPe
free_speech	Reason	22	https://reason.com/2019/08/14/democrats-join-trump-in-seeking-balance-by-policing-speech/	Democrats Join Trump in Seeking Balance by Policing Speech	2019-08-14	Jacob Sullum, David Post, Josh Blackman, Shikha Dalmia, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm, Ilya Somin, Mike Riggs	Donald Trump wants to regulate social media , while Democrats want to regulate political spending . Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness , balance , and equality . The president 's plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux . But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons . According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN , one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which protects `` interactive computer service providers '' from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others . Section 230 , which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it , also shields websites from liability for `` any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable . '' Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums , including all manner of blogs , vendors , review sites , and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms , from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic . The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content , which would be fatal to social media in their current form . The proposed executive order , CNN reports , would ask the FCC to `` find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content '' and `` the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive , unfair or deceptive practices . '' The FTC , meanwhile , would `` work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways . '' Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased , a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley ( R–Mo . ) , would be counterproductive , since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content , as well as shortsighted . As Wayne Crews , vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute , observes , `` tomorrow 's Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump ( or Hawley ) thinks they mean . '' While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it , Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach , unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize `` reasonable '' limits on election-related spending . The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits , noting that they `` place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates , citizens , and associations to engage in protected political expression , restrictions that the First Amendment can not tolerate . '' The answer , Democrats think , is to amend the First Amendment . `` Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box , regardless of the size of their bank account , '' says Sen. Tom Carper ( D–Del . ) . Democrats , in other words , want to mute some voices so that others may be heard , an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press . When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians , it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights . While Trump 's assault on the First Amendment is less blatant , it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech , forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove , or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression . And unlike the Democrats ' speech-curtailing constitutional amendment , Trump 's policy may actually come to pass , providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator .	Donald Trump wants to regulate social media, while Democrats want to regulate political spending. Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance, and equality. The president's plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux. But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons. According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN, one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects "interactive computer service providers" from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others. Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums, including all manner of blogs, vendors, review sites, and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms, from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic. The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content, which would be fatal to social media in their current form. The proposed executive order, CNN reports, would ask the FCC to "find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content" and "the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices." The FTC, meanwhile, would "work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways." Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased, a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), would be counterproductive, since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content, as well as shortsighted. As Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, "tomorrow's Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump (or Hawley) thinks they mean." While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it, Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach, unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize "reasonable" limits on election-related spending. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits, noting that they "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate." The answer, Democrats think, is to amend the First Amendment. "Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.). Democrats, in other words, want to mute some voices so that others may be heard, an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians, it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights. While Trump's assault on the First Amendment is less blatant, it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech, forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove, or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression. And unlike the Democrats' speech-curtailing constitutional amendment, Trump's policy may actually come to pass, providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator. © Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.	www.reason.com	1right	pCdvBNa6EwPYAw03
media_bias	Student Press Law Center	11	http://www.splc.org/article/2018/05/prosper-high-school	Texas principal censors paper, bans all editorials and ousts award-winning adviser	2018-05-23	Danielle Dieterich, Gabriel Greschler	UPDATE : Eagle Nation Online will not be subject to prior review in the upcoming school year . Prosper High School Principal John Burdett told the new journalism adviser , Lisa Roskens , that he was changing the highly restrictive policy he put in place last year and her students would no longer have to submit their stories for his approval before publishing . The students are also planning new editorials after all student opinion pieces were banned by Principal Burdett in the spring . “ It ’ s honestly kind of a miracle , ” said Editor-in-Chief Neha Madhira . She said that after months of silence from the administration , the staff was ready to keep fighting , but did not expect the policy change . “ I think [ the administration ] decided to change it because of all the press that we got , ” said Assistant Editor Haley Stack . “ … I mean , once it reached up to the New York Times , I think they realized that they really need to change something before they started getting a really bad name for themselves . ” The ███ sent a letter of concern to the Prosper superintendent of schools in May which was co-signed by 17 other national press freedom organizations . The case at Prosper also received widespread news coverage from both local and national news outlets . Madhira and Stack both said despite their excitement over the news , they intend to test the administration on this policy to make sure they stick to it . Madhira says she will continue to advocate for a New Voices law in Texas , which would give specific legal protections to student journalists and protect advisers from retaliation . “ I don ’ t think this should lessen the importance of why we need this law anyway , ” she said . “ We shouldn ’ t have to trade our adviser for the right to publish . ” ███ Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand agreed the positive outcome does not change the need for legal protection in the state . “ I think this case just kind of demonstrates the general unfairness that exists in Texas where the standard can be changed virtually overnight on the whim of a school official , ” said Hiestand . Principal Burdett did not respond to multiple requests for comment . TEXAS — After censoring the Eagle Nation Online three times this academic year over concerns that stories made the school look bad , the principal of Prosper ( Texas ) High School , located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area , will not renew the contract of a nationally acclaimed newspaper and yearbook adviser . Lori Oglesbee-Petter , a journalism teacher with 34 years of experience in three states , has been at Prosper since May 2016 . Last year alone , her journalism students racked up more than 175 state and national journalism awards . In October 2017 , copy editor Isabella Abraham published an article about a senior class movie night that was cancelled due to a “ miscommunication ” between past administrators and John Burdett , who is completing his first year as principal . The article was online for one day when Burdett told Oglesbee-Petter to take it down . He said that the information in the article was not uplifting or accurate . The Eagle stands by the accuracy of the story . “ Ms . O and her students have distinguished themselves across the state and country for their exemplary work , ” according to an online bio on the school website . She declined to comment for this story , saying her teaching contract bars her from speaking with reporters . “ Under her guidance , the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors . And how does this principal reward such achievements ? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news . ” In February 2018 , staff writer Haley Stack , in an editorial , admonished Prosper ’ s choice to remove “ A Separate Peace ” from the 10th grade curriculum . No reason was given for the decision , but Stack pointed to the novel ’ s homoerotic undertones as a possible cause . The editorial was online for over a week until Burdett asked for it to be taken down , citing grammatical errors and a lack of positivity . According to the Eagle , there were two grammatical errors : a missing apostrophe and an extra period . Burdett then told Eagle staff that any articles or editorials that went against “ community norms ” were to be sent to him for approval . The paper started submitting all articles by Burdett , since they felt the policy was unclear . On March 23 , Eagle staff was informed Oglesbee-Petter would not return to Prosper for another school year . According to associate editor Neha Madhira , Burdett did not provide a reason to Oglesbee-Petter . The school is not required to explain the decision because she was under contract . “ We were extremely concerned , ” said Madhira . “ We already knew [ Burdett ] wasn ’ t on our side . ” “ I think that [ Burdett ] doesn ’ t like our adviser , ” Stack said . “ And I think he is taking it out on our staff . Anytime that he sees an opportunity to shut us down in any sort of way , he will take it . ” SPLC ’ s Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand responded to the decision with “ shock . ” “ Prosper High School is blessed with a veteran teacher who was named the best high school journalism adviser in the entire country , ” Hiestand said in a May 18 press release . “ Under her guidance , the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors . And how does this principal reward such achievements ? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news . ” On April 9 , Eagle staff sent a letter to Burdett , Prosper School District Superintendent Drew Watkins , and school board members , citing the importance of a student-led newspaper , criticizing the October and February instances of censorship , and asking for Oglesbee-Petter to remain at Prosper . Staff members also said they were worried about the future of the Eagle . “ We are not just public relations for the school . Not all news will be positive . ” According to Madhira , her staff never received a reply from any administrators . Burdett did bring up the letter with Madhira in an April 20 interview regarding an approved news article about the nationwide school walk-outs . She remembers Burdett angrily saying the April 9 letter was “ false ” and cutting her off multiple times during the conversation . On May 1 , Madhira tried to publish an editorial about a team bonding activity organized by Burdett in response to instances of school shootings across the country . In the editorial , Madhira described the activity as disorganized and vague , and then offered solutions to improve it . Burdett blocked the editorial from being published online , saying it was incorrect and didn ’ t capture the voices of all Prosper students . Burdett then told Madhira the Eagle could not publish editorials anymore . This policy still remains in place . “ You have a principal that is upset that the teacher is not teaching how to produce fake news , ” Hiestand said . “ He is telling the kids , ‘ You can publish the news as long as it ’ s happy news. ’ That is the definition of fake news . ” Prosper ’ s prior review policy allows the school ’ s principal ultimate editorial authority , including the right to block stories from being published . The policy states : “ All publications edited , printed , or distributed in the name of or within the District schools shall be under the control of the school administration and the Board . All publications approved and issued by individual schools shall be part of the instructional program , under the supervision of a faculty sponsor , and shall be carefully edited to reflect the ideals and expectations of the citizens of the District for their schools . ” On May 18 , Madhira drafted a press release with the help of Hiestand and JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission Chair Lori Keekley . It explains in detail Burdett ’ s practice of censorship and Oglesbee-Petter ’ s contract termination , as well as the importance of editorials . “ We are not just public relations for the school , ” Madhira said in the press release . “ Not all news will be positive . ” Madhira ’ s goal is to spread awareness of her paper ’ s situation . She has reached out to the Dallas Morning News , NBC5 , Prosper Magazine , and the Community Impact Newspaper . So far , no reporters have chosen to pick up the story . Want more stories like this ? The ███ is a legal and educational nonprofit defending the rights of student journalists . Sign up for our free News Roundup .	8/13/2018 UPDATE: Eagle Nation Online will not be subject to prior review in the upcoming school year. Prosper High School Principal John Burdett told the new journalism adviser, Lisa Roskens, that he was changing the highly restrictive policy he put in place last year and her students would no longer have to submit their stories for his approval before publishing. The students are also planning new editorials after all student opinion pieces were banned by Principal Burdett in the spring. “It’s honestly kind of a miracle,” said Editor-in-Chief Neha Madhira. She said that after months of silence from the administration, the staff was ready to keep fighting, but did not expect the policy change. “I think [the administration] decided to change it because of all the press that we got,” said Assistant Editor Haley Stack. “… I mean, once it reached up to the New York Times, I think they realized that they really need to change something before they started getting a really bad name for themselves.” The Student Press Law Center sent a letter of concern to the Prosper superintendent of schools in May which was co-signed by 17 other national press freedom organizations. The case at Prosper also received widespread news coverage from both local and national news outlets. Madhira and Stack both said despite their excitement over the news, they intend to test the administration on this policy to make sure they stick to it. Madhira says she will continue to advocate for a New Voices law in Texas, which would give specific legal protections to student journalists and protect advisers from retaliation. “I don’t think this should lessen the importance of why we need this law anyway,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to trade our adviser for the right to publish.” Student Press Law Center Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand agreed the positive outcome does not change the need for legal protection in the state. “I think this case just kind of demonstrates the general unfairness that exists in Texas where the standard can be changed virtually overnight on the whim of a school official,” said Hiestand. Principal Burdett did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 5/23/2018 TEXAS — After censoring the Eagle Nation Online three times this academic year over concerns that stories made the school look bad, the principal of Prosper (Texas) High School, located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area, will not renew the contract of a nationally acclaimed newspaper and yearbook adviser. Lori Oglesbee-Petter, a journalism teacher with 34 years of experience in three states, has been at Prosper since May 2016. Last year alone, her journalism students racked up more than 175 state and national journalism awards. In October 2017, copy editor Isabella Abraham published an article about a senior class movie night that was cancelled due to a “miscommunication” between past administrators and John Burdett, who is completing his first year as principal. The article was online for one day when Burdett told Oglesbee-Petter to take it down. He said that the information in the article was not uplifting or accurate. The Eagle stands by the accuracy of the story. “Ms. O and her students have distinguished themselves across the state and country for their exemplary work,” according to an online bio on the school website. She declined to comment for this story, saying her teaching contract bars her from speaking with reporters. Burdett also declined to comment. “Under her guidance, the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors. And how does this principal reward such achievements? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news.” In February 2018, staff writer Haley Stack, in an editorial, admonished Prosper’s choice to remove “A Separate Peace” from the 10th grade curriculum. No reason was given for the decision, but Stack pointed to the novel’s homoerotic undertones as a possible cause. The editorial was online for over a week until Burdett asked for it to be taken down, citing grammatical errors and a lack of positivity. According to the Eagle, there were two grammatical errors: a missing apostrophe and an extra period. Burdett then told Eagle staff that any articles or editorials that went against “community norms” were to be sent to him for approval. The paper started submitting all articles by Burdett, since they felt the policy was unclear. On March 23, Eagle staff was informed Oglesbee-Petter would not return to Prosper for another school year. According to associate editor Neha Madhira, Burdett did not provide a reason to Oglesbee-Petter. The school is not required to explain the decision because she was under contract. “We were extremely concerned,” said Madhira. “We already knew [Burdett] wasn’t on our side.” Stack believes Oglesbee-Petter’s contract not being renewed is retaliatory. “I think that [Burdett] doesn’t like our adviser,” Stack said. “And I think he is taking it out on our staff. Anytime that he sees an opportunity to shut us down in any sort of way, he will take it.” SPLC’s Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand responded to the decision with “shock.” “Prosper High School is blessed with a veteran teacher who was named the best high school journalism adviser in the entire country,” Hiestand said in a May 18 press release. “Under her guidance, the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors. And how does this principal reward such achievements? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news.” On April 9, Eagle staff sent a letter to Burdett, Prosper School District Superintendent Drew Watkins, and school board members, citing the importance of a student-led newspaper, criticizing the October and February instances of censorship, and asking for Oglesbee-Petter to remain at Prosper. Staff members also said they were worried about the future of the Eagle. “We are not just public relations for the school. Not all news will be positive.” According to Madhira, her staff never received a reply from any administrators. Burdett did bring up the letter with Madhira in an April 20 interview regarding an approved news article about the nationwide school walk-outs. She remembers Burdett angrily saying the April 9 letter was “false” and cutting her off multiple times during the conversation. On May 1, Madhira tried to publish an editorial about a team bonding activity organized by Burdett in response to instances of school shootings across the country. In the editorial, Madhira described the activity as disorganized and vague, and then offered solutions to improve it. Burdett blocked the editorial from being published online, saying it was incorrect and didn’t capture the voices of all Prosper students. Burdett then told Madhira the Eagle could not publish editorials anymore. This policy still remains in place. “You have a principal that is upset that the teacher is not teaching how to produce fake news,” Hiestand said. “He is telling the kids, ‘You can publish the news as long as it’s happy news.’ That is the definition of fake news.” Prosper’s prior review policy allows the school’s principal ultimate editorial authority, including the right to block stories from being published. The policy states: “All publications edited, printed, or distributed in the name of or within the District schools shall be under the control of the school administration and the Board. All publications approved and issued by individual schools shall be part of the instructional program, under the supervision of a faculty sponsor, and shall be carefully edited to reflect the ideals and expectations of the citizens of the District for their schools.” On May 18, Madhira drafted a press release with the help of Hiestand and JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission Chair Lori Keekley. It explains in detail Burdett’s practice of censorship and Oglesbee-Petter’s contract termination, as well as the importance of editorials. “We are not just public relations for the school,” Madhira said in the press release. “Not all news will be positive.” Madhira’s goal is to spread awareness of her paper’s situation. She has reached out to the Dallas Morning News, NBC5, Prosper Magazine, and the Community Impact Newspaper. So far, no reporters have chosen to pick up the story. Editor’s note: Since this story’s publication, WFAA ABC8, The Dallas Morning News, KXAS NBC-DFW5 and the Dallas Observer have reported on the topic. The Prosper Press has offered to run censored articles. The New York Times published a story on July 1. SPLC staff writer Gabriel Greschle is on Twitter @ggreschler. Want more stories like this? The Student Press Law Center is a legal and educational nonprofit defending the rights of student journalists. Sign up for our free News Roundup.	www.splc.org	2center	LxdIKXDFcu48cYry
taxes	The Daily Caller	22	https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/15/reid-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal/	Harry Reid Criticizes Ocasio-Cortez Tax Proposal as Too ‘Rapid’	2019-01-15		Former Nevada Democratic Sen . Majority Leader Harry Reid had some criticism for his party ’ s new star . Reid ripped New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s proposal for a 70-percent marginal tax rate during an interview with The Nevada Independent . Reid called out Ocasio-Cortez for her “ radical ” proposal while arguing that Democrats should push for incremental change instead . ( RELATED : Trump Shrugs Off Ocasio-Cortez Criticism : ’ Who Cares ? ’ ) “ A person could say we need to raise taxes a little bit , ” Reid said . “ We have to be careful because the American people are very conservative in the sense of not wanting radical change quickly . ” The self-proclaimed socialist from Queens , New York , has shaken up the Democratic Party with her desire for sweeping leftist policy change including : higher tax rates for top income earners ( in her words , the “ tippy tops ” of the U.S. population ) ; a “ Green New Deal , ” which would plan to eliminate carbon emissions in the United States within 12 years and possibly create other regulations ; and “ Medicare for All , ” a proposed socialist-style healthcare system — which has received support from many congressional Democrats — that Ocasio-Cortez claims would be cheaper than our current healthcare system , though some have argued against such an idea . Reid made clear that he would rather Democrats focus on shoring up past legislative accomplishments rather than advocate for sweeping change . “ It ’ s a shame what they ’ ve done with ObamaCare , ” Reid said . “ That was certainly a step in the right direction . The Democrat has to talk about health care , restoring Obamacare or versions of it . ” A long-time Nevada senator , Reid served as the Senate Majority Leader from 2007-15 and as Minority Leader from 2015-17 before deciding not to seek a seventh term in the Senate in 2017 . The Tax Foundation , an “ independent tax policy nonprofit ” organization , according to their website , found that a proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to 70 percent for incomes over $ 10 million would only raise roughly $ 51.4 billion over the next 10 years . A more generous study conducted by the organization , however , found that a different proposal for the same tax hike idea for incomes over $ 10 million would raise $ 291 billion over the same time period — still only a fraction of the cost needed to pay for Ocasio-Cortez ’ s ambitious agenda .	Former Nevada Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid had some criticism for his party’s new star. Reid ripped New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70-percent marginal tax rate during an interview with The Nevada Independent. Reid called out Ocasio-Cortez for her “radical” proposal while arguing that Democrats should push for incremental change instead. (RELATED: Trump Shrugs Off Ocasio-Cortez Criticism:’Who Cares?’) “A person could say we need to raise taxes a little bit,” Reid said. “We have to be careful because the American people are very conservative in the sense of not wanting radical change quickly.” The self-proclaimed socialist from Queens, New York, has shaken up the Democratic Party with her desire for sweeping leftist policy change including: higher tax rates for top income earners (in her words, the “tippy tops” of the U.S. population); a “Green New Deal,” which would plan to eliminate carbon emissions in the United States within 12 years and possibly create other regulations; and “Medicare for All,” a proposed socialist-style healthcare system — which has received support from many congressional Democrats — that Ocasio-Cortez claims would be cheaper than our current healthcare system, though some have argued against such an idea. Reid made clear that he would rather Democrats focus on shoring up past legislative accomplishments rather than advocate for sweeping change. “It’s a shame what they’ve done with ObamaCare,” Reid said. “That was certainly a step in the right direction. The Democrat has to talk about health care, restoring Obamacare or versions of it.” A long-time Nevada senator, Reid served as the Senate Majority Leader from 2007-15 and as Minority Leader from 2015-17 before deciding not to seek a seventh term in the Senate in 2017. The Tax Foundation, an “independent tax policy nonprofit” organization, according to their website, found that a proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to 70 percent for incomes over $10 million would only raise roughly $51.4 billion over the next 10 years. A more generous study conducted by the organization, however, found that a different proposal for the same tax hike idea for incomes over $10 million would raise $291 billion over the same time period — still only a fraction of the cost needed to pay for Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious agenda. Follow William Davis on Twitter	www.dailycaller.com	1right	bi47OyRoWthUkbXF
national_security	Washington Times	22	https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/28/trump-kim-summit-ends-early-no-deal/	Trump-Kim summit ends abruptly with no deal: 'Sometimes you have to walk'	2019-02-28	Dave Boyer, David R. Sands	HANOI , Vietnam — President Trump ’ s high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ended abruptly without a deal Thursday , cutting short two days of talks aimed at dismantling Pyongyang ’ s weapons program and leaving the two sides with a murky and uncertain path ahead . In the stunning outcome in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi , the two sides disagreed over what led to the breakdown and whether and when new talks can be arranged . Mr. Trump said he expected his extraordinary personal diplomacy with Mr. Kim to end the crisis on the divided Korean Peninsula will continue . To the surprise of supporters and detractors back home , Mr. Trump proved willing to walk away from a diplomatic breakthrough that he clearly craved . He said he ended the private talks two hours early when Mr. Kim insisted that all international economic sanctions be dropped before the North agrees to shutter its nuclear and missile programs . “ Sometimes you have to walk , ” Mr. Trump explained at a subdued closing news conference . Mr. Trump said he rejected a more modest agreement that was “ ready to be signed , ” and a signing ceremony and celebratory lunch that were on the two leaders ’ schedules were quickly scrubbed . “ I ’ d much rather do it right than do it fast … , ” Mr. Trump said . “ Basically , they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety , and we couldn ’ t do that . ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters as he flew to the Philippines from Vietnam on Thursday , “ We were hoping we could take another big swing when the two leaders got together . SEE ALSO : Trump says at least Cohen didn ’ t lie about Russian collusion : ‘ It was pretty shameful ’ “ We made some progress , but we didn ’ t get as far as we would have hoped we would have gotten , ” Mr. Pompeo said . But in a sign of possible trouble ahead , North Korea ’ s top diplomat held a rare press briefing of his own to challenge Mr. Trump ’ s version of events . He said Mr. Kim had not made the maximalist demands that Mr. Trump described . Even as the U.S. delegation was jetting home on Air Force One , North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho insisted that Pyongyang had asked only for a partial easing of the sanctions in exchange for shutting down the North ’ s main nuclear complex in Yongbyon . Mr. Ri said the North was also ready to offer in writing a permanent halt of the country ’ s nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests and that Washington had wasted an opportunity that “ may not come again . ” Mr. Pompeo predicted that lower-level diplomacy between the two sides could resume quickly , but Pyongyang challenged even that . North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui told reporters that Mr. Kim was finding it difficult to understand why the U.S. left the talks and that the young North Korean leader “ may have lost his will ” to continue the talks . Mr. Trump said the end of the talks was amicable . He even offered a sort of defense of Mr. Kim over the death of U.S. college student Otto Warmbier , who succumbed to severe illness shortly after his release from a North Korean prison in June 2017 . Mr. Trump once cited Warmbier ’ s treatment as a symbol of the human rights failings of the Kim regime , but he said Thursday that the North Korean leader told him he had not been aware of the Ohio college student ’ s case . Mr. Kim “ tells me that he didn ’ t know about it , and I will take him at his word , ” Mr. Trump said . Those comments struck a discordant note in the generally positive assessment in Washington of Mr. Trump ’ s handling of the summit . “ We must remember Otto , and we should never let North Korea off the hook for what they did to him , ” Sen . Rob Portman , Ohio Republican , said in a statement . But ending the summit without agreement on any of the issues discussed clearly fell short of expectations . Negotiators on both sides had spent months in talks leading up to the summit , trying to pave the way for an agreement that also could have included a declaration to formally end the Korean War or the opening of a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang . The stunning result divided analysts who said Mr. Trump had already taken a huge gamble in agreeing to meet with the reclusive North Korean leader and holding a one-on-negotiating session with so many key items still unresolved . Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , a New York Democrat who is usually a fierce critic of the president , said Mr. Trump “ did the right thing by walking away and not cutting a poor deal for the sake of a photo op . ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , California Democrat , also said Mr. Trump was right not to take a bad deal , but she argued that Mr. Kim was the “ big winner ” for having secured two personal summits with an American president and easing his country ’ s pariah status without having made any significant concessions . Some said Mr. Trump may have enhanced his bargaining position by showing the North Koreans and a watching world that he was willing to risk short-term setbacks to achieve his long-term goals . North Korea ’ s hopes for an easing of its economic isolation — and even a possible formal ending to the stalemated Korean War of the 1950s — were dashed with Mr. Trump ’ s decision to walk away . The summit result was clearly a setback for South Korea , which has pursued its own rapprochement with Pyongyang and hoped a U.S.-North Korean detente would speed along that process . Mr. Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Jae-in on the flight home from Hanoi , the White House said . Mr. Moon ’ s office said in a statement that it regretted the outcome of the summit but expressed a firm commitment to continue North-South negotiations . South Korean officials said Mr . Moon encouraged Mr. Trump to continue his efforts for accomplishing the “ historic feat of resolving the world ’ s last remaining Cold War rivalry ” and that the two leaders agreed to meet soon to discuss the nuclear issue , The Associated Press reported . China , North Korea ’ s longtime key ally , refused to assign blame for the Hanoi summit . Officials said Mr. Trump ’ s diplomatic gambit was a positive step and that the U.S. and North Korea must “ meet each other halfway ” if a deal is to be struck . Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told reporters that the Korean Peninsula had experienced a significant “ turnaround ” over the past year , a “ hard-won result ” that is worth cherishing . After a friendly dinner Wednesday night in Hanoi and talks that Mr. Trump described as “ very good , ” the discussions rapidly fell apart Thursday . The two leaders canceled a formal working lunch , and the White House soon announced a “ schedule change. ” Word soon came down that the joint signing ceremony with both leaders was canceled . The second summit between the two men began with smiles and handshakes Wednesday as Mr. Trump sought more clarity from the North Korean leader on the steps he would be willing to take to dismantle his nuclear weapons program . They started that process at a breakthrough summit in Singapore in June . Mr. Trump was lowering expectations for the second round of talks , cautioning the media that he was in “ no rush ” to get a comprehensive agreement as long as Mr. Kim continued to honor his pledge not to conduct any more missile tests . Asked whether he was serious about giving up his weapons program , Mr. Kim had said , “ If I was not , I wouldn ’ t be here . ” Another reporter asked whether he was willing to take concrete steps to denuclearize . Mr. Kim said : “ That ’ s what we are discussing right now . ” ⦁ David R. Sands reported from Washington for this article , which is based in part on wire service reports .	HANOI, Vietnam — President Trump’s high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ended abruptly without a deal Thursday, cutting short two days of talks aimed at dismantling Pyongyang’s weapons program and leaving the two sides with a murky and uncertain path ahead. In the stunning outcome in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, the two sides disagreed over what led to the breakdown and whether and when new talks can be arranged. Mr. Trump said he expected his extraordinary personal diplomacy with Mr. Kim to end the crisis on the divided Korean Peninsula will continue. To the surprise of supporters and detractors back home, Mr. Trump proved willing to walk away from a diplomatic breakthrough that he clearly craved. He said he ended the private talks two hours early when Mr. Kim insisted that all international economic sanctions be dropped before the North agrees to shutter its nuclear and missile programs. “Sometimes you have to walk,” Mr. Trump explained at a subdued closing news conference. Mr. Trump said he rejected a more modest agreement that was “ready to be signed,” and a signing ceremony and celebratory lunch that were on the two leaders’ schedules were quickly scrubbed. “I’d much rather do it right than do it fast …,” Mr. Trump said. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters as he flew to the Philippines from Vietnam on Thursday, “We were hoping we could take another big swing when the two leaders got together. SEE ALSO: Trump says at least Cohen didn’t lie about Russian collusion: ‘It was pretty shameful’ “We made some progress, but we didn’t get as far as we would have hoped we would have gotten,” Mr. Pompeo said. But in a sign of possible trouble ahead, North Korea’s top diplomat held a rare press briefing of his own to challenge Mr. Trump’s version of events. He said Mr. Kim had not made the maximalist demands that Mr. Trump described. Even as the U.S. delegation was jetting home on Air Force One, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho insisted that Pyongyang had asked only for a partial easing of the sanctions in exchange for shutting down the North’s main nuclear complex in Yongbyon. Mr. Ri said the North was also ready to offer in writing a permanent halt of the country’s nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests and that Washington had wasted an opportunity that “may not come again.” Mr. Pompeo predicted that lower-level diplomacy between the two sides could resume quickly, but Pyongyang challenged even that. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui told reporters that Mr. Kim was finding it difficult to understand why the U.S. left the talks and that the young North Korean leader “may have lost his will” to continue the talks. Discordant note Mr. Trump said the end of the talks was amicable. He even offered a sort of defense of Mr. Kim over the death of U.S. college student Otto Warmbier, who succumbed to severe illness shortly after his release from a North Korean prison in June 2017. Mr. Trump once cited Warmbier’s treatment as a symbol of the human rights failings of the Kim regime, but he said Thursday that the North Korean leader told him he had not been aware of the Ohio college student’s case. Mr. Kim “tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word,” Mr. Trump said. Those comments struck a discordant note in the generally positive assessment in Washington of Mr. Trump’s handling of the summit. “We must remember Otto, and we should never let North Korea off the hook for what they did to him,” Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, said in a statement. But ending the summit without agreement on any of the issues discussed clearly fell short of expectations. Negotiators on both sides had spent months in talks leading up to the summit, trying to pave the way for an agreement that also could have included a declaration to formally end the Korean War or the opening of a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang. The stunning result divided analysts who said Mr. Trump had already taken a huge gamble in agreeing to meet with the reclusive North Korean leader and holding a one-on-negotiating session with so many key items still unresolved. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is usually a fierce critic of the president, said Mr. Trump “did the right thing by walking away and not cutting a poor deal for the sake of a photo op.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, also said Mr. Trump was right not to take a bad deal, but she argued that Mr. Kim was the “big winner” for having secured two personal summits with an American president and easing his country’s pariah status without having made any significant concessions. Some said Mr. Trump may have enhanced his bargaining position by showing the North Koreans and a watching world that he was willing to risk short-term setbacks to achieve his long-term goals. North Korea’s hopes for an easing of its economic isolation — and even a possible formal ending to the stalemated Korean War of the 1950s — were dashed with Mr. Trump’s decision to walk away. The summit result was clearly a setback for South Korea, which has pursued its own rapprochement with Pyongyang and hoped a U.S.-North Korean detente would speed along that process. Mr. Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Jae-in on the flight home from Hanoi, the White House said. Mr. Moon’s office said in a statement that it regretted the outcome of the summit but expressed a firm commitment to continue North-South negotiations. South Korean officials said Mr. Moon encouraged Mr. Trump to continue his efforts for accomplishing the “historic feat of resolving the world’s last remaining Cold War rivalry” and that the two leaders agreed to meet soon to discuss the nuclear issue, The Associated Press reported. China, North Korea’s longtime key ally, refused to assign blame for the Hanoi summit. Officials said Mr. Trump’s diplomatic gambit was a positive step and that the U.S. and North Korea must “meet each other halfway” if a deal is to be struck. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told reporters that the Korean Peninsula had experienced a significant “turnaround” over the past year, a “hard-won result” that is worth cherishing. Smiles and setbacks After a friendly dinner Wednesday night in Hanoi and talks that Mr. Trump described as “very good,” the discussions rapidly fell apart Thursday. The two leaders canceled a formal working lunch, and the White House soon announced a “schedule change.” Word soon came down that the joint signing ceremony with both leaders was canceled. The second summit between the two men began with smiles and handshakes Wednesday as Mr. Trump sought more clarity from the North Korean leader on the steps he would be willing to take to dismantle his nuclear weapons program. They started that process at a breakthrough summit in Singapore in June. Mr. Trump was lowering expectations for the second round of talks, cautioning the media that he was in “no rush” to get a comprehensive agreement as long as Mr. Kim continued to honor his pledge not to conduct any more missile tests. Asked whether he was serious about giving up his weapons program, Mr. Kim had said, “If I was not, I wouldn’t be here.” Another reporter asked whether he was willing to take concrete steps to denuclearize. Mr. Kim said: “That’s what we are discussing right now.” ⦁ David R. Sands reported from Washington for this article, which is based in part on wire service reports. Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	jA8zq56n9h6KwDGp
supreme_court	Fox Online News	22	https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-judiciary-committee-receives-fbi-report-on-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh	Senate Judiciary Committee receives FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh		Benjamin Brown	Senators will get their first look Thursday at the FBI 's background investigation on sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , with a tense series of votes looming and likely to play out into the weekend . The report , which is already coming under scrutiny from lawyers for accuser Christine Blasey Ford , will be a key factor for wavering senators ahead of the confirmation vote . A source familiar with the supplemental report told Fox News it shows no evidence corroborating the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct against the nominee . Other specifics from the report were not immediately available , but Fox News is told the review included interviews with nine people , along with a sworn statement from another . This went beyond the original Senate request for interviews with four people , though the FBI did not dive into Kavanaugh 's drinking habits in high school , one area of contention , because the Senate did not formally request the information . Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley tweeted early Thursday that the committee received the “ supplemental FBI background file. ” Grassley said he has agreed with ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein “ to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents . ” The FBI was tasked by Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh by three women . The investigation commenced after Ford -- the first woman to come forward -- testified before the Senate Judiciary last week about her claims against the federal judge . MCCONNELL DESIGNS GAMBIT TO HANDLE OTHER ISSUES IN SENATE , WHILE ADVANCING KAVANAUGH NOMINATION The White House announced early Thursday that it has also received the FBI 's supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh , and is `` fully confident '' that President Trump 's pick will eventually be confirmed to the Supreme Court . Attorneys for Ford slammed the FBI background investigation for not interviewing the California professor , who has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s , attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream . `` An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford -- nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony -- can not be called an investigation , '' the statement read . `` We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward , those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth . '' Ford told the committee that she was `` 100 percent '' certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker . Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations . CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE HELPED FRIEND PREP FOR POTENTIAL POLYGRAPH ; GRASSLEY SOUNDS ALARM Mark Judge , a friend of Kavanaugh ’ s who previously said in a letter to the committee the he did “ not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony ” nor did he see “ Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes , ” was among those interviewed by the FBI . The FBI also interviewed Deborah Ramirez , who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a party while they were students at Yale University , according to The Associated Press . Kavanaugh ’ s fate boils down to at least three Republican senators : Jeff Flake , Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski . Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.Va. , who is facing a re-election battle , also has said he will make his decision after the FBI probe . Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 51-49 , and – in the event of a tie – Vice President Mike Pence would be the deciding vote .	Senators will get their first look Thursday at the FBI's background investigation on sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, with a tense series of votes looming and likely to play out into the weekend. The report, which is already coming under scrutiny from lawyers for accuser Christine Blasey Ford, will be a key factor for wavering senators ahead of the confirmation vote. A source familiar with the supplemental report told Fox News it shows no evidence corroborating the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct against the nominee. Other specifics from the report were not immediately available, but Fox News is told the review included interviews with nine people, along with a sworn statement from another. This went beyond the original Senate request for interviews with four people, though the FBI did not dive into Kavanaugh's drinking habits in high school, one area of contention, because the Senate did not formally request the information. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley tweeted early Thursday that the committee received the “supplemental FBI background file.” Grassley said he has agreed with ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein “to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents.” The FBI was tasked by Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh by three women. The investigation commenced after Ford -- the first woman to come forward -- testified before the Senate Judiciary last week about her claims against the federal judge. MCCONNELL DESIGNS GAMBIT TO HANDLE OTHER ISSUES IN SENATE, WHILE ADVANCING KAVANAUGH NOMINATION The White House announced early Thursday that it has also received the FBI's supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh, and is "fully confident" that President Trump's pick will eventually be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Attorneys for Ford slammed the FBI background investigation for not interviewing the California professor, who has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream. "An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford -- nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony -- cannot be called an investigation," the statement read. "We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth." Ford told the committee that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE HELPED FRIEND PREP FOR POTENTIAL POLYGRAPH; GRASSLEY SOUNDS ALARM Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s who previously said in a letter to the committee the he did “not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony” nor did he see “Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” was among those interviewed by the FBI. The FBI also interviewed Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a party while they were students at Yale University, according to The Associated Press. Kavanaugh’s fate boils down to at least three Republican senators: Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is facing a re-election battle, also has said he will make his decision after the FBI probe. Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 51-49, and – in the event of a tie – Vice President Mike Pence would be the deciding vote. Fox News’ Chad Pergram and Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	nhE1L8443f8jEtlY
technology	Reason	22	https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-fcc-isnt-overturning-net-neutrali	No, the FCC Isn’t 'Overturning Net Neutrality'	2017-12-05	"Andrea OSullivan", Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis	The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) moves to vote on Chairman Pai 's deregulatory `` Restoring Internet Freedom '' ( RIF ) order on Dec. 14 . It 's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called `` net neutrality '' have taken to harassing commissioners ' children and even threatening to kill a congressman . It 's a nasty state of affairs , and it 's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing . Telling people that a policy change will `` end the internet as we know it '' or `` kill the internet '' can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things . In truth , the Obama administration-era `` Open Internet Order '' ( OIO ) that the FCC is overturning has little to with `` net neutrality '' at all . In fact , the OIO would still allow internet service providers ( ISPs ) to block content—to say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content . Furthermore , repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of `` net neutrality '' will not be upheld , nor that ISPs will be `` unregulated . '' Rather , the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion . One of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved `` net neutrality . '' It did n't . While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about `` treating all traffic equally , '' the actual implementation of the Obama administration 's regulations did nothing of the sort . As my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out , the OIO did not require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic the same . Rather , it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies . Not even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO . Because of First Amendment concerns , the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation . The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO . ISPs that explicitly offer `` 'edited ' services '' to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations . It 's a huge loophole , and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent 's claims that they are supporting `` net neutrality . '' But importantly , the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart 's content . Indeed , one could argue that content aggregators and search engines , like Facebook and Google , have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize . Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician . Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon . FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal . Major edge service providers like Google , Facebook , Reddit , and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base . Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages , urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same . Yet at the same time , these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do . This hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency . It 's about economic power . By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth , these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture . ( It should be noted that there is some division within these firms : Google 's Eric Schmidt , for instance , famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014 . ) Not only is it unfair , it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric . These companies are not taking principled stands at all . They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook . In Pai 's words , `` they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest , but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy . '' The second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection . This has never been true , and will not be true under the RIF either . OIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages , similar to cable subscriptions . This misleading image is a popular one : It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $ 10 for a `` Hollywood '' package including YouTube and Hulu , and a $ 5 `` Playground '' offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft . Of course , no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement , but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many `` net neutrality '' supporters . Recently , this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat . None other than Tim Wu himself , the brains behind the concept of `` net neutrality , '' shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision , where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies . An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario , sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category . But there was a huge problem with this story , as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out . That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no ███ , but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for €25 a month , or about $ 30 . There are examples from the U.S. , too . In 2010 , then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated , or discounted , access to YouTube content to be competitive . But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers , putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy . Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need . These kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that `` net neutrality '' rhetoric has instilled into the public . Sometimes , as is the case with Portuguese example , an alleged `` violation '' is actually a valued ( and voluntary ! ) option for many consumers . But in general , people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone . Of course , this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015 , and it will be even less true under the RIF . The debate has never been over `` regulation '' vs. `` no regulation '' of ISPs . Rather , it 's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected , called `` ex post regulation , '' or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest , known as `` ex ante regulation . '' The latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably , and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $ 30 billion each year due to the OIO . Furthermore , introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption . The RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO . It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission , which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection , privacy , and security . It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010 , which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices , thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior . And most importantly , it would achieve these `` neutral network '' goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption . The OIO allowed content filtering anyway . The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO . People who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic . Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense , it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today . The internet is important in our lives , and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever . But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat , and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love .	The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moves to vote on Chairman Pai's deregulatory "Restoring Internet Freedom" (RIF) order on Dec. 14. It's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called "net neutrality" have taken to harassing commissioners' children and even threatening to kill a congressman. It's a nasty state of affairs, and it's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing. Telling people that a policy change will "end the internet as we know it" or "kill the internet" can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things. In truth, the Obama administration-era "Open Internet Order" (OIO) that the FCC is overturning has little to with "net neutrality" at all. In fact, the OIO would still allow internet service providers (ISPs) to block content—to say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content. Furthermore, repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of "net neutrality" will not be upheld, nor that ISPs will be "unregulated." Rather, the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion. The OIO allows all kinds of content filtering One of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved "net neutrality." It didn't. While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about "treating all traffic equally," the actual implementation of the Obama administration's regulations did nothing of the sort. As my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out, the OIO did not require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic the same. Rather, it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies. Not even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO. Because of First Amendment concerns, the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation. The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO. ISPs that explicitly offer "'edited' services" to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations. It's a huge loophole, and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent's claims that they are supporting "net neutrality." But importantly, the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart's content. Indeed, one could argue that content aggregators and search engines, like Facebook and Google, have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize. Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician. Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal. Major edge service providers like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base. Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages, urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same. Yet at the same time, these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do. This hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency. It's about economic power. By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth, these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture. (It should be noted that there is some division within these firms: Google's Eric Schmidt, for instance, famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014.) Not only is it unfair, it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric. These companies are not taking principled stands at all. They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook. In Pai's words, "they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy." Regulators will still go after bad actors The second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection. This has never been true, and will not be true under the RIF either. OIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages, similar to cable subscriptions. This misleading image is a popular one: It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $10 for a "Hollywood" package including YouTube and Hulu, and a $5 "Playground" offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft. Of course, no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement, but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many "net neutrality" supporters. Recently, this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat. None other than Tim Wu himself, the brains behind the concept of "net neutrality," shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision, where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies. An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario, sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category. But there was a huge problem with this story, as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out. That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no reason, but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for €25 a month, or about $30. There are examples from the U.S., too. In 2010, then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated, or discounted, access to YouTube content to be competitive. But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers, putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy. Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need. These kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that "net neutrality" rhetoric has instilled into the public. Sometimes, as is the case with Portuguese example, an alleged "violation" is actually a valued (and voluntary!) option for many consumers. But in general, people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone. Of course, this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015, and it will be even less true under the RIF. The debate has never been over "regulation" vs. "no regulation" of ISPs. Rather, it's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected, called "ex post regulation," or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest, known as "ex ante regulation." The latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably, and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $30 billion each year due to the OIO. Furthermore, introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption. The RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO. It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission, which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection, privacy, and security. It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010, which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices, thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior. And most importantly, it would achieve these "neutral network" goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption. The OIO allowed content filtering anyway. The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO. Keep calm and binge on People who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic. Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense, it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today. The internet is important in our lives, and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever. But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat, and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love.	www.reason.com	1right	5pCmAglvwMk6B48n
national_security	Fox Online News	22	https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stones-predawn-fbi-arrest-operation-sparks-controversy	FBI's show of force in Roger Stone arrest spurs criticism of Mueller tactics Brooke Singman		Brooke Singman	The FBI 's pre-dawn arrest of President Trump 's ex-adviser Roger Stone at his Florida home prompted critics to once again question the tactics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller , after more than a dozen special agents clad in tactical gear raided Stone 's property Friday . Stone , 66 , was taken into custody early Friday after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier as part of Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election . CNN , which conveniently happened to be staking out Stone 's Fort Lauderdale home , posted video of the arrest that showed a team of FBI agents with guns banging on Stone ’ s door and demanding that he come outside . ROGER STONE VOWS TO FIGHT CHARGES IN MUELLER PROBE , CALLS INDICTMENT 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ' “ At the crack of dawn , 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles , with lights flashing , when they could have contacted my lawyer , ” Stone explained after a court appearance Friday . “ But the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous . ” Stone will appear on Fox News Channel 's `` Tucker Carlson Tonight '' on Friday at 8 p.m . ET . “ A SWAT team , searching the house , scaring his wife , scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary , ” Stone ’ s attorney said . “ A telephone call would have done the job , and he would have appeared . Mr. Stone has nothing to hide . ” The arrest operation drew scrutiny on social media—even from President Trump , who said “ Border Coyotes , Drug Dealers and Human Traffickers are treated better , ” and questioned “ who alerted CNN to be there ? ” One federal law enforcement source told Fox News on Friday that the operation was “ standard ” for a home arrest . The source told Fox News that home arrests typically take place early in the morning with a team of FBI agents in protective gear , adding that Stone ’ s situation was “ nothing out of the ordinary . ” A former senior Justice Department official , now-white collar criminal attorney with Ifrah Law , James Trusty , told Fox News that while common procedure in white collar cases would involve a federal prosecutor contacting the defendant ’ s attorney , Stone ’ s charges could have sparked a different approach . “ It shows that there is either a fundamental distrust of Mr. Stone , possibly due to the witness tampering charge , or that there was a real breakdown with his attorney , ” Trusty said Friday . “ The wild card here is that in charging Stone with a form of obstruction of justice , the Mueller team may view it differently than typical white-collar investigations . ” He added : “ If the FBI and the Mueller team believe Stone has engaged in witness tampering , then there is a palpable distrust , which would make them err on the side of surprise , rather than a courtesy phone call . ” FBI 'S MANAFORT RAID INCLUDED A DOZEN AGENTS , 'DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE , ' SOURCE SAYS The 24-page indictment released early Friday alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee , denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony . The indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks , the anti-secrecy website that published the emails , or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them . Instead , it accuses him of witness tampering , obstruction and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks ' release . But former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova blasted the tactic as “ outrageous . ” “ I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender , ” diGenova , who has informally been an adviser to the president throughout the Russia investigation , told Fox News . “ This is an abuse of power and it underscores the vindictive nature of it by the fact that CNN was alerted ahead of time . ” He added : “ For those of us who have been prosecutors and have prosecuted mob figures , drug dealers and terrorists—those are the people for whom these aggressive tactics are reserved . Not a Roger Stone . ” “ Make no mistake , ” he said . “ This was designed to be vindictive and intimidating . ” DiGenova likened the FBI arrest of Stone to the bureau ’ s early morning raid last summer of the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort . Stone on Friday said he would plead not guilty to the charges leveled against him by the special counsel ’ s team , and said he “ looks forward to being fully and completely vindicated . ” “ I believe this is a politically motivated investigation , ” Stone said Friday . “ There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president , nor will I make up lies . ” PAUL MANAFORT COULD BE CHARGED WITH MORE CRIMES DOWN THE ROAD , PROSECUTOR TELLS JUDGE Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before Trump ran for president . He left Trump ’ s campaign in August 2015 , but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 presidential election . Mueller ’ s investigation , which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election , has gone on for more than a year and half . It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election , conversations Trump ’ s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe . Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election . But none of the Trump associates connected to Trump have been charged with crimes related to collusion . Other convictions include former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017 . Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election . Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November . Alex van der Zwaan , a London-based lawyer , pleaded guilty to making false statements this year , and Richard Pinedo , a California man , pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018 .	The FBI's pre-dawn arrest of President Trump's ex-adviser Roger Stone at his Florida home prompted critics to once again question the tactics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, after more than a dozen special agents clad in tactical gear raided Stone's property Friday. Stone, 66, was taken into custody early Friday after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election. CNN, which conveniently happened to be staking out Stone's Fort Lauderdale home, posted video of the arrest that showed a team of FBI agents with guns banging on Stone’s door and demanding that he come outside. ROGER STONE VOWS TO FIGHT CHARGES IN MUELLER PROBE, CALLS INDICTMENT 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED' “At the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles, with lights flashing, when they could have contacted my lawyer,” Stone explained after a court appearance Friday. “But the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous.” Stone will appear on Fox News Channel's "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Friday at 8 p.m. ET. Stone’s attorney added that the arrest was a “spectacle.” “A SWAT team, searching the house, scaring his wife, scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary,” Stone’s attorney said. “A telephone call would have done the job, and he would have appeared. Mr. Stone has nothing to hide.” The arrest operation drew scrutiny on social media—even from President Trump, who said “Border Coyotes, Drug Dealers and Human Traffickers are treated better,” and questioned “who alerted CNN to be there?” One federal law enforcement source told Fox News on Friday that the operation was “standard” for a home arrest. The source told Fox News that home arrests typically take place early in the morning with a team of FBI agents in protective gear, adding that Stone’s situation was “nothing out of the ordinary.” A former senior Justice Department official, now-white collar criminal attorney with Ifrah Law, James Trusty, told Fox News that while common procedure in white collar cases would involve a federal prosecutor contacting the defendant’s attorney, Stone’s charges could have sparked a different approach. “It shows that there is either a fundamental distrust of Mr. Stone, possibly due to the witness tampering charge, or that there was a real breakdown with his attorney,” Trusty said Friday. “The wild card here is that in charging Stone with a form of obstruction of justice, the Mueller team may view it differently than typical white-collar investigations.” He added: “If the FBI and the Mueller team believe Stone has engaged in witness tampering, then there is a palpable distrust, which would make them err on the side of surprise, rather than a courtesy phone call.” FBI'S MANAFORT RAID INCLUDED A DOZEN AGENTS, 'DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE,' SOURCE SAYS The 24-page indictment released early Friday alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony. The indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published the emails, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them. Instead, it accuses him of witness tampering, obstruction and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks' release. But former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova blasted the tactic as “outrageous.” “I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender,” diGenova, who has informally been an adviser to the president throughout the Russia investigation, told Fox News. “This is an abuse of power and it underscores the vindictive nature of it by the fact that CNN was alerted ahead of time.” He added: “For those of us who have been prosecutors and have prosecuted mob figures, drug dealers and terrorists—those are the people for whom these aggressive tactics are reserved. Not a Roger Stone.” “Make no mistake,” he said. “This was designed to be vindictive and intimidating.” DiGenova likened the FBI arrest of Stone to the bureau’s early morning raid last summer of the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Stone on Friday said he would plead not guilty to the charges leveled against him by the special counsel’s team, and said he “looks forward to being fully and completely vindicated.” “I believe this is a politically motivated investigation,” Stone said Friday. “There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies.” PAUL MANAFORT COULD BE CHARGED WITH MORE CRIMES DOWN THE ROAD, PROSECUTOR TELLS JUDGE Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before Trump ran for president. He left Trump’s campaign in August 2015, but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 presidential election. Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and half. It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe. Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election. But none of the Trump associates connected to Trump have been charged with crimes related to collusion. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Other convictions include former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017. Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November. Alex van der Zwaan, a London-based lawyer, pleaded guilty to making false statements this year, and Richard Pinedo, a California man, pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018. Fox News’ Alex Pappas and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	8RTRb5oIoy2yEzXH
politics	Fox Online News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/01/judge-allows-california-city-to-enter-bankruptcy-largest-municipality-to-go/	Judge allows California city to enter bankruptcy, largest municipality to go bust	2013-04-01		Stockton , Calif. , became the most populous city in the nation to go broke Monday , after a judge accepted the city 's application to enter bankruptcy . In the closely watched decision , U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said the bankruptcy declaration was needed to allow the city to continue to provide basic services . He determined Stockton would not be able to perform `` its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without '' the protections provided under bankruptcy proceedings . Stockton was facing a $ 26 million shortfall when it filed for bankruptcy last summer , the result of the housing bust and soaring pension obligations . After cutting a quarter of their police force and other city services to the bone , officials argued bankruptcy was their only option . The city of nearly 300,000 people has become emblematic of government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the housing bubble burst . Its salaries , benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue . But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures beginning in the mid-2000s and a 70 percent decline in the city 's tax base . The city 's creditors wanted to keep Stockton out of bankruptcy -- a status that would likely allow the city to avoid repaying its debts in full . They argued the city had not cut spending enough or sought a tax increase that would have allowed it to avoid bankruptcy . Matthew Walsh , an attorney for the bond holders , declined to comment after Monday 's ruling . Attorneys for the city said the city 's budget and services had been cut to the bone . `` There 's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy , '' said Bob Deis , Stockton 's city manager . `` But it is a vindication of what we 've been saying for nine months . '' The Chapter 9 bankruptcy case is being closely watched nationally for potential precedent-setting implications . The $ 900 million that Stockton owes to the California Public Employees ' Retirement System to cover pension promises is its biggest debt . So far Stockton has kept up with pension payments while it has reneged on other debts , maintaining that it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce . The creditors who challenged Stockton 's bankruptcy petition are the bond insurers who guaranteed $ 165 million in loans the city secured in 2007 to pay its contributions to the CalPERS pension fund . That debt got out of hand as property tax values plummeted during the recession , and money to pay the pension obligation fell short . Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge Stockton 's repayment plan in the next phase of the process . By 2009 Stockton had accumulated nearly $ 1 billion in debt on civic improvements , money owed to pay pension contributions , and the most generous health care benefit in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent , no matter how long they had worked for the city .	Stockton, Calif., became the most populous city in the nation to go broke Monday, after a judge accepted the city's application to enter bankruptcy. In the closely watched decision, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said the bankruptcy declaration was needed to allow the city to continue to provide basic services. He determined Stockton would not be able to perform "its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without" the protections provided under bankruptcy proceedings. Stockton was facing a $26 million shortfall when it filed for bankruptcy last summer, the result of the housing bust and soaring pension obligations. After cutting a quarter of their police force and other city services to the bone, officials argued bankruptcy was their only option. The city of nearly 300,000 people has become emblematic of government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the housing bubble burst. Its salaries, benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue. But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures beginning in the mid-2000s and a 70 percent decline in the city's tax base. The city's creditors wanted to keep Stockton out of bankruptcy -- a status that would likely allow the city to avoid repaying its debts in full. They argued the city had not cut spending enough or sought a tax increase that would have allowed it to avoid bankruptcy. Matthew Walsh, an attorney for the bond holders, declined to comment after Monday's ruling. Attorneys for the city said the city's budget and services had been cut to the bone. "There's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy," said Bob Deis, Stockton's city manager. "But it is a vindication of what we've been saying for nine months." The Chapter 9 bankruptcy case is being closely watched nationally for potential precedent-setting implications. The $900 million that Stockton owes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to cover pension promises is its biggest debt. So far Stockton has kept up with pension payments while it has reneged on other debts, maintaining that it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce. The creditors who challenged Stockton's bankruptcy petition are the bond insurers who guaranteed $165 million in loans the city secured in 2007 to pay its contributions to the CalPERS pension fund. That debt got out of hand as property tax values plummeted during the recession, and money to pay the pension obligation fell short. Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge Stockton's repayment plan in the next phase of the process. By 2009 Stockton had accumulated nearly $1 billion in debt on civic improvements, money owed to pay pension contributions, and the most generous health care benefit in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent, no matter how long they had worked for the city. The Associated Press contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	LLTxM08AjAanIuN8
white_house	Washington Times	22	http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/24/donald-trump-with-agenda-stalled-implores-republic/	Trump implores Republicans to deliver big legislative win, starting with Obamacare repeal	2017-07-24	S.A. Miller	President Trump ’ s dismay with congressional Republicans burst into public view Monday as he implored them to get behind his agenda , starting with repealing Obamacare this week as he searches for an elusive first major legislative win . The man who made his reputation as a deal-maker , however , has struggled to sell his agenda even to his own party on Capitol Hill , where Republicans appear to be unsteady at the basic business of governing . Ahead of a key vote expected Tuesday , Mr. Trump called out Senate Republicans for wavering on their longtime promise to repeal Obamacare . “ We , as a party , must fulfill that solemn promise to voters of this country to repeal and replace , what they have been saying for the last seven years , ” he said . “ But so far Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare . ” He made the remark at a White House event surrounded by families described as “ victims of Obamacare ” and warned senators that Americans were demanding action on health care . “ You ’ ll see that at the voting booth . Believe me , ” Mr. Trump said . He also used a speech to the Boy Scouts later Monday both to make a similar point — that “ after seven years of trying … they ’ d better do it ” — and to deliver an unusually public and personal jab at his health and human services secretary . He told Thomas Price , who joined him on stage , that he had better get the numbers lined up for Tuesday ’ s key vote , “ otherwise I ’ ll say , ‘ Tom , you ’ re fired. ’ I ’ ll get somebody else , ” reviving his catch phrase from the reality TV show “ The Apprentice . ” White House aides stressed that Mr. Trump has been deeply involved in pushing the Obamacare repeal bill forward , making calls to senators around the clock to get them on board . “ This is the greatest amount of involvement by any president that I have ever witnessed with members of Congress , one on one , ” he said . The description of his wheeling and dealing , however , underscored the absence of results . Frustration has been mounting in the White House for weeks over the plodding progress with Mr. Trump ’ s agenda on Capitol Hill and over Republican allies ’ lackluster defense against accusations that the Trump campaign helped Russia meddle in the U.S. presidential election . Moving to energize his base to put pressure on Congress , Mr. Trump is taking his message on the road . He delivered a speech Monday to the 2017 National Scout Jamboree in Beaver , West Virginia , and is scheduled to hold a campaign-style rally Tuesday in Youngstown , Ohio . Some of the president ’ s pent-up anger was released on Twitter . “ If Republicans don ’ t Repeal and Replace the disastrous ObamaCare , the repercussions will be far greater than any of them understand ! ” Mr. Trump tweeted in the morning . A day earlier , he vented about the lack of political coverage Republican allies provided in the face of unrelenting attacks on his presidency . “ It ’ s very sad that Republicans , even some that were carried over the line on my back , do very little to protect their President , ” he said . Mr. Trump has had a difficult relationship with the Republican establishment in Washington since his campaign , including reluctance of party leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to endorse him after he clenched the party ’ s nomination . Despite Mr. Trump ’ s upset win in November , some Republicans worry that his unpopularity will hamper their re-election campaigns . Mr. Trump had a 39.9 percent job approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls , but he also had low numbers when he won the White House . “ What the Republicans have to remember — and his is sort of what Trump is grousing about — is Republicans have forgotten how to fight and they have to stop falling on their sword at the first sign of bad news coverage , ” said Republican Party strategist Ford O ’ Connell . He said the consequences would be worse for Republican lawmakers who falter on Obamacare repeal or tax cuts than for those who go to the mat for the president . “ They honestly think that Trump is going to drag them down , and what Trump is explaining to them is he is going to save their political necks , ” Mr. O ’ Connell said . After six months in the Oval Office , he has most of his agenda mired in Congress . The president has yet to put a win on the board for Obamacare repeal , tax cuts , a major infrastructure program or increased military spending . He began the pivot to using public pressure on Congress over the weekend when presiding over the commissioning ceremony for the Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford . He prodded the crowd in Norfolk , Virginia , to get on the phone to their congressional representatives and senators . “ We need Congress to do its job and pass the budget that provides for higher , stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs that our fighting men and women deserve . And you will get it , believe me , ” he said . “ But I don ’ t mind getting a little hand , so call that congressman , and call that senator , and make sure you get it . ” “ By the way , you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care , ” Mr. Trump said .	President Trump’s dismay with congressional Republicans burst into public view Monday as he implored them to get behind his agenda, starting with repealing Obamacare this week as he searches for an elusive first major legislative win. The man who made his reputation as a deal-maker, however, has struggled to sell his agenda even to his own party on Capitol Hill, where Republicans appear to be unsteady at the basic business of governing. Ahead of a key vote expected Tuesday, Mr. Trump called out Senate Republicans for wavering on their longtime promise to repeal Obamacare. “We, as a party, must fulfill that solemn promise to voters of this country to repeal and replace, what they have been saying for the last seven years,” he said. “But so far Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare.” He made the remark at a White House event surrounded by families described as “victims of Obamacare” and warned senators that Americans were demanding action on health care. “You’ll see that at the voting booth. Believe me,” Mr. Trump said. He also used a speech to the Boy Scouts later Monday both to make a similar point — that “after seven years of trying … they’d better do it” — and to deliver an unusually public and personal jab at his health and human services secretary. He told Thomas Price, who joined him on stage, that he had better get the numbers lined up for Tuesday’s key vote, “otherwise I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired.’ I’ll get somebody else,” reviving his catch phrase from the reality TV show “The Apprentice.” White House aides stressed that Mr. Trump has been deeply involved in pushing the Obamacare repeal bill forward, making calls to senators around the clock to get them on board. Mr. Price called the president’s personal involvement unprecedented. “This is the greatest amount of involvement by any president that I have ever witnessed with members of Congress, one on one,” he said. The description of his wheeling and dealing, however, underscored the absence of results. Frustration has been mounting in the White House for weeks over the plodding progress with Mr. Trump’s agenda on Capitol Hill and over Republican allies’ lackluster defense against accusations that the Trump campaign helped Russia meddle in the U.S. presidential election. Moving to energize his base to put pressure on Congress, Mr. Trump is taking his message on the road. He delivered a speech Monday to the 2017 National Scout Jamboree in Beaver, West Virginia, and is scheduled to hold a campaign-style rally Tuesday in Youngstown, Ohio. Some of the president’s pent-up anger was released on Twitter. “If Republicans don’t Repeal and Replace the disastrous ObamaCare, the repercussions will be far greater than any of them understand!” Mr. Trump tweeted in the morning. A day earlier, he vented about the lack of political coverage Republican allies provided in the face of unrelenting attacks on his presidency. “It’s very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President,” he said. Mr. Trump has had a difficult relationship with the Republican establishment in Washington since his campaign, including reluctance of party leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to endorse him after he clenched the party’s nomination. Despite Mr. Trump’s upset win in November, some Republicans worry that his unpopularity will hamper their re-election campaigns. Mr. Trump had a 39.9 percent job approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, but he also had low numbers when he won the White House. “What the Republicans have to remember — and his is sort of what Trump is grousing about — is Republicans have forgotten how to fight and they have to stop falling on their sword at the first sign of bad news coverage,” said Republican Party strategist Ford O’Connell. He said the consequences would be worse for Republican lawmakers who falter on Obamacare repeal or tax cuts than for those who go to the mat for the president. “They honestly think that Trump is going to drag them down, and what Trump is explaining to them is he is going to save their political necks,” Mr. O’Connell said. The stakes for Mr. Trump are just as high. After six months in the Oval Office, he has most of his agenda mired in Congress. The president has yet to put a win on the board for Obamacare repeal, tax cuts, a major infrastructure program or increased military spending. He began the pivot to using public pressure on Congress over the weekend when presiding over the commissioning ceremony for the Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford. He prodded the crowd in Norfolk, Virginia, to get on the phone to their congressional representatives and senators. “We need Congress to do its job and pass the budget that provides for higher, stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs that our fighting men and women deserve. And you will get it, believe me,” he said. “But I don’t mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman, and call that senator, and make sure you get it.” He also threw in a plug for Obamacare repeal. “By the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care,” Mr. Trump said. Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	AJWSG8QhMw5Y3RDa
campaign_finance	Politico	00	http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/congress-campaign-finance-ethics-slush-fund-117541.html?hp=t1_r	Scarves, BMWs, Admirals Clubs: Congress' petty cash problem	2015-05-01	Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer	Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $ 2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman . Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) has dropped nearly $ 3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia . Other lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels , upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country . In one case , a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $ 20,000 since Election Day . Disgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock ( R-Ill. ) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle , among other alleged misdeeds . But the truth is , while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case , he is far from the exception . It fact , elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress , according to a ███ review of campaign documents . Indeed , donor dollars can , at times , resemble a slush fund . And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense . “ The House Ethics Committee typically gives ( members of Congress ) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities , ” said Kenneth Gross , a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden , Arps , Slate , Meagher & Flom . “ However , under House and [ Federal Election Commission ] rules , personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited . ” In the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars , Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller ’ s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars . A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock ’ s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars . But unlike official expenditures , campaign expenditures are barely monitored . Case in point : Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments . More than a month after resigning , the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records . Congress ' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense . Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars : Rep. Anna Eshoo ( D-Ca . ) : Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman , more than $ 2,000 . Rep. Bob Brady ( D-Pa. ) : Christmas gifts from Capital Grille , upwards of $ 10,000 per year . Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) : Servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia , nearly $ 3,400 . Sen. John Cornyn , ( R-Texas ) : “ Beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa , $ 336 . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) : 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014 , $ 20.39 on six occasions . Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) : Regular visits to Tune Inn , a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue , more than $ 1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013 . Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-Texas ) : Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December , more than $ 5,400 . Rep. Gene Green ( D-Texas ) : Gifts for his D.C. and district staff , roughly $ 3,000 . Retired Rep. Buck McKeon ( R-Ca . ) : Money left in campaign post-retirement in January , $ 250,000 . Paying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts . Most corporations wouldn ’ t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees , yet that ’ s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does . At the end of each year , the Texas Democrat takes roughly $ 3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $ 200 as a holiday present . “ I don ’ t buy gifts , ” Green said . “ I give , typically , [ it ] started out at $ 100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $ 200 at Christmas . ” Dozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns . Rep. Robert Brady , a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia , shells out more than $ 10,000 every year at Capital Grille , buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides . He hasn ’ t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998 . “ Since members run for reelection every two years , it ’ s important to say ‘ thank you ’ to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns , ” said Stanley V. White , Brady ’ s chief of staff . “ These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady ’ s reelection efforts . ” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines , the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company — to the tune of $ 12,295 in the past five months . He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team , a spokesman said . Eshoo , who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades , says she is “ grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts . ” “ I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays , ” Eshoo said in an interview . “ Why give to the leader ? Why have I done that for the leader , amongst others ? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been . I always think a ‘ thank you ’ should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it , and they carry memorable items . ” Eshoo said she couldn ’ t recall what she has bought for Pelosi , but said she believes she ’ s given the Democratic leader scarves . Other lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad . Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas , but one of his campaign line items last year was $ 272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos , Nigeria . In three expenditures in November and December , Gohmert paid more than $ 5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London . He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel . Gohmert ’ s spokesman , Kimberly Willingham , said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England , but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed . She suggested ███ write an “ unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds . ” Sen. John Cornyn , the No . 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas , spent $ 336 for “ beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa . Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town , which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world . Cornyn ’ s office didn ’ t respond to multiple requests for comment . Rep. Dan Lipinski ( D-Ill. ) , whose district includes the suburbs Chicago , went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year , running up a bill of more than $ 750 . A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference . Dublin , Ireland , also appeared on campaign disclosure forms . In 2013 , Rep. John Larson ( D-Conn. ) had a “ political ” meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $ 112 . Rep. Richard Neal ( D-Mass . ) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012 , shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel , and the Europa Hotel in Belfast . Neal ’ s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council ’ s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn Féin . Fromer Rep. Aaron Schock , Rep. Steve Scalise , Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. “ Buck ” McKeon are pictured . \| AP and Getty Photos Other politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June . Josh Haynes , his chief of staff , says Smith “ doesn ’ t drink coffee , and when he meets in the morning with elected officials , donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie. ” However , during his campaign last year , Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term . Rep. Raúl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) , meanwhile , is a regular at Tune Inn , a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol . His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013 , totaling more than $ 1,000 . Sometimes the bill is as small as $ 20 , other times $ 130 . Grijalva ’ s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director , Jose Miranda , was reimbursed for the political meals , not the congressman . Cuellar ’ s office , meanwhile , says it ’ s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington . His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work , including to and from the Capitol , to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo . “ Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal , ” Strother said . Buck McKeon ’ s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping — because he ’ s not even in Congress anymore . The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers . He ’ s used the money to pay his wife about $ 20,000 since Election Day . Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay , the ex-congressman said in an interview , and she ’ s now helping him close out his campaign operation . “ If you average that all out over the 22 years , it ’ s a lot less than the indication , ” the ex-congressman asserted . “ People think we paid her that much forever , ” he added , but the fact is “ she worked for years for free . ”	Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has dropped nearly $3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria, Virginia. Story Continued Below Other lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels, upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country. In one case, a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $20,000 since Election Day. Disgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle, among other alleged misdeeds. But the truth is, while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case, he is far from the exception. It fact, elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress, according to a POLITICO review of campaign documents. Indeed, donor dollars can, at times, resemble a slush fund. And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense. “The House Ethics Committee typically gives (members of Congress) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities,” said Kenneth Gross, a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. “However, under House and [Federal Election Commission] rules, personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited.” In the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars, Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller’s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars. A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock’s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars. But unlike official expenditures, campaign expenditures are barely monitored. Case in point: Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments. More than a month after resigning, the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records. Gifts galore Congress' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense. Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars: Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Ca.): Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, more than $2,000. Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.): Christmas gifts from Capital Grille, upwards of $10,000 per year. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas): Servicing his BMW in Alexandria, Virginia, nearly $3,400. Sen. John Cornyn, (R-Texas): “Beverages for meal” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa, $336. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.): 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014, $20.39 on six occasions. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): Regular visits to Tune Inn, a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue, more than $1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas): Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December, more than $5,400. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): Gifts for his D.C. and district staff, roughly $3,000. Retired Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Ca.): Money left in campaign post-retirement in January, $250,000. Paying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts. Most corporations wouldn’t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees, yet that’s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does. At the end of each year, the Texas Democrat takes roughly $3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $200 as a holiday present. “I don’t buy gifts,” Green said. “I give, typically, [it] started out at $100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $200 at Christmas.” Dozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns. Rep. Robert Brady, a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia, shells out more than $10,000 every year at Capital Grille, buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides. He hasn’t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998. “Since members run for reelection every two years, it’s important to say ‘thank you’ to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns,” said Stanley V. White, Brady’s chief of staff. “These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady’s reelection efforts.” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines, the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company — to the tune of $12,295 in the past five months. He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team, a spokesman said. Eshoo, who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades, says she is “grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts.” “I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays,” Eshoo said in an interview. “Why give to the leader? Why have I done that for the leader, amongst others? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been. I always think a ‘thank you’ should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it, and they carry memorable items.” Eshoo said she couldn’t recall what she has bought for Pelosi, but said she believes she’s given the Democratic leader scarves. Spending abroad Other lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas, but one of his campaign line items last year was $272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos, Nigeria. In three expenditures in November and December, Gohmert paid more than $5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London. He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel. Gohmert’s spokesman, Kimberly Willingham, said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England, but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed. She suggested POLITICO write an “unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds.” Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas, spent $336 for “beverages for meal” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa. Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town, which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world. Cornyn’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), whose district includes the suburbs Chicago, went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year, running up a bill of more than $750. A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference. Dublin, Ireland, also appeared on campaign disclosure forms. In 2013, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) had a “political” meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $112. Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012, shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel, and the Europa Hotel in Belfast. Neal’s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council’s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn Féin. Dining in D.C. Fromer Rep. Aaron Schock, Rep. Steve Scalise, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon are pictured. \| AP and Getty Photos Other politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June. Josh Haynes, his chief of staff, says Smith “doesn’t drink coffee, and when he meets in the morning with elected officials, donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie.” However, during his campaign last year, Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term. Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), meanwhile, is a regular at Tune Inn, a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol. His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013, totaling more than $1,000. Sometimes the bill is as small as $20, other times $130. Grijalva’s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director, Jose Miranda, was reimbursed for the political meals, not the congressman. Cuellar’s office, meanwhile, says it’s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington. His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work, including to and from the Capitol, to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo. “Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal,” Strother said. Buck McKeon’s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping — because he’s not even in Congress anymore. The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers. He’s used the money to pay his wife about $20,000 since Election Day. Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay, the ex-congressman said in an interview, and she’s now helping him close out his campaign operation. “If you average that all out over the 22 years, it’s a lot less than the indication,” the ex-congressman asserted. “People think we paid her that much forever,” he added, but the fact is “she worked for years for free.”	www.politico.com	0left	jvsDxssNd0bBHyQF
trade	CNN (Web News)	00	http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/index.html	Trump had heated exchange with Australian PM, talked 'tough hombres' with Mexican leader	2017-02-01	Jake Tapper, Eli Watkins, Jim Acosta, Euan Mckirdy	During the US President 's call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Saturday , Trump objected to an agreement over the US receiving refugees , sources told CNN . All this a day after a call with Mexico 's President , where a transcript showed Trump complaining about Mexico 's `` handling '' of `` tough hombres . '' Australia is an ally of the United States , with the two countries joining three other English-speaking countries in an intelligence sharing arrangement known as the `` Five Eyes . '' The disagreement came as the two leaders discussed a deal , reached under the Obama administration , for the US to accept refugees from Australia who are living on islands in detention centers off the mainland due to strict government policies . Many of them are from the seven countries affected by Trump 's travel ban . Trump on Friday also suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days , along with indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees . Sources say Trump insisted it was a very bad deal for the US to take 2,000 refugees and that one of them was going to be the next Boston bomber . Turnbull told Trump several times the agreement was for 1,250 refugees , not 2,000 . He also said Australia was asking to submit them to the US for refugee screening , and if the refugees did not pass the US screening process , they would not come . Trump expressed concern as to how this agreement from President Barack Obama 's administration would go forward given his executive order the day before temporarily suspending the US refugee program . Trump abruptly ended the call because he was unhappy , a source told CNN . White House press Wednesday night , Trump tweeted , `` Do you believe it ? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia . Why ? I will study this dumb deal ! '' Do you believe it ? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia . Why ? I will study this dumb deal ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 2 , 2017 Turnbull said the call ended `` courteously '' in a radio interview Thursday . On Thursday , Trump used his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast -- an annual tradition attended by many world and religious leaders -- to weigh in on the reports circulating on his phone calls . `` When you hear about the tough phone calls I 'm having , do n't worry about it . Just do n't worry about it . They 're tough . We have to be tough . It 's time we 're going to be a little tough , folks , '' he said . `` We 're taken advantage of by every nation in the world , virtually . It 's not going to happen anymore . It 's not going to happen anymore . '' The Washington Post was the first to report on the details of the Australian call . When asked about the tweet labeling the agreement brokered with Obama 's administration a `` dumb deal , '' Turnball said , while the deal may not have been one Trump would 've done or considered a `` good deal , '' the President and his administration have committed to honor it . Earlier this week , Spicer said the Trump administration would honor the agreement , saying the refugees would be submitted to `` extreme vetting . '' Turnbull attempted to keep some semblance of diplomacy , declining to elaborate on details of the call . `` Look , I 'm not going to comment on a conversation between myself and the President of the United States other than what we have said publicly , and you can surely understand the reasons for that , '' he said . `` I 'm sure you can understand that . It 's better these conversations are conducted candidly , frankly , privately . If you 'll see reports of them , I 'm not going to add to them . '' One person familiar with the circumstances on Saturday notes that President Trump 's phone call with Turnbull came after a long day of conversations with other foreign leaders -- Turnbull was the fifth call after conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Abe , French President Hollande , German Chancellor Merkel , and Russian President Putin , each of which lasted close to an hour . Trump , this source said , was feeling some fatigue after his first major bout of diplomacy . And while his earlier conversations were n't necessarily contentious , they did involve some tense moments . Merkel and Hollande pushed back on the travel ban over the phone . Merkel felt she had to explain the Geneva Convention to Trump -- a lecture a source has said Trump chafed at . JUST WATCHED Mexico 's top diplomat responds to Trump 's tweet Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mexico 's top diplomat responds to Trump 's tweet 00:45 CNN has also learned details about the Friday phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto , who canceled an in-person visit with Trump after the US President insisted Mexico pay for a border wall between the two countries . According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN , Trump said , `` You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with . We are willing to help with that big-league , but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out . '' Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels . The excerpt of the transcript obtained by CNN differs with an official internal readout of the call that wrongly suggested Trump was contemplating sending troops to the border in a hostile way . The Associated Press report said Trump threatened to send US troops to stop criminals in Mexico unless the government did more to control them , but both the US and Mexican governments denied details from the story . Sources described the AP 's reporting as being based upon a readout -- written by aides -- not a transcript . A government official familiar with Trump 's interactions with foreign leaders said , `` ( Trump 's ) interactions are naive in that he keeps suggesting we will have the best relationship ever with a broad departure of countries , but there is no substance to back it up . When he encounters a policy challenge , like with Turnbull , he responds with a tantrum . ''	During the US President's call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Saturday, Trump objected to an agreement over the US receiving refugees, sources told CNN. All this a day after a call with Mexico's President, where a transcript showed Trump complaining about Mexico's "handling" of "tough hombres." Australia is an ally of the United States, with the two countries joining three other English-speaking countries in an intelligence sharing arrangement known as the "Five Eyes." Refugee deal The disagreement came as the two leaders discussed a deal, reached under the Obama administration, for the US to accept refugees from Australia who are living on islands in detention centers off the mainland due to strict government policies. Many of them are from the seven countries affected by Trump's travel ban . Trump on Friday also suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days, along with indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees. Sources say Trump insisted it was a very bad deal for the US to take 2,000 refugees and that one of them was going to be the next Boston bomber. Turnbull told Trump several times the agreement was for 1,250 refugees, not 2,000. He also said Australia was asking to submit them to the US for refugee screening, and if the refugees did not pass the US screening process, they would not come. Trump expressed concern as to how this agreement from President Barack Obama's administration would go forward given his executive order the day before temporarily suspending the US refugee program. Trump abruptly ended the call because he was unhappy, a source told CNN. White House press Wednesday night, Trump tweeted, "Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!" Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017 Turnbull said the call ended "courteously" in a radio interview Thursday. On Thursday, Trump used his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast -- an annual tradition attended by many world and religious leaders -- to weigh in on the reports circulating on his phone calls. "When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks," he said. "We're taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore." The Washington Post was the first to report on the details of the Australian call. When asked about the tweet labeling the agreement brokered with Obama's administration a "dumb deal," Turnball said, while the deal may not have been one Trump would've done or considered a "good deal," the President and his administration have committed to honor it. Earlier this week, Spicer said the Trump administration would honor the agreement, saying the refugees would be submitted to "extreme vetting." Turnbull attempted to keep some semblance of diplomacy, declining to elaborate on details of the call. "Look, I'm not going to comment on a conversation between myself and the President of the United States other than what we have said publicly, and you can surely understand the reasons for that," he said. "I'm sure you can understand that. It's better these conversations are conducted candidly, frankly, privately. If you'll see reports of them, I'm not going to add to them." One person familiar with the circumstances on Saturday notes that President Trump's phone call with Turnbull came after a long day of conversations with other foreign leaders -- Turnbull was the fifth call after conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Abe, French President Hollande, German Chancellor Merkel, and Russian President Putin, each of which lasted close to an hour. Trump, this source said, was feeling some fatigue after his first major bout of diplomacy. And while his earlier conversations weren't necessarily contentious, they did involve some tense moments. Merkel and Hollande pushed back on the travel ban over the phone. Merkel felt she had to explain the Geneva Convention to Trump -- a lecture a source has said Trump chafed at. JUST WATCHED Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet 00:45 'Tough hombres' talk with Mexican President CNN has also learned details about the Friday phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto, who canceled an in-person visit with Trump after the US President insisted Mexico pay for a border wall between the two countries. According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN, Trump said, "You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league, but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out." Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels. The excerpt of the transcript obtained by CNN differs with an official internal readout of the call that wrongly suggested Trump was contemplating sending troops to the border in a hostile way. The Associated Press report said Trump threatened to send US troops to stop criminals in Mexico unless the government did more to control them, but both the US and Mexican governments denied details from the story. Sources described the AP's reporting as being based upon a readout -- written by aides -- not a transcript. Spicer described the call with Peña Nieto as "productive." A government official familiar with Trump's interactions with foreign leaders said, "(Trump's) interactions are naive in that he keeps suggesting we will have the best relationship ever with a broad departure of countries, but there is no substance to back it up. When he encounters a policy challenge, like with Turnbull, he responds with a tantrum."	www.cnn.com	0left	t7g4TRDXyeIwgcnP
taxes	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/01/trump-test-democrats-tax-patriotism-glenn-reynolds/101159082/	OPINION: Trump will test Democrats' tax patriotism	2017-05-01	Glenn Harlan Reynolds	President 's plan would make high-tax blue states pay their fair share . Democrats have been saying for years that we need tax increases , and that paying taxes is one of the greatest forms of patriotism . Now it looks like President Trump is going to put their beliefs to the test . Trump ’ s new tax plan would hit blue states hardest , by eliminating the federal deductibility of state income and property taxes . That ’ s going to make it harder for blue states to maintain the high tax rates they ’ ve traditionally levied . Right now , if you pay state property or income taxes , you can deduct them against your federal income taxes . In effect , it means that if you ’ re in a high federal bracket , your state taxes may be offset by that federal deduction to the tune of 40 % or more . End the federal deduction , though , and high state taxes come straight out of taxpayers ’ pockets with no offset . As economist Nicole Kaeding told The Hill , by allowing deductions for state taxes , “ the federal government is essentially subsidizing high tax rates in states like California and New York . ” The National Journal ’ s Ronald Brownstein calls this `` an offensive against blue states , '' but as Brad Todd replied on Twitter , “ I think what you mean is it ends imbalanced federal subsidy for big government at the local level . ” I think that ’ s right . States should be able to set their own levels of taxing and spending , but I see no reason why a Walmart cashier in Tennessee ( which has no state income tax and low property taxes ) should be subsidizing a hedge fund mogul in New York or a studio executive in Hollywood . It ’ s fine if blue states want to have higher state and local tax rates , as they do , but they shouldn ’ t be encouraged to do so by federal tax giveaways . And it ’ s the urban , coastal areas that have done best over the past 25 years , so it seems time for them to pay their fair share now . In that spirit , I have a few other proposals . First , we should eliminate the mortgage interest deduction . Experts have been calling for that for years , and they ’ re right to . The deduction was part of an ill-considered federal effort to encourage home ownership by people who could only marginally afford it , but that has backfired with the bursting of the housing bubble . It ’ s something that has been dubbed ( not by me ) Reynolds ’ Law : “ The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle-class people have : If middle-class people go to college and own homes , then surely if more people go to college and own homes , we ’ ll have more middle-class people . But homeownership and college aren ’ t causes of middle-class status ; they ’ re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline , the ability to defer gratification , etc . — that let you enter , and stay , in the middle class . Subsidizing the markers doesn ’ t produce the traits ; if anything , it undermines them . ” In addition , of course , the mortgage interest deduction encourages and perpetuates high housing prices , which ultimately make housing less , not more , affordable . It gives you bigger benefits when you make a lot of money and own an expensive home . It ’ s essentially a transfer of money from the young , the poor , and the rural to the old , the wealthy and the urban . There are a lot of things like this in the tax code : When tax-making powers are exercised by politicians , taxes are generally written in a way that benefits people politicians care about , who tend to be rich and powerful . A simpler tax code — such as a flat tax — would fix that , but politicians hate such proposals because they offer insufficient opportunities for graft . But hey , paying taxes is patriotic . So I don ’ t expect to hear any complaints from blue-staters . Right ? Glenn Harlan Reynolds , a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself , is a member of ███ 's Board of Contributors . You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page , on Twitter @ USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter . To submit a letter , comment or column , check our submission guidelines .	President's plan would make high-tax blue states pay their fair share. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin arrives at a tax reform meeting, U.S. Capitol, Washington, April 25, 2017. (Photo: Eric Thayer, Getty Images) Democrats have been saying for years that we need tax increases, and that paying taxes is one of the greatest forms of patriotism. Now it looks like President Trump is going to put their beliefs to the test. Trump’s new tax plan would hit blue states hardest, by eliminating the federal deductibility of state income and property taxes. That’s going to make it harder for blue states to maintain the high tax rates they’ve traditionally levied. Right now, if you pay state property or income taxes, you can deduct them against your federal income taxes. In effect, it means that if you’re in a high federal bracket, your state taxes may be offset by that federal deduction to the tune of 40% or more. End the federal deduction, though, and high state taxes come straight out of taxpayers’ pockets with no offset. As economist Nicole Kaeding told The Hill, by allowing deductions for state taxes, “the federal government is essentially subsidizing high tax rates in states like California and New York.” The National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein calls this "an offensive against blue states," but as Brad Todd replied on Twitter, “I think what you mean is it ends imbalanced federal subsidy for big government at the local level.” I think that’s right. States should be able to set their own levels of taxing and spending, but I see no reason why a Walmart cashier in Tennessee (which has no state income tax and low property taxes) should be subsidizing a hedge fund mogul in New York or a studio executive in Hollywood. It’s fine if blue states want to have higher state and local tax rates, as they do, but they shouldn’t be encouraged to do so by federal tax giveaways. And it’s the urban, coastal areas that have done best over the past 25 years, so it seems time for them to pay their fair share now. In that spirit, I have a few other proposals. First, we should eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Experts have been calling for that for years, and they’re right to. The deduction was part of an ill-considered federal effort to encourage home ownership by people who could only marginally afford it, but that has backfired with the bursting of the housing bubble. It’s something that has been dubbed (not by me) Reynolds’ Law: “The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle-class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status; they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.” POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media In addition, of course, the mortgage interest deduction encourages and perpetuates high housing prices, which ultimately make housing less, not more, affordable. It gives you bigger benefits when you make a lot of money and own an expensive home. It’s essentially a transfer of money from the young, the poor, and the rural to the old, the wealthy and the urban. There are a lot of things like this in the tax code: When tax-making powers are exercised by politicians, taxes are generally written in a way that benefits people politicians care about, who tend to be rich and powerful. A simpler tax code — such as a flat tax — would fix that, but politicians hate such proposals because they offer insufficient opportunities for graft. But hey, paying taxes is patriotic. So I don’t expect to hear any complaints from blue-staters. Right? Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines. Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2qpQ1pZ	www.usatoday.com	2center	8l8O4ujbVtCwZySv
us_house	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/02/democrats-may-subpoena-trump-teams-after-whistleblower-testimony-over-trump-clearances-may-prompt-su/3339849002/	White House whistleblower testimony may prompt Dems to subpoena Trump team over security clearances	2019-04-02		WASHINGTON – A Democrat-led House committee voted Tuesday to subpoena a former Trump administration official to discuss how the White House granted security clearances to people despite problems with their background checks . The House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted along party lines to subpoena Carl Kline , who was the personnel security director for the first two years of the Trump presidency . The White House `` can not stonewall and stall this committee for months and then just offer us general information about their policies , not when there are such serious allegations of a risk to national security , '' said Rep. Elijah Cummings , D-Md. , chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform . The subpoena is based on testimony to committee aides from a whistleblower , a longtime White House security adviser who said she and colleagues denied security clearances to about 25 applicants but saw those decisions overturned by higher-ups in the Trump administration . “ I would not be doing a service to myself , my country , or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security , '' testified Tricia Newbold , a career employee who has returned to work at the White House . The group of 25 applicants may include President Donald Trump 's son-in-law Jared Kushner , who was granted a top-secret security clearance despite concerns from officials , The New York Times and The Washington Post reported in February . Issues with some applicants includes ties to foreign influence , conflicts of interests , questionable or criminal conduct , financial problems and drug abuse , according to testimony . More : Congress is right to probe Trump White House security clearances . Hand over the documents . Cummings and the committee did not identify the 25 applicants recommended for rejection . But in the past they have asked the White House to provide information about clearances for Kushner , his spouse ( and the president 's daughter ) , Ivanka Trump , and national security adviser John Bolton . The White House has rejected the document requests , citing privacy and saying Congress does not have the authority to see these documents . Officials indicated they may fight subpoenas . White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the committee can speak with administration officials in general about the clearance process , but Congress is not entitled to detailed files on applicants . `` We 're not going to exploit individuals and their personal information , '' Sanders said . Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday , Kushner said he did not want to discuss the clearance process , but `` I can say over the last two years that I ’ ve been here , I ’ ve been accused of all different types of things , and all of those things have turned out to be false . '' House Democrats are planning subpoenas in a number of investigations of the Trump White House . The House Judiciary Committee will meet Wednesday to authorize a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s full report and the evidence his investigators gathered , setting up what could be a historic legal clash with the Justice Department . The panel also plans to vote to authorize subpoenas for evidence from some of Trump ’ s former top advisers , including strategist Steve Bannon , communications director Hope Hicks , Chief of Staff Reince Priebus , White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson . Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform , accused Cummings and the Democrats of politicizing security clearances and exaggerating the problems . `` For instance , '' he said , `` the 25 examples of overruled recommendations by Ms. Newbold heralded by the Democrats include nonpolitical officials such as a GSA custodian . '' Cummings said the evidence suggests the administration has been careless with security clearances and access to the nation 's secrets . Newbold 's testimony reflected `` the grave security risks she has been witnessing firsthand over the past two years , '' Cummings said .	David Jackson USA TODAY WASHINGTON – A Democrat-led House committee voted Tuesday to subpoena a former Trump administration official to discuss how the White House granted security clearances to people despite problems with their background checks. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted along party lines to subpoena Carl Kline, who was the personnel security director for the first two years of the Trump presidency. The White House "cannot stonewall and stall this committee for months and then just offer us general information about their policies, not when there are such serious allegations of a risk to national security," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. The subpoena is based on testimony to committee aides from a whistleblower, a longtime White House security adviser who said she and colleagues denied security clearances to about 25 applicants but saw those decisions overturned by higher-ups in the Trump administration. “I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security," testified Tricia Newbold, a career employee who has returned to work at the White House. The group of 25 applicants may include President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was granted a top-secret security clearance despite concerns from officials, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported in February. Issues with some applicants includes ties to foreign influence, conflicts of interests, questionable or criminal conduct, financial problems and drug abuse, according to testimony. More:Congress is right to probe Trump White House security clearances. Hand over the documents. Cummings and the committee did not identify the 25 applicants recommended for rejection. But in the past they have asked the White House to provide information about clearances for Kushner, his spouse (and the president's daughter), Ivanka Trump, and national security adviser John Bolton. The White House has rejected the document requests, citing privacy and saying Congress does not have the authority to see these documents. Officials indicated they may fight subpoenas. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the committee can speak with administration officials in general about the clearance process, but Congress is not entitled to detailed files on applicants. "We're not going to exploit individuals and their personal information," Sanders said. Kushner has dismissed Newbold's complaints. Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday, Kushner said he did not want to discuss the clearance process, but "I can say over the last two years that I’ve been here, I’ve been accused of all different types of things, and all of those things have turned out to be false." House Democrats are planning subpoenas in a number of investigations of the Trump White House. The House Judiciary Committee will meet Wednesday to authorize a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report and the evidence his investigators gathered, setting up what could be a historic legal clash with the Justice Department. The panel also plans to vote to authorize subpoenas for evidence from some of Trump’s former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Hope Hicks, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, accused Cummings and the Democrats of politicizing security clearances and exaggerating the problems. "For instance," he said, "the 25 examples of overruled recommendations by Ms. Newbold heralded by the Democrats include nonpolitical officials such as a GSA custodian." Cummings said the evidence suggests the administration has been careless with security clearances and access to the nation's secrets. Newbold's testimony reflected "the grave security risks she has been witnessing firsthand over the past two years," Cummings said. Contributing: Bart Jansen	www.usatoday.com	2center	pW8xmntRE0H41mZT
environment	USA TODAY	11	https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/04/15/coronavirus-air-pollution-has-dropped-30-northeast-nasa-said/5138912002/	Air pollution has dropped by 30% in the Northeast, NASA says. Are coronavirus stay-at-home orders responsible?	2020-04-15		Cities such from Washington , D.C. , to Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality . March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record . However , in the U.S. , `` these recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost . '' Air pollution has dropped by 30 % in the big cities of the Northeast over the past few weeks as the coronavirus pandemic worsened and people stayed home , according to NASA satellite data . In fact , cities such as Washington , D.C. , Philadelphia , New York City and Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality similar to the improvements in Italy and China during prior coronavirus lockdowns , AccuWeather said . Nitrogen dioxide ( NO2 ) , which is primarily emitted from burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation , can be used as an indicator of changes in human activity , according to NASA . With people staying home and not driving their cars , air pollution has declined in a big way . Other major cities that saw recent major drops in NO2 levels included Cleveland , Detroit , Buffalo , New York , and Pittsburgh , according to AccuWeather . Though year-to-year variations in weather can cause variations in the monthly averages for individual years , in the Northeast , March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record , which spans the past 15 years . Last month , pollution reductions were also noted in countries hit hard by the coronavirus , including China and Italy . This led to speculation that the virus had actually saved more lives than it took . According to Paul Monks of the University of Leicester , `` the World Health Organization ( WHO ) estimates that about 3 million people die each year from ailments caused by air pollution and that more than 80 % of people living in urban areas are exposed to air-quality levels that exceed safe limits . '' Saving lives ? : Could the coronavirus actually be saving lives in some parts of the world because of reduced pollution ? Stanford University 's Marshall Burke also noted in March that `` the reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved 20 times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country . '' However , in the U.S. , the trade-off has been steep . `` These recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost as communities grapple with widespread lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders as a result of the spread of COVID-19 , '' NASA said . The data NASA released should be used with caution , Accuweather said . One reason is that NO2 levels recorded by satellites are n't necessarily the exact same as levels found at the ground level . NASA also said in its report that further analysis is needed to determine the true amount that nitrogen dioxide levels have changed and whether it is associated with changes in pollutant emissions – or is just a natural variation in weather . “ We all have this hunch about how air pollution has changed , the longer this goes on , the more we will see , ” NASA air pollution specialist Ryan Stauffer told The Washington Post last week .	Cities such from Washington, D.C., to Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality. March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record. However, in the U.S., "these recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost." Air pollution has dropped by 30% in the big cities of the Northeast over the past few weeks as the coronavirus pandemic worsened and people stayed home, according to NASA satellite data. In fact, cities such as Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality similar to the improvements in Italy and China during prior coronavirus lockdowns, AccuWeather said. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is primarily emitted from burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, can be used as an indicator of changes in human activity, according to NASA. With people staying home and not driving their cars, air pollution has declined in a big way. Other major cities that saw recent major drops in NO2 levels included Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, according to AccuWeather. Though year-to-year variations in weather can cause variations in the monthly averages for individual years, in the Northeast, March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record, which spans the past 15 years. Last month, pollution reductions were also noted in countries hit hard by the coronavirus, including China and Italy. This led to speculation that the virus had actually saved more lives than it took. According to Paul Monks of the University of Leicester, "the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 3 million people die each year from ailments caused by air pollution and that more than 80% of people living in urban areas are exposed to air-quality levels that exceed safe limits." Saving lives?:Could the coronavirus actually be saving lives in some parts of the world because of reduced pollution? Stanford University's Marshall Burke also noted in March that "the reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved 20 times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country." However, in the U.S., the trade-off has been steep. "These recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost as communities grapple with widespread lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders as a result of the spread of COVID-19," NASA said. The data NASA released should be used with caution, Accuweather said. One reason is that NO2 levels recorded by satellites aren't necessarily the exact same as levels found at the ground level. NASA also said in its report that further analysis is needed to determine the true amount that nitrogen dioxide levels have changed and whether it is associated with changes in pollutant emissions – or is just a natural variation in weather. “We all have this hunch about how air pollution has changed, the longer this goes on, the more we will see,” NASA air pollution specialist Ryan Stauffer told The Washington Post last week.	www.usatoday.com	2center	Vcaqh0Sn3F5IiTMR
us_house	Vox	00	https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/10/17929460/paul-ryan-speaker-retiring-debt-deficits-trump	Paul Ryan’s long con	2018-12-10	Ezra Klein	House Speaker Paul Ryan ’ s legacy can be summed up in just one number : $ 343 billion . That ’ s the increase between the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018 — that is , the difference between the fiscal year before Ryan became speaker of the House and the fiscal year in which he retired . If the economy had fallen into recession between 2015 and 2018 , Ryan ’ s record would be understandable . But it didn ’ t . In fact , growth quickened and the labor market tightened — which means deficits should ’ ve fallen . Indeed , that ’ s exactly what happened in each of the five years preceding Ryan ’ s speakership ; from 2011 to 2015 , annual deficits fell each year . As he prepares to leave office , Ryan says that debt reduction is one of those things “ I wish we could have gotten done. ” Ryan , the man with the single most power over the federal budget in recent years , sounds like a bystander , as if he watched laws happen rather than made them happen . To understand the irony and duplicity of that statement , you need to understand Ryan ’ s career . After the profligacy of the George W. Bush years and the rise of the Tea Party , Ryan rocketed to the top ranks of his party by warning that mounting deficits under President Obama threatened the “ most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country. ” Absent the fiscal responsibility that would accompany Republican rule , we were facing nothing less than “ the end of the American dream . ” Ryan ’ s reputation was built on the back of his budgets : draconian documents that gutted social spending , privatized Medicare , and showed the Republican Party had embraced the kinds of hard fiscal choices that Bush had sloughed off . And Ryan presented himself as the wonkish apostle of this new GOP , rolling up his sleeves and running through the charts , graphs , and tables that made his case . “ I admit that in recent years Republicans abandoned these principles , ” Ryan wrote in the book Young Guns , the 2010 GOP manifesto he co-authored with Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor . “ We lost the true path and suffered electoral defeats . But we have not returned from this experience empty handed . ” What Republicans had returned with , according to Ryan , was a willingness to make hard choices . “ It ’ s time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children , ” he wrote . “ It ’ s time we stop deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies . ” For this , Ryan was feted in Washington society ; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave him a “ Fiscy ” award for budget bravery ; he was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission ( which he ultimately voted against ) ; he became Mitt Romney ’ s vice presidential candidate . His reputation was so towering that when John Boehner stepped down as speaker , he told Ryan , “ You ’ ve got to do this job . ” I was among the reporters who took Ryan ’ s reboot seriously . “ To move us to surpluses , ” I wrote of his 2010 proposal , “ Ryan ’ s budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent . Medicare is privatized . Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance , and the voucher ’ s growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs . Medicaid is also privatized . The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated , replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs . ” I didn ’ t agree with Ryan ’ s policies , but at least he was making the trade-offs of his vision clear . Here was a Republican who said what he was going to do , who admitted his health care plan included “ rationing , ” who offered something specific to argue with . That was progress . But to critics like the New York Times ’ s Paul Krugman , Ryan was an obvious con man weaponizing the deficit to hamstring Obama ’ s presidency , weaken the recovery , and snooker Beltway centrists eager to champion a reasonable-seeming Republican . Ryan , after all , had voted for Bush ’ s deficits — he was a yes on the tax cuts , on the wars , on Medicare Part D. He proposed a Social Security privatization scheme so pricey that even the Bush administration dismissed it as “ irresponsible . ” And his budgets , for all the hard choices , didn ’ t actually add up . They included massive tax cuts with underestimated costs and unspecified financing — which is what led Krugman to call him a charlatan back in 2010 . Ryan waved this away as nitpicking . ” If needed , ” his office said , “ adjustments can be easily made to the specified rates to hit the revenue targets. ” But his critics predicted he would lose his appetite for hard choices the moment his party returned to power . He hadn ’ t changed ; he had merely rebranded . The numbers proved them right . Ryan was elected speaker of the House on October 29 , 2015 . Over the next three years , annual deficits increased by almost 80 percent . The added debt is Ryan ’ s legacy , not his circumstance . It is entirely attributable to policy choices he made . To Ryan ’ s supporters , this is unfair . “ Being speaker of the House is the most Faustian job in history , ” Arthur Brooks , president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute , told me . “ He ’ s done the best he can under these circumstances . Because he did one thing but didn ’ t do another , to say he never cared about the first thing is to misunderstand the choices , and to commit ad hominem arguments . ” I think that ’ s too kind . As speaker , Ryan had tremendous power . He could have , for instance , brought immigration compromises to the floor of the House but enforced congressional PayGo rules to bar any bills that increased the deficit from coming to a vote . Instead , he refused to bring immigration compromises to the floor while personally shepherding bills that betrayed the ideas that won him power . We are the choices we make — and Ryan made his . To be clear , I am not particularly concerned about deficits right now , just as I wasn ’ t in 2010 . But I took Ryan seriously when he said he was . I covered the arguments Ryan made , the policies he crafted , and I treated them as if they offered a guide to how Republicans would govern . I listened when Ryan said things like , “ In Europe , generations of welfare-dependent citizens are hurling Molotov cocktails because their governments can no longer fund their entitlement programs . We can ’ t let that happen here . ” Ryan ’ s office did not grant my request for an interview for this piece . But now , as Ryan prepares to leave Congress , it is clear that his critics were correct and a credulous Washington press corps — including me — that took him at his word was wrong . In the trillions of long-term debt he racked up as speaker , in the anti-poverty proposals he promised but never passed , and in the many lies he told to sell unpopular policies , Ryan proved as much a practitioner of post-truth politics as Donald Trump . Three bills in particular stand out in assessing Ryan ’ s record . The first is the 2017 tax cut Ryan passed but didn ’ t pay for . His defenders note that early drafts of the tax cut bill included a border adjustment tax that would ’ ve made the package revenue-neutral , fulfilling Ryan ’ s promises . But that policy fell out of the legislation early on , and rather than replace it , Ryan pushed a plan that added $ 1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years , and used accounting gimmicks to hide vastly larger increases tucked into the legislation ’ s long-term design . Now House Republicans , still under Ryan ’ s leadership , are agitating to make the tax cuts permanent , with a 20-year cost estimated at $ 4 trillion . This is particularly galling given that Ryan ’ s initial star turn in Republican politics came through a misleading presentation accusing the Obama administration of using gimmickry to hide Obamacare ’ s true cost . ( In reality , Obamacare was paid for and its costs have been even lower than promised . ) The second is the spending Ryan passed but didn ’ t pay for . Years of fiscal irresponsibility have sometimes permitted Republicans to be graded on a curve , where tax cuts can be charged to the national credit card and spending cuts are the true measure of policy steel . But even on this diminished measure , Ryan ’ s record betrayed his promises . In March , Ryan pushed a $ 1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill through the House , which included almost $ 300 billion in spending increases . New spending , it turned out , only had to be paid for so long as it was a Democratic president proposing or signing it . “ When you have power and need to make choices , those choices do reveal something about you , ” says Yuval Levin , editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs . “ I think what they reveal is where the least common denominator is in the Republican Party . I think there ’ s no question that what Republicans do when we get power is supply-side tax cuts . That ’ s the wall I and others have been banging our heads into for years now . ” The third is the expansion of the earned income tax credit Ryan proposed but never even tried to pass . After the 2010 election , he went on a much-vaunted tour of American poverty , racking up positive press for expanding the boundaries of the possible under conservatism , and arguing for an enlarged EITC that would help childless adults . The Obama administration quickly spied a possible compromise with Ryan , and sought to capitalize on it . But Ryan proved more interested in the praise than the policy . “ When we tried to get it into a negotiation , he refused , ” says Jason Furman , who served as Obama ’ s chief economist . “ It wasn ’ t in his tax plan . In $ 1.5 trillion in tax cuts , he somehow couldn ’ t find space for this $ 60 billion item . It ’ s just amazing . ” Speaker of the House actually is a powerful position in American politics Ryan ’ s defenders portray him as a principled legislator trapped by the coalition he managed . “ Donald Trump was president of the United States , and that circumscribed Paul Ryan ’ s choices , ” says Brooks . “ You can dispute what he did , but he got as much of the loaf as he thought he could get given the factions of his caucus and Trump ’ s peculiarities . Did he like being speaker of the House ? The results speak for themselves : He ’ s leaving . ” In this telling , Ryan ’ s principled vision was foiled by Trump ’ s ascendancy . Faced with a Republican president he had never expected , and managing a restive majority that mostly agreed on being disagreeable , Ryan defaulted to the lowest common denominator of Republican Party policy : unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich , increases in defense spending , and failed attempts to repeal Obamacare . This is more or less the defense Ryan has offered of his tenure . “ I think some people would like me to start a civil war in our party and achieve nothing , ” he told the New York Times . Trump had no appetite for cutting entitlements , so Ryan got what he could , and he got out . But would it have started a civil war in the Republican Party if the most publicly anti-deficit politician of his generation had simply refused to pass laws that increased the deficit ? And even if it had , isn ’ t that the war Ryan had promised ? The question here is not why Ryan didn ’ t live up to a liberal philosophy of government ; it ’ s why he didn ’ t live up to his own philosophy of government . What ’ s more , Trump was clearly flexible when it came to policy . On the campaign , Trump repeatedly promised he wouldn ’ t cut Medicaid ; as president , he endorsed legislation Ryan wrote that did exactly that . After winning the election , Trump promised he ’ d replace Obamacare with a plan that offered “ insurance for everybody ” with “ much lower deductibles , ” but he ultimately backed Ryan ’ s bill to take Obamacare away from millions and push the system toward higher-deductible plans . For Ryan to claim he was not driving the policy agenda in the Trump years is ridiculous . Ryan proved himself and his party to be exactly what the critics said : monomaniacally focused on taking health insurance from the poor , cutting taxes for the rich , and spending more on the Pentagon . And he proved that Republicans were willing to betray their promises and , in their embrace of Trump , violate basic decency to achieve those goals . Ryan clearly wishes Donald Trump had lost the primary , and his early exit from the speakership reflects it . As such , a lot of the narrative around Ryan ’ s retirement has emphasized his discontinuities with Trump , and whether he did enough to voice them . In the New York Times , for instance , Mark Leibovich wrote : As has been strenuously noted , Trump and Ryan are stylistic and philosophical opposites : Trump the blunt-force agitator vs. Ryan the think-tank conservative . Trump lashes out while Ryan treads carefully . Ryan still fashions himself a “ policy guy ” and a man of ideas : In high school , he read the conservative philosopher Ayn Rand and was captivated by her signature work , “ Atlas Shrugged. ” He bills himself as a guardian of the free-trading , debt-shrinking notions that Republican-led governments used to stand for before Trump crashed the tent . But more important than the differences between Ryan and Trump are the similarities . Yes , Ryan is decorous and polite where Trump is confrontational and uncouth , but the say-anything brand of politics that so outrages Trump ’ s critics is no less present in Ryan ’ s recent history . How else can we read a politician who rose to power promising to reduce deficits only to increase them at every turn ? Or a politician who raked in good press for promising anti-poverty policies that he subsequently refused to pass ? And as ridiculous as some of Trump ’ s claims have been , his baldfaced lies that his inauguration was better-attended than Obama ’ s was a less consequential violation of the truth than what Ryan said when asked about the tax bill : “ I don ’ t think it will increase the deficit. ” Note that the tax bill is already increasing the deficit . Ryan ’ s campaign for his failed Obamacare repeal bill was thick with similarly brazen deceptions , like that the legislation would strengthen protections for preexisting conditions , when in fact it would gut them . “ What made Ryan attractive to analysts and journalists across the spectrum was that he ’ d engage in a thoughtful dialogue with you , ” says Bob Greenstein , president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , “ but that didn ’ t mean that 10 minutes later , in front of the cameras , he wouldn ’ t say something that was at best misleading and at worst invalid . ” In important ways , Trump is not a break from the Republican Party ’ s recent past but an acceleration of it . A party that acculturates itself , its base , and its media sphere to constant nonsense can hardly complain when other political entrepreneurs notice that nonsense sells and decide to begin marketing their own brand of flimflam . Ultimately , Ryan put himself forward as a test of a simple , but important , proposition : Is fiscal responsibility something Republicans believe in or something they simply weaponize against Democrats to win back power so they can pass tax cuts and defense spending ? Over the past three years , he provided a clear answer . That is his legacy , and it will haunt his successors . Sooner or later , Trump ’ s presidency will end , and there will come a new generation of Republicans who want to separate themselves from the embarrassments of their party ’ s record . As Ryan did , they will present themselves as appalled by both their party ’ s past and the Democrats ’ present , and they will promise to lead into a more responsible future . The first question they will face , and the hardest one to answer , will be : Why should anyone believe they ’ re not just another Paul Ryan ?	House Speaker Paul Ryan’s legacy can be summed up in just one number: $343 billion. That’s the increase between the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018 — that is, the difference between the fiscal year before Ryan became speaker of the House and the fiscal year in which he retired. If the economy had fallen into recession between 2015 and 2018, Ryan’s record would be understandable. But it didn’t. In fact, growth quickened and the labor market tightened — which means deficits should’ve fallen. Indeed, that’s exactly what happened in each of the five years preceding Ryan’s speakership; from 2011 to 2015, annual deficits fell each year. As he prepares to leave office, Ryan says that debt reduction is one of those things “I wish we could have gotten done.” Ryan, the man with the single most power over the federal budget in recent years, sounds like a bystander, as if he watched laws happen rather than made them happen. To understand the irony and duplicity of that statement, you need to understand Ryan’s career. After the profligacy of the George W. Bush years and the rise of the Tea Party, Ryan rocketed to the top ranks of his party by warning that mounting deficits under President Obama threatened the “most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country.” Absent the fiscal responsibility that would accompany Republican rule, we were facing nothing less than “the end of the American dream.” Ryan’s reputation was built on the back of his budgets: draconian documents that gutted social spending, privatized Medicare, and showed the Republican Party had embraced the kinds of hard fiscal choices that Bush had sloughed off. And Ryan presented himself as the wonkish apostle of this new GOP, rolling up his sleeves and running through the charts, graphs, and tables that made his case. “I admit that in recent years Republicans abandoned these principles,” Ryan wrote in the book Young Guns, the 2010 GOP manifesto he co-authored with Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor. “We lost the true path and suffered electoral defeats. But we have not returned from this experience empty handed.” What Republicans had returned with, according to Ryan, was a willingness to make hard choices. “It’s time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children,” he wrote. “It’s time we stop deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies.” For this, Ryan was feted in Washington society; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave him a “Fiscy” award for budget bravery; he was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission (which he ultimately voted against); he became Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate. His reputation was so towering that when John Boehner stepped down as speaker, he told Ryan, “You’ve got to do this job.” I was among the reporters who took Ryan’s reboot seriously. “To move us to surpluses,” I wrote of his 2010 proposal, “Ryan’s budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher’s growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs.” I didn’t agree with Ryan’s policies, but at least he was making the trade-offs of his vision clear. Here was a Republican who said what he was going to do, who admitted his health care plan included “rationing,” who offered something specific to argue with. That was progress. But to critics like the New York Times’s Paul Krugman, Ryan was an obvious con man weaponizing the deficit to hamstring Obama’s presidency, weaken the recovery, and snooker Beltway centrists eager to champion a reasonable-seeming Republican. Ryan, after all, had voted for Bush’s deficits — he was a yes on the tax cuts, on the wars, on Medicare Part D. He proposed a Social Security privatization scheme so pricey that even the Bush administration dismissed it as “irresponsible.” And his budgets, for all the hard choices, didn’t actually add up. They included massive tax cuts with underestimated costs and unspecified financing — which is what led Krugman to call him a charlatan back in 2010. Ryan waved this away as nitpicking. ”If needed,” his office said, “adjustments can be easily made to the specified rates to hit the revenue targets.” But his critics predicted he would lose his appetite for hard choices the moment his party returned to power. He hadn’t changed; he had merely rebranded. The numbers proved them right. Ryan was elected speaker of the House on October 29, 2015. Over the next three years, annual deficits increased by almost 80 percent. The added debt is Ryan’s legacy, not his circumstance. It is entirely attributable to policy choices he made. To Ryan’s supporters, this is unfair. “Being speaker of the House is the most Faustian job in history,” Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told me. “He’s done the best he can under these circumstances. Because he did one thing but didn’t do another, to say he never cared about the first thing is to misunderstand the choices, and to commit ad hominem arguments.” I think that’s too kind. As speaker, Ryan had tremendous power. He could have, for instance, brought immigration compromises to the floor of the House but enforced congressional PayGo rules to bar any bills that increased the deficit from coming to a vote. Instead, he refused to bring immigration compromises to the floor while personally shepherding bills that betrayed the ideas that won him power. We are the choices we make — and Ryan made his. To be clear, I am not particularly concerned about deficits right now, just as I wasn’t in 2010. But I took Ryan seriously when he said he was. I covered the arguments Ryan made, the policies he crafted, and I treated them as if they offered a guide to how Republicans would govern. I listened when Ryan said things like, “In Europe, generations of welfare-dependent citizens are hurling Molotov cocktails because their governments can no longer fund their entitlement programs. We can’t let that happen here.” Ryan’s office did not grant my request for an interview for this piece. But now, as Ryan prepares to leave Congress, it is clear that his critics were correct and a credulous Washington press corps — including me — that took him at his word was wrong. In the trillions of long-term debt he racked up as speaker, in the anti-poverty proposals he promised but never passed, and in the many lies he told to sell unpopular policies, Ryan proved as much a practitioner of post-truth politics as Donald Trump. Paul Ryan’s three betrayals Three bills in particular stand out in assessing Ryan’s record. The first is the 2017 tax cut Ryan passed but didn’t pay for. His defenders note that early drafts of the tax cut bill included a border adjustment tax that would’ve made the package revenue-neutral, fulfilling Ryan’s promises. But that policy fell out of the legislation early on, and rather than replace it, Ryan pushed a plan that added $1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, and used accounting gimmicks to hide vastly larger increases tucked into the legislation’s long-term design. Now House Republicans, still under Ryan’s leadership, are agitating to make the tax cuts permanent, with a 20-year cost estimated at $4 trillion. This is particularly galling given that Ryan’s initial star turn in Republican politics came through a misleading presentation accusing the Obama administration of using gimmickry to hide Obamacare’s true cost. (In reality, Obamacare was paid for and its costs have been even lower than promised.) The second is the spending Ryan passed but didn’t pay for. Years of fiscal irresponsibility have sometimes permitted Republicans to be graded on a curve, where tax cuts can be charged to the national credit card and spending cuts are the true measure of policy steel. But even on this diminished measure, Ryan’s record betrayed his promises. In March, Ryan pushed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill through the House, which included almost $300 billion in spending increases. New spending, it turned out, only had to be paid for so long as it was a Democratic president proposing or signing it. “When you have power and need to make choices, those choices do reveal something about you,” says Yuval Levin, editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs. “I think what they reveal is where the least common denominator is in the Republican Party. I think there’s no question that what Republicans do when we get power is supply-side tax cuts. That’s the wall I and others have been banging our heads into for years now.” The third is the expansion of the earned income tax credit Ryan proposed but never even tried to pass. After the 2010 election, he went on a much-vaunted tour of American poverty, racking up positive press for expanding the boundaries of the possible under conservatism, and arguing for an enlarged EITC that would help childless adults. The Obama administration quickly spied a possible compromise with Ryan, and sought to capitalize on it. But Ryan proved more interested in the praise than the policy. “When we tried to get it into a negotiation, he refused,” says Jason Furman, who served as Obama’s chief economist. “It wasn’t in his tax plan. In $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, he somehow couldn’t find space for this $60 billion item. It’s just amazing.” Speaker of the House actually is a powerful position in American politics Ryan’s defenders portray him as a principled legislator trapped by the coalition he managed. “Donald Trump was president of the United States, and that circumscribed Paul Ryan’s choices,” says Brooks. “You can dispute what he did, but he got as much of the loaf as he thought he could get given the factions of his caucus and Trump’s peculiarities. Did he like being speaker of the House? The results speak for themselves: He’s leaving.” In this telling, Ryan’s principled vision was foiled by Trump’s ascendancy. Faced with a Republican president he had never expected, and managing a restive majority that mostly agreed on being disagreeable, Ryan defaulted to the lowest common denominator of Republican Party policy: unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, increases in defense spending, and failed attempts to repeal Obamacare. This is more or less the defense Ryan has offered of his tenure. “I think some people would like me to start a civil war in our party and achieve nothing,” he told the New York Times. Trump had no appetite for cutting entitlements, so Ryan got what he could, and he got out. But would it have started a civil war in the Republican Party if the most publicly anti-deficit politician of his generation had simply refused to pass laws that increased the deficit? And even if it had, isn’t that the war Ryan had promised? The question here is not why Ryan didn’t live up to a liberal philosophy of government; it’s why he didn’t live up to his own philosophy of government. What’s more, Trump was clearly flexible when it came to policy. On the campaign, Trump repeatedly promised he wouldn’t cut Medicaid; as president, he endorsed legislation Ryan wrote that did exactly that. After winning the election, Trump promised he’d replace Obamacare with a plan that offered “insurance for everybody” with “much lower deductibles,” but he ultimately backed Ryan’s bill to take Obamacare away from millions and push the system toward higher-deductible plans. For Ryan to claim he was not driving the policy agenda in the Trump years is ridiculous. Ryan proved himself and his party to be exactly what the critics said: monomaniacally focused on taking health insurance from the poor, cutting taxes for the rich, and spending more on the Pentagon. And he proved that Republicans were willing to betray their promises and, in their embrace of Trump, violate basic decency to achieve those goals. Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and post-truth politics Ryan clearly wishes Donald Trump had lost the primary, and his early exit from the speakership reflects it. As such, a lot of the narrative around Ryan’s retirement has emphasized his discontinuities with Trump, and whether he did enough to voice them. In the New York Times, for instance, Mark Leibovich wrote: As has been strenuously noted, Trump and Ryan are stylistic and philosophical opposites: Trump the blunt-force agitator vs. Ryan the think-tank conservative. Trump lashes out while Ryan treads carefully. Ryan still fashions himself a “policy guy” and a man of ideas: In high school, he read the conservative philosopher Ayn Rand and was captivated by her signature work, “Atlas Shrugged.” He bills himself as a guardian of the free-trading, debt-shrinking notions that Republican-led governments used to stand for before Trump crashed the tent. But more important than the differences between Ryan and Trump are the similarities. Yes, Ryan is decorous and polite where Trump is confrontational and uncouth, but the say-anything brand of politics that so outrages Trump’s critics is no less present in Ryan’s recent history. How else can we read a politician who rose to power promising to reduce deficits only to increase them at every turn? Or a politician who raked in good press for promising anti-poverty policies that he subsequently refused to pass? And as ridiculous as some of Trump’s claims have been, his baldfaced lies that his inauguration was better-attended than Obama’s was a less consequential violation of the truth than what Ryan said when asked about the tax bill: “I don’t think it will increase the deficit.” Note that the tax bill is already increasing the deficit. Ryan’s campaign for his failed Obamacare repeal bill was thick with similarly brazen deceptions, like that the legislation would strengthen protections for preexisting conditions, when in fact it would gut them. “What made Ryan attractive to analysts and journalists across the spectrum was that he’d engage in a thoughtful dialogue with you,” says Bob Greenstein, president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “but that didn’t mean that 10 minutes later, in front of the cameras, he wouldn’t say something that was at best misleading and at worst invalid.” In important ways, Trump is not a break from the Republican Party’s recent past but an acceleration of it. A party that acculturates itself, its base, and its media sphere to constant nonsense can hardly complain when other political entrepreneurs notice that nonsense sells and decide to begin marketing their own brand of flimflam. Ultimately, Ryan put himself forward as a test of a simple, but important, proposition: Is fiscal responsibility something Republicans believe in or something they simply weaponize against Democrats to win back power so they can pass tax cuts and defense spending? Over the past three years, he provided a clear answer. That is his legacy, and it will haunt his successors. Sooner or later, Trump’s presidency will end, and there will come a new generation of Republicans who want to separate themselves from the embarrassments of their party’s record. As Ryan did, they will present themselves as appalled by both their party’s past and the Democrats’ present, and they will promise to lead into a more responsible future. The first question they will face, and the hardest one to answer, will be: Why should anyone believe they’re not just another Paul Ryan?	www.vox.com	0left	2rntTaOAvu97eTRs
gun_control_and_gun_rights	CNN (Web News)	00	http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/politics/nra-lapierre/index.html?hpt=po_c2	NRA's LaPierre says gun rights struggle a 'long war'	2013-05-04	Dana Davidsen	Story highlights NRA executive rallies supporters ; says `` we will never surrender our guns '' Says membership in group up since the Newtown massacre , at record high LaPierre goes after President Obama , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Wayne LaPierre , the nation 's most visible gun-rights advocate , rallied supporters on Saturday for a renewed fight against gun control , saying membership is up since the Newtown massacre , and calling the effort to stop new limits a `` long war '' and a `` fight for everything we care about . '' The National Rifle Association 's executive vice president vowed in remarks at the group 's national convention that `` we will never surrender our guns . '' He implored members to step up their outreach to members of Congress as part of a fight against `` elites '' and others who `` use tragedy to try to blame us , to shame us '' into compromise and who `` want to change America , our culture and our values . '' LaPierre delivered a speech heavy on militaristic and sweeping patriotic rhetoric . It was a signature moment at the weekend event , which sought to embrace a culture war theme in its so-far successful fight in Washington against recent gun-control initiatives . LaPierre singled out President Barack Obama , who has pushed for new firearms restrictions following the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut , which left 20 children and six adults dead . The killings jolted the nation and energized gun-control advocates , while putting pressure on LaPierre 's group and testing its political muscle anew . Polls have shown most Americans favoring some kind of new restrictions . LaPierre said NRA membership has spiked , reaching a record 5 million , and he implored members to counter efforts by leading gun-control advocates , like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , Obama , and Democrats in Congress . `` 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 , '' LaPierre said . JUST WATCHED Giffords battles for NRA member votes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Giffords battles for NRA member votes 03:03 JUST WATCHED Palin : Politicians exploit emotions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Palin : Politicians exploit emotions 01:02 `` We must remain vigilant , ever resolute , and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us , '' he said . LaPierre disparaged what he called Obama 's `` all-out siege against our rights '' and efforts in Congress to enact new gun control measures , calling it `` political posturing . '' `` Mr. President , you can give all the speeches you want . You can conjure up all the polls you can and call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of , but your gun control legislation wo n't stop one criminal , would n't make anyone safer anywhere , '' LaPierre said . `` And that flawed failure lost on its merits and got the defeat it deserved , '' he said , referring to the setback sustained by gun control advocates last month when a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks failed in the Senate . The outcome was considered a victory for gun rights advocates , who lobbied hard to block its passage . Obama has vowed to keep pursuing new restrictions , and a co-author of the ill-fated legislative amendment is working to revive it . LaPierre and the NRA propose , instead , that current laws be enforced , that schools include armed guards , that the government rebuild a `` broken mental health system , '' and `` for God 's sake , leave the rest of us alone ! '' LaPierre said the failed compromise background check proposal by Sens . Joe Manchin , a West Virginia Democrat , and Pat Toomey , a Pennsylvania Republican , were ineffective . `` The Manchin-Toomey bill you later backed would n't have prevented Newtown , would n't have prevented Tucson or Aurora , '' he said of other deadly mass shootings in Arizona in 2011 and Colorado last July , `` and wo n't prevent the next tragedy , '' `` None of it , any of it have anything to do with keeping our children safe at school anywhere , '' he said . LaPierre also struck out specifically at Bloomberg , who has poured funds into the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns , for acting as a `` national nanny '' and criticized the media for , as he said , failing to hold Obama accountable . Incoming NRA President Jim Porter is setting his sights on congressional midterm elections in 2014 as crucial in the gun rights debate , urging members to support House and Senate members who have voted against recent efforts to instate a background check system .	Story highlights NRA executive rallies supporters; says "we will never surrender our guns" Says membership in group up since the Newtown massacre, at record high LaPierre goes after President Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Says ill-fated background check proposal in Senate was ineffective Wayne LaPierre, the nation's most visible gun-rights advocate, rallied supporters on Saturday for a renewed fight against gun control, saying membership is up since the Newtown massacre, and calling the effort to stop new limits a "long war" and a "fight for everything we care about." The National Rifle Association's executive vice president vowed in remarks at the group's national convention that "we will never surrender our guns." He implored members to step up their outreach to members of Congress as part of a fight against "elites" and others who "use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us" into compromise and who "want to change America, our culture and our values." LaPierre delivered a speech heavy on militaristic and sweeping patriotic rhetoric. It was a signature moment at the weekend event, which sought to embrace a culture war theme in its so-far successful fight in Washington against recent gun-control initiatives. LaPierre singled out President Barack Obama, who has pushed for new firearms restrictions following the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 children and six adults dead. The killings jolted the nation and energized gun-control advocates, while putting pressure on LaPierre's group and testing its political muscle anew. Polls have shown most Americans favoring some kind of new restrictions. LaPierre said NRA membership has spiked, reaching a record 5 million, and he implored members to counter efforts by leading gun-control advocates, like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Obama, and Democrats in Congress. "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," LaPierre said. JUST WATCHED Giffords battles for NRA member votes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Giffords battles for NRA member votes 03:03 JUST WATCHED Palin: Politicians exploit emotions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Palin: Politicians exploit emotions 01:02 "We must remain vigilant, ever resolute, and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us," he said. LaPierre disparaged what he called Obama's "all-out siege against our rights" and efforts in Congress to enact new gun control measures, calling it "political posturing." "Mr. President, you can give all the speeches you want. You can conjure up all the polls you can and call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of, but your gun control legislation won't stop one criminal, wouldn't make anyone safer anywhere," LaPierre said. "And that flawed failure lost on its merits and got the defeat it deserved," he said, referring to the setback sustained by gun control advocates last month when a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks failed in the Senate. The outcome was considered a victory for gun rights advocates, who lobbied hard to block its passage. Obama has vowed to keep pursuing new restrictions, and a co-author of the ill-fated legislative amendment is working to revive it. LaPierre and the NRA propose, instead, that current laws be enforced, that schools include armed guards, that the government rebuild a "broken mental health system," and "for God's sake, leave the rest of us alone!" LaPierre said the failed compromise background check proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, were ineffective. "The Manchin-Toomey bill you later backed wouldn't have prevented Newtown, wouldn't have prevented Tucson or Aurora," he said of other deadly mass shootings in Arizona in 2011 and Colorado last July, "and won't prevent the next tragedy," "None of it, any of it have anything to do with keeping our children safe at school anywhere," he said. LaPierre also struck out specifically at Bloomberg, who has poured funds into the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, for acting as a "national nanny" and criticized the media for, as he said, failing to hold Obama accountable. Incoming NRA President Jim Porter is setting his sights on congressional midterm elections in 2014 as crucial in the gun rights debate, urging members to support House and Senate members who have voted against recent efforts to instate a background check system.	www.cnn.com	0left	3hcwWL2y6ZkVurJN
elections	The Atlantic	00	https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/575098/	Democrats Seize the House	2018-11-06	David A. Graham, Amanda Mull, Stephen Marche, Ronald Brownstein, George Packer, Derek Thompson, Marina Koren, David Sims, Peter Beinart	Democrats will recapture control of the House of Representatives , and could gain as much as a 20-seat advantage , ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke . With many results in , Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to likely win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some . The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in . The results are largely in line with early predictions , though early returns suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated , and Democratic analysts such as James Carville declared the hope of a blue wave dead . Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races , the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped . Democratic control of the House will shift the terrain in Washington , providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency , and breaking the unified Republican control of the House , Senate , and White House . While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law , House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration . Read : How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington The Democratic wins have occurred across the country . They have won in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 , and they have won in districts Trump won . There have been victories in traditionally Democratic states such as Illinois and Minnesota , but also in more exotic locales for Democrats in the current era , including Kansas and Oklahoma . Pennsylvania and Virginia are emerging as particular bright spots for the party early . The wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion ’ s emergence as a solid Democratic state . In addition to Tim Kaine ’ s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race , the first flipped seat of the night to be called had Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia ’ s Tenth District . Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race , but was unable to save the two-term representative . Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District . Additionally , Abigail Spanberger is poised to beat Dave Brat , the Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 GOP primary . In Pennsylvania earlier this year , the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn , saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander . The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats , and they have capitalized . Mary Gay Scanlon won in the Fifth District , a substantially new constituency . Also in Pennsylvania , Representative Conor Lamb is expected to defeat Representative Keith Rothfus in a new district that double-bunked the members . Chrissy Houlahan won the Sixth District , vacated by retiring member Ryan Costello . Susan Wild won the Seventh , held by Charlie Dent , who is also retiring . However , the Republican Guy Reschenthaler won the Fourteenth . Read : How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue In Florida ’ s Twenty-Seventh District , former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala defeated Maria Elvira Salazar . The district had been held by a retiring Republican , and while Shalala was a favorite , her slipping polling made Democrats nervous in the closing days of the race . Debbie Mucarsel-Powell defeated Carlos Curbelo in Florida ’ s Twenty-Sixth District . Democrats also won in Illinois , with Sean Casten winning in the Sixth . In New York , Antonio Delgado and Anthony Brindisi won in the Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Districts . And on Staten Island , a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City , Max Rose unseated Dan Donovan , a Trump-supported candidate who survived a primary challenge in the Eleventh District this year . In Colorado ’ s Sixth , Jason Crow is on track to defeat Mike Coffman , a Trump-skeptical Republican . In Michigan ’ s Eleventh District , an open seat held by a retiring Republican , Haley Stevens won . In Minnesota ’ s Third , Erik Paulsen , a veteran Republican , lost to Dean Phillips . Another veteran , Texas ’ s Pete Sessions , lost to Colin Allred in the Thirty-Second District . Ann Kirkpatrick , a two-time former representative , will return to the chamber a third time , winning a race to replace Martha McSally , who is running for Senate . Mikie Sherrill has won in New Jersey ’ s Eleventh District , formerly held by the retiring Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen . In Kansas ’ s Third District , Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder . Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma ’ s Fifth . Democrats also lead in a range of other contested races , though their hopes for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts were confounded in a series of heartbreaking losses . For example , Amy McGrath failed to unseat Andy Barr in a much-watched Kentucky race . Yet on a night when the Senate gave Democrats bleak results and governors ’ races were a mixed bag , House candidates came through for them . The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions . The president ’ s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016 . By the eve of voting , the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge . The question was , and remains , how large it would be . While every race has its own specific circumstances , there ’ s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win : Donald Trump . The president said he was on the ballot , and voters appear to have agreed , according to exit polls . While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads , his influence is visible in the results . Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016 , including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas . Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections . In some cases , Trump ’ s personality and style were a factor . In others , his policies , especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act , proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates . Republican turnout was up as well , which helps to explain the muted Democratic results . During the summer of 2018 , Trump was predicting a “ red wave , ” a retort to predictions of a “ blue wave , ” though as Election Day approached , he backed off that prediction , telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House , and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate , acknowledging the prospect of losing the House . The Democratic win calls into question Trump ’ s strategy of hammering on immigration as a wedge issue in the closing weeks of the campaign . While the issue is catnip to his base , his divisive and dark rhetoric wasn ’ t effective in rallying Republicans to the polls in numbers great enough to preserve their majority . The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government , including the White House , the House , the Senate , and effectively the Supreme Court . The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave . As The Washington Post notes , it ’ s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years , a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period . Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record . They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama ’ s agenda from 2011 on , but they largely failed to further conservative priorities . Federal spending continues to grow ; entitlements have not been cut ; Obamacare remains in place , though scaled back ; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul , they had to settle for temporary tax cuts . Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year , and the party is also losing its leader . Wisconsin ’ s Paul Ryan , hailed as one of the party ’ s brightest young thinkers , was reluctantly thrust into the speakership , but opted to retire this year , apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus . It ’ s likely that the Democratic leader , at least initially , will be a familiar face : former Speaker Nancy Pelosi . Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership , and some won election this year promising not to vote for her , she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin . Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership , after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011 , but has said she is likely to be a “ transitional ” leader , paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future . With Republicans in control of the Senate and White House , any Democratic policy priorities will be largely symbolic , though tensions between very progressive members and those representing swing districts will test the cohesion of the caucus and the skills of its leaders . Where Democrats are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House . The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power , and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues . They could demand to see the president ’ s tax returns . They could even attempt to impeach him . For Trump , the frustration will not end there . He ’ s never enjoyed working with Congress , and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers . Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock . If there ’ s a silver lining for the president , though , it ’ s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020 .	Democrats will recapture control of the House of Representatives, and could gain as much as a 20-seat advantage, ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke. With many results in, Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to likely win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some. The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in. The results are largely in line with early predictions, though early returns suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated, and Democratic analysts such as James Carville declared the hope of a blue wave dead. Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races, the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped. Democratic control of the House will shift the terrain in Washington, providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency, and breaking the unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law, House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration. Read: How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington The Democratic wins have occurred across the country. They have won in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and they have won in districts Trump won. There have been victories in traditionally Democratic states such as Illinois and Minnesota, but also in more exotic locales for Democrats in the current era, including Kansas and Oklahoma. Pennsylvania and Virginia are emerging as particular bright spots for the party early. The wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion’s emergence as a solid Democratic state. In addition to Tim Kaine’s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race, the first flipped seat of the night to be called had Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia’s Tenth District. Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race, but was unable to save the two-term representative. Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District. Additionally, Abigail Spanberger is poised to beat Dave Brat, the Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 GOP primary. In Pennsylvania earlier this year, the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn, saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats, and they have capitalized. Mary Gay Scanlon won in the Fifth District, a substantially new constituency. Also in Pennsylvania, Representative Conor Lamb is expected to defeat Representative Keith Rothfus in a new district that double-bunked the members. Chrissy Houlahan won the Sixth District, vacated by retiring member Ryan Costello. Susan Wild won the Seventh, held by Charlie Dent, who is also retiring. However, the Republican Guy Reschenthaler won the Fourteenth. Read: How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue In Florida’s Twenty-Seventh District, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala defeated Maria Elvira Salazar. The district had been held by a retiring Republican, and while Shalala was a favorite, her slipping polling made Democrats nervous in the closing days of the race. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell defeated Carlos Curbelo in Florida’s Twenty-Sixth District. Democrats also won in Illinois, with Sean Casten winning in the Sixth. In New York, Antonio Delgado and Anthony Brindisi won in the Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Districts. And on Staten Island, a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City, Max Rose unseated Dan Donovan, a Trump-supported candidate who survived a primary challenge in the Eleventh District this year. In Colorado’s Sixth, Jason Crow is on track to defeat Mike Coffman, a Trump-skeptical Republican. In Michigan’s Eleventh District, an open seat held by a retiring Republican, Haley Stevens won. In Minnesota’s Third, Erik Paulsen, a veteran Republican, lost to Dean Phillips. Another veteran, Texas’s Pete Sessions, lost to Colin Allred in the Thirty-Second District. Ann Kirkpatrick, a two-time former representative, will return to the chamber a third time, winning a race to replace Martha McSally, who is running for Senate. Mikie Sherrill has won in New Jersey’s Eleventh District, formerly held by the retiring Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen. In Kansas’s Third District, Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder. Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s Fifth. Read: Trump already won the midterms Democrats also lead in a range of other contested races, though their hopes for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts were confounded in a series of heartbreaking losses. For example, Amy McGrath failed to unseat Andy Barr in a much-watched Kentucky race. Yet on a night when the Senate gave Democrats bleak results and governors’ races were a mixed bag, House candidates came through for them. The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions. The president’s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016. By the eve of voting, the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge. The question was, and remains, how large it would be. While every race has its own specific circumstances, there’s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win: Donald Trump. The president said he was on the ballot, and voters appear to have agreed, according to exit polls. While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads, his influence is visible in the results. Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016, including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas. Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections. In some cases, Trump’s personality and style were a factor. In others, his policies, especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates. Republican turnout was up as well, which helps to explain the muted Democratic results. During the summer of 2018, Trump was predicting a “red wave,” a retort to predictions of a “blue wave,” though as Election Day approached, he backed off that prediction, telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House, and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate, acknowledging the prospect of losing the House. The Democratic win calls into question Trump’s strategy of hammering on immigration as a wedge issue in the closing weeks of the campaign. While the issue is catnip to his base, his divisive and dark rhetoric wasn’t effective in rallying Republicans to the polls in numbers great enough to preserve their majority. The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government, including the White House, the House, the Senate, and effectively the Supreme Court. The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave. As The Washington Post notes, it’s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years, a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period. Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record. They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama’s agenda from 2011 on, but they largely failed to further conservative priorities. Federal spending continues to grow; entitlements have not been cut; Obamacare remains in place, though scaled back; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul, they had to settle for temporary tax cuts. Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year, and the party is also losing its leader. Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, hailed as one of the party’s brightest young thinkers, was reluctantly thrust into the speakership, but opted to retire this year, apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus. Read: National politics has taken over America It’s likely that the Democratic leader, at least initially, will be a familiar face: former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership, and some won election this year promising not to vote for her, she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin. Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership, after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011, but has said she is likely to be a “transitional” leader, paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future. With Republicans in control of the Senate and White House, any Democratic policy priorities will be largely symbolic, though tensions between very progressive members and those representing swing districts will test the cohesion of the caucus and the skills of its leaders. Where Democrats are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House. The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power, and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues. They could demand to see the president’s tax returns. They could even attempt to impeach him. For Trump, the frustration will not end there. He’s never enjoyed working with Congress, and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers. Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock. If there’s a silver lining for the president, though, it’s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020.	www.theatlantic.com	0left	8ITfyAHDqzSjX2mp
politics	The Guardian	00	https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/15/donald-trump-transition-team-disarray-adviser-purge	Trump transition team in disarray after top adviser 'purged'	2016-11-15	David Smith	Donald Trump ’ s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law . Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect ’ s transition team without explanation , but one report attributed it to a “ Stalinesque purge ” . Late on Tuesday , Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture , tweeting that the transition process was “ very organized ” . He also wrote that only he knew who “ the finalists ” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice . Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions . I am the only one who knows who the finalists are ! A week after his election , Trump and vice-president-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington . Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent . He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “ on the complex national security challenges facing our great country ” . Loyalists and rivals tipped for powerful roles in Trump 's cabinet Read more The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared . Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team , New Jersey governor Chris Christie , who is mired in political scandal , and replaced him with Pence . NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “ Stalinesque purge ” of people close to Christie . “ Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs , ” the network reported . Some Republicans who previously ostracised Trump are returning to the fold but not always with success . Eliot Cohen , a senior state department official under George W Bush , launched a stinging attack on the transition effort . He tweeted : “ After exchange [ with ] Trump transition team , changed my recommendation : stay away . They ’ re angry , arrogant , screaming ‘ you LOST ! ’ Will be ugly . ” A few days ago , Cohen had encouraged the suspicious Republican foreign policy establishment to rally around the president-elect . Adding to the sense of chaos , both the state department and Pentagon said they were yet to hear from the incoming administration , while rumours swirled over whether Trump ’ s children – Donald Jr , Eric and Ivanka , and her husband Jared Kushner – would seek top security clearances . Kushner was said to have been instrumental in the departures of Christie and Rogers . Barack Obama told reporters at the White House on Monday that he believed Trump was a pragmatist , not an ideologue , and reiterated his commitment to a smooth handover . But the Associated Press reported that coordination between Trump ’ s transition team and White House staff is on hold until Trump ’ s team signs a memorandum of understanding . Speculation over cabinet appointments intensified on Tuesday . Ben Carson , a retired neurosurgeon and former Republican candidate for president tipped to be health secretary , has dropped out of the running . “ I want to have the freedom to work on many issues and not be pigeonholed into one particular area , ” Carson , who is Trump ’ s most prominent African American supporter , told the Washington Post . The New York Times reported that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani , an old friend of Trump , is the frontrunner for the prize job of secretary of state . He has no foreign policy experience beyond strong advocacy for the war on terror following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks , which gave him global prominence . Samantha Bee on Trump 's cabinet list : 'Deplorables , zealots and extremists ' Read more But the political action committee Correct the Record argued that Giuliani , 72 , had a “ long history of business ties to enemies of America ” . He was reportedly paid to advocate on behalf of an Iranian dissident group while it was listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation and worked for a law firm whose clients included Saddam Hussein , terrorist Abu Nidal and an oil company controlled by the then Venezuelan president , Hugo Chávez . All these are potential red flags if he goes before the Senate for confirmation . Trump ’ s children will take over the running of his business while he is in the White House , raising the prospect of a conflict of interest . Responding to claims that they are already exploiting his new status for commercial ends , the former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted : “ Free advice : Stop it . Don ’ t do this . The presidency is bigger than the family business . Just stop it . ” Trump , a tycoon , reality TV star and political novice , has a long history of pitting rivals against one another , both in business and during his election campaign . He has appointed Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Reince Priebus as chief of staff , an unprecedented arrangement that threatens to create competing centers of power . The inclusion of Bannon , executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News , provoked a furious backlash from progressives . The House Democratic leader , Nancy Pelosi , said : “ There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump administration . ” Departing US Senate minority leader Harry Reid on Tuesday called on the president to rescind Bannon ’ s appointment , which he said has only “ deepened ” the country ’ s divisions since the election . “ By placing a champion of white supremacists a step away from the Oval Office , what message does Trump send to the young girl who woke up Wednesday morning in Rhode Island afraid to be a woman of color in America ? ” Reid said , speaking on the Senate floor . Reid had previously lashed out at the businessman in a powerful statement last week that referred to the president-elect as “ a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate ” . In response to his criticism , Kellyanne Conway , Trump ’ s former campaign manager and current transition team adviser , appeared to threaten legal action against Reid and warned that the Democrat should be “ very careful ” in his criticism of the president-elect . But on Tuesday Paul Ryan , the House speaker who is attempting to overcome past disagreements with Trump , refused to condemn the appointment . “ The president is going to be judged on his results , ” he told reporters . “ [ Bannon ] is a person who helped him win an incredible victory and an incredible campaign . Ryan promised that Trump and a unified Republican Congress would mean that “ a better way , better days lie ahead for our country ” . He pledged to work “ hand in glove ” with the incoming administration . The House speaker was on course to be re-elected by Republicans on Tuesday afternoon but House Democrats postponed leadership elections that had been scheduled for Thursday until 30 November amid signs of discontent with Pelosi . Ongoing vote counts show Democrat Hillary Clinton pulling away from Trump in the popular vote , although he won the electoral college vote . Trump tweeted on Tuesday : “ If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in NY , Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily . ” Despite previously labelling the electoral college a “ disaster ” , he tweeted that it was “ actually genius in that it brings all states , including the smaller ones , into play . Campaigning is much different ! ” Trump ’ s inauguration will take place in Washington on 20 January .	Donald Trump’s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law. Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect’s transition team without explanation, but one report attributed it to a “Stalinesque purge”. Late on Tuesday, Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture, tweeting that the transition process was “very organized”. He also wrote that only he knew who “the finalists” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are! A week after his election, Trump and vice-president-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington. Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent. He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “on the complex national security challenges facing our great country”. Loyalists and rivals tipped for powerful roles in Trump's cabinet Read more The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared. Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is mired in political scandal, and replaced him with Pence. NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “Stalinesque purge” of people close to Christie. “Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs,” the network reported. Some Republicans who previously ostracised Trump are returning to the fold but not always with success. Eliot Cohen, a senior state department official under George W Bush, launched a stinging attack on the transition effort. He tweeted: “After exchange [with] Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.” A few days ago, Cohen had encouraged the suspicious Republican foreign policy establishment to rally around the president-elect. Adding to the sense of chaos, both the state department and Pentagon said they were yet to hear from the incoming administration, while rumours swirled over whether Trump’s children – Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner – would seek top security clearances. Kushner was said to have been instrumental in the departures of Christie and Rogers. Barack Obama told reporters at the White House on Monday that he believed Trump was a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and reiterated his commitment to a smooth handover. But the Associated Press reported that coordination between Trump’s transition team and White House staff is on hold until Trump’s team signs a memorandum of understanding. Speculation over cabinet appointments intensified on Tuesday. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and former Republican candidate for president tipped to be health secretary, has dropped out of the running. “I want to have the freedom to work on many issues and not be pigeonholed into one particular area,” Carson, who is Trump’s most prominent African American supporter, told the Washington Post. The New York Times reported that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, an old friend of Trump, is the frontrunner for the prize job of secretary of state. He has no foreign policy experience beyond strong advocacy for the war on terror following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks, which gave him global prominence. Samantha Bee on Trump's cabinet list: 'Deplorables, zealots and extremists' Read more But the political action committee Correct the Record argued that Giuliani, 72, had a “long history of business ties to enemies of America”. He was reportedly paid to advocate on behalf of an Iranian dissident group while it was listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation and worked for a law firm whose clients included Saddam Hussein, terrorist Abu Nidal and an oil company controlled by the then Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez. All these are potential red flags if he goes before the Senate for confirmation. Trump’s children will take over the running of his business while he is in the White House, raising the prospect of a conflict of interest. Responding to claims that they are already exploiting his new status for commercial ends, the former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted: “Free advice: Stop it. Don’t do this. The presidency is bigger than the family business. Just stop it.” Trump, a tycoon, reality TV star and political novice, has a long history of pitting rivals against one another, both in business and during his election campaign. He has appointed Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Reince Priebus as chief of staff, an unprecedented arrangement that threatens to create competing centers of power. The inclusion of Bannon, executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News, provoked a furious backlash from progressives. The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said: “There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump administration.” Departing US Senate minority leader Harry Reid on Tuesday called on the president to rescind Bannon’s appointment, which he said has only “deepened” the country’s divisions since the election. “By placing a champion of white supremacists a step away from the Oval Office, what message does Trump send to the young girl who woke up Wednesday morning in Rhode Island afraid to be a woman of color in America?” Reid said, speaking on the Senate floor. Reid had previously lashed out at the businessman in a powerful statement last week that referred to the president-elect as “a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate”. In response to his criticism, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and current transition team adviser, appeared to threaten legal action against Reid and warned that the Democrat should be “very careful” in his criticism of the president-elect. But on Tuesday Paul Ryan, the House speaker who is attempting to overcome past disagreements with Trump, refused to condemn the appointment. “The president is going to be judged on his results,” he told reporters. “[Bannon] is a person who helped him win an incredible victory and an incredible campaign. Ryan promised that Trump and a unified Republican Congress would mean that “a better way, better days lie ahead for our country”. He pledged to work “hand in glove” with the incoming administration. The House speaker was on course to be re-elected by Republicans on Tuesday afternoon but House Democrats postponed leadership elections that had been scheduled for Thursday until 30 November amid signs of discontent with Pelosi. Ongoing vote counts show Democrat Hillary Clinton pulling away from Trump in the popular vote, although he won the electoral college vote. Trump tweeted on Tuesday: “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in NY, Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily.” Despite previously labelling the electoral college a “disaster”, he tweeted that it was “actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!” Trump’s inauguration will take place in Washington on 20 January. Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino	www.theguardian.com	0left	GMKMVvuGL5tI5hDB
fiscal_cliff	Fox Online News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17/obama-gives-ground-on-tax-rates-in-latest-offer-as-boehner-office-calls-it/	Obama gives ground on taxes in latest offer, as Boehner's office calls it 'right direction'	2012-12-17		Both sides in the federal talks to avert a year-end fiscal crisis signaled late Monday that significant progress had been made , with sources saying President Obama had offered a higher threshold for tax rate increases and with House Speaker Boehner 's office calling it `` a step in the right direction . '' The late-day developments followed a 45-minute meeting between Obama and Boehner at the White House , underscoring the seriousness of the talks as the deadline approaches for a deal to stop massive automatic spending cuts and tax hikes from kicking in at the start of the new year . Obama 's most recent offer included $ 1.2 trillion in increased revenue over 10 years , with tax rate hikes on individual income above $ 400,000 , a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News . That would be a sharp departure from the president 's past stance against maintaining the existing low tax rates on any income above $ 200,000 , or $ 250,000 for couples . The latest offer would cut the deficit an estimated $ 2.4 trillion over a decade . The two sides are getting close , but significant issues remain , a Republican source told Fox Business . They are said to have agreed to at least $ 1 trillion in spending cuts and at least $ 1 trillion in new revenue through a mix of tax rate increases on top incomes and tax code reform , though the details have yet to be worked out . `` Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction , '' Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said , though he also criticized the specific mix of spending cuts and tax hikes Obama has proposed , saying it `` can not be considered balanced . '' The speaker last week offered Obama a compromise by proposing a tax rate hike on those making over $ 1 million . Raising the debt ceiling also is emerging a sticking point in negotiations , and indeed , a large part of the looming fiscal crisis stems from Congress ' past failure to agree upon an adequate deficit-reduction plan , as mandated by the previous deal to raise the debt ceiling . The speaker 's office insists that Boehner will stand by his condition that the debt ceiling be raised only if Washington cuts spending by an amount greater than the increase . Boehner 's office tried to assure conservatives on Sunday that he was not backing off his debt-ceiling demands , following a report in The Washington Post that he offered to push off any battle over the debt ceiling for another year . Boehner and other Republicans have so far refused Obama 's demand that he be given the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants . At issue , though , appears to be whether to include a one-time increase in the debt ceiling as part of this deal . While Boehner may be offering to include an increase that lasts a year , Obama 's latest proposal called for a two-year extension . Boehner is asking for $ 1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years from government benefit programs like Medicare , the federal health care program for the elderly . Those cuts would defer most of a painful set of across-the-board spending cuts set to slash many domestic programs and the defense budget by 8-9 percent , starting in January . On the revenue side , Boehner 's offer calls for about $ 450 billion in revenue from increasing the top rate on million-dollar-plus income from 35 percent to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent . The additional revenue required to meet Boehner 's $ 1 trillion target would be collected through a rewrite of the tax code next year and by slowing the inflation adjustments made to tax brackets . If no deal is reached , the Bush-era tax rates will expire , resulting in a significant tax hike on nearly all Americans next year . Both sides are caught between the demands of the other , and their own parties . Many congressional Democrats want to raise taxes on households making more than $ 250,000 . Boehner 's offer marks a much higher threshold than they prefer . White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated Monday that Obama believes the only plan that achieves the `` balance '' Obama wants is the plan the president has put forward . Still , he said , Obama `` believes that a deal is possible . '' Obama also faces opposition from many Democrats to any substantive cuts in Medicare . For his part , Boehner faces another problem . Even if he extracts $ 1 trillion in spending cuts from the president , some Republicans are likely to see this as a trade-off for tax increases -- not a trade-off for a debt ceiling increase .	Both sides in the federal talks to avert a year-end fiscal crisis signaled late Monday that significant progress had been made, with sources saying President Obama had offered a higher threshold for tax rate increases and with House Speaker Boehner's office calling it "a step in the right direction." The late-day developments followed a 45-minute meeting between Obama and Boehner at the White House, underscoring the seriousness of the talks as the deadline approaches for a deal to stop massive automatic spending cuts and tax hikes from kicking in at the start of the new year. Obama's most recent offer included $1.2 trillion in increased revenue over 10 years, with tax rate hikes on individual income above $400,000, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News. That would be a sharp departure from the president's past stance against maintaining the existing low tax rates on any income above $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. The latest offer would cut the deficit an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade. The two sides are getting close, but significant issues remain, a Republican source told Fox Business. They are said to have agreed to at least $1 trillion in spending cuts and at least $1 trillion in new revenue through a mix of tax rate increases on top incomes and tax code reform, though the details have yet to be worked out. "Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said, though he also criticized the specific mix of spending cuts and tax hikes Obama has proposed, saying it "cannot be considered balanced." The speaker last week offered Obama a compromise by proposing a tax rate hike on those making over $1 million. Raising the debt ceiling also is emerging a sticking point in negotiations, and indeed, a large part of the looming fiscal crisis stems from Congress' past failure to agree upon an adequate deficit-reduction plan, as mandated by the previous deal to raise the debt ceiling. The speaker's office insists that Boehner will stand by his condition that the debt ceiling be raised only if Washington cuts spending by an amount greater than the increase. Boehner's office tried to assure conservatives on Sunday that he was not backing off his debt-ceiling demands, following a report in The Washington Post that he offered to push off any battle over the debt ceiling for another year. Boehner's office called the story "highly misleading." Boehner and other Republicans have so far refused Obama's demand that he be given the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants. At issue, though, appears to be whether to include a one-time increase in the debt ceiling as part of this deal. While Boehner may be offering to include an increase that lasts a year, Obama's latest proposal called for a two-year extension. Boehner is asking for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years from government benefit programs like Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly. Those cuts would defer most of a painful set of across-the-board spending cuts set to slash many domestic programs and the defense budget by 8-9 percent, starting in January. On the revenue side, Boehner's offer calls for about $450 billion in revenue from increasing the top rate on million-dollar-plus income from 35 percent to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent. The additional revenue required to meet Boehner's $1 trillion target would be collected through a rewrite of the tax code next year and by slowing the inflation adjustments made to tax brackets. If no deal is reached, the Bush-era tax rates will expire, resulting in a significant tax hike on nearly all Americans next year. Both sides are caught between the demands of the other, and their own parties. Many congressional Democrats want to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000. Boehner's offer marks a much higher threshold than they prefer. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated Monday that Obama believes the only plan that achieves the "balance" Obama wants is the plan the president has put forward. Still, he said, Obama "believes that a deal is possible." Obama also faces opposition from many Democrats to any substantive cuts in Medicare. For his part, Boehner faces another problem. Even if he extracts $1 trillion in spending cuts from the president, some Republicans are likely to see this as a trade-off for tax increases -- not a trade-off for a debt ceiling increase. The Associated Press contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	xoDtSkyLg7TMqrjX
us_senate	Washington Times	22	http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/21/democrats-end-senate-tradition-trigger-nuclear-opt/	Democrats end Senate tradition, trigger 'nuclear option' to ram through Obama?s judicial nominees	2013-11-21	Stephen Dinan, Jacqueline Klimas	Senate Democrats triggered the “ nuclear option ” Thursday , using a shortcut to undercut the chamber ’ s filibuster rules and giving President Obama a clear path to stack the federal judiciary with ideological allies . In a tense 52-48 vote , Democrats overturned decades of precedent and reduced the number of votes needed to cut off the filibuster of a nominee from 60 to a simple majority — and in the process tinkering with a tool that has made the Senate unique . Republicans were hinting at retaliation and said the move further poisoned the atmosphere on Capitol Hill . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , Nevada Democrat , said he didn ’ t fear retaliation . He said he reached a tipping point after Republicans filibustered three of Mr. Obama ’ s nominees to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington , which is considered the second most important court in the country because it hears cases involving key federal agencies . “ It ’ s time to change . It ’ s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete , ” Mr. Reid said as he pushed his colleagues to coalesce on the critical vote . Indeed , it was a vote many of them — particularly the newer Democratic members — have been anticipating . Frustrated by Republicans ’ repeated ability to thwart Mr. Obama through the filibuster , they have been pushing Mr. Reid to limit filibusters of nominees and legislation . The action , however , limits filibusters to nominees and doesn ’ t apply to Supreme Court picks , which Democrats deemed important enough to be subject to a 60-vote threshold . Indeed , hours after the rules change , Republicans and Democrats filibustered the annual defense policy bill , saying they wanted to extend the debate to make sure their amendments get fair consideration . Thirty-two senators , more than half of the 52 who voted for the rule change , have never served in a Republican-majority Senate . Of those , 11 took office in January and have not served for even a year in the chamber . “ They don ’ t know what it ’ s like to be in the minority , so they want to have a majority that will ride roughshod over the wishes and views and input of the minority , ” Sen. John McCain , Arizona Republican , told reporters . “ Now because of the partisanship and the new people who have never been in the minority , we are proving one thing , and that is , if the majority only can change the rules , then there are no rules , ” Mr. McCain said . “ That ’ s the lesson here . ” Exactly how far Mr. Reid ’ s move reverberates will depend on Republicans . Even without a full filibuster , the minority has plenty of other tools to slow operations in the Senate . The level of partisanship Thursday seemed to remain . Despite the heated floor speeches , Republicans and Democrats chatted amicably with one another on the floor , and the top lawmakers on various committees were talking through details . At the White House , President Obama welcomed the change . As a senator , he regularly participated in filibusters , including when Democrats pioneered the blockade of judicial nominees under President George W. Bush . But Mr. Obama said Republicans ’ use of the filibuster is worse . “ It ’ s no longer used in a responsible way to govern . It ’ s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt . And that ’ s not what our founders intended , and it ’ s certainly not what our country needs right now , ” he said . In the near term , the move will help speed through Mr. Obama ’ s nominees for chairman of the Federal Reserve and secretary of the Homeland Security Department . Down the road , the changes could help Mr. Obama win confirmation on some of the more obscure but powerful federal boards that issue rules and decisions that make up much of the work of the federal government . The timing of the vote struck Republicans as suspicious , particularly because the numbers show that Republicans have not filibustered many of Mr. Obama ’ s judicial picks . Indeed , until the most recent push to put judges on the D.C. appeals court , Republicans had helped confirm 215 judges and filibustered just two . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , Kentucky Republican , said Democrats are reeling from a disastrous rollout of Obamacare and needed to try to change the headlines . “ There ’ s a lot of nervousness on the Democrat side . They ’ re in a panic about Obamacare . The majority leader is desperately trying to change the subject . We want to get back on the subject , ” Mr. McConnell said . Three Democrats voted against the change : Michigan ’ s Carl Levin , Arkansas ’ Mark L. Pryor and West Virginia ’ s Joe Manchin III . “ Today ’ s use of the ‘ nuclear option ’ could permanently damage the Senate and have negative ramifications for the American people , ” Mr. Pryor said . “ During my time in the Senate , I ’ ve played key roles in the Gang of 14 and other bipartisan coalitions to help us reach common-sense solutions that both sides of the aisle can support . This institution was designed to protect — not stamp out — the voices of the minority . ” Mr. Reid ’ s move is known as the nuclear option because it requires complex parliamentary procedures and changing the rules in the middle of the session through a simple majority vote . The Senate usually must change its rules through a two-thirds vote , which is one way the chamber enforces comity — something that sets it apart from the partisan House of Representatives . The new rules don ’ t technically end the filibuster , but they reduce the vote total needed to cut off a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority — the same level needed for confirmation . The chamber still will have to abide by the time limits that accompany filibusters , which allow for up to 30 hours of debate once a filibuster has been defeated . Senate Republicans came close to doing a similar sort of rules change in 2005 , when Democrats pioneered the practice of filibustering Mr. Bush ’ s appeals court nominees . Republicans backed down when a bipartisan group emerged and settled on a gentleman ’ s agreement that headed off the rules change but preserved the right to filibuster .	Senate Democrats triggered the “nuclear option” Thursday, using a shortcut to undercut the chamber’s filibuster rules and giving President Obama a clear path to stack the federal judiciary with ideological allies. In a tense 52-48 vote, Democrats overturned decades of precedent and reduced the number of votes needed to cut off the filibuster of a nominee from 60 to a simple majority — and in the process tinkering with a tool that has made the Senate unique. Republicans were hinting at retaliation and said the move further poisoned the atmosphere on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he didn’t fear retaliation. He said he reached a tipping point after Republicans filibustered three of Mr. Obama’s nominees to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington, which is considered the second most important court in the country because it hears cases involving key federal agencies. “It’s time to change. It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Mr. Reid said as he pushed his colleagues to coalesce on the critical vote. Indeed, it was a vote many of them — particularly the newer Democratic members — have been anticipating. Frustrated by Republicans’ repeated ability to thwart Mr. Obama through the filibuster, they have been pushing Mr. Reid to limit filibusters of nominees and legislation. The action, however, limits filibusters to nominees and doesn’t apply to Supreme Court picks, which Democrats deemed important enough to be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Indeed, hours after the rules change, Republicans and Democrats filibustered the annual defense policy bill, saying they wanted to extend the debate to make sure their amendments get fair consideration. Thirty-two senators, more than half of the 52 who voted for the rule change, have never served in a Republican-majority Senate. Of those, 11 took office in January and have not served for even a year in the chamber. “They don’t know what it’s like to be in the minority, so they want to have a majority that will ride roughshod over the wishes and views and input of the minority,” Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, told reporters. “Now because of the partisanship and the new people who have never been in the minority, we are proving one thing, and that is, if the majority only can change the rules, then there are no rules,” Mr. McCain said. “That’s the lesson here.” Exactly how far Mr. Reid’s move reverberates will depend on Republicans. Even without a full filibuster, the minority has plenty of other tools to slow operations in the Senate. The level of partisanship Thursday seemed to remain. Despite the heated floor speeches, Republicans and Democrats chatted amicably with one another on the floor, and the top lawmakers on various committees were talking through details. At the White House, President Obama welcomed the change. As a senator, he regularly participated in filibusters, including when Democrats pioneered the blockade of judicial nominees under President George W. Bush. But Mr. Obama said Republicans’ use of the filibuster is worse. “It’s no longer used in a responsible way to govern. It’s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt. And that’s not what our founders intended, and it’s certainly not what our country needs right now,” he said. In the near term, the move will help speed through Mr. Obama’s nominees for chairman of the Federal Reserve and secretary of the Homeland Security Department. Down the road, the changes could help Mr. Obama win confirmation on some of the more obscure but powerful federal boards that issue rules and decisions that make up much of the work of the federal government. The timing of the vote struck Republicans as suspicious, particularly because the numbers show that Republicans have not filibustered many of Mr. Obama’s judicial picks. Indeed, until the most recent push to put judges on the D.C. appeals court, Republicans had helped confirm 215 judges and filibustered just two. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said Democrats are reeling from a disastrous rollout of Obamacare and needed to try to change the headlines. “There’s a lot of nervousness on the Democrat side. They’re in a panic about Obamacare. The majority leader is desperately trying to change the subject. We want to get back on the subject,” Mr. McConnell said. Three Democrats voted against the change: Michigan’s Carl Levin, Arkansas’ Mark L. Pryor and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III. “Today’s use of the ‘nuclear option’ could permanently damage the Senate and have negative ramifications for the American people,” Mr. Pryor said. “During my time in the Senate, I’ve played key roles in the Gang of 14 and other bipartisan coalitions to help us reach common-sense solutions that both sides of the aisle can support. This institution was designed to protect — not stamp out — the voices of the minority.” Mr. Reid’s move is known as the nuclear option because it requires complex parliamentary procedures and changing the rules in the middle of the session through a simple majority vote. The Senate usually must change its rules through a two-thirds vote, which is one way the chamber enforces comity — something that sets it apart from the partisan House of Representatives. The new rules don’t technically end the filibuster, but they reduce the vote total needed to cut off a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority — the same level needed for confirmation. The chamber still will have to abide by the time limits that accompany filibusters, which allow for up to 30 hours of debate once a filibuster has been defeated. Senate Republicans came close to doing a similar sort of rules change in 2005, when Democrats pioneered the practice of filibustering Mr. Bush’s appeals court nominees. Republicans backed down when a bipartisan group emerged and settled on a gentleman’s agreement that headed off the rules change but preserved the right to filibuster. Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	L4Ytw4BxD1GzHUaa
economy_and_jobs	Reuters	11	https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN18T0BT	U.S. job growth slows; unemployment rate drops to 4.3 percent	2017-06-02	Lucia Mutikani	WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. job growth slowed in May and employment gains in the prior two months were not as strong as previously reported , suggesting the labor market was losing momentum despite the unemployment rate falling to a 16-year low of 4.3 percent . Nonfarm payrolls increased 138,000 last month as the manufacturing , government and retail sectors lost jobs , the Labor Department said on Friday . The economy created 66,000 fewer jobs than previously reported in March and April . Last month ’ s job gains could still be sufficient for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at its June 13-14 policy meeting . The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population . “ While the message was a little muddied today , the evidence generally suggests the labor market is cyclically tightening , and the Fed will need to continue to lean against that , ” said Michael Feroli , an economist at JPMorgan in New York . “ We still believe it is very likely that the Fed will hike later this month . Perhaps more in question is the signal coming out of that meeting regarding subsequent hikes . ” Details of the employment report were weak . Though the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percentage point to its lowest level since May 2001 , that was because 429,000 people dropped out of the labor force . The survey of households from which the unemployment rate is derived also showed a drop in employment . The jobless rate has declined five-tenths of a percentage point this year . Average hourly earnings rose 4 cents or 0.2 percent in May after a similar gain in April , leaving the year-on-year increase in wages at 2.5 percent . Job growth has decelerated from the 181,000 monthly average over the past 12 months as the labor market nears full employment . There is growing anecdotal evidence of companies struggling to find qualified workers . Economists also believe that companies might be holding off hiring amid worries political scandals engulfing President Donald Trump could imperil his economic agenda , including tax cuts and infrastructure spending . “ Political uncertainty in Washington is another factor holding back the job market , ” said Sung Won Sohn , an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo . “ The probability that any of the Trump stimulus would become reality has decreased significantly in recent weeks . ” Economists had forecast payrolls increasing 185,000 last month and the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.4 percent . The Fed raised interest rates in March . A ███ survey of banks that do business directly with the Fed , conducted after the employment report , showed all 18 primary dealers polled expected the U.S. central bank to raise rates this month . Ten forecast further monetary policy tightening in September and only six saw a rate hike in December . The dollar hit a seven-month low against a basket of currencies on the diminishing rate hike prospects in the second half of the year . Long-dated U.S. Treasury yields fell to nearly seven-month lows , and short-dated yields touched their lowest in more than two weeks . U.S. stocks closed at new highs . [ MKTS/GLOB ] The modest payrolls gain could temper expectations of a sharp acceleration in economic growth in the second quarter after gross domestic product increased at a tepid 1.2 percent annualized rate at the start of the year . While consumer spending picked up in April , a second report on Friday showed the trade deficit widening 5.2 percent to $ 47.6 billion . The Atlanta Fed is forecasting GDP increasing at a 3.4 percent pace in the second quarter . There was some good news in the employment report . A broad measure of unemployment , which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they can not find full-time employment , fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 8.4 percent , the lowest since November 2007 . As a result , the spread between the jobless rate and this broad unemployment gauge , considered a better measure of labor market slack , was the smallest since early 2008 . But the labor force participation rate , or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job , fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 62.7 percent . The volatile 16-24 age group accounted for much of the drop in the participation rate last month , suggesting a rebound is likely . Manufacturing employment fell by 1,000 jobs last month as payrolls in the automobile sector dropped 1,500 amid declining sales . Ford Motor Co ( F.N ) said last month it planned to cut 1,400 salaried jobs in North America and Asia through voluntary early retirement and other financial incentives . FILE PHOTO - People wait in line to attend TechFair LA , a technology job fair , in Los Angeles , California , U.S. on January 26 , 2017 . ███/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo Construction payrolls rose 11,000 last month after decreasing by 1,000 jobs in April . Retail employment fell 6,100 , declining for a fourth straight month , with department stores shedding 3,700 jobs . Department store chains like J.C. Penney Co Inc ( JCP.N ) , Macy ’ s Inc ( M.N ) and Abercrombie & Fitch ( ANF.N ) are struggling against stiff competition from online retailers led by Amazon ( AMZN.O ) . Nonstore retailers , including online merchants , hired 2,900 workers last month . Government employment decreased 9,000 last month , with state and local governments accounting for all the decrease .	WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. job growth slowed in May and employment gains in the prior two months were not as strong as previously reported, suggesting the labor market was losing momentum despite the unemployment rate falling to a 16-year low of 4.3 percent. Nonfarm payrolls increased 138,000 last month as the manufacturing, government and retail sectors lost jobs, the Labor Department said on Friday. The economy created 66,000 fewer jobs than previously reported in March and April. Last month’s job gains could still be sufficient for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at its June 13-14 policy meeting. The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population. “While the message was a little muddied today, the evidence generally suggests the labor market is cyclically tightening, and the Fed will need to continue to lean against that,” said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan in New York. “We still believe it is very likely that the Fed will hike later this month. Perhaps more in question is the signal coming out of that meeting regarding subsequent hikes.” Details of the employment report were weak. Though the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percentage point to its lowest level since May 2001, that was because 429,000 people dropped out of the labor force. The survey of households from which the unemployment rate is derived also showed a drop in employment. The jobless rate has declined five-tenths of a percentage point this year. Average hourly earnings rose 4 cents or 0.2 percent in May after a similar gain in April, leaving the year-on-year increase in wages at 2.5 percent. Job growth has decelerated from the 181,000 monthly average over the past 12 months as the labor market nears full employment. There is growing anecdotal evidence of companies struggling to find qualified workers. Economists also believe that companies might be holding off hiring amid worries political scandals engulfing President Donald Trump could imperil his economic agenda, including tax cuts and infrastructure spending. “Political uncertainty in Washington is another factor holding back the job market,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo. “The probability that any of the Trump stimulus would become reality has decreased significantly in recent weeks.” Economists had forecast payrolls increasing 185,000 last month and the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.4 percent. The Fed raised interest rates in March. A Reuters survey of banks that do business directly with the Fed, conducted after the employment report, showed all 18 primary dealers polled expected the U.S. central bank to raise rates this month. Ten forecast further monetary policy tightening in September and only six saw a rate hike in December. The dollar hit a seven-month low against a basket of currencies on the diminishing rate hike prospects in the second half of the year. Long-dated U.S. Treasury yields fell to nearly seven-month lows, and short-dated yields touched their lowest in more than two weeks. U.S. stocks closed at new highs.[MKTS/GLOB] SHRINKING LABOR MARKET SLACK The modest payrolls gain could temper expectations of a sharp acceleration in economic growth in the second quarter after gross domestic product increased at a tepid 1.2 percent annualized rate at the start of the year. While consumer spending picked up in April, a second report on Friday showed the trade deficit widening 5.2 percent to $47.6 billion. The Atlanta Fed is forecasting GDP increasing at a 3.4 percent pace in the second quarter. There was some good news in the employment report. A broad measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 8.4 percent, the lowest since November 2007. As a result, the spread between the jobless rate and this broad unemployment gauge, considered a better measure of labor market slack, was the smallest since early 2008. But the labor force participation rate, or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job, fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 62.7 percent. The volatile 16-24 age group accounted for much of the drop in the participation rate last month, suggesting a rebound is likely. Manufacturing employment fell by 1,000 jobs last month as payrolls in the automobile sector dropped 1,500 amid declining sales. Ford Motor Co (F.N) said last month it planned to cut 1,400 salaried jobs in North America and Asia through voluntary early retirement and other financial incentives. FILE PHOTO - People wait in line to attend TechFair LA, a technology job fair, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. on January 26, 2017. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo Construction payrolls rose 11,000 last month after decreasing by 1,000 jobs in April. Retail employment fell 6,100, declining for a fourth straight month, with department stores shedding 3,700 jobs. Department store chains like J.C. Penney Co Inc (JCP.N), Macy’s Inc (M.N) and Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF.N) are struggling against stiff competition from online retailers led by Amazon (AMZN.O). Nonstore retailers, including online merchants, hired 2,900 workers last month. Government employment decreased 9,000 last month, with state and local governments accounting for all the decrease.	www.reuters.com	2center	zsJXNAq7YPlOrW61
us_house	Fox Online News	22	https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doug-collins-calls-house-vote-to-make-mueller-report-public-a-democrat-political-stunt	Doug Collins: House vote to make Mueller report public a failed stunt by Dems		Frank Miles	The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee , Georgia Rep. Doug Collins , voted for the resolution calling for any final report in Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation to be made public , but told Fox News on Sunday it was unnecessary . “ It was a political stunt by the Democrats who felt that they could divide Republicans into voting no upon it because at the end of the day after I looked at it , when they dropped it … they said this is nothing but simply a first-year law student ’ s restatement of what the regular regulations say that Mr. ( Attorney General William ) Barr is going to have to do , ” he said on “ Sunday Morning Futures ” with Maria Bartiromo . The House voted unanimously Thursday for the resolution , a symbolic action designed to urge Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the investigation is concluded . The Democratic-backed resolution , which passed 420-0 , comes as Mueller appears to be nearing an end to his investigation . Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side . Four Republicans voted present : Michigan Rep. Justin Amash , Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz , Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie . The nonbinding House resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr , with an exception for classified material . The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress . “ We know and you know , as you said earlier , that there 's not going to be collusion here . This is where it is going to be … very hard for the Democrats . All this was . Do n't be fooled by this . This was simply a stunt because they thought they could divide Republicans to make us look bad as not being transparent , ” Collins said Sunday . “ I have no problem being transparent with what we see is coming forward , and it 's within the regulation to say that this was nothing more than a political stunt . ” “ This is the sad part we 're at right now , Maria , ” he told Bartiromo . “ They have no agenda , they have nothing that they can actually put on the floor , so they wasted an entire week of the American taxpayers ’ dollar to actually put a report on the floor that said nothing , basically except the same thing the regulations say that Mr. Barr needs to do so . ” President Trump tweeted Saturday : “ I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency . Makes us all look good and doesn ’ t matter . Play along with the game ! ” It ’ s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia , and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see . Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr , and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly . Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he took seriously the department regulations that said Mueller ’ s report should be confidential . Those regulations required only that the report explain decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions , which could be as simple as a bullet-point list or as lengthy as a report running hundreds of pages . “ I don ’ t know what , at the end of the day , what will be releasable . I don ’ t know what Bob Mueller is writing , ” Barr said at the hearing . Democrats said they were unsatisfied with Barr ’ s answers and wanted a stronger commitment to releasing the full report , along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence . Republicans have agreed — to a point . In making an argument for transparency , Republican leaders have pointed to Barr ’ s comments and the existing regulations , without explicitly pressing for the underlying evidence . Collins concluded Sunday to Bartiromo : “ We just call their bluff , and just say , fine we can vote for this , because this is actually what Bill Barr said he is going to do . Why are we wasting the American people 's time ? ”	The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, voted for the resolution calling for any final report in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to be made public, but told Fox News on Sunday it was unnecessary. “It was a political stunt by the Democrats who felt that they could divide Republicans into voting no upon it because at the end of the day after I looked at it, when they dropped it … they said this is nothing but simply a first-year law student’s restatement of what the regular regulations say that Mr. (Attorney General William) Barr is going to have to do,” he said on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo. The House voted unanimously Thursday for the resolution, a symbolic action designed to urge Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the investigation is concluded. The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller appears to be nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side. Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie. The nonbinding House resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress. “We know and you know, as you said earlier, that there's not going to be collusion here. This is where it is going to be … very hard for the Democrats. All this was. Don't be fooled by this. This was simply a stunt because they thought they could divide Republicans to make us look bad as not being transparent,” Collins said Sunday. “I have no problem being transparent with what we see is coming forward, and it's within the regulation to say that this was nothing more than a political stunt.” He called the resolution an act of nothingness. “This is the sad part we're at right now, Maria,” he told Bartiromo. “They have no agenda, they have nothing that they can actually put on the floor, so they wasted an entire week of the American taxpayers’ dollar to actually put a report on the floor that said nothing, basically except the same thing the regulations say that Mr. Barr needs to do so.” WORLD LEADERS INCLUDING TRUMP ANGERED BY NEW ZEALAND VIOLENCE President Trump tweeted Saturday: “I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency. Makes us all look good and doesn’t matter. Play along with the game!” It’s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly. Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he took seriously the department regulations that said Mueller’s report should be confidential. Those regulations required only that the report explain decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet-point list or as lengthy as a report running hundreds of pages. “I don’t know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don’t know what Bob Mueller is writing,” Barr said at the hearing. Democrats said they were unsatisfied with Barr’s answers and wanted a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Republicans have agreed — to a point. In making an argument for transparency, Republican leaders have pointed to Barr’s comments and the existing regulations, without explicitly pressing for the underlying evidence. Collins concluded Sunday to Bartiromo: “We just call their bluff, and just say, fine we can vote for this, because this is actually what Bill Barr said he is going to do. Why are we wasting the American people's time?” Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo and The Associated Press contributed to this report.	www.foxnews.com	1right	VuDQFk8j5CnQWwzK
healthcare	Michelle Malkin	22	http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/09/25/obama-lied-my-health-plan-died-n1708856	Michelle Malkin - Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died	2013-09-25	"Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Guy Benson, Timothy Meads	Like an estimated 22 million other Americans , I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market . We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors . Last week , our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of `` changes from health care reform ( also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA ) . '' The letter informed us that `` ( t ) o meet the requirements of the new laws , your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date . '' Remember ? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised : `` If you like your doctor , you will be able to keep your doctor . Period . If you like your health care plan , you will be able to keep your health care plan . Period . No one will take it away . No matter what . '' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , also lied when she pledged : `` Keep your doctor , and your current plan , if you like them . '' This is n't just partisan business . It 's personal . Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is `` not going to be selling new individual PPO plans . '' When we asked whether we could keep our children 's doctors , an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she did n't know . The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they 'll be offering . We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime ( launching October 1 ) , a severely limited HMO plan , or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer . If they even exist . My family is not alone . Across the country , insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market . Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases : Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state : `` 63 percent jump , old policy of 15 yrs . cancelled . '' Karen J. Dugan wrote : `` Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business . Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down . '' Chris Birk wrote : `` Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant . New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage . '' Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added : `` I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan . '' Few among Washington 's protected political class are paying attention , because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare 's destructive consequences . But one of my state 's congressional representatives , GOP Rep. Cory Gardner , also lost his individual market plan . Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill , Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program . He told me that he opted to participate in the private market `` because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents . And now that boat is sinking ! '' Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado . `` After my current plan is discontinued , '' he wrote last week , `` the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more , going from roughly $ 650 a month to $ 1,480 per month . '' He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats ' ultimate deception . Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent . The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide . One of the reasons for those rate hikes , of course , is that Obamacare 's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo . Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices . This includes a whole class of musicians , photographers , artists , writers , actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations . As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard , groups like the College Art Association , Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans . Young , healthy members of these groups `` are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties . '' Thanks to Obama , access is down . Premiums and health care spending are up . Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down . Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies , according to Investor 's Business Daily . And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims . Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design , not accident . For hundreds of thousands , if not millions , of self-employed job creators , three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama 's growing nose : 1 ) You ca n't keep it . 2 ) We 're screwed . 3 ) The do-gooders do n't care .	Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors. Or rather, we had such a plan. Last week, our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of "changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA)." The letter informed us that "(t)o meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date." In short: Obama lied. My health plan died. Remember? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also lied when she pledged: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them." This isn't just partisan business. It's personal. Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is "not going to be selling new individual PPO plans." When we asked whether we could keep our children's doctors, an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she didn't know. The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they'll be offering. We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist. My family is not alone. Across the country, insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market. Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases: Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state: "63 percent jump, old policy of 15 yrs. cancelled." Karen J. Dugan wrote: "Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business. Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down." Chris Birk wrote: "Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant. New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage." Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added: "I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan." Few among Washington's protected political class are paying attention, because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare's destructive consequences. But one of my state's congressional representatives, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, also lost his individual market plan. Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill, Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program. He told me that he opted to participate in the private market "because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents. And now that boat is sinking!" Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado. "After my current plan is discontinued," he wrote last week, "the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month." He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats' ultimate deception. Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent. The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide. One of the reasons for those rate hikes, of course, is that Obamacare's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo. Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices. This includes a whole class of musicians, photographers, artists, writers, actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations. As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard, groups like the College Art Association, Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans. Young, healthy members of these groups "are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties." Thanks to Obama, access is down. Premiums and health care spending are up. Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down. Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies, according to Investor's Business Daily. And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims. Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design, not accident. For hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of self-employed job creators, three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama's growing nose: 1) You can't keep it. 2) We're screwed. 3) The do-gooders don't care.	www.townhall.com	1right	Z01cEtZh8zw0Pg25
politics	Michael Brendan Dougherty	22	http://theweek.com/articles/569184/astonishing-weakness-hillary-clinton	The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton	2015-07-31	Joel Mathis, Allan Ripp, Brendan Morrow	Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been . Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent . Her campaign is already heading south , even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign , both Democratic and Republican . Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat . Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns , but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition . Martin O'Malley 's record , shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse , has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says , `` All Lives Matter . '' Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them . Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions , Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform , while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue . She can run against Trump on immigration , against Huckabee on social issues , against Walker on foreign policy . But it 's an opportunity that she has so far passed over . Perhaps she does n't want to get bogged down in actual policy details , always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details . Still , it means that the entirety of Clinton 's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name , and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another . In the first category , she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband . She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was , according to Clinton , rooted in timeless religious principles . She has joined the new gender politics , despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband 's mistresses . Calling Bill 's pump-and-dump paramours `` trailer trash '' and `` narcissistic loony tunes '' is understandable in my own view , but considered impolitic today . Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election . This ca n't be repeated enough . She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000 . And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006 . In her first competitive race , the 2008 Democratic presidential primary , she began as a heavy favorite and she lost . What has she done to improve her chances in that time ? She 's aged well , I guess . And she served without distinction as secretary of state . The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya , which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS . In turn , Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her . She has high name-recognition . Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans . She has the Obama coalition , and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups . But boy , it all seems underwhelming . What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era ? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission ? After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care , the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman , what are the Democrats to do ? Are they pro-globalization ? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years ? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class ? Are they for reforming any of America 's major institutions ? Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment . The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality . The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs . The `` Smart Power '' leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush . A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern . The wife of a man who flies on the `` Lolita Express '' with a porn star that was booked for `` massages . '' The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor . Is this really the best the Democrats can do ? Yes , and that should worry them .	ADVERTISEMENT Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican. Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns, but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition. Martin O'Malley's record, shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse, has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says, "All Lives Matter." Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them. Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions, Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform, while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue. She can run against Trump on immigration, against Huckabee on social issues, against Walker on foreign policy. But it's an opportunity that she has so far passed over. Perhaps she doesn't want to get bogged down in actual policy details, always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details. Still, it means that the entirety of Clinton's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband's mistresses. Calling Bill's pump-and-dump paramours "trailer trash" and "narcissistic loony tunes" is understandable in my own view, but considered impolitic today. Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can't be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost. What has she done to improve her chances in that time? She's aged well, I guess. And she served without distinction as secretary of state. The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya, which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS. In turn, Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her. She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans. She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission? After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America's major institutions? Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor. Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them.	www.theweek.com	1right	L1ea9jIQS3xtXwbJ
media_bias	Salon	00	http://www.salon.com/2016/06/07/normalizing_trump_demonizing_hillary_the_medias_shameful_strategy_for_the_2016_election/	Normalizing Trump, demonizing Hillary: The media’s shameful strategy	2016-06-07		One of the most vexing challenges of the Trump phenomenon is how the press should deal with it . There 's never been anything quite like it and journalism is having to try to navigate this campaign as the rules are being rewritten on the fly . Back in the beginning , The Huffington Post had tried to keep the whole thing in perspective by relegating the campaign to their entertainment pages but eventually had to move it back to the politics section when it became clear that Republican voters were actually taking Trump seriously . Today they cover him like a normal politician but append a standard disclaimer at the end of their articles about him pointing out that he 's an extremist with noxious views . Trump has brought the tabloids into the race already , with his good friend David Pecker , the publisher of the National Enquirer , helpfully providing smears of his rival Ted Cruz during the primary . Now Pecker has hired notorious Clinton hater Dick Morris as the Enquirer 's chief political correspondent so it 's likely Trump will be fed a steady diet of tabloid tid-bits which he will undoubtedly share with his adoring fans . So far , the mainstream media has resisted the temptation to run with Clinton gossip stories mainly because there 's so much coming over the transom about Trump . But they are out there and are likely to seep into the coverage as the Hillary smear industry gets up and running . There 's nothing new in that but Trump is a master of tabloid media so we can probably expect this to play a different role than it has in the past . TV news organizations , meanwhile , have been notorious for allowing Trump to flout their rules . They happily let him call in rather than appear on camera and give him hours of airtime in the hope that he 'll say something news worthy which , to be honest , he often does . His lies and reversals are so constant and so blatant that reporters seem to be almost paralyzed as he slithers and slides out of their grasp . He is sui generis and nobody knows quite what to do about it . Media critics have been weighing in recently as the situation has become acute . NPR 's `` On the Media '' correspondent Bob Garfield has been particularly vociferous lately imploring the media to recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses to America . In this column he takes them to task for covering the Trump candidacy `` like a bemused recap of House of Cards . '' He wrote : The rapacious CBS Chairman Les Moonves and the cable-newslike channels are delighted at the spectacle ; disaster is always great for ratings . But this is not a show , to be consumed and titillated by and parsed . It is a conflagration of hatred and authoritarianism on its way to consuming us , or at least that which makes us us . Trumpism is raging out of control and the Fourth Estate responds how ? By going through the motions . The usual false balance . The usual staged cable bickering . The usual dry contextual analysis . The usual intermittent truth-squading to garnish our careless daily servings of uncontested hate speech , incitement and manifest lies . The usual reluctance to “ be part of the story ” -- which , in fact , we are inextricably part of because we in large measure created it by giving oxygen to his every incendiary outrage and being our soundbitten , compulsively enabling selves ... [ the ] reflexive focus on the latest development , the political ebb and flow and the architecture of the coming election simply buries the lede -- that the man is monstrously unfit and un-American -- and normalizes the grossly , tragically abnormal . And then he tells them what he really thinks which is that they are falling into the trap of false equivalence between the parties , fear of right-wing pressure and a reluctance to call a fascist a fascist . Margaret Sullivan , former NY Times ombudsman and current media columnist for The Washington Post has similar concerns , particularly the notion that the media is pursuing a `` false equivalence '' rather than simple truth-telling : [ T ] his perceived need to push for “ fairness ” for Trump — as if he has been mistreated or put at a disadvantage — baffles me . Trump gets far more media attention than other candidates , if only because he says such outrageous things , commanding the daily news cycle over and over . [ ... ] Wayne Barrett , the investigative reporter who has been covering Trump for 40 years ( and whose reporting brought about Trump ’ s first federal grand jury investigation ) told me in an interview : “ The great failing is not in print media . But the campaigns occur on the screen. ” ... Many hard-hitting stories from the New York Times , The Washington Post , the Daily Beast and elsewhere have received little follow-up on TV — “ not one minute of air time that I ’ ve seen ” — but the slightest hint of a new angle on Hillary Clinton ’ s email practices can occupy most of a news cycle . ( An exception was TV ’ s attention , last week , to complaints about Trump University . ) Jay Rosen , the New York University professor and author of the PressThink blog , is concerned about how this concept of fairness might play out . “ Does it mean ‘ we can ’ t take sides , ’ or does it mean ‘ let ’ s treat unequal things equally ’ ? ” The latter , which he called “ distortion toward the middle , ” ought to be prevented , he said . The Nation 's Eric Alterman wrote about the print media 's propensity for false equivalence as well , focusing particularly on the New York Times : From the earliest days of this campaign , Times reporters have been transparently eager to blame “ both sides , ” often regardless of circumstance . Last November , Times reporter Michael Barbaro devoted a lengthy article to the GOP candidates ’ most brazen lies , albeit one filled with euphemisms for the word “ lie. ” Carly Fiorina “ refused ” to back down from a story about Planned Parenthood that was “ roundly disputed , ” he wrote . Ben Carson “ harshly turned the questions ” about inconsistencies in his life story “ back on the reporters who asked them. ” Donald Trump “ utters plenty of refutable claims ” and “ set the tone for the embroidery ” by creating “ an entirely new category of overstatement in American politics. ” But guess what ? “ The tendency to bend facts is bipartisan. ” How do we know ? Well , Gary Hart and Bill Clinton chose not to confess their infidelities to the nation during election cycles that took place a generation ago . And apparently Hillary Clinton once mistakenly described herself as being the granddaughter of four immigrants when , in fact , her paternal grandmother was born shortly after her family arrived in the United States—an error she quickly corrected . Barbaro also found Clinton ’ s explanations about her personal and State Department e-mail accounts to be unsatisfactory . He wrote that she had “ used multiple devices , like an iPad , to read and send e-mail , ” even though she ’ d said she “ preferred ” to read them all on a single device . He failed to note that the iPad didn ’ t even exist when Clinton set up her e-mail account , nor did he explain why expressing a preference counts as bending the truth Here is an example of false equivalence from just this week . Nobody has done more to probe Donald Trump 's noxious views than CNN 's Jake Tapper . His grilling of the candidate over his bigoted comments about the federal judge overseeing his Trump University lawsuit in California was as good as it gets and he received many kudos for his aggressive journalism . He continued to report on Trump on his show Monday but also featured this harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton in which he lambasted the State Department 's stated inability to release emails pertaining to her work on the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal to reporter David Sirota until after the election . He took on a very aggressive tone , editorializing about the importance of releasing this important information when people are deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump . However , he notes that while Clinton was President Obama 's Secretary of State she openly advocated for the deal in glowing terms , even calling it the `` gold standard '' , facts which have been known for years and have been well hashed out on the campaign trail and in the debates with Bernie Sanders . Now she says she has changed her mind and is against the deal . Politifact called it a flip-flop . So what exactly do they think they will learn about her position that they do n't already know ? Maybe she was more involved than she says she was , which would be interesting , but somewhat meaningless since we know she advocated strongly for it all over the world . In the end , you either believe she 's really changed her mind or you do n't and these documents from years ago will not shed any new light on that . And yet the implication was that Clinton was up to something nefarious with those `` damn emails '' again . I do n't mean to pick on Tapper . He 's a great journalist , one of the best on cable news . The temptation to try to `` even things out '' with this sort of coverage has to be overwhelming when a personality like Trump dominates the coverage the way he does . It must feel to a straight mainstream journalist as if they 're piling on him every day and it looks like they 're being partisan and unfair . Certainly the right wing is accusing them of that non-stop -- - as they have been for more than 30 years . But the result of this `` distortion toward the middle '' as Jay Rosen calls it , has the perverse effect of normalizing Trump and pathologizing Clinton in a way that equalizes them to Trump 's advantage . There is no equivalence between them . He is an unqualified , unfit , unhinged authoritarian demagogue and she is a mainstream Democratic party politician . Let 's hope the press listens to some of these critics and does a serious gut check whenever they are tempted to `` balance '' the coverage in this election by going easy on Trump and hard on Clinton . It 's dangerous .	One of the most vexing challenges of the Trump phenomenon is how the press should deal with it. There's never been anything quite like it and journalism is having to try to navigate this campaign as the rules are being rewritten on the fly. Back in the beginning, The Huffington Post had tried to keep the whole thing in perspective by relegating the campaign to their entertainment pages but eventually had to move it back to the politics section when it became clear that Republican voters were actually taking Trump seriously. Today they cover him like a normal politician but append a standard disclaimer at the end of their articles about him pointing out that he's an extremist with noxious views. Trump has brought the tabloids into the race already, with his good friend David Pecker, the publisher of the National Enquirer, helpfully providing smears of his rival Ted Cruz during the primary. Now Pecker has hired notorious Clinton hater Dick Morris as the Enquirer's chief political correspondent so it's likely Trump will be fed a steady diet of tabloid tid-bits which he will undoubtedly share with his adoring fans. So far, the mainstream media has resisted the temptation to run with Clinton gossip stories mainly because there's so much coming over the transom about Trump. But they are out there and are likely to seep into the coverage as the Hillary smear industry gets up and running. There's nothing new in that but Trump is a master of tabloid media so we can probably expect this to play a different role than it has in the past. Advertisement: TV news organizations, meanwhile, have been notorious for allowing Trump to flout their rules. They happily let him call in rather than appear on camera and give him hours of airtime in the hope that he'll say something news worthy which, to be honest, he often does. His lies and reversals are so constant and so blatant that reporters seem to be almost paralyzed as he slithers and slides out of their grasp. He is sui generis and nobody knows quite what to do about it. Media critics have been weighing in recently as the situation has become acute. NPR's "On the Media" correspondent Bob Garfield has been particularly vociferous lately imploring the media to recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses to America. In this column he takes them to task for covering the Trump candidacy "like a bemused recap of House of Cards." He wrote: The rapacious CBS Chairman Les Moonves and the cable-newslike channels are delighted at the spectacle; disaster is always great for ratings. But this is not a show, to be consumed and titillated by and parsed. It is a conflagration of hatred and authoritarianism on its way to consuming us, or at least that which makes us us. Trumpism is raging out of control and the Fourth Estate responds how? By going through the motions. The usual false balance. The usual staged cable bickering. The usual dry contextual analysis. The usual intermittent truth-squading to garnish our careless daily servings of uncontested hate speech, incitement and manifest lies. The usual reluctance to “be part of the story” -- which, in fact, we are inextricably part of because we in large measure created it by giving oxygen to his every incendiary outrage and being our soundbitten, compulsively enabling selves...[the]reflexive focus on the latest development, the political ebb and flow and the architecture of the coming election simply buries the lede -- that the man is monstrously unfit and un-American -- and normalizes the grossly, tragically abnormal. And then he tells them what he really thinks which is that they are falling into the trap of false equivalence between the parties, fear of right-wing pressure and a reluctance to call a fascist a fascist. Margaret Sullivan, former NY Times ombudsman and current media columnist for The Washington Post has similar concerns, particularly the notion that the media is pursuing a "false equivalence" rather than simple truth-telling: [T]his perceived need to push for “fairness” for Trump — as if he has been mistreated or put at a disadvantage — baffles me. Trump gets far more media attention than other candidates, if only because he says such outrageous things, commanding the daily news cycle over and over. [...] Wayne Barrett, the investigative reporter who has been covering Trump for 40 years (and whose reporting brought about Trump’s first federal grand jury investigation) told me in an interview: “The great failing is not in print media. But the campaigns occur on the screen.”... Many hard-hitting stories from the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Daily Beast and elsewhere have received little follow-up on TV — “not one minute of air time that I’ve seen” — but the slightest hint of a new angle on Hillary Clinton’s email practices can occupy most of a news cycle. (An exception was TV’s attention, last week, to complaints about Trump University.) Jay Rosen, the New York University professor and author of the PressThink blog, is concerned about how this concept of fairness might play out. “Does it mean ‘we can’t take sides,’ or does it mean ‘let’s treat unequal things equally’?” The latter, which he called “distortion toward the middle,” ought to be prevented, he said. The Nation's Eric Alterman wrote about the print media's propensity for false equivalence as well, focusing particularly on the New York Times: From the earliest days of this campaign, Times reporters have been transparently eager to blame “both sides,” often regardless of circumstance. Last November, Times reporter Michael Barbaro devoted a lengthy article to the GOP candidates’ most brazen lies, albeit one filled with euphemisms for the word “lie.” Carly Fiorina “refused” to back down from a story about Planned Parenthood that was “roundly disputed,” he wrote. Ben Carson “harshly turned the questions” about inconsistencies in his life story “back on the reporters who asked them.” Donald Trump “utters plenty of refutable claims” and “set the tone for the embroidery” by creating “an entirely new category of overstatement in American politics.” But guess what? “The tendency to bend facts is bipartisan.” How do we know? Well, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton chose not to confess their infidelities to the nation during election cycles that took place a generation ago. And apparently Hillary Clinton once mistakenly described herself as being the granddaughter of four immigrants when, in fact, her paternal grandmother was born shortly after her family arrived in the United States—an error she quickly corrected. Barbaro also found Clinton’s explanations about her personal and State Department e-mail accounts to be unsatisfactory. He wrote that she had “used multiple devices, like an iPad, to read and send e-mail,” even though she’d said she “preferred” to read them all on a single device. He failed to note that the iPad didn’t even exist when Clinton set up her e-mail account, nor did he explain why expressing a preference counts as bending the truth Here is an example of false equivalence from just this week. Nobody has done more to probe Donald Trump's noxious views than CNN's Jake Tapper. His grilling of the candidate over his bigoted comments about the federal judge overseeing his Trump University lawsuit in California was as good as it gets and he received many kudos for his aggressive journalism. Advertisement: He continued to report on Trump on his show Monday but also featured this harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton in which he lambasted the State Department's stated inability to release emails pertaining to her work on the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal to reporter David Sirota until after the election. He took on a very aggressive tone, editorializing about the importance of releasing this important information when people are deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. However, he notes that while Clinton was President Obama's Secretary of State she openly advocated for the deal in glowing terms, even calling it the "gold standard", facts which have been known for years and have been well hashed out on the campaign trail and in the debates with Bernie Sanders. Now she says she has changed her mind and is against the deal. Politifact called it a flip-flop. So what exactly do they think they will learn about her position that they don't already know? Maybe she was more involved than she says she was, which would be interesting, but somewhat meaningless since we know she advocated strongly for it all over the world. In the end, you either believe she's really changed her mind or you don't and these documents from years ago will not shed any new light on that. And yet the implication was that Clinton was up to something nefarious with those "damn emails" again. I don't mean to pick on Tapper. He's a great journalist, one of the best on cable news. The temptation to try to "even things out" with this sort of coverage has to be overwhelming when a personality like Trump dominates the coverage the way he does. It must feel to a straight mainstream journalist as if they're piling on him every day and it looks like they're being partisan and unfair. Certainly the right wing is accusing them of that non-stop --- as they have been for more than 30 years. But the result of this "distortion toward the middle" as Jay Rosen calls it, has the perverse effect of normalizing Trump and pathologizing Clinton in a way that equalizes them to Trump's advantage. There is no equivalence between them. He is an unqualified, unfit, unhinged authoritarian demagogue and she is a mainstream Democratic party politician. Let's hope the press listens to some of these critics and does a serious gut check whenever they are tempted to "balance" the coverage in this election by going easy on Trump and hard on Clinton. It's dangerous.	www.salon.com	0left	6FrneeAgk2a9QrLm
white_house	Guest Writer - Left	00	https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/donald-trump-prime-time-address-immigration-wall/index.html	OPINION: Prime-time Trump faces credibility crisis	2019-01-08	Analysis Stephen Collinson	Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump will face one huge obstacle when he appeals to Americans in a prime-time Oval Office address Tuesday to unite behind his crusade for a border wall : Himself . Trump has spent years exploiting immigration -- one of the nation 's most divisive fault lines -- during an insurgent campaign and a presidency sustained by the fervor of his committed political base . But now , the downside of that strategy is becoming evident . In his attempt to convince the nation that a genuine crisis is unfolding at the southern border , the President 's arguments face extreme skepticism from those not already in his camp . About 57 % of Americans oppose Trump 's wall compared with 38 % in favor , according to a December CNN poll conducted by SSRS . Those numbers are similar to where they were just after Trump took office in 2017 . On Tuesday night , Trump will commandeer the symbolic might of his office in an effort to bolster a political approach that has failed to force Democrats to cave to his demand for $ 5 billion in wall funding amid a government shutdown now in its third week . He will hold forth on a deeply contentious issue from the spot where President Ronald Reagan eulogized the Challenger space shuttle crew and where other predecessors gave notice of the start or ends of wars . The historically resonant stagecraft represents an attempt to convince the country -- with scant hard evidence -- that a real threat is unfolding on the frontier of the US and Mexico border , including drug trafficking , rising sickness among migrants , increasing border crossings and a busted asylum system . `` The American people will hear from the President tonight that we have a crisis , '' Vice President Mike Pence told `` CBS This Morning '' Tuesday , part of a series of appearances on network morning shows to make the administration 's case . He urged Democrats to `` come to the table '' to make a deal but did not indicate that the administration 's funding demand was negotiable . Trump 's capacity to make a similar argument is complicated by his choice not to broaden his support beyond his loyalist base in two years in office . And he 's often used immigration as a cudgel to attack Democrats and moderate Republicans . The address promises to be yet another extraordinary moment in a singular presidency . When news broke of his prime-time appearance , a remarkable debate broke out in Washington about whether the President of the United States can be trusted to tell the truth in an address to the nation . Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer demanded the right of reply . `` Now that the television networks have decided to air the President 's address , which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation , Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime , '' they said in a joint press release . Pelosi and Schumer will deliver the response for the Democrats , which CNN will carry live . Many Trump supporters do believe that the border is being besieged by criminals , is easily penetrated by drugs and gangs , and share his view that `` without borders , we do n't have a country . '' And the President can clearly argue that he won election by promising to purge deep concern about a broken immigration system . At almost every rally , Trump beams as the crowd chants `` build the wall , build the wall . '' The border issue has become an almost mystical symbol of Trump 's appeal to his supporters . But Trump has also stigmatized Mexicans and other immigrants and his dark vision of a nation under siege from hordes of invaders has turned a border security dispute into a political quarrel that tears at American cultural and racial divides . The wall is just as powerful a metaphor for liberals , including Democratic leaders he now wants to fund the project after failing to get it built during two years of GOP control on Capitol Hill . For Trump 's critics , the wall is a metaphor for an inhumane and un-American approach to immigration that has seen undocumented migrant families separated and several detained children die of illnesses . So , when the President seeks to corral public opinion behind him Tuesday , he will be operating on scorched political ground and will require something extraordinary to shift opinion . That is especially the case since Trump 's hardline rhetoric on immigration was seen by critics inside and outside of the GOP as a key factor in the party 's loss of the House in the midterm elections . The risk for Trump is that after the fire and fury of his relentless immigration rhetoric , anyone left who has an open mind simply will not believe him . `` I expect the President to lie to the American people , '' said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler , the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday . `` Why do I expect this ? Because he 's been lying to the American people and his spokespeople continue lying to the American people , '' he said . In the latest notorious case of the administration peddling untruths , White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders was caught on Fox News implying falsely that up to 4,000 terrorists have poured over the southern border . In an annual terrorism report published in July 2017 , the State Department reported that there was `` no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States . '' White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Monday night that Sanders got `` confused '' and made an `` unfortunate misstatement . '' `` So , I think , it got unfortunately confused by my colleague , '' she said . `` That was an unfortunate misstatement and everybody makes mistakes . '' Conway said the nearly 4,000 people Sanders was referring to are known or suspected terrorists prevented from entering or traveling to the US via any means - not just over the southern border . Trump has claimed that a wall is needed to deter `` drug dealers , human traffickers and criminals . '' He also argued without evidence that a caravan of migrants from Central America that headed to the border last year included `` unknown Middle Easterners '' -- another reference to terrorism . Such a record will complicate Trump 's attempts and those of his key aides , such as Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen , who are due on Capitol Hill Tuesday to sell his message before the President heads to the border on Thursday . CNN 's Kevin Liptak reported on Monday that Trump 's decision to deliver a prime-time address followed warnings from advisers that his arguments about immigration -- delivered in tweets and impromptu media scrums in recent days -- are not resonating amid the shutdown . But if Tuesday 's speech is pockmarked with factual errors and easily discredited spin , any hope the President has of influencing anyone other than his supporters will likely be dashed . The President 's set piece speeches have rarely succeeded in changing public opinion on a key issue or easing tensions in a political standoff ; in fact , the opposite is more often the case . Trump 's decision to trigger a shutdown , apparently fearing anger from conservative pundits if he folded over wall funding , left an impression that he is covering up his embarrassment over his so-far failed campaign promise . Given his hyper political approach in the past , it 's always possible that Trump has no expectation of changing the partisan brew over immigration , but just wants to show his supporters he 's ready to fight . Trump 's most difficult assignment will be to make a case that the situation at the US-Mexico border really amounts to a genuine crisis . Apprehensions of undocumented migrants coming across the border did rise by about 100,000 in the 2018 fiscal year to nearly 400,000 . The administration has also warned of a rise in families crossing the border illegally . The numbers reached more than 51,000 families in October and November . But the figures are still nowhere near record-setting levels of up to 100,000 families a month in the early 2000s . Nielsen told reporters at the White House that the asylum system , which was designed to process far fewer applications was `` bogged down . '' But the White House 's critics are more likely to put those failures down to the administration 's draconian approach and mismanagement than to an outside crisis that truly threatens US national security .	Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump will face one huge obstacle when he appeals to Americans in a prime-time Oval Office address Tuesday to unite behind his crusade for a border wall: Himself. Trump has spent years exploiting immigration -- one of the nation's most divisive fault lines -- during an insurgent campaign and a presidency sustained by the fervor of his committed political base. But now, the downside of that strategy is becoming evident. In his attempt to convince the nation that a genuine crisis is unfolding at the southern border , the President's arguments face extreme skepticism from those not already in his camp. About 57% of Americans oppose Trump's wall compared with 38% in favor, according to a December CNN poll conducted by SSRS . Those numbers are similar to where they were just after Trump took office in 2017. On Tuesday night, Trump will commandeer the symbolic might of his office in an effort to bolster a political approach that has failed to force Democrats to cave to his demand for $5 billion in wall funding amid a government shutdown now in its third week. He will hold forth on a deeply contentious issue from the spot where President Ronald Reagan eulogized the Challenger space shuttle crew and where other predecessors gave notice of the start or ends of wars. The historically resonant stagecraft represents an attempt to convince the country -- with scant hard evidence -- that a real threat is unfolding on the frontier of the US and Mexico border, including drug trafficking, rising sickness among migrants, increasing border crossings and a busted asylum system. "The American people will hear from the President tonight that we have a crisis," Vice President Mike Pence told "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, part of a series of appearances on network morning shows to make the administration's case. He urged Democrats to "come to the table" to make a deal but did not indicate that the administration's funding demand was negotiable. Trump's capacity to make a similar argument is complicated by his choice not to broaden his support beyond his loyalist base in two years in office. And he's often used immigration as a cudgel to attack Democrats and moderate Republicans. The address promises to be yet another extraordinary moment in a singular presidency. When news broke of his prime-time appearance, a remarkable debate broke out in Washington about whether the President of the United States can be trusted to tell the truth in an address to the nation. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer demanded the right of reply. "Now that the television networks have decided to air the President's address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime," they said in a joint press release. Pelosi and Schumer will deliver the response for the Democrats, which CNN will carry live. 'Build the wall' Many Trump supporters do believe that the border is being besieged by criminals, is easily penetrated by drugs and gangs, and share his view that "without borders, we don't have a country." And the President can clearly argue that he won election by promising to purge deep concern about a broken immigration system. At almost every rally, Trump beams as the crowd chants "build the wall, build the wall." The border issue has become an almost mystical symbol of Trump's appeal to his supporters. But Trump has also stigmatized Mexicans and other immigrants and his dark vision of a nation under siege from hordes of invaders has turned a border security dispute into a political quarrel that tears at American cultural and racial divides. The wall is just as powerful a metaphor for liberals, including Democratic leaders he now wants to fund the project after failing to get it built during two years of GOP control on Capitol Hill. For Trump's critics, the wall is a metaphor for an inhumane and un-American approach to immigration that has seen undocumented migrant families separated and several detained children die of illnesses. So, when the President seeks to corral public opinion behind him Tuesday, he will be operating on scorched political ground and will require something extraordinary to shift opinion. That is especially the case since Trump's hardline rhetoric on immigration was seen by critics inside and outside of the GOP as a key factor in the party's loss of the House in the midterm elections. The risk for Trump is that after the fire and fury of his relentless immigration rhetoric, anyone left who has an open mind simply will not believe him. "I expect the President to lie to the American people," said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. "Why do I expect this? Because he's been lying to the American people and his spokespeople continue lying to the American people," he said. In the latest notorious case of the administration peddling untruths, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders was caught on Fox News implying falsely that up to 4,000 terrorists have poured over the southern border. In an annual terrorism report published in July 2017, the State Department reported that there was "no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States." White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Monday night that Sanders got "confused" and made an "unfortunate misstatement." "So, I think, it got unfortunately confused by my colleague," she said. "That was an unfortunate misstatement and everybody makes mistakes." Conway said the nearly 4,000 people Sanders was referring to are known or suspected terrorists prevented from entering or traveling to the US via any means - not just over the southern border. 'Immigration arguments not landing' Trump has claimed that a wall is needed to deter "drug dealers, human traffickers and criminals." He also argued without evidence that a caravan of migrants from Central America that headed to the border last year included "unknown Middle Easterners" -- another reference to terrorism. Such a record will complicate Trump's attempts and those of his key aides, such as Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who are due on Capitol Hill Tuesday to sell his message before the President heads to the border on Thursday. CNN's Kevin Liptak reported on Monday that Trump's decision to deliver a prime-time address followed warnings from advisers that his arguments about immigration -- delivered in tweets and impromptu media scrums in recent days -- are not resonating amid the shutdown. But if Tuesday's speech is pockmarked with factual errors and easily discredited spin, any hope the President has of influencing anyone other than his supporters will likely be dashed. The President's set piece speeches have rarely succeeded in changing public opinion on a key issue or easing tensions in a political standoff; in fact, the opposite is more often the case. Trump's decision to trigger a shutdown, apparently fearing anger from conservative pundits if he folded over wall funding, left an impression that he is covering up his embarrassment over his so-far failed campaign promise. Given his hyper political approach in the past, it's always possible that Trump has no expectation of changing the partisan brew over immigration, but just wants to show his supporters he's ready to fight. Trump's most difficult assignment will be to make a case that the situation at the US-Mexico border really amounts to a genuine crisis. Apprehensions of undocumented migrants coming across the border did rise by about 100,000 in the 2018 fiscal year to nearly 400,000. The administration has also warned of a rise in families crossing the border illegally. The numbers reached more than 51,000 families in October and November. But the figures are still nowhere near record-setting levels of up to 100,000 families a month in the early 2000s. Nielsen told reporters at the White House that the asylum system, which was designed to process far fewer applications was "bogged down." But the White House's critics are more likely to put those failures down to the administration's draconian approach and mismanagement than to an outside crisis that truly threatens US national security. CNN's Tammy Kupperman, Geneva Sands, Jim Acosta and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.	www.cnn.com	0left	86kgngV7QPfpZC9H
middle_east	Washington Times	22	http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/24/emails-us-officials-militants-hours-benghazi/	GOP on attack over new Benghazi emails	2012-10-24	Guy Taylor, Shaun Waterman	Congressional Republicans on Wednesday spotlighted a newly revealed email that shows Obama administration officials were told within hours of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi , Libya , that an al-Qaeda-inspired militant group had claimed responsibility for the assault . After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of the email Wednesday , Republican Sens . John McCain , Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to President Obama asking why U.S. officials “ described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video . ” “ These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia , a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda , had claimed responsibility for it , ” the senators ’ letter states . “ This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi , when you knew it , and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did . ” Earlier Wednesday , administration officials said the email , which was first reported by Reuters , was just part of an initial scramble of communications about the assault that killed U.S . Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks . “ Hosting something on Facebook is not , in and of itself , evidence , ” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters after the email was leaked to news outlets and posted online . “ I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and contended for some time . ” Her assertion matched that of White House press secretary Jay Carney , who said “ there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. ” He noted that within hours of the email , Ansar al-Shariah “ claimed that it had not been responsible — neither should be taken as fact . ” The Tunisian government said Wednesday that it had arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian man who is suspected to have participated in the consulate attack . An Interior Ministry spokesman told The Associated Press that Ali Harzi was being held in the nation ’ s capital , Tunis . Tunisia sits between Libya and Algeria in North Africa , where authorities regularly cite the threat of al Qaeda-inspired militants . The State Department declined to comment on the extent to which Tunisian authorities are cooperating with U.S. and Libyan authorities investigating the Benghazi attack . One U.S. intelligence official has described Mr. Harzi as a member of violent extremist networks in the region , according to an article by The Daily Beast , which first reported his arrest Tuesday . The developments amplified an already politically charged debate over why the White House was initially unwilling to characterize the Benghazi attack as one carried out by Islamic extremists . Rep. Peter T. King , New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee , said the new email undermines “ any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that [ the attack occurred ] in a ‘ spontaneous reaction ’ to a film trailer posted on the Internet. ” He called on the president to release all intelligence reports and analyses about the attack . Although Mr. Obama used the words “ acts of terror ” to describe the attack in prepared remarks Sept. 12 , other administration officials maintained in ensuing days that the assault — by heavily armed men with mortar support — had grown out of a spontaneous protest against an American-made video disparaging Islam ’ s Prophet Muhammad . The Benghazi attack happened just hours after demonstrators had stormed the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo . Although there has been no evidence of a similar protest preceding the attack in Benghazi , some in the intelligence community continue to say the incidents in Libya and Egypt are connected . One U.S. intelligence official recently told The ███ that “ there was and still is information that suggests the attackers in Benghazi were influenced by the scenes they saw in Cairo of protesters scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy . ” The Times reported Oct. 3 that U.S. military intelligence was spreading the word inside the Pentagon the day after the attack that an al Qaeda-linked group was likely responsible for the assault . Independent analysts cited confusion Wednesday over the initial email circulated among administration officials on the night of the attack . The email focused on Ansar al-Shariah , an Arabic name that means “ supporters of Islamic law ” and is thought to be used by al Qaeda supporters in Libya and other parts of the Middle East . Aaron Y. Zelin , a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors Arabic-language websites tied to extremist groups in the region , said he had no record of any direct claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Shariah that night . “ I was following that specific Facebook page very closely because this was considered to be the official page of Ansar al-Shariah , and I don ’ t have any archived record of that posting at that time , ” he said , adding that the email ’ s authors “ could have been mistaken or they could be referring to something else completely . ” He said that on Sept. 12 — several hours after the initial email circulated among Obama administration officials — Ansar al-Shariah did make a Facebook posting in which it said it had not ordered the attack . “ They said that they were not involved in an official manner but they applauded the attack , ” said Mr. Zelin , who added that the Facebook page for the group has since been removed . Bill Roggio , editor of The Long War Journal and a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , said the group may have posted and then deleted a statement on its Facebook page in hopes that the attack would appear as a popular expression of rage rather than a militarized assault that involved at least some planning and reconnaissance . The statement that did appear on the group ’ s Facebook page Sept. 12 , Mr. Roggio said , “ was that their members took part but they were trying to portray it as a popular uprising-type event . ” The fact that Ansar al-Shariah ultimately said it wasn ’ t part of the attack in an “ official manner ” suggests “ there were members in the group that were involved in an individual capacity in the attack insofar as that it wasn ’ t ordered from the top of the group , ” Mr. Zelin said . As for the apparent inaccuracies in the initial swirl of emails among the Obama administration ’ s national security officials in Libya and in Washington , retired Army Col. Thomas F. Lynch III said that during the first 24 hours after such an attack , “ You wind up with a lot of reporting ” from different people and “ some of it inevitably [ is ] contradictory or ambiguous . ” Col. Lynch , who served until July 2010 as a special adviser on counterterrorism to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now is a research scholar at the National Defense University , said understanding the significance of the newly revealed email will require knowing certain answers . “ How many different lines of reporting were there that evening ? ” he asked . “ How many mentioned whether or not there had been a reliable claim of responsibility ? ” Answers were hard to find Wednesday at the State Department , where officials stressed that the point of the federally mandated Accountability Review Board now investigating the Benghazi attack is to examine such questions in an environment free of election-year politics . “ Look , I ’ ve said it and I ’ ll say it one more time , ” Mrs. Clinton said . “ No one wants to find out what happened more than I do . We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people because not only they but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world deserve no less . ”	Congressional Republicans on Wednesday spotlighted a newly revealed email that shows Obama administration officials were told within hours of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that an al-Qaeda-inspired militant group had claimed responsibility for the assault. After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of the email Wednesday, Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to President Obama asking why U.S. officials “described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video.” “These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it,” the senators’ letter states. “This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did.” Earlier Wednesday, administration officials said the email, which was first reported by Reuters, was just part of an initial scramble of communications about the assault that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. “Hosting something on Facebook is not, in and of itself, evidence,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters after the email was leaked to news outlets and posted online. “I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and contended for some time.” Her assertion matched that of White House press secretary Jay Carney, who said “there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack.” He noted that within hours of the email, Ansar al-Shariah “claimed that it had not been responsible — neither should be taken as fact.” What did they know and when? The Tunisian government said Wednesday that it had arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian man who is suspected to have participated in the consulate attack. An Interior Ministry spokesman told The Associated Press that Ali Harzi was being held in the nation’s capital, Tunis. Tunisia sits between Libya and Algeria in North Africa, where authorities regularly cite the threat of al Qaeda-inspired militants. The State Department declined to comment on the extent to which Tunisian authorities are cooperating with U.S. and Libyan authorities investigating the Benghazi attack. One U.S. intelligence official has described Mr. Harzi as a member of violent extremist networks in the region, according to an article by The Daily Beast, which first reported his arrest Tuesday. The developments amplified an already politically charged debate over why the White House was initially unwilling to characterize the Benghazi attack as one carried out by Islamic extremists. Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the new email undermines “any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that [the attack occurred] in a ‘spontaneous reaction’ to a film trailer posted on the Internet.” He called on the president to release all intelligence reports and analyses about the attack. Although Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” to describe the attack in prepared remarks Sept. 12, other administration officials maintained in ensuing days that the assault — by heavily armed men with mortar support — had grown out of a spontaneous protest against an American-made video disparaging Islam’s Prophet Muhammad. The Benghazi attack happened just hours after demonstrators had stormed the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Although there has been no evidence of a similar protest preceding the attack in Benghazi, some in the intelligence community continue to say the incidents in Libya and Egypt are connected. One U.S. intelligence official recently told The Washington Times that “there was and still is information that suggests the attackers in Benghazi were influenced by the scenes they saw in Cairo of protesters scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy.” The Times reported Oct. 3 that U.S. military intelligence was spreading the word inside the Pentagon the day after the attack that an al Qaeda-linked group was likely responsible for the assault. Analysts note confusion Independent analysts cited confusion Wednesday over the initial email circulated among administration officials on the night of the attack. The email focused on Ansar al-Shariah, an Arabic name that means “supporters of Islamic law” and is thought to be used by al Qaeda supporters in Libya and other parts of the Middle East. Aaron Y. Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors Arabic-language websites tied to extremist groups in the region, said he had no record of any direct claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Shariah that night. “I was following that specific Facebook page very closely because this was considered to be the official page of Ansar al-Shariah, and I don’t have any archived record of that posting at that time,” he said, adding that the email’s authors “could have been mistaken or they could be referring to something else completely.” He said that on Sept. 12 — several hours after the initial email circulated among Obama administration officials — Ansar al-Shariah did make a Facebook posting in which it said it had not ordered the attack. “They said that they were not involved in an official manner but they applauded the attack,” said Mr. Zelin, who added that the Facebook page for the group has since been removed. Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal and a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the group may have posted and then deleted a statement on its Facebook page in hopes that the attack would appear as a popular expression of rage rather than a militarized assault that involved at least some planning and reconnaissance. The statement that did appear on the group’s Facebook page Sept. 12, Mr. Roggio said, “was that their members took part but they were trying to portray it as a popular uprising-type event.” The fact that Ansar al-Shariah ultimately said it wasn’t part of the attack in an “official manner” suggests “there were members in the group that were involved in an individual capacity in the attack insofar as that it wasn’t ordered from the top of the group,” Mr. Zelin said. As for the apparent inaccuracies in the initial swirl of emails among the Obama administration’s national security officials in Libya and in Washington, retired Army Col. Thomas F. Lynch III said that during the first 24 hours after such an attack, “You wind up with a lot of reporting” from different people and “some of it inevitably [is] contradictory or ambiguous.” Col. Lynch, who served until July 2010 as a special adviser on counterterrorism to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now is a research scholar at the National Defense University, said understanding the significance of the newly revealed email will require knowing certain answers. “How many different lines of reporting were there that evening?” he asked. “How many mentioned whether or not there had been a reliable claim of responsibility?” Answers were hard to find Wednesday at the State Department, where officials stressed that the point of the federally mandated Accountability Review Board now investigating the Benghazi attack is to examine such questions in an environment free of election-year politics. “Look, I’ve said it and I’ll say it one more time,” Mrs. Clinton said. “No one wants to find out what happened more than I do. We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people because not only they but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world deserve no less.” Sign up for Daily Newsletters Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.	www.washingtontimes.com	1right	NDlMEuyDDN4ROhIt
immigration	NPR Online News	11	http://www.npr.org/2016/08/30/491804727/is-trump-flip-flopping-on-immigration-yes-or-no-its-sure-been-confusing	Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration? Yes Or No, It's Sure Been Confusing	2016-08-30	Danielle Kurtzleben	Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration ? Yes Or No , It 's Sure Been Confusing Donald Trump will give a speech Wednesday outlining his immigration stance . Given the last week of news coverage , he could have some serious explaining to do . An immigration policy centered around extreme positions — mass deportation of 11 million immigrants in the country illegally , plus building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — initially helped Trump stand out in the massive Republican primary field . So it was a surprise when , last week , the Trump campaign seemed to change direction , indicating that he was open to `` softening '' his immigration position , and even at one point that he might be open to a path to legalization for some of those immigrants . Here 's a quick rundown of some of the things the campaign has said about immigration in the past week . Aug. 20 — Members of Donald Trump 's Hispanic advisory council said Trump was open to relaxing his immigration stance , Buzzfeed reports . Trump said his solution for how to deal with 11 million people in the country illegally `` must be something that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner , '' according to immigration attorney Jacob Monty , who attended the meeting . The Trump campaign later released a statement dismissing the Buzzfeed report , saying that Trump 's position had not changed . Aug. 21 — CNN 's Dana Bash asks Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway about Trump 's November promise to create a deportation force . Conway first demurs , then says it 's still `` to be determined . '' Meanwhile , members of Trump 's Hispanic advisory council do not verify to NBC News that Trump would advocate a legalization plan . Immigration lawyer Monty says he is hoping for specific policies like a guest-worker program and a `` touchback '' system , in which immigrants in the U.S. illegally would go back to their home countries and then come back through the visa process . ( Another version of `` touchbacks '' is for immigrants to not go back to a home country but to go to a consulate or embassy of that country to apply . ) Aug. 22 — Trump postpones a planned immigration speech in Colorado . In an email explaining the postponement , the Trump campaign says the speech `` is still being modified , '' according to the Denver Post . Trump tells Fox & Friends that he 's not reversing his position . `` No , I 'm not flip-flopping , '' he said . `` We want to come up with a really fair , but firm , answer . That 's — it has to be very firm . But we want to come up with something fair . '' Aug. 23 — In a town hall with Fox 's Sean Hannity , Trump says `` there could certainly be a softening '' in his stance on immigration , adding that `` the bad ones '' need to be kicked out of the U.S . Meanwhile , he says there could be some leniency for law-abiding immigrants , intimating he would be open to legalization but not full citizenship . `` No citizenship , '' he said , adding , `` Let me go a step further — they 'll pay back taxes ; they have to pay taxes ; there 's no amnesty , as such , there 's no amnesty , but we work with them . '' Conway tells CNN that Trump 's `` softening '' response in the Hannity town hall is `` very consonant with what [ Trump ] said all along . '' She adds that Trump `` wants to find a fair and humane way and effective way to address the fact that roughly 11 million illegal immigrants live among us . '' Wednesday — When a West Palm Beach , Fla. , CBS affiliate asks Trump about his shifting immigration policy , he insists that he still has a tough stance , but is vague on exactly what that stance is . `` Well , I 'm going to announce something over the next two weeks , '' he said , `` but it 's going to be a very firm policy . '' According to CBS , he later adds , `` We 're going to build a wall , it 's got to be a very powerful wall . But we want people to come into our country , but we want them to come in legally , but we 're going to be very , very strong on immigration . '' Thursday — Trump tells CNN 's Anderson Cooper that he is actually not open to a pathway to legalization . `` There 's no path to legalization unless they leave the country , '' he said . `` When they come back in , then they can start paying taxes , but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and then come back . '' Campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson tells CNN that it 's only Trump 's rhetoric — not policy — that has changed . `` He has n't changed his position on immigration , '' she contended . `` He 's changed the words that he is saying . '' Saturday — In a speech in Des Moines , Iowa , Trump calls immigration a `` civil rights issue '' and emphasizes his plans to remove some — but not all — people who are in the country illegally . `` On Day One , '' he said , `` I am going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country , including removing the hundreds of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants that have been released into U.S. communities under the Obama-Clinton administration . '' Sunday — Conway tells CBS ' John Dickerson that Trump 's position has n't changed , this time saying that Trump `` is not talking about a deportation force . '' Trump 's vice presidential pick Mike Pence tells CNN 's Jake Tapper : `` There will be no path to legalization , no path to citizenship , unless people leave the country . '' Trump also tweets that he will give a major immigration speech in Arizona on Wednesday . Monday — New reports of policy specifics bounce around the media . Though Trump 's calls for a wall remained steady throughout this period , NBC 's Hallie Jackson reported that Trump may now be calling for a `` virtual wall , '' as MSNBC 's Ari Melber tweets : CNN 's Jim Acosta also tweets that a Trump adviser told him that Trump now wants to `` Secure border first . Then have conversation on what to do with undocumented 'years from now . ' `` However , Trump spokesman Jason Miller tells NPR that the `` virtual wall '' report is false — `` There 's going to be a physical wall '' — and that Acosta 's report is also `` erroneous . '' One main message from the campaign : This is n't a change These interviews , speeches and tweets do n't at all make it clear what Trump 's Wednesday speech will say . For now , at least two uniform messages are clear : ( 1 ) that Trump wants to be `` fair '' and `` humane '' in however he eventually deals with the 11 million people in the country illegally , and ( 2 ) that his immigration policy has not changed . Should he eventually back away from a deportation force and push a path to legalization , as his campaign at times in the past two weeks has suggested he could do , it would be a seismic shift for a candidate who has made immigration a linchpin of his campaign . Trump has flip-flopped on a number of issues ( abortion , H1-B visas , Syrian refugees ) , but this would be a particularly massive change . The label `` flip-flopper '' is a particularly sharp barb that can inflict irreparable damage on a campaign — just ask 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry . However , flip-flops are n't uniformly harmful , as NPR 's Mara Liasson wrote in 2008 . Occasionally , a flip-flop can even be a positive — if not , ever-calculating politicians would n't commit this political sin so often . Liasson pointed to William Safire 's New Political Dictionary , which acknowledges the potential upside of a flip-flop : `` Although the term is always pejorative and brings an irate denial , a refusal to flip-flop in the light of changing circumstances can be a sign of rigidity ; a willingness to flip-flop is expressed by supporters as evidence of flexibility . '' Should Trump overhaul his immigration policy , it would show he 's willing to gamble that that flexibility will draw in some Hispanics ( and perhaps moderate Republicans ) without scaring off his most loyal supporters . Many Trump supporters would seem to be fans of at least some rigidity ( see : ever-present chants of `` build the wall '' ) . However , others say they not only want Trump to be flexible on his policies , but believe he already is quite flexible . `` [ N ] ot everything Trump says is true — I mean , it 's not true like it 's in concrete , '' Nevada voter Judy Callahan told NPR 's Sarah McCammon recently . `` He said he would stop the border flow , he would build some kind of wall , and he would work on the people that are here . That 's all there is ; the rest of it 's kind of fluff . '' Others said they assume his policy positions are merely starting points for a negotiation . This has been a popular theme among his voters , reported by other outlets , as well . Trump seems to bank on some voters being OK with fuzzy positions ; as he told Time , `` My voters do n't care , and the public does n't care '' about specific policy proposals . He may not want to be saddled with the flip-flopper label , but he has indicated that he 's happy to shift his positions . And as he told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos on his shifting economic policy proposals , `` Sure , it 's a change . I 'm allowed to change . You need flexibility , George , whether it 's a tax plan , where you 're going — where you know you 're going to negotiate . '' Trump has many , many flip-flops to his name , but he is n't alone in shifting positions ; Hillary Clinton has famously pulled a U-turn on the Asia trade deal , the Trans-Pacific Partnership , or TPP . She moved from supporting it years ago to saying she does n't support it in its current form . Many perceived that as a reaction to Bernie Sanders ' successful populist campaign . Making matters worse for Clinton , Virginia Gov . Terry McAuliffe ( a longtime Clinton associate ) suggested that she might change her position again ( though he later clarified that he does n't expect her position to change ) . Should that happen , Clinton 's supporters likewise might not punish her — 55 percent of Clinton supporters say the deal would be a `` good thing '' for the U.S. , according to the Pew Research Center , compared with only 24 percent who say it would be a `` bad thing . '' All of which is to say that Safire 's `` changing circumstances '' certainly seem capable of changing even a candidate 's most significant policy positions . And given the overhaul of Trump 's campaign leadership amid a persistent polling deficit , the Trump campaign has had plenty of `` changing circumstances '' this summer .	Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration? Yes Or No, It's Sure Been Confusing Enlarge this image toggle caption Stephen Maturen/Getty Images Stephen Maturen/Getty Images Donald Trump will give a speech Wednesday outlining his immigration stance. Given the last week of news coverage, he could have some serious explaining to do. An immigration policy centered around extreme positions — mass deportation of 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, plus building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — initially helped Trump stand out in the massive Republican primary field. So it was a surprise when, last week, the Trump campaign seemed to change direction, indicating that he was open to "softening" his immigration position, and even at one point that he might be open to a path to legalization for some of those immigrants. Here's a quick rundown of some of the things the campaign has said about immigration in the past week. Aug. 20 — Members of Donald Trump's Hispanic advisory council said Trump was open to relaxing his immigration stance, Buzzfeed reports. Trump said his solution for how to deal with 11 million people in the country illegally "must be something that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner," according to immigration attorney Jacob Monty, who attended the meeting. The Trump campaign later released a statement dismissing the Buzzfeed report, saying that Trump's position had not changed. Aug. 21 — CNN's Dana Bash asks Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway about Trump's November promise to create a deportation force. Conway first demurs, then says it's still "to be determined." Meanwhile, members of Trump's Hispanic advisory council do not verify to NBC News that Trump would advocate a legalization plan. Immigration lawyer Monty says he is hoping for specific policies like a guest-worker program and a "touchback" system, in which immigrants in the U.S. illegally would go back to their home countries and then come back through the visa process. (Another version of "touchbacks" is for immigrants to not go back to a home country but to go to a consulate or embassy of that country to apply.) Aug. 22 — Trump postpones a planned immigration speech in Colorado. In an email explaining the postponement, the Trump campaign says the speech "is still being modified," according to the Denver Post. Trump tells Fox & Friends that he's not reversing his position. "No, I'm not flip-flopping," he said. "We want to come up with a really fair, but firm, answer. That's — it has to be very firm. But we want to come up with something fair." Aug. 23 — In a town hall with Fox's Sean Hannity, Trump says "there could certainly be a softening" in his stance on immigration, adding that "the bad ones" need to be kicked out of the U.S. Meanwhile, he says there could be some leniency for law-abiding immigrants, intimating he would be open to legalization but not full citizenship. Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com "No citizenship," he said, adding, "Let me go a step further — they'll pay back taxes; they have to pay taxes; there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them." Conway tells CNN that Trump's "softening" response in the Hannity town hall is "very consonant with what [Trump] said all along." She adds that Trump "wants to find a fair and humane way and effective way to address the fact that roughly 11 million illegal immigrants live among us." Wednesday — When a West Palm Beach, Fla., CBS affiliate asks Trump about his shifting immigration policy, he insists that he still has a tough stance, but is vague on exactly what that stance is. "Well, I'm going to announce something over the next two weeks," he said, "but it's going to be a very firm policy." According to CBS, he later adds, "We're going to build a wall, it's got to be a very powerful wall. But we want people to come into our country, but we want them to come in legally, but we're going to be very, very strong on immigration." Thursday — Trump tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that he is actually not open to a pathway to legalization. "There's no path to legalization unless they leave the country," he said. "When they come back in, then they can start paying taxes, but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and then come back." Campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson tells CNN that it's only Trump's rhetoric — not policy — that has changed. "He hasn't changed his position on immigration," she contended. "He's changed the words that he is saying." Saturday — In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Trump calls immigration a "civil rights issue" and emphasizes his plans to remove some — but not all — people who are in the country illegally. "On Day One," he said, "I am going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country, including removing the hundreds of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants that have been released into U.S. communities under the Obama-Clinton administration." Sunday — Conway tells CBS' John Dickerson that Trump's position hasn't changed, this time saying that Trump "is not talking about a deportation force." Trump's vice presidential pick Mike Pence tells CNN's Jake Tapper: "There will be no path to legalization, no path to citizenship, unless people leave the country." Trump also tweets that he will give a major immigration speech in Arizona on Wednesday. Monday — New reports of policy specifics bounce around the media. Though Trump's calls for a wall remained steady throughout this period, NBC's Hallie Jackson reported that Trump may now be calling for a "virtual wall," as MSNBC's Ari Melber tweets: CNN's Jim Acosta also tweets that a Trump adviser told him that Trump now wants to "Secure border first. Then have conversation on what to do with undocumented 'years from now.' " However, Trump spokesman Jason Miller tells NPR that the "virtual wall" report is false — "There's going to be a physical wall" — and that Acosta's report is also "erroneous." One main message from the campaign: This isn't a change These interviews, speeches and tweets don't at all make it clear what Trump's Wednesday speech will say. For now, at least two uniform messages are clear: (1) that Trump wants to be "fair" and "humane" in however he eventually deals with the 11 million people in the country illegally, and (2) that his immigration policy has not changed. Should he eventually back away from a deportation force and push a path to legalization, as his campaign at times in the past two weeks has suggested he could do, it would be a seismic shift for a candidate who has made immigration a linchpin of his campaign. Trump has flip-flopped on a number of issues (abortion, H1-B visas, Syrian refugees), but this would be a particularly massive change. The label "flip-flopper" is a particularly sharp barb that can inflict irreparable damage on a campaign — just ask 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. However, flip-flops aren't uniformly harmful, as NPR's Mara Liasson wrote in 2008. Occasionally, a flip-flop can even be a positive — if not, ever-calculating politicians wouldn't commit this political sin so often. Liasson pointed to William Safire's New Political Dictionary, which acknowledges the potential upside of a flip-flop: "Although the term is always pejorative and brings an irate denial, a refusal to flip-flop in the light of changing circumstances can be a sign of rigidity; a willingness to flip-flop is expressed by supporters as evidence of flexibility." Should Trump overhaul his immigration policy, it would show he's willing to gamble that that flexibility will draw in some Hispanics (and perhaps moderate Republicans) without scaring off his most loyal supporters. Some Trump voters don't even expect firm policies Many Trump supporters would seem to be fans of at least some rigidity (see: ever-present chants of "build the wall"). However, others say they not only want Trump to be flexible on his policies, but believe he already is quite flexible. "[N]ot everything Trump says is true — I mean, it's not true like it's in concrete," Nevada voter Judy Callahan told NPR's Sarah McCammon recently. "He said he would stop the border flow, he would build some kind of wall, and he would work on the people that are here. That's all there is; the rest of it's kind of fluff." Others said they assume his policy positions are merely starting points for a negotiation. This has been a popular theme among his voters, reported by other outlets, as well. Trump seems to bank on some voters being OK with fuzzy positions; as he told Time, "My voters don't care, and the public doesn't care" about specific policy proposals. He may not want to be saddled with the flip-flopper label, but he has indicated that he's happy to shift his positions. And as he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on his shifting economic policy proposals, "Sure, it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility, George, whether it's a tax plan, where you're going — where you know you're going to negotiate." Trump has many, many flip-flops to his name, but he isn't alone in shifting positions; Hillary Clinton has famously pulled a U-turn on the Asia trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. She moved from supporting it years ago to saying she doesn't support it in its current form. Many perceived that as a reaction to Bernie Sanders' successful populist campaign. Making matters worse for Clinton, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (a longtime Clinton associate) suggested that she might change her position again (though he later clarified that he doesn't expect her position to change). Should that happen, Clinton's supporters likewise might not punish her — 55 percent of Clinton supporters say the deal would be a "good thing" for the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center, compared with only 24 percent who say it would be a "bad thing." All of which is to say that Safire's "changing circumstances" certainly seem capable of changing even a candidate's most significant policy positions. And given the overhaul of Trump's campaign leadership amid a persistent polling deficit, the Trump campaign has had plenty of "changing circumstances" this summer.	www.npr.org	2center	fwQaIWV4c8c6CtJp
white_house	Newsmax	22	http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-approval-rating-plummets/2013/10/09/id/530025	AP Poll: Obama Approval Plummets to 37	2013-10-09	Todd Beamon	Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare ? Vote Here . Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh attacked survey results released on Wednesday that blamed Republicans for the federal shutdown while burying the news that President Barack Obama 's approval ratings had plunged to 37 percent among Americans surveyed . `` The point is , once again , there is no media , there is no news , '' the conservative host said , according to a transcript of his afternoon program . `` This is the Democrat Party with activists disguised as journalists . Thirty-seven percent approval . `` And it 's not some outlier poll , '' Limbaugh continued . `` You have to read over halfway down into that story to learn that . I have n't seen it anywhere else . It 's been on AP , but have you seen anybody else pick that up ? It 's just classic . `` The article was on the Associated Press-GfK survey of 1,227 probable voters conducted Oct. 3-7 , with a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points . `` Americans are holding Republicans primarily responsible for the partial government shutdown as public esteem sinks for all players in the impasse , President Barack Obama among them , according to a new poll , '' the report began . `` It 's a struggle with no heroes . `` The article then disclosed that 62 percent of respondents `` mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown '' and that `` the poll found that the tea party is more than a gang of malcontents in the political landscape , as its supporters in Congress have been portrayed by Democrats . `` Rather , it 's a sizable — and divisive — force among Republicans , '' the AP report said.But in the seventh paragraph appears the first — and only — reference to Obama 's new approval ratings : `` Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job , the poll suggests , with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it . `` Congress is scraping rock bottom , with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent . `` The report was published by such mainstream media outlets as The Washington Post The Huffington Post , andThe information appeared in the seventh paragraph of The Huffington Post 's story and in the eighth paragraph of those published in The Washington Post and on NPR.Limbaugh charged that such coverage was wrong about what was actually occurring in Washington . `` If you are a conservative media guy inside the Beltway , you 're convinced that Obama 's winning everything , '' he said . `` If you 're a conservative media guy inside the Beltway and you 're subjected to that narrative each and every day , you think the Republicans are really getting shellacked . You think they 're taking it on the chin . `` It 's the exact opposite , '' Limbaugh said . `` It 's the exact opposite of what 's happening outside the Beltway . `` `` The president 's at 37 percent . The shutdown is going on . Now we learn that five military families were insulted profoundly with the way the deaths of their service-member relatives were treated . `` It is obvious that this administration is acting purposely to inconvenience and to harm people it considers its political enemies , '' Limbaugh said.Further , Limbaugh contrasted the coverage of Obama 's new 37 percent rating with coverage by Wolf Blitzer of CNN of its poll on March 13 , 2006 , when Republican President George W. Bush 's rating hit a new low of 36 percent . `` The president 's job-approval rating has taken a downward turn again , falling to only 36 percent , '' the Blitzer excerpt began , according to the Limbaugh transcript . `` This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll … The president 's poll numbers are pretty bad , pretty awful right now , rock bottom … '' '' Today , Barack Obama 's approval number 's at 37 percent , and they are not talking about it , '' Limbaugh said Wednesday . `` The AP story in which that poll result is announced has the following headline : `` Poll : GOP Gets the Blame in Shutdown . '' They have a poll that shows that 71 percent of the American people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown . `` In the same poll , 50 percent are blaming the Democrats for something , but the media says : `` Look , 20 percent spread . Boy , the Republicans are really taking it on the chin for the government shutdown . ' But the poll does not say people are upset with the shutdown . `` It 's journalistic malpractice , '' Limbaugh concluded , `` except it 's not — because it 's not journalism . `` Among other findings , the AP poll showed that more than 4 in 10 Republicans identified with the tea party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff over reopening government and avoiding a default of the nation 's debt in coming weeks . Indeed , the poll showed that everyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for their trouble , whether Democrat Harry Reid , the Senate majority leader , or Republican John Boehner , the House speaker , both with favorability ratings of 18 percent . And much of the country draws a blank on Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas despite his 21-hour Senate speech before the shutdown . Only half of the poll respondents were familiar enough with him to register an opinion . Among those who did , 32 percent viewed him unfavorably , 16 percent favorably . Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country , including majorities of Republicans ( 58 percent ) , Democrats ( 82 percent ) and independents ( 57 percent ) . Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown ; 63 percent say Republicans are n't doing enough to cooperate with him . Republicans are split on just how much cooperation they want . Among those who do not back the tea party , fully 48 percent say their party should be doing more with Obama to find a solution . But only 15 percent of tea-party Republicans want that outreach . The vast majority of them say GOP leaders are doing what they should with the president , or should do even less with him . People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit . Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government 's ability to borrow is n't renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit — an expectation widely shared by economists . Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit ; 46 percent were neutral on the question . More than 4 in 5 poll respondents felt no personal impact from the shutdown . For those who did , thwarted vacations to national parks , difficulty getting work done without federal contacts at their desks , and hitches in government benefits were among the complaints . `` So frustrating , '' Martha Blair , 71 , of Kerrville , Texas , said of the fiscal paralysis as her scheduled national parks vacation sits in limbo . `` Somebody needs to jerk those guys together to get a solution , instead of just saying no . '' Blair 's nine-day trip to national parks with a tour group wo n't happen if the parks are still closed next month . `` I 'm concerned , '' she said , `` but it seems kind of trivial to people who are being shut out of work . '' In Mount Prospect , Ill. , Barbara Olpinski , 51 , a Republican who blames Obama and both parties for the shutdown , said her family is already seeing an impact and that will worsen if the impasse goes on . She 's an in-home elderly-care director , her daughter is a physician 's assistant at a rural clinic that treats patients who rely on government coverage , and her husband is a doctor who ca n't get flu vaccines for patients on public assistance because deliveries have stopped . `` People do n't know how they are going to pay for things , and what will be covered , '' she said . `` Everybody is kind of like holding their wallets . '' Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare ? Vote Here .	Urgent: Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare? Vote Here. Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh attacked survey results released on Wednesday that blamed Republicans for the federal shutdown while burying the news that President Barack Obama's approval ratings had plunged to 37 percent among Americans surveyed."The point is, once again, there is no media, there is no news," the conservative host said, according to a transcript of his afternoon program. "This is the Democrat Party with activists disguised as journalists. Thirty-seven percent approval."And it's not some outlier poll," Limbaugh continued. "You have to read over halfway down into that story to learn that. I haven't seen it anywhere else. It's been on AP, but have you seen anybody else pick that up? It's just classic."The article was on the Associated Press-GfK survey of 1,227 probable voters conducted Oct. 3-7, with a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points."Americans are holding Republicans primarily responsible for the partial government shutdown as public esteem sinks for all players in the impasse, President Barack Obama among them, according to a new poll," the report began. "It's a struggle with no heroes."The article then disclosed that 62 percent of respondents "mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown" and that "the poll found that the tea party is more than a gang of malcontents in the political landscape, as its supporters in Congress have been portrayed by Democrats."Rather, it's a sizable — and divisive — force among Republicans," the AP report said.But in the seventh paragraph appears the first — and only — reference to Obama's new approval ratings: "Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it."Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent."The report was published by such mainstream media outlets as The Washington Post The Huffington Post , andThe information appeared in the seventh paragraph of The Huffington Post's story and in the eighth paragraph of those published in The Washington Post and on NPR.Limbaugh charged that such coverage was wrong about what was actually occurring in Washington."If you are a conservative media guy inside the Beltway, you're convinced that Obama's winning everything," he said. "If you're a conservative media guy inside the Beltway and you're subjected to that narrative each and every day, you think the Republicans are really getting shellacked. You think they're taking it on the chin."It's the exact opposite," Limbaugh said. "It's the exact opposite of what's happening outside the Beltway.""The president's at 37 percent. The shutdown is going on. Now we learn that five military families were insulted profoundly with the way the deaths of their service-member relatives were treated."It is obvious that this administration is acting purposely to inconvenience and to harm people it considers its political enemies," Limbaugh said.Further, Limbaugh contrasted the coverage of Obama's new 37 percent rating with coverage by Wolf Blitzer of CNN of its poll on March 13, 2006, when Republican President George W. Bush's rating hit a new low of 36 percent."The president's job-approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36 percent," the Blitzer excerpt began, according to the Limbaugh transcript. "This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll … The president's poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom …""Today, Barack Obama's approval number's at 37 percent, and they are not talking about it," Limbaugh said Wednesday. "The AP story in which that poll result is announced has the following headline: "Poll: GOP Gets the Blame in Shutdown." They have a poll that shows that 71 percent of the American people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown."In the same poll, 50 percent are blaming the Democrats for something, but the media says: ''Look, 20 percent spread. Boy, the Republicans are really taking it on the chin for the government shutdown.' But the poll does not say people are upset with the shutdown."It's journalistic malpractice," Limbaugh concluded, "except it's not — because it's not journalism."Among other findings, the AP poll showed that more than 4 in 10 Republicans identified with the tea party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff over reopening government and avoiding a default of the nation's debt in coming weeks. Indeed, the poll showed that everyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for their trouble, whether Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, or Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, both with favorability ratings of 18 percent. And much of the country draws a blank on Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas despite his 21-hour Senate speech before the shutdown. Only half of the poll respondents were familiar enough with him to register an opinion. Among those who did, 32 percent viewed him unfavorably, 16 percent favorably. Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country, including majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (82 percent) and independents (57 percent). Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren't doing enough to cooperate with him. Republicans are split on just how much cooperation they want. Among those who do not back the tea party, fully 48 percent say their party should be doing more with Obama to find a solution. But only 15 percent of tea-party Republicans want that outreach. The vast majority of them say GOP leaders are doing what they should with the president, or should do even less with him. People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit. Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government's ability to borrow isn't renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit — an expectation widely shared by economists. Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit; 46 percent were neutral on the question. More than 4 in 5 poll respondents felt no personal impact from the shutdown. For those who did, thwarted vacations to national parks, difficulty getting work done without federal contacts at their desks, and hitches in government benefits were among the complaints. "So frustrating," Martha Blair, 71, of Kerrville, Texas, said of the fiscal paralysis as her scheduled national parks vacation sits in limbo. "Somebody needs to jerk those guys together to get a solution, instead of just saying no." Blair's nine-day trip to national parks with a tour group won't happen if the parks are still closed next month. "I'm concerned," she said, "but it seems kind of trivial to people who are being shut out of work." In Mount Prospect, Ill., Barbara Olpinski, 51, a Republican who blames Obama and both parties for the shutdown, said her family is already seeing an impact and that will worsen if the impasse goes on. She's an in-home elderly-care director, her daughter is a physician's assistant at a rural clinic that treats patients who rely on government coverage, and her husband is a doctor who can't get flu vaccines for patients on public assistance because deliveries have stopped. "People don't know how they are going to pay for things, and what will be covered," she said. "Everybody is kind of like holding their wallets." The Associated Press contributed to this report. Urgent: Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare? Vote Here.	www.newsmax.com	1right	BdiRCf8vio28EAki
elections	Fox News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/11/trump-data-card-key-to-winning-white-house.html	The Trump data card: Key to winning the White House	2015-12-11	Sreedhar Potarazu, Chairman Of Wellzone	You can call Donald Trump a lot of things – and heaven knows almost everyone has – but you can ’ t call him stupid . He ’ s the lead story on every newscast , the hashtag of all hashtags on social media . And he ’ s gotten there by defying every convention . The bombastic billionaire has generated controversy and widespread contempt since he announced his candidacy for president in June , yet the latest New York Times/CBS News poll gives him 35 percent of the Republican vote – more than double the 16 percent of runner-up Ted Cruz . Trump has defied the experts for six months , so have no doubt about it : He is very , very smart . He knows exactly what he ’ s doing . The Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary are right around the corner , but two months is an eternity in American politics . There ’ s nothing that can ’ t be turned upside down in a few short weeks . And that ’ s why every other candidate for president , whether Democrat or Republican , should be spending a lot less time right now condemning what Trump is saying . Instead , they should be devoting their time and effort to learning why he ’ s winning . All they need to do is look at the data . Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don ’ t like – and why . From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims , all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on . Politics is all about data now , and Trump is generating more of it every day than all the other candidates combined in a week . But every time he says something provocative – which is pretty much every time he speaks – he creates data that can be captured , analyzed and turned against him . We live in a world where data controls everything , and I spend all my time studying how and why . In my case , because I ’ m a physician , it ’ s health data . But the principles are the same , and they ’ re why whoever best corrals the data Trump is generating will be the next president of the United States . In an analysis of his strategy on Thursday , the Washington Post reported that “ Trump uses his Instagram account , which has more than 650,000 followers , to deliver snarky messages and short videos of him scowling as he delivers pronouncements from his Trump Tower desk . On Twitter … Trump has posted more than 6,000 tweets since launching his campaign in June . ” There ’ s your data . Trump – @ realDonaldTrump – has 5.2 million followers on Twitter . Every tweet and retweet , every Facebook post and share , every Instagram blast , every newscast lead , every comment on everything … Everyone ’ s talking about Donald Trump , which means he ’ s generating a trove of data that his opponents should be mining to their advantage . Instead of climbing all over each other every day to condemn him , the other candidates should lean back , take a deep breath and learn from him – because the next president of the United States will be the man or woman who is smart enough to invest in the infrastructure that ’ s needed to organize and analyze the Trump data trove . And with Iowa and New Hampshire coming up fast , the time to make that investment is now . Does data analysis really work ? Ask Barack Obama ; it ’ s why he ’ s been living in the White House for the last seven years . He is the master of using data to win elections by analyzing and identifying undecided voters , learning everything he could about each and every one of them , and then persuading them to vote for him in the final days of the campaign . Jim Messina , who headed Obama ’ s re-election campaign in 2012 , said recently that “ Every night for 18 months , we did 66,000 computer simulations of the election , and that ’ s how we based our tactics… . [ W ] e based it all on big data . ” Obama is the Big Data president , and Trump gets that . The other candidates think traditional rhetoric and campaign slogans appeal to voters , but Trump has tapped into something every TV producer and ad executive knows : Times have changed . To get the ratings or to make the sale , you need to know the audience and make it yours . When advertisers want you to buy something , they provoke you . They grab your attention and use the data on what you ’ re watching to understand your behavior and reel you in . The same applies in television . Nobody ’ s watching `` Little House on the Prairie '' anymore . The shows that get the ratings are the ones that are provocative , edgy , controversial . Trump gets that , and he ’ s brought it to the presidential race . He ’ s shaking up the electorate , forcing them to react . You may not like what he ’ s saying , but you can ’ t deny that it ’ s working . He ’ s been at the top of the polls for months . But that , oddly enough , opens a door for whoever is smart enough to walk through it . A savvy opponent , instead of jumping on what Trump is saying , should be jumping on how people are reacting to what he ’ s saying . Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don ’ t like – and why . From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims , all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on . It ’ s there for anyone who knows how to use it . “ We spent two years and about $ 400 million trying to build up a capacity to predict people ’ s behaviors and match that with social media , ” Messina said , reflecting on Obama ’ s re-election . “ The final 96 hours of the 2012 race , a majority of Americans , for the first time since 1972 , went to the incumbent . And when you ask them why : 76 percent of those said because their friend or family member talked to them on social media and told them why they had to support Barack Obama . ” Any candidate who wants to be standing when Trump falls should memorize those words . Use the data he ’ s generating to learn everything you can about his supporters , and then make them yours . Trump is smart . To beat him , an opponent has to be smart enough to move away from the chorus of critics and use the data he ’ s generating to defeat him . Keep your base , analyze the data , win over his supporters … and the White House will be yours .	You can call Donald Trump a lot of things – and heaven knows almost everyone has – but you can’t call him stupid. He’s the lead story on every newscast, the hashtag of all hashtags on social media. And he’s gotten there by defying every convention. The bombastic billionaire has generated controversy and widespread contempt since he announced his candidacy for president in June, yet the latest New York Times/CBS News poll gives him 35 percent of the Republican vote – more than double the 16 percent of runner-up Ted Cruz. Trump has defied the experts for six months, so have no doubt about it: He is very, very smart. He knows exactly what he’s doing. The Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary are right around the corner, but two months is an eternity in American politics. There’s nothing that can’t be turned upside down in a few short weeks. And that’s why every other candidate for president, whether Democrat or Republican, should be spending a lot less time right now condemning what Trump is saying. Instead, they should be devoting their time and effort to learning why he’s winning. All they need to do is look at the data. Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don’t like – and why. From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims, all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on. Politics is all about data now, and Trump is generating more of it every day than all the other candidates combined in a week. But every time he says something provocative – which is pretty much every time he speaks – he creates data that can be captured, analyzed and turned against him. We live in a world where data controls everything, and I spend all my time studying how and why. In my case, because I’m a physician, it’s health data. But the principles are the same, and they’re why whoever best corrals the data Trump is generating will be the next president of the United States. In an analysis of his strategy on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that “Trump uses his Instagram account, which has more than 650,000 followers, to deliver snarky messages and short videos of him scowling as he delivers pronouncements from his Trump Tower desk. On Twitter … Trump has posted more than 6,000 tweets since launching his campaign in June.” There’s your data. Trump – @realDonaldTrump – has 5.2 million followers on Twitter. Every tweet and retweet, every Facebook post and share, every Instagram blast, every newscast lead, every comment on everything … Everyone’s talking about Donald Trump, which means he’s generating a trove of data that his opponents should be mining to their advantage. Instead of climbing all over each other every day to condemn him, the other candidates should lean back, take a deep breath and learn from him – because the next president of the United States will be the man or woman who is smart enough to invest in the infrastructure that’s needed to organize and analyze the Trump data trove. And with Iowa and New Hampshire coming up fast, the time to make that investment is now. Does data analysis really work? Ask Barack Obama; it’s why he’s been living in the White House for the last seven years. He is the master of using data to win elections by analyzing and identifying undecided voters, learning everything he could about each and every one of them, and then persuading them to vote for him in the final days of the campaign. Jim Messina, who headed Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, said recently that “Every night for 18 months, we did 66,000 computer simulations of the election, and that’s how we based our tactics…. [W]e based it all on big data.” Obama is the Big Data president, and Trump gets that. The other candidates think traditional rhetoric and campaign slogans appeal to voters, but Trump has tapped into something every TV producer and ad executive knows: Times have changed. To get the ratings or to make the sale, you need to know the audience and make it yours. When advertisers want you to buy something, they provoke you. They grab your attention and use the data on what you’re watching to understand your behavior and reel you in. The same applies in television. Nobody’s watching "Little House on the Prairie" anymore. The shows that get the ratings are the ones that are provocative, edgy, controversial. Trump gets that, and he’s brought it to the presidential race. He’s shaking up the electorate, forcing them to react. You may not like what he’s saying, but you can’t deny that it’s working. He’s been at the top of the polls for months. But that, oddly enough, opens a door for whoever is smart enough to walk through it. A savvy opponent, instead of jumping on what Trump is saying, should be jumping on how people are reacting to what he’s saying. Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don’t like – and why. From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims, all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on. It’s there for anyone who knows how to use it. “We spent two years and about $400 million trying to build up a capacity to predict people’s behaviors and match that with social media,” Messina said, reflecting on Obama’s re-election. “The final 96 hours of the 2012 race, a majority of Americans, for the first time since 1972, went to the incumbent. And when you ask them why: 76 percent of those said because their friend or family member talked to them on social media and told them why they had to support Barack Obama.” Any candidate who wants to be standing when Trump falls should memorize those words. Use the data he’s generating to learn everything you can about his supporters, and then make them yours. Trump is smart. To beat him, an opponent has to be smart enough to move away from the chorus of critics and use the data he’s generating to defeat him. Keep your base, analyze the data, win over his supporters … and the White House will be yours.	www.foxnews.com	1right	kMDFJP2dMbu9DBzf
asia	Human Rights Watch	11	https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/15/india-end-bias-prosecuting-delhi-violence	End Bias in Prosecuting Delhi Violence	2020-06-15		Click to expand Image Indians protesting against the new citizenship law and verification policies at Shaheen Bagh , a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Delhi that became the iconic image of these protests , January 31 , 2020 . ( Photo by Amarjeet Kumar Singh / SOPA Images/Sipa USA ) © Sipa via AP Images ( New York ) – Indian authorities should immediately drop politically-motivated charges against those peacefully protesting against citizenship policies that discriminate against Muslims and release them from custody , ███ said today . Police have used draconian anti-terrorism , sedition , and other laws against students , activists , and other government critics , but have not acted against violence by supporters of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) . In some cases , the police filed new charges after activists were granted bail to ensure that they remained in custody , placing them at further risk during the Covid-19 outbreak in overcrowded prisons with inadequate sanitation , hygiene , and access to medical care . “ The Indian authorities have used the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown to arrest activists , silence dissent , and deter future protests against discriminatory policies , ” said Meenakshi Ganguly , South Asia director at ███ . “ Instead of addressing past police abuse , the authorities seem to be trying their best to add to the list . ” In December 2019 , the BJP-led government adopted the Citizenship Amendment Act , which for the first time in India makes religion a basis for citizenship . In response , protests broke out throughout the country following fears that the act , together with a planned nationwide verification process to identify “ illegal migrants , ” could threaten the citizenship rights of millions of Indian Muslims . Violence around the protests broke out in Delhi on February 24 , 2020 , leaving at least 53 people dead and hundreds injured , most of them Muslim . The police failed to respond adequately and were at times complicit in these attacks . The authorities have failed to conduct impartial and transparent investigations into the violence . While peaceful protests were dispersed after the government announced a lockdown in March 2020 to contain the spread of Covid-19 , the authorities have since started arresting protesters , including students and activists , and filing charges of sedition , murder , and terrorism under the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention ) Act ( UAPA ) , accusing them of a “ conspiracy ” to “ defame the country in the international arena . ” Those arrested include Meeran Haider , Safoora Zargar , Asif Iqbal Tanha , and Gulfisha Fatima , student activists ; Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Khalid Saifi , activists ; Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal , student activists from the feminist collective Pinjra Tod ; Tahir Hussain , a local political leader from Aam Aadmi Party ; and Ishrat Jahan , local leader from the opposition Congress party . Zargar , arrested on April 10 for rioting , was granted bail three days later . But that day the police booked her under the UAPA and for murder and sedition . She was denied bail on those charges despite her being in the second trimester of pregnancy and having an underlying medical condition , two factors that could place her at heightened risk of complications if she were to contract Covid-19 . Kalita and Narwal were granted bail after being arrested for rioting . In Kalita ’ s case , the magistrate noted that the police could not produce any concrete evidence to prove her role in the violence . However , the Delhi police immediately booked them on other charges , including sedition , murder , and under the UAPA , and they remain in jail . Violence broke out in Delhi on February 24 , soon after a local BJP politician , Kapil Mishra , demanded that the police clear the roads of protesters . Tensions had been building for weeks , with BJP leaders openly advocating violence against the protesters , portraying anyone who spoke out against the government as working against the country ’ s interests . Clashes between BJP supporters and citizenship law protesters soon transformed into Hindu mobs rampaging through northeast Delhi , killing Muslims and damaging their homes , shops , mosques , and property . While several Hindus were also killed , including a policeman and a government official , Muslims overwhelmingly bore the brunt of the violence . Activists fear the police have overwhelmingly arrested Muslim residents from northeast Delhi neighborhoods where the violence took place in February , some of them victims of attacks , while failing to act against those responsible for the mob violence . The Delhi police have denied these allegations , saying the number of people arrested from the two communities are “ almost identical to each other , ” but have failed to disclose arrest details . The authorities have even provided contradictory information . In March , Home Minister Amit Shah told parliament that the violence was a “ well-planned conspiracy ” and that the police had filed over 700 cases , and detained 2,647 people . In a media briefing a day later , the Delhi police said that 200 people had been arrested . A month later , in reply to a Right to Information request , the Delhi police claimed that 48 people had been arrested . In May , a police spokesperson said that more than 1,300 people had been arrested in over 750 cases . In several cases , ███ found that the police did not follow procedures established under the criminal code such as producing an arrest warrant , informing the person ’ s family of the arrest , and providing them a copy of the First Information Report , the official police case , or ensuring that those arrested have access to legal counsel , including during interrogation . A lawyer reported that his 45-year-old client was accused of looting and burning a shop as part of a mob . On April 2 , when the man and his wife were not at home , several policemen barged into their house , searched it , and took their younger son to the police station . His son was released only when the man presented himself to the police , who detained him without telling him or his wife of his charges . His wife was given a copy of the First Information Report after 10 days . He was not able to meet or speak to his lawyer until he received bail over two months later . A 35-year-old man who was shot and injured during the violence in Delhi in February was detained without a warrant on April 7 , his lawyer said . His family went to three police stations to inquire about his whereabouts but were given no information . They were eventually informed that he had been arrested but were not given a copy of the First Information Report . His lawyer had to apply for his records through the courts and found out that he was charged with murder . He remains in jail . Due to the Covid-19 lockdown , those arrested have limited to no access to legal counsel or to family members . A 21-year-old man was arrested on April 7 on charges of rioting and arson . His lawyer told ███ that she is yet to meet her client : “ At the beginning of the lockdown , access to court records was a huge challenge . Generally , people being arrested were being sent into judicial remand without a lawyer present . I have had no contact with my client . Under normal circumstances , he would have been produced in court every 14 days and I would check on his health , have a conversation with him , move an application if he needs anything , but I can not do any of that now . ” Activists and students across the country , especially in BJP-ruled states , continue to be targeted for participating in anti-citizenship law protests . In Uttar Pradesh state , Farhan Zuberi , a student at Aligarh Muslim University , was arrested on charges of sedition , rioting , and attempted murder . Dr. Kafeel Khan was initially arrested for promoting enmity between groups for a speech during the protests , but after he received bail on February 11 , he was charged under the draconian National Security Act and kept in custody . In Assam state , the police arrested several activists , charging some of them with sedition and under the UAPA . In January , Delhi police charged a university student , Sharjeel Imam , with sedition and he remains in jail . In February , Amulya Leona Noronha was arrested for sedition in Karnataka for raising the slogans for Pakistan and India unity at a protest but released on bail after over three months in detention because the authorities failed to file charges within the 90-day mandated time period . ███ previously documented that the authorities responded to the largely peaceful protests in a partisan manner . In many cases , when BJP-affiliated groups attacked protesters , the police did not intervene . Nor have the authorities taken any action against BJP leaders who incited violence against the protesters , calling to “ shoot ” them . The Delhi High Court , while hearing petitions about the violence in February , questioned the police decision to not file cases against BJP leaders advocating violence , saying it sent the wrong message and perpetuated impunity . The government ’ s attorney said that the situation was not “ conducive ” for registering complaints against BJP leaders . Indian authorities should uphold the rights to freedom of expression , association , and peaceful assembly , ███ said . The government should act to repeal or substantially revise the UAPA as well as repeal the colonial-era sedition law to end the abuses committed under these laws . “ Instead of locking up people who dare to speak out against discriminatory government policies , the authorities should listen to their legitimate fears and grievances , ” Ganguly said . “ The government has repeatedly said that minorities in India have nothing to fear , and the authorities should put actions to those words . ”	Click to expand Image Indians protesting against the new citizenship law and verification policies at Shaheen Bagh, a Muslim-majority neighborhood in Delhi that became the iconic image of these protests, January 31, 2020. (Photo by Amarjeet Kumar Singh / SOPA Images/Sipa USA) © Sipa via AP Images (New York) – Indian authorities should immediately drop politically-motivated charges against those peacefully protesting against citizenship policies that discriminate against Muslims and release them from custody, Human Rights Watch said today. Police have used draconian anti-terrorism, sedition, and other laws against students, activists, and other government critics, but have not acted against violence by supporters of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In some cases, the police filed new charges after activists were granted bail to ensure that they remained in custody, placing them at further risk during the Covid-19 outbreak in overcrowded prisons with inadequate sanitation, hygiene, and access to medical care. “The Indian authorities have used the nationwide Covid-19 lockdown to arrest activists, silence dissent, and deter future protests against discriminatory policies,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of addressing past police abuse, the authorities seem to be trying their best to add to the list.” In December 2019, the BJP-led government adopted the Citizenship Amendment Act, which for the first time in India makes religion a basis for citizenship. In response, protests broke out throughout the country following fears that the act, together with a planned nationwide verification process to identify “illegal migrants,” could threaten the citizenship rights of millions of Indian Muslims. Violence around the protests broke out in Delhi on February 24, 2020, leaving at least 53 people dead and hundreds injured, most of them Muslim. The police failed to respond adequately and were at times complicit in these attacks. The authorities have failed to conduct impartial and transparent investigations into the violence. While peaceful protests were dispersed after the government announced a lockdown in March 2020 to contain the spread of Covid-19, the authorities have since started arresting protesters, including students and activists, and filing charges of sedition, murder, and terrorism under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), accusing them of a “conspiracy” to “defame the country in the international arena.” Those arrested include Meeran Haider, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha, and Gulfisha Fatima, student activists; Shifa-Ur-Rehman and Khalid Saifi, activists; Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, student activists from the feminist collective Pinjra Tod; Tahir Hussain, a local political leader from Aam Aadmi Party; and Ishrat Jahan, local leader from the opposition Congress party. Zargar, arrested on April 10 for rioting, was granted bail three days later. But that day the police booked her under the UAPA and for murder and sedition. She was denied bail on those charges despite her being in the second trimester of pregnancy and having an underlying medical condition, two factors that could place her at heightened risk of complications if she were to contract Covid-19. Kalita and Narwal were granted bail after being arrested for rioting. In Kalita’s case, the magistrate noted that the police could not produce any concrete evidence to prove her role in the violence. However, the Delhi police immediately booked them on other charges, including sedition, murder, and under the UAPA, and they remain in jail. Violence broke out in Delhi on February 24, soon after a local BJP politician, Kapil Mishra, demanded that the police clear the roads of protesters. Tensions had been building for weeks, with BJP leaders openly advocating violence against the protesters, portraying anyone who spoke out against the government as working against the country’s interests. Clashes between BJP supporters and citizenship law protesters soon transformed into Hindu mobs rampaging through northeast Delhi, killing Muslims and damaging their homes, shops, mosques, and property. While several Hindus were also killed, including a policeman and a government official, Muslims overwhelmingly bore the brunt of the violence. Activists fear the police have overwhelmingly arrested Muslim residents from northeast Delhi neighborhoods where the violence took place in February, some of them victims of attacks, while failing to act against those responsible for the mob violence. The Delhi police have denied these allegations, saying the number of people arrested from the two communities are “almost identical to each other,” but have failed to disclose arrest details. The authorities have even provided contradictory information. In March, Home Minister Amit Shah told parliament that the violence was a “well-planned conspiracy” and that the police had filed over 700 cases, and detained 2,647 people. In a media briefing a day later, the Delhi police said that 200 people had been arrested. A month later, in reply to a Right to Information request, the Delhi police claimed that 48 people had been arrested. In May, a police spokesperson said that more than 1,300 people had been arrested in over 750 cases. In several cases, Human Rights Watch found that the police did not follow procedures established under the criminal code such as producing an arrest warrant, informing the person’s family of the arrest, and providing them a copy of the First Information Report, the official police case, or ensuring that those arrested have access to legal counsel, including during interrogation. A lawyer reported that his 45-year-old client was accused of looting and burning a shop as part of a mob. On April 2, when the man and his wife were not at home, several policemen barged into their house, searched it, and took their younger son to the police station. His son was released only when the man presented himself to the police, who detained him without telling him or his wife of his charges. His wife was given a copy of the First Information Report after 10 days. He was not able to meet or speak to his lawyer until he received bail over two months later. A 35-year-old man who was shot and injured during the violence in Delhi in February was detained without a warrant on April 7, his lawyer said. His family went to three police stations to inquire about his whereabouts but were given no information. They were eventually informed that he had been arrested but were not given a copy of the First Information Report. His lawyer had to apply for his records through the courts and found out that he was charged with murder. He remains in jail. Due to the Covid-19 lockdown, those arrested have limited to no access to legal counsel or to family members. A 21-year-old man was arrested on April 7 on charges of rioting and arson. His lawyer told Human Rights Watch that she is yet to meet her client: “At the beginning of the lockdown, access to court records was a huge challenge. Generally, people being arrested were being sent into judicial remand without a lawyer present. I have had no contact with my client. Under normal circumstances, he would have been produced in court every 14 days and I would check on his health, have a conversation with him, move an application if he needs anything, but I cannot do any of that now.” Activists and students across the country, especially in BJP-ruled states, continue to be targeted for participating in anti-citizenship law protests. In Uttar Pradesh state, Farhan Zuberi, a student at Aligarh Muslim University, was arrested on charges of sedition, rioting, and attempted murder. Dr. Kafeel Khan was initially arrested for promoting enmity between groups for a speech during the protests, but after he received bail on February 11, he was charged under the draconian National Security Act and kept in custody. In Assam state, the police arrested several activists, charging some of them with sedition and under the UAPA. In January, Delhi police charged a university student, Sharjeel Imam, with sedition and he remains in jail. In February, Amulya Leona Noronha was arrested for sedition in Karnataka for raising the slogans for Pakistan and India unity at a protest but released on bail after over three months in detention because the authorities failed to file charges within the 90-day mandated time period. Human Rights Watch previously documented that the authorities responded to the largely peaceful protests in a partisan manner. In many cases, when BJP-affiliated groups attacked protesters, the police did not intervene. Nor have the authorities taken any action against BJP leaders who incited violence against the protesters, calling to “shoot” them. The Delhi High Court, while hearing petitions about the violence in February, questioned the police decision to not file cases against BJP leaders advocating violence, saying it sent the wrong message and perpetuated impunity. The government’s attorney said that the situation was not “conducive” for registering complaints against BJP leaders. Indian authorities should uphold the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, Human Rights Watch said. The government should act to repeal or substantially revise the UAPA as well as repeal the colonial-era sedition law to end the abuses committed under these laws. “Instead of locking up people who dare to speak out against discriminatory government policies, the authorities should listen to their legitimate fears and grievances,” Ganguly said. “The government has repeatedly said that minorities in India have nothing to fear, and the authorities should put actions to those words.”	www.hrw.org	2center	bOBhABWhNPMe31Cy
elections	Fox News	22	http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/three-numbers-that-could-hold-key-to-romney-win/	Three Numbers That Could Hold the Key to a Romney Win	2012-11-01	Chris Stirewalt, In July Of	“ We ’ ve got to make people understand that what they ’ re seeing is not the real Mitt Romney . ” -- President Obama ’ s top political adviser , David Plouffe , describing the president ’ s re-election message , according to top campaign advisers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for the piece “ Obama Adviser ’ s Strategy Is High Risk , High Reward . ” A deadlocked race on the first day of November means a wild ride for Election Day and a boost for antacid sales in Boston and Chicago . With five days to go , both campaigns can make a convincing argument for why they will have the edge on Tuesday . Team Obama says that the tide came in for Romney , but not high enough to carry him to an electoral victory in Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt . A slew of polls that show Romney falling just short in this region make a powerful argument for the president ’ s closing theory of the race . Those polls provide fresh fodder for the establishment press narrative that holds that Obama will be re-elected . Team Romney can argue just as convincingly that close is good enough for the Republican nominee . Romney ’ s advisers point to high voter intensity on the Republican side and a strong performance for the GOP nominee with several groups that were key to Obama ’ s 2008 victory . The Romney theory is that they have the edge in a race that goes down to the wire . Either side could be right , and unlike the previous two elections , the polls don ’ t give us a clear indication of where this race is heading . But if the challenger is going to win , it will be because of these three things : The riskiest part of President Obama ’ s re-election strategy was to spend so much of his campaign and his campaign ’ s money on the attack . Knowing that voters remained unsatisfied with the status quo , Obamaland focused on disqualifying Mitt Romney , often to the detriment of making the president ’ s own case . But it didn ’ t work . The latest ███ poll shows Romney and Obama tied on favorability , and both over 50 percent . The same is true in most polls . After all of the millions in negative advertising spent attacking Romney ’ s character , he survived ( as did his running mate , Paul Ryan ) . Obama will spend the final five days making a more positive closing argument , but he will do so in an atmosphere in which he and his challenger are both deemed plausible . Democrats have been suffering with an enthusiasm gap since the early days of the Obama era . The president ’ s decision to move left after taking office and stay there hardened Republican opposition and boosted a traditional turnout advantage for the Red Team . The Obama Democrats argued that superior resources and a community organizing approach to governance and campaigning would allow Obama to overwhelm the organic advantage of the Republicans . The GOP may have a more fired-up base , argued Team Obama , but time and money would allow Democrats to close the gap . Early voting is the best indicator we have for base enthusiasm . The weeks of early voting that now precede Election Day are the best chance for Democrats to win elections . This is not a time when undecided or even many persuadable voters go to the polls , but instead partisans show their ardor . The latest Pew study and a slew of others show that what had been a huge advantage for Obama has been erased and maybe even reversed . In 2008 , Obama led Republican nominee John McCain 52 percent to 34 percent among early voters ( 19 percent then as it is now ) in the Pew survey . Now , Romney leads 50 percent to 42 percent . Democrats have long assumed that Romney would win among the votes cast on Election Day but were counting on early votes to carry Obama through . If the early vote in swing states is even close , it will be hard for Obama to win . Romney leads widely among the most passionate voters – 9 points in the most recent Politico/George Washington University survey of battleground state voters – and Republicans have managed to match Democrats when it comes to contacting voters directly . Team Obama staked nearly as much on ground game superiority and getting out the vote as it did on the “ kill Mitt ” strategy . Again , the Blue Team did not deliver . Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades . Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative . The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate , but more unpredictable in voting habits . But with both parties dug in deeply , the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters . Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans . Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections . That ’ s certainly the case this year . If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage , then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top . And in that measure , Romney is succeeding by a wide margin . In the latest ███ poll , Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters , with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate . Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent . But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining . Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided , the challenger , especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach , has a clear advantage over the incumbent . “ The Axelrod mustache promise has doubled my intensity . I 'm going to go out there and vote twice on Election Day . ” Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for ███ , and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com . Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http : live.foxnews.com .	“We’ve got to make people understand that what they’re seeing is not the real Mitt Romney.” -- President Obama’s top political adviser, David Plouffe, describing the president’s re-election message, according to top campaign advisers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for the piece “Obama Adviser’s Strategy Is High Risk, High Reward.” A deadlocked race on the first day of November means a wild ride for Election Day and a boost for antacid sales in Boston and Chicago. With five days to go, both campaigns can make a convincing argument for why they will have the edge on Tuesday. Team Obama says that the tide came in for Romney, but not high enough to carry him to an electoral victory in Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt. A slew of polls that show Romney falling just short in this region make a powerful argument for the president’s closing theory of the race. Those polls provide fresh fodder for the establishment press narrative that holds that Obama will be re-elected. Team Romney can argue just as convincingly that close is good enough for the Republican nominee. Romney’s advisers point to high voter intensity on the Republican side and a strong performance for the GOP nominee with several groups that were key to Obama’s 2008 victory. The Romney theory is that they have the edge in a race that goes down to the wire. Either side could be right, and unlike the previous two elections, the polls don’t give us a clear indication of where this race is heading. But if the challenger is going to win, it will be because of these three things: Mitt Lives The riskiest part of President Obama’s re-election strategy was to spend so much of his campaign and his campaign’s money on the attack. Knowing that voters remained unsatisfied with the status quo, Obamaland focused on disqualifying Mitt Romney, often to the detriment of making the president’s own case. But it didn’t work. The latest FOX News poll shows Romney and Obama tied on favorability, and both over 50 percent. The same is true in most polls. After all of the millions in negative advertising spent attacking Romney’s character, he survived (as did his running mate, Paul Ryan). Obama will spend the final five days making a more positive closing argument, but he will do so in an atmosphere in which he and his challenger are both deemed plausible. Ground Out Democrats have been suffering with an enthusiasm gap since the early days of the Obama era. The president’s decision to move left after taking office and stay there hardened Republican opposition and boosted a traditional turnout advantage for the Red Team. [pullquote] The Obama Democrats argued that superior resources and a community organizing approach to governance and campaigning would allow Obama to overwhelm the organic advantage of the Republicans. The GOP may have a more fired-up base, argued Team Obama, but time and money would allow Democrats to close the gap. That didn’t happen either. Early voting is the best indicator we have for base enthusiasm. The weeks of early voting that now precede Election Day are the best chance for Democrats to win elections. This is not a time when undecided or even many persuadable voters go to the polls, but instead partisans show their ardor. The latest Pew study and a slew of others show that what had been a huge advantage for Obama has been erased and maybe even reversed. In 2008, Obama led Republican nominee John McCain 52 percent to 34 percent among early voters (19 percent then as it is now) in the Pew survey. Now, Romney leads 50 percent to 42 percent. Democrats have long assumed that Romney would win among the votes cast on Election Day but were counting on early votes to carry Obama through. If the early vote in swing states is even close, it will be hard for Obama to win. Romney leads widely among the most passionate voters – 9 points in the most recent Politico/George Washington University survey of battleground state voters – and Republicans have managed to match Democrats when it comes to contacting voters directly. Team Obama staked nearly as much on ground game superiority and getting out the vote as it did on the “kill Mitt” strategy. Again, the Blue Team did not deliver. Independents’ Day Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades. Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative. The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate, but more unpredictable in voting habits. But with both parties dug in deeply, the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters. Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans. Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections. That’s certainly the case this year. If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage, then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top. And in that measure, Romney is succeeding by a wide margin. In the latest FOX News poll, Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters, with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate. Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent. But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining. Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided, the challenger, especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach, has a clear advantage over the incumbent. And Now, A Word From Charles “The Axelrod mustache promise has doubled my intensity. I'm going to go out there and vote twice on Election Day.” -- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.” Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.	www.foxnews.com	1right	YbaUDSbd6ukluqhi
coronavirus	Al Jazeera	00	https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/india-hospital-segregates-muslim-hindu-coronavirus-patients-200416080547650.html	India hospital segregates Muslim and Hindu coronavirus patients		Parth Mn	In what many are calling a case of `` apartheid '' during a global pandemic , a government-run hospital in Ahmedabad , the main city in the western Indian state of Gujarat , has segregated coronavirus patients based on their religion , claiming the order came from the government . `` Generally , there are separate wards for male and female patients . But here , we have made separate wards for Hindu and Muslim patients . It is a decision of the government and you can ask them , '' Dr Gunvant H Rathod , the medical superintendent of Ahmedabad Civil Hospital , told The Indian Express newspaper in its report on Wednesday . The Gujarat state is governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) , which also governs the country . Narendra Modi was the state 's chief minister for nearly 13 straight years from 2001 before he became India 's prime minister in 2014 . When ███ called Jayanti Ravi , the principal secretary of health in the Gujarat government , about the segregation of patients on religious lines , her personal assistant took the call and suggested we speak to Dr Sanjay Solanki , the resident medical officer at the hospital . `` I have no idea , '' said the personal assistant , without revealing his name . Solanki , in turn , asked ███ to speak to Rathod . `` He is the right person to talk to , '' he said . Rathod did not answer the phone calls made by ███ . USCIRF is concerned with reports of Hindu & Muslim patients separated into separate hospital wards in # Gujarat . Such actions only help to further increase ongoing stigmatization of Muslims in # India and exacerbate false rumors of Muslims spreading # COVID19 https : //t.co/GXigs4w5na — USCIRF ( @ USCIRF ) April 15 , 2020 Meanwhile , Gujarat 's Health Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel told ███ that nothing of that sort had happened . `` Whatever is needed to give people the best possible treatment is being done , '' he said and hung up . The state 's health department also put out an official statement , calling reports of separate wards for Muslims and Hindus `` baseless '' . `` Patients are kept in different wards based on their medical condition , severity of the symptoms and age , purely based on the advice of the treating doctors . Therefore , reports appearing in certain media are totally baseless and misleading , '' it said . However , in The Indian Express report , a patient was quoted as saying , `` On Sunday night , the names of 28 men admitted in the first ward ( A-4 ) were called out . We were then shifted to another ward ( C-4 ) . '' `` While we were not told why we were being shifted , all the names that were called out belonged to one community . We spoke to one staff member in our ward and he said this had been done for 'the comfort of both communities ' . '' A family is transported to a quarantine centre after one of the members tested positive for coronavirus in Ahmedabad [ Amit Dave/Reuters ] According to a doctor quoted in another report by The Hindu newspaper , `` Certain patients from the majority community were not comfortable being in the same ward with patients of the minority community . '' `` After some patients complained , it was decided to segregate them on temporary basis , '' the doctor told the newspaper on condition of anonymity . When Ahmedabad-based sociologist Ghanashyam Shah was asked by ███ if the hospital segregating patients according to their religion amounted to apartheid , he replied , `` Absolutely . '' `` Knowing Gujarat , I am not surprised it has happened , '' he said . `` It is a very obvious kind of thing . The fake news propaganda around Muslims spreading the virus is probably rampant across India . But I can see it is visible in Gujarat . '' Shah was alluding to a widespread Islamophobia fuelled by the coronavirus pandemic , especially after Tablighi Jamaat , a Muslim missionary group , organised a congregation in New Delhi in March . The congregation was later linked to hundreds of COVID-19 positive cases across the country , triggering a nationwide hunt to trace the attendees . On Wednesday , Tablighi Jamaat chief Maulana Saad Kandhalvi was charged with `` culpable homicide '' . Earlier this month , the World Health Organization had warned against any religious profiling of coronavirus patients by the governments across the world . `` Having COVID-19 is not anybody 's fault . Every case is a victim . It is very important that we do not profile the cases on the basis of racial , religious and ethnic lines , '' WHO 's emergency programme director Mike Ryan had said . According to media reports , more than half of the nearly 500 cases of coronavirus in Ahmedabad have come from Muslim-majority neighbourhoods . The city has long been a hotbed of communal divide , with separate localities marked for Hindus and Muslims . In 2002 , Ahmedabad was one of the main sites of state-wide religious violence , in which nearly 2,000 Muslims were killed , dozens of women raped , and thousands others displaced . The violence followed the outbreak of fire on a passenger train , in which 60 Hindu pilgrims were killed .	In what many are calling a case of "apartheid" during a global pandemic, a government-run hospital in Ahmedabad, the main city in the western Indian state of Gujarat, has segregated coronavirus patients based on their religion, claiming the order came from the government. "Generally, there are separate wards for male and female patients. But here, we have made separate wards for Hindu and Muslim patients. It is a decision of the government and you can ask them," Dr Gunvant H Rathod, the medical superintendent of Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, told The Indian Express newspaper in its report on Wednesday. More: The Gujarat state is governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also governs the country. Narendra Modi was the state's chief minister for nearly 13 straight years from 2001 before he became India's prime minister in 2014. When Al Jazeera called Jayanti Ravi, the principal secretary of health in the Gujarat government, about the segregation of patients on religious lines, her personal assistant took the call and suggested we speak to Dr Sanjay Solanki, the resident medical officer at the hospital. "I have no idea," said the personal assistant, without revealing his name. Solanki, in turn, asked Al Jazeera to speak to Rathod. "He is the right person to talk to," he said. Rathod did not answer the phone calls made by Al Jazeera. USCIRF is concerned with reports of Hindu & Muslim patients separated into separate hospital wards in #Gujarat. Such actions only help to further increase ongoing stigmatization of Muslims in #India and exacerbate false rumors of Muslims spreading #COVID19 https://t.co/GXigs4w5na — USCIRF (@USCIRF) April 15, 2020 'Knowing Gujarat, I am not surprised' Meanwhile, Gujarat's Health Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel told Al Jazeera that nothing of that sort had happened. "Whatever is needed to give people the best possible treatment is being done," he said and hung up. The state's health department also put out an official statement, calling reports of separate wards for Muslims and Hindus "baseless". "Patients are kept in different wards based on their medical condition, severity of the symptoms and age, purely based on the advice of the treating doctors. Therefore, reports appearing in certain media are totally baseless and misleading," it said. However, in The Indian Express report, a patient was quoted as saying, "On Sunday night, the names of 28 men admitted in the first ward (A-4) were called out. We were then shifted to another ward (C-4)." "While we were not told why we were being shifted, all the names that were called out belonged to one community. We spoke to one staff member in our ward and he said this had been done for 'the comfort of both communities'." A family is transported to a quarantine centre after one of the members tested positive for coronavirus in Ahmedabad [Amit Dave/Reuters] According to a doctor quoted in another report by The Hindu newspaper, "Certain patients from the majority community were not comfortable being in the same ward with patients of the minority community." "After some patients complained, it was decided to segregate them on temporary basis," the doctor told the newspaper on condition of anonymity. When Ahmedabad-based sociologist Ghanashyam Shah was asked by Al Jazeera if the hospital segregating patients according to their religion amounted to apartheid, he replied, "Absolutely." "Knowing Gujarat, I am not surprised it has happened," he said. "It is a very obvious kind of thing. The fake news propaganda around Muslims spreading the virus is probably rampant across India. But I can see it is visible in Gujarat." Shah was alluding to a widespread Islamophobia fuelled by the coronavirus pandemic, especially after Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group, organised a congregation in New Delhi in March. The congregation was later linked to hundreds of COVID-19 positive cases across the country, triggering a nationwide hunt to trace the attendees. On Wednesday, Tablighi Jamaat chief Maulana Saad Kandhalvi was charged with "culpable homicide". Earlier this month, the World Health Organization had warned against any religious profiling of coronavirus patients by the governments across the world. "Having COVID-19 is not anybody's fault. Every case is a victim. It is very important that we do not profile the cases on the basis of racial, religious and ethnic lines," WHO's emergency programme director Mike Ryan had said. According to media reports, more than half of the nearly 500 cases of coronavirus in Ahmedabad have come from Muslim-majority neighbourhoods. The city has long been a hotbed of communal divide, with separate localities marked for Hindus and Muslims. In 2002, Ahmedabad was one of the main sites of state-wide religious violence, in which nearly 2,000 Muslims were killed, dozens of women raped, and thousands others displaced. The violence followed the outbreak of fire on a passenger train, in which 60 Hindu pilgrims were killed.	www.aljazeera.com	0left	gvrNyGCCfohKrweW
elections	Guest Writer - Right	22	https://reason.com/2019/08/26/elizabeth-warrens-pitch-for-economic-patriotism-is-full-of-intellectual-dishonesty-and-economic-fallacies/	Elizabeth Warren's Pitch for 'Economic Patriotism' Is Full of Intellectual Dishonesty and Economic Fallacies	2019-08-26	Eric Boehm, Josh Blackman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Brian Doherty, Charles Oliver, Scott Shackford, Noah Shepardson	Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) is promising to protect Americans from the scourge of…pencils ? In a new video posted to Twitter over the weekend , the presidential candidate promises to create a new federal agency that would expand on the protectionist measures undertaken by Donald Trump . She 's even borrowing Trumpian rhetoric for the project , which she calls `` economic patriotism , '' as she promises that a Warren administration would put the interests of American workers first . Warren 's attack on corporations that supposedly harm Americans by shifting jobs overseas is full of intellectual dishonesty and economic fallacies . Rather than making a case for greater government involvement in the corporate boardrooms of America , the video succeeds only at highlighting how misinformed and misguided such interventions are , regardless of whether they are executed by Trump or Warren . `` There are a lot of giant companies who like to call themselves 'American , ' but face it : they have no loyalty or allegiance to America , '' she says in the video . A lot of giant companies refer to themselves as `` American . '' But let 's face it , they only have one real loyalty : Their shareholders . A Warren administration will halt the hollowing out of American cities and create good American jobs . Here 's how . pic.twitter.com/pX0VpRXqqR — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) August 25 , 2019 As proof , Warren points to the `` famous no . 2 pencil , '' which is mostly manufactured in Mexico and China . Her video does n't make clear why pencils should have to be made in America—or why that lack of good , pencil-making jobs in America is a problem . That Warren chose to use pencils to illustrate the supposed need for `` economic patriotism '' is darkly hilarious to anyone familiar with `` I , Pencil , '' Leonard Read 's 1958 parable about the merits of free markets and comparative advantage . Reed 's lesson is that no one on the planet has the means or knowledge to make an item as mundane and ubiquitous as a simple pencil . A pencil requires wood , graphite , brass , and rubber , but each component part is the result of supply chains that might stretch around the world—from the forests of the Pacific Northwest to the mines of Mexico to the factories of Indonesia . `` Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me , '' Read wrote in the role of the eponymous pencil . `` Each one wants me less , perhaps , than does a child in the first grade . '' And yet we have pencils . Tons of them . Not only that , but the process for obtaining and combining those various component parts is so efficient—despite `` the absence of a master mind '' directing all those activities , Read notes—that you can buy dozens of pencils for no more than a few dollars . The simple pencil is a miracle of the modern world , and of trade that crisscrosses national borders . What is true about pencils is true about almost everything else you buy too . There 's not really any such thing as an `` American '' or `` foreign '' automobile anymore . Not when the world 's biggest BMW plant is in South Carolina , and when the assembly line for a single car seat might zig-zag across the U.S.-Mexico border five or six times . The iPhone is engineered in the United States , is manufactured in China , and contains components sourced all over the world . That Warren fails to grasp this—or that she cynically believes voters do n't grasp it—makes her no better than Trump when it comes to trade policy . Indeed , Trump 's use ( and abuse ) of executive power to implement his own myopic and self-defeating trade policies may have only paved the way for a more competent protectionist like Warren , if she ends up in the White House . It 's worth noting that Warren 's proposal for a new federal department to oversee her `` economic patriotism '' scheme would potentially streamline some government functions . She says the new Department of Economic Development would replace the Commerce Department and `` a handful of other government agencies . '' Consolidation of the federal bureaucracy can be a good way to root out unnecessary overlap between existing agencies , but this seems like an effort at reorganizing a bunch of things the feds should n't be doing in the first place . Beyond that , there 's little truth to the claim that American manufacturing has been hollowed out by trade . Foreign investment in American manufacturing reached record highs in 2018 , and American manufacturing output has tripled since 1980 . Warren 's proposal smacks of a disingenuous attack on the benefits of free markets , with Warren trying—and failing—to make American corporations seem like a foreign threat . `` The truth is , '' she claims in the video , '' these American companies have only one real loyalty , and that 's to their shareholders , a third of whom are foreign investors . '' What about other two-thirds of those shareholders Warren is trying to demonize ? Well , they would be Americans , of course .	Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is promising to protect Americans from the scourge of…pencils? In a new video posted to Twitter over the weekend, the presidential candidate promises to create a new federal agency that would expand on the protectionist measures undertaken by Donald Trump. She's even borrowing Trumpian rhetoric for the project, which she calls "economic patriotism," as she promises that a Warren administration would put the interests of American workers first. Warren's attack on corporations that supposedly harm Americans by shifting jobs overseas is full of intellectual dishonesty and economic fallacies. Rather than making a case for greater government involvement in the corporate boardrooms of America, the video succeeds only at highlighting how misinformed and misguided such interventions are, regardless of whether they are executed by Trump or Warren. "There are a lot of giant companies who like to call themselves 'American,' but face it: they have no loyalty or allegiance to America," she says in the video. A lot of giant companies refer to themselves as "American." But let's face it, they only have one real loyalty: Their shareholders. A Warren administration will halt the hollowing out of American cities and create good American jobs. Here's how. pic.twitter.com/pX0VpRXqqR — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 25, 2019 As proof, Warren points to the "famous no. 2 pencil," which is mostly manufactured in Mexico and China. Her video doesn't make clear why pencils should have to be made in America—or why that lack of good, pencil-making jobs in America is a problem. That Warren chose to use pencils to illustrate the supposed need for "economic patriotism" is darkly hilarious to anyone familiar with "I, Pencil," Leonard Read's 1958 parable about the merits of free markets and comparative advantage. Reed's lesson is that no one on the planet has the means or knowledge to make an item as mundane and ubiquitous as a simple pencil. A pencil requires wood, graphite, brass, and rubber, but each component part is the result of supply chains that might stretch around the world—from the forests of the Pacific Northwest to the mines of Mexico to the factories of Indonesia. "Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me," Read wrote in the role of the eponymous pencil. "Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade." And yet we have pencils. Tons of them. Not only that, but the process for obtaining and combining those various component parts is so efficient—despite "the absence of a master mind" directing all those activities, Read notes—that you can buy dozens of pencils for no more than a few dollars. The simple pencil is a miracle of the modern world, and of trade that crisscrosses national borders. What is true about pencils is true about almost everything else you buy too. There's not really any such thing as an "American" or "foreign" automobile anymore. Not when the world's biggest BMW plant is in South Carolina, and when the assembly line for a single car seat might zig-zag across the U.S.-Mexico border five or six times. The iPhone is engineered in the United States, is manufactured in China, and contains components sourced all over the world. That Warren fails to grasp this—or that she cynically believes voters don't grasp it—makes her no better than Trump when it comes to trade policy. Indeed, Trump's use (and abuse) of executive power to implement his own myopic and self-defeating trade policies may have only paved the way for a more competent protectionist like Warren, if she ends up in the White House. It's worth noting that Warren's proposal for a new federal department to oversee her "economic patriotism" scheme would potentially streamline some government functions. She says the new Department of Economic Development would replace the Commerce Department and "a handful of other government agencies." Consolidation of the federal bureaucracy can be a good way to root out unnecessary overlap between existing agencies, but this seems like an effort at reorganizing a bunch of things the feds shouldn't be doing in the first place. Beyond that, there's little truth to the claim that American manufacturing has been hollowed out by trade. Foreign investment in American manufacturing reached record highs in 2018, and American manufacturing output has tripled since 1980. Warren's proposal smacks of a disingenuous attack on the benefits of free markets, with Warren trying—and failing—to make American corporations seem like a foreign threat. "The truth is," she claims in the video," these American companies have only one real loyalty, and that's to their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors." What about other two-thirds of those shareholders Warren is trying to demonize? Well, they would be Americans, of course.	www.reason.com	1right	b4u4z1vNKI9nnDh6
white_house	American Spectator	22	https://spectator.org/trump-finds-freedom-lacks-loyalty/	Trump Finds Freedom Lacks Loyalty		Debra J. Saunders, Jeffrey Lord, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley	President Donald Trump failed to persuade enough House Republicans to vote for his American Health Care Act , leading to its withdrawal from the House floor on Friday . How did the effort to pass a replacement for Obamacare go wrong ? Let me count the ways . One . The GOP House has too many members who are like Trump was 2016 , when he acted as a Caucus of One . He bucked the GOP establishment and assured the party base that the path to victory was to shout over any and all voices of moderation . When critics said Trump was crossing the line , he rarely retreated . The House GOP Freedom Caucus — a right-of-right rump with close to 30 members —followed the same playbook . On the health care bill , members acted like 30 Trumps , pitted against one Trump . After the vote , I talked to Hoover Institution wiseman Bill Whalen , who always knows how to put these things in perspective . The problem , as Whalen sees it , is this : “ How do you threaten people with political Siberia when they ’ re already proud of being Siberians ? ” Two . The GOP actually did become the Party of No . “ We were a 10-year opposition party where being against things was the easy thing to do , ” Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Friday . And : “ Doing big things is hard . ” Three . Democrats don ’ t look for the perfect today ; they ’ re in it for the long game . In 2010 , then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to corral enough Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act — even though it was not the single-payer plan that many Democrats preferred . On the right , Whalen noted , many politicians have an “ Ivory soap standard ” — if a measure isn ’ t 99.44 percent pure , they ’ ll reject it . Four . Once Washington gives something to people , woe to the party that tries to take it away . Obama promised voters that he could offer health care to more people , including people with pre-existing conditions , and expand benefits – and that somehow his package would lower premiums and save American families $ 2,500 annually . It never ceases to amaze me how many smart people believed what shrinks rightly call magical thinking — that the public can save money paying for more services . That unrealistic standard has become the floor to the mainstream media . One frequent meme is that Trump voters , who tend to be older , would get hit the hardest by the GOP plan . It ’ s true , the Trump plan would have changed the Obamacare formula that required insurers to charge older consumers no more than three times what they charge the youngest adults . The GOP package ’ s formula limited the ratio to 5-to-1 , which would have increased premiums for older people too young for Medicare . ( The GOP plan tried to soften that blow with higher tax credits for older Americans . ) Missing from reporting was reporting on how the old formula unfairly lowered premiums for older Americans — and I write this as someone in that older age bracket — by driving up premiums for young adults . And when young , healthy adults abstain from buying health care , premiums go up for everyone . Five . Like Obama before him , Trump made the mistake of trying to pass his big health care package with votes from his party alone . Obama succeeded . Trump failed , Whalen noted , because Trump had fewer Republicans , 237 , than Obama had Democrats , 253 , in 2010 . With that many more Democrats , Whalen noted , Obama could “ play ball. ” The Trump White House made concessions to woo Freedom Caucus votes , and then more concessions were sought — those concessions chased away moderate Republicans . As White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it , negotiations devolved to the point where , to get “ two members , you ’ re giving up 14 . ” Friday afternoon , the president blamed Democrats for the bill ’ s demise , as not one Democrat would vote for it . But then , Trump didn ’ t reach out to the Democrats . Friday the president said he expects Democrats to reach out to him when Obamacare “ explodes ” — and that he was open to working with them . Trump seems to have learned his lesson . He isn ’ t trying to woo GOP votes over the weekend . He ’ s done . “ We learned a lot about loyalty , ” the president said . Methinks the Freedom Caucus is dead to him .	Washington President Donald Trump failed to persuade enough House Republicans to vote for his American Health Care Act, leading to its withdrawal from the House floor on Friday. How did the effort to pass a replacement for Obamacare go wrong? Let me count the ways. One. The GOP House has too many members who are like Trump was 2016, when he acted as a Caucus of One. He bucked the GOP establishment and assured the party base that the path to victory was to shout over any and all voices of moderation. When critics said Trump was crossing the line, he rarely retreated. The House GOP Freedom Caucus — a right-of-right rump with close to 30 members —followed the same playbook. On the health care bill, members acted like 30 Trumps, pitted against one Trump. After the vote, I talked to Hoover Institution wiseman Bill Whalen, who always knows how to put these things in perspective. The problem, as Whalen sees it, is this: “How do you threaten people with political Siberia when they’re already proud of being Siberians?” Two. The GOP actually did become the Party of No. “We were a 10-year opposition party where being against things was the easy thing to do,” Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Friday. And: “Doing big things is hard.” Three. Democrats don’t look for the perfect today; they’re in it for the long game. In 2010, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to corral enough Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act — even though it was not the single-payer plan that many Democrats preferred. On the right, Whalen noted, many politicians have an “Ivory soap standard” — if a measure isn’t 99.44 percent pure, they’ll reject it. Four. Once Washington gives something to people, woe to the party that tries to take it away. Obama promised voters that he could offer health care to more people, including people with pre-existing conditions, and expand benefits – and that somehow his package would lower premiums and save American families $2,500 annually. It never ceases to amaze me how many smart people believed what shrinks rightly call magical thinking — that the public can save money paying for more services. That unrealistic standard has become the floor to the mainstream media. One frequent meme is that Trump voters, who tend to be older, would get hit the hardest by the GOP plan. It’s true, the Trump plan would have changed the Obamacare formula that required insurers to charge older consumers no more than three times what they charge the youngest adults. The GOP package’s formula limited the ratio to 5-to-1, which would have increased premiums for older people too young for Medicare. (The GOP plan tried to soften that blow with higher tax credits for older Americans.) Missing from reporting was reporting on how the old formula unfairly lowered premiums for older Americans — and I write this as someone in that older age bracket — by driving up premiums for young adults. And when young, healthy adults abstain from buying health care, premiums go up for everyone. Five. Like Obama before him, Trump made the mistake of trying to pass his big health care package with votes from his party alone. Obama succeeded. Trump failed, Whalen noted, because Trump had fewer Republicans, 237, than Obama had Democrats, 253, in 2010. With that many more Democrats, Whalen noted, Obama could “play ball.” The Trump White House made concessions to woo Freedom Caucus votes, and then more concessions were sought — those concessions chased away moderate Republicans. As White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, negotiations devolved to the point where, to get “two members, you’re giving up 14.” Friday afternoon, the president blamed Democrats for the bill’s demise, as not one Democrat would vote for it. But then, Trump didn’t reach out to the Democrats. Friday the president said he expects Democrats to reach out to him when Obamacare “explodes” — and that he was open to working with them. Trump seems to have learned his lesson. He isn’t trying to woo GOP votes over the weekend. He’s done. “We learned a lot about loyalty,” the president said. Methinks the Freedom Caucus is dead to him. COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM	www.spectator.org	1right	TGFOcn0chUB6m0GP
polarization	BBC News	11	http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41543631	White nationalists return to Charlottesville			White nationalist protesters have returned to the US town Charlottesville two months after violent clashes there saw a woman killed . The town 's mayor said the small group 's appearance at the statue of a Confederate general was `` another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards '' . The brief torch-lit rally was organised by far-right figure Richard Spencer . In videos he posted protesters can be heard chanting `` You will not replace us '' and `` we will be back '' . The statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee was also the venue for the `` Unite the Right '' rally in August , held to oppose plans to remove it . Counter-demonstrator Heather Heyer , 32 , was killed when a participant drove into a group of counter-protesters at high speed . Between 40 and 50 people are thought to have attended the rally in Emancipation Park by the statue of Gen Lee , which has been covered up while a legal challenge to its removal takes place . In the video live-streamed by Mr Spencer , he said Charlottesville had become a symbol of the suppression of free speech and destruction of historical monuments . The group , all dressed similarly and holding lit torches , could be heard chanting `` the south will rise again '' and `` Russia is our friend '' . Another speaker said the group was there to `` represent white America 's interests '' and criticised the local community and the media . Police said the group left the park shortly before 20:00 ( 0:00 GMT ) . Mayor Mike Signer said officials were looking at legal ways to prevent further events . Mr Spencer is the founder of a right-wing website and think-tank and has made a series of controversial comments at public events , including allegedly advocating `` peaceful '' ethnic cleansing . The US has been gripped by a national debate on whether to remove Confederate symbols from the US civil war because of their association with slavery . After the violence in Charlottesville , many local governments acted to remove Confederate monuments .	Image copyright Reuters Image caption In August white nationalist protesters held tiki torches at the Lee monument White nationalist protesters have returned to the US town Charlottesville two months after violent clashes there saw a woman killed. The town's mayor said the small group's appearance at the statue of a Confederate general was "another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards". The brief torch-lit rally was organised by far-right figure Richard Spencer. In videos he posted protesters can be heard chanting "You will not replace us" and "we will be back". The statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee was also the venue for the "Unite the Right" rally in August, held to oppose plans to remove it. Counter-demonstrator Heather Heyer, 32, was killed when a participant drove into a group of counter-protesters at high speed. Between 40 and 50 people are thought to have attended the rally in Emancipation Park by the statue of Gen Lee, which has been covered up while a legal challenge to its removal takes place. In the video live-streamed by Mr Spencer, he said Charlottesville had become a symbol of the suppression of free speech and destruction of historical monuments. The group, all dressed similarly and holding lit torches, could be heard chanting "the south will rise again" and "Russia is our friend". Another speaker said the group was there to "represent white America's interests" and criticised the local community and the media. Police said the group left the park shortly before 20:00 (0:00 GMT). Mayor Mike Signer said officials were looking at legal ways to prevent further events. Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Spencer (pictured here during the August rally) live-streamed the latest protest Mr Spencer is the founder of a right-wing website and think-tank and has made a series of controversial comments at public events, including allegedly advocating "peaceful" ethnic cleansing. The US has been gripped by a national debate on whether to remove Confederate symbols from the US civil war because of their association with slavery. After the violence in Charlottesville, many local governments acted to remove Confederate monuments.	www.bbc.com	2center	xdXjLdDxRSZT7MRO
federal_budget	Christian Science Monitor	11	http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1002/Government-shutdown-White-House-meeting-with-lawmakers-goes-nowhere	Government shutdown: White House meeting with lawmakers goes nowhere	2013-10-02	Brad Knickerbocker	For 90 minutes late Wednesday afternoon , the leaders of the House and Senate met with President Obama at the White House , looking to resolve a government shutdown headed into its third day while also averting what would be an even costlier default on US debt . The meeting failed to do that , and both sides appear as intransigent as ever . Obama `` refuses to negotiate , '' House Speaker John Boehner ( R ) of Ohio told reporters as he left the White House . `` All we 're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare . ” But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D ) of Nevada said , `` We 're locked in tight on Obamacare '' and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress will accept changes in that health-care law as the price for spending legislation needed to reopen the government . In an interview with CNBC before meeting with lawmakers , Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans until the government is reopened and Congress votes to raise the debt limit . `` If we get in the habit where a few folks , an extremist wing of one party , whether it 's Democrat or Republican , are allowed to extort concessions based on a threat to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States , then any president who comes after me , not just me , will find themselves unable to govern effectively , '' he said . Warnings about the impact of the government shutdown and – less than two weeks from now ( Oct. 17 ) – the potential failure to raise the US debt limit mounted up Wednesday . Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the shutdown , together with the recent sequestration , “ seriously damages our ability to protect the security and safety of this nation and its citizens . ” “ This is not just a Beltway issue , ” he said . “ This affects our global capability . '' Mr. Clapper also warned that the shutdown ( which has furloughed about 70 percent of intelligence agency civilians , including thousands at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency ) “ is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit . ” US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said the shutdown “ impacts significantly day-to-day operations , '' forcing the military to cut training and other important programs . `` The longer it goes on , the worse it gets , ” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from Germany , where he was attending a conference . “ Every day that goes by , we are losing manpower , we are losing capability , so in my mind it is important we get this resolved . ” Meanwhile , Wall Street jitters continued the second day of the shutdown . The Dow Jones industrial average fell 58.56 points , the Standard & Poor 's 500 index dropped 1.13 , and the NASDAQ composite index fell 2.96 points . `` Everyone is very cautious about how to react to the US shutdown , '' Andrew Sullivan at Kim Eng Securities in Hong Kong told USA Today . `` There 's a lot for people to worry about . '' In Washington , where they had just met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden , Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein , Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned of the adverse consequences of default . “ You can re-litigate these policy issues [ such as Obamacare ] in the political forum , but they shouldn ’ t use the threat of causing the US to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel , ” Mr. Blankfein told reporters . “ There ’ s precedent for a government shutdown . There ’ s no precedent for a default , ” he said . “ We ’ re the most important economy in the world . We ’ re the reserve currency of the world . Payments have to go out to people . If money doesn ’ t flow in , then money doesn ’ t flow out . We really haven ’ t seen this before and I ’ m not anxious to be a part of the process that witnesses it . ” Polls continue to show that while Americans consider this to be a “ plague on both your houses ” situation , they are more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the current impasse . Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy A CNN/ORC International poll regarding the debt ceiling impasse released Wednesday finds that Republicans are seen as “ more responsible ” than Obama 53 to 31 percent . Most of those surveyed ( 56 to 38 percent ) also believe that failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Oct. 17 deadline would be a “ bad thing . ” Regarding the Affordable Care Act , a majority ( 51 to 43 percent ) also thinks that “ raising the debt ceiling to make sure the government has enough money to pay its debts ” is more important than “ delaying the date on which major provisions in the new health care law will take effect . ”	For 90 minutes late Wednesday afternoon, the leaders of the House and Senate met with President Obama at the White House, looking to resolve a government shutdown headed into its third day while also averting what would be an even costlier default on US debt. The meeting failed to do that, and both sides appear as intransigent as ever. Obama "refuses to negotiate," House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio told reporters as he left the White House. "All we're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare.” But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said, "We're locked in tight on Obamacare" and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress will accept changes in that health-care law as the price for spending legislation needed to reopen the government. In an interview with CNBC before meeting with lawmakers, Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans until the government is reopened and Congress votes to raise the debt limit. "If we get in the habit where a few folks, an extremist wing of one party, whether it's Democrat or Republican, are allowed to extort concessions based on a threat to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States, then any president who comes after me, not just me, will find themselves unable to govern effectively," he said. Warnings about the impact of the government shutdown and – less than two weeks from now (Oct. 17) – the potential failure to raise the US debt limit mounted up Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the shutdown, together with the recent sequestration, “seriously damages our ability to protect the security and safety of this nation and its citizens.” “This is not just a Beltway issue,” he said. “This affects our global capability." Mr. Clapper also warned that the shutdown (which has furloughed about 70 percent of intelligence agency civilians, including thousands at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency) “is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit.” US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said the shutdown “impacts significantly day-to-day operations," forcing the military to cut training and other important programs. "The longer it goes on, the worse it gets,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from Germany, where he was attending a conference. “Every day that goes by, we are losing manpower, we are losing capability, so in my mind it is important we get this resolved.” Meanwhile, Wall Street jitters continued the second day of the shutdown. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 58.56 points, the Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 1.13, and the NASDAQ composite index fell 2.96 points. "Everyone is very cautious about how to react to the US shutdown," Andrew Sullivan at Kim Eng Securities in Hong Kong told USA Today. "There's a lot for people to worry about." In Washington, where they had just met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned of the adverse consequences of default. “You can re-litigate these policy issues [such as Obamacare] in the political forum, but they shouldn’t use the threat of causing the US to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel,” Mr. Blankfein told reporters. “There’s precedent for a government shutdown. There’s no precedent for a default,” he said. “We’re the most important economy in the world. We’re the reserve currency of the world. Payments have to go out to people. If money doesn’t flow in, then money doesn’t flow out. We really haven’t seen this before and I’m not anxious to be a part of the process that witnesses it.” Polls continue to show that while Americans consider this to be a “plague on both your houses” situation, they are more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the current impasse. Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy A CNN/ORC International poll regarding the debt ceiling impasse released Wednesday finds that Republicans are seen as “more responsible” than Obama 53 to 31 percent. Most of those surveyed (56 to 38 percent) also believe that failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Oct. 17 deadline would be a “bad thing.” Regarding the Affordable Care Act, a majority (51 to 43 percent) also thinks that “raising the debt ceiling to make sure the government has enough money to pay its debts” is more important than “delaying the date on which major provisions in the new health care law will take effect.”	www.csmonitor.com	2center	5vx2yyweJsvsiS7W
democratic_party	Townhall	22	http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/04/are-democrats-ditching-the-war-on-women-n1874301	Are Democrats 'Ditching' The War On Women?	2014-08-04	Matt Vespa, Beth Baumann, Bronson Stocking	With the recent Hobby Lobby decision , one would think this legal victory for conservatives could galvanize single women into turning out for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections . It ’ s still a possibility . After all , the Daily Beast is running op-eds showing how women are driving the Democratic Party ’ s agenda : My friend Doug Sosnik has forgotten more about analyzing polling data than most of us will ever know , but he mistakes the wave for the currents in his POLITICO Magazine cover story , “ Blue Crush : How the left took over the Democratic Party. ” By focusing on ideology , Sosnik ’ s analysis ignores what is driving the power shift in the Democratic electorate . The reason that Democrats have achieved a consensus supporting LGBT rights , marijuana legalization and immigration reform is because they now enjoy a double-digit lead among women , especially unmarried women . The left hasn ’ t taken over the Democratic Party . Women have . Sosnik does write that he can ’ t imagine “ a viable Democratic presidential candidate , ” much less a nominee , “ who isn ’ t willing to take clear positions on … supporting women ’ s health and their reproductive rights , ” but this core value is embedded among positions on hydraulic fracking and the minimum wage . In that word salad , it ’ s hard to tell the side dish from the entree . Put simply , when polls show a double-digit gender gap — and women turn out — we know who ’ s going to win and why . The Democrat ’ s so-called “ war on women ” has surely helped mobilize these ladies into a juggernaut of a voting bloc . So , why are Democrats shying away from their signature slogan ? The National Journal reported on July 31 that this narrative may have run its course – and that Hobby Lobby might not bring it back with a vengeance ( emphasis mine ) : Democrats want to talk about `` personhood '' and reproductive freedom . They want to tell voters about a stubborn pay gap and women hurt by a low minimum wage . But what they do n't want to do is talk about a `` war on women . '' Indeed , the party that so effectively deployed the `` war '' rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase , dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that , in so many other ways , is still very much about women 's issues . `` [ Saying ] 'Republicans are waging a war on women ' actually does n't test very well , '' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake . `` Women find it divisive , political—they do n't like it . '' … `` We are on much stronger ground when we talk about the specifics than when we talk about the category , '' said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman . `` And so when we talk about Republicans who want to make abortion illegal , Republicans who want to ban equal pay for equal work … the specific policy issues matter . That 's where the power is . '' The Journal piece also noted that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes , who thinks Israel ’ s Iron Dome protects it from underground attacks , is using Senator Mitch McConnell ’ s votes against the Violence Against Women Act and Equal Pay as an example of this shift in messaging strategy . At the same time , McConnell and Grimes are polling even with Kentucky women . Nevertheless , it still means Republicans should get more aggressive in debunking these disingenuous attacks , reaching out to single women by showing we ’ re , amongst other things , not insensitive towards their needs , and sharpening our messaging to avoid more Todd Akin moments . On the other hand , there are other voting blocs that have just as much sway in elections . But , let 's not discount that `` war on women '' tactics could return in an ugly way .	With the recent Hobby Lobby decision, one would think this legal victory for conservatives could galvanize single women into turning out for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. It’s still a possibility. After all, the Daily Beast is running op-eds showing how women are driving the Democratic Party’s agenda: My friend Doug Sosnik has forgotten more about analyzing polling data than most of us will ever know, but he mistakes the wave for the currents in his POLITICO Magazine cover story, “Blue Crush: How the left took over the Democratic Party.” By focusing on ideology, Sosnik’s analysis ignores what is driving the power shift in the Democratic electorate. The reason that Democrats have achieved a consensus supporting LGBT rights, marijuana legalization and immigration reform is because they now enjoy a double-digit lead among women, especially unmarried women. The left hasn’t taken over the Democratic Party. Women have. Sosnik does write that he can’t imagine “a viable Democratic presidential candidate,” much less a nominee, “who isn’t willing to take clear positions on … supporting women’s health and their reproductive rights,” but this core value is embedded among positions on hydraulic fracking and the minimum wage. In that word salad, it’s hard to tell the side dish from the entree. Put simply, when polls show a double-digit gender gap — and women turn out — we know who’s going to win and why. The Democrat’s so-called “war on women” has surely helped mobilize these ladies into a juggernaut of a voting bloc. So, why are Democrats shying away from their signature slogan? The National Journal reported on July 31 that this narrative may have run its course – and that Hobby Lobby might not bring it back with a vengeance (emphasis mine) : Democrats want to talk about "personhood" and reproductive freedom. They want to tell voters about a stubborn pay gap and women hurt by a low minimum wage. But what they don't want to do is talk about a "war on women." Indeed, the party that so effectively deployed the "war" rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase, dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that, in so many other ways, is still very much about women's issues. "[Saying] 'Republicans are waging a war on women' actually doesn't test very well," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "Women find it divisive, political—they don't like it." … "We are on much stronger ground when we talk about the specifics than when we talk about the category," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "And so when we talk about Republicans who want to make abortion illegal, Republicans who want to ban equal pay for equal work … the specific policy issues matter. That's where the power is." The Journal piece also noted that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, who thinks Israel’s Iron Dome protects it from underground attacks, is using Senator Mitch McConnell’s votes against the Violence Against Women Act and Equal Pay as an example of this shift in messaging strategy. At the same time, McConnell and Grimes are polling even with Kentucky women. Nevertheless, it still means Republicans should get more aggressive in debunking these disingenuous attacks, reaching out to single women by showing we’re, amongst other things, not insensitive towards their needs, and sharpening our messaging to avoid more Todd Akin moments. On the other hand, there are other voting blocs that have just as much sway in elections. But, let's not discount that "war on women" tactics could return in an ugly way.	www.townhall.com	1right	1hlRhnbo0mVe5LnS
justice	Breitbart News	22	http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/03/donald-trump-justice-department-hillary-clinton/	Donald Trump Challenges Jeff Sessions: ‘Where Is Our Justice Department’ on Hillary Clinton?	2017-11-03	Charlie Spiering	President Donald Trump signaled frustration with the Justice Department ’ s failure to respond to the ongoing scandals involving the Clinton family , the DNC , the FBI , and the “ phony ” Russian sourced dossier . “ A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department , including me , ” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday morning before leaving for his trip to Asia . Trump said that the Justice Department should be investigating Democrats and the Clintons , sharing several observations on Twitter . “ This is real collusion and dishonesty , ” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday night , responding to Donna Brazile ’ s revelation that Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign was controlling DNC operations and fundraising well before winning her primary . ….This is real collusion and dishonesty . Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 3 , 2017 “ Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department ? ” Trump wondered . The president appears unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions failure to investigate the Clintons , despite recent revelations about their “ crooked ” behavior . Trump said he thought Clinton ’ s “ deleted E-mails , Uranium , Podesta , the Server , plus , plus… ” all deserved closer scrutiny . “ People are angry , ” Trump continued on Twitter . “ At some point the Justice Department , and the FBI , must do what is right and proper . The American public deserves it ! ” Trump also spoke about his frustration with the Justice Department in an interview with WMAL ’ s Larry O ’ Connor . “ The saddest thing is because I ’ m the President of the United States , I ’ m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department , I am not supposed to be involved in the FBI , ” Trump said . “ I ’ m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I ’ m very frustrated by it . ” Trump indicated that he wanted the Justice Department to investigate the Clintons . “ I look at what ’ s going on with the Justice Department , well , why aren ’ t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and dossier ? ” he asked . “ It ’ s very discouraging to me . To be honest , I ’ m very unhappy about it . ” Trump signaled frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to target the Clintons . “ Everybody is asking why the Justice Department ( and FBI ) isn ’ t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems , ” Trump wrote on Twitter . Everybody is asking why the Justice Department ( and FBI ) is n't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems .. — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 3 , 2017 The president , however , appeared to be aware that he could not order the Justice Department to investigate . “ As a president , you ’ re not supposed to be involved in that process , ” he admitted to Ingraham . “ But hopefully are doing something . At some point , maybe we ’ re going to have it out . ”	President Donald Trump signaled frustration with the Justice Department’s failure to respond to the ongoing scandals involving the Clinton family, the DNC, the FBI, and the “phony” Russian sourced dossier. “A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday morning before leaving for his trip to Asia. Trump said that the Justice Department should be investigating Democrats and the Clintons, sharing several observations on Twitter. “This is real collusion and dishonesty,” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday night, responding to Donna Brazile’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was controlling DNC operations and fundraising well before winning her primary. ….This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2017 “Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department?” Trump wondered. The president appears unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions failure to investigate the Clintons, despite recent revelations about their “crooked” behavior. Trump said he thought Clinton’s “deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus…” all deserved closer scrutiny. “People are angry,” Trump continued on Twitter. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!” Trump also spoke about his frustration with the Justice Department in an interview with WMAL’s Larry O’Connor. “The saddest thing is because I’m the President of the United States, I’m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department, I am not supposed to be involved in the FBI,” Trump said. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I’m very frustrated by it.” Trump indicated that he wanted the Justice Department to investigate the Clintons. “I look at what’s going on with the Justice Department, well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and dossier?” he asked. “It’s very discouraging to me. To be honest, I’m very unhappy about it.” Trump signaled frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to target the Clintons. “Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” Trump wrote on Twitter. Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2017 The president, however, appeared to be aware that he could not order the Justice Department to investigate. “As a president, you’re not supposed to be involved in that process,” he admitted to Ingraham. “But hopefully are doing something. At some point, maybe we’re going to have it out.”	www.breitbart.com	1right	dD1DQWJE2UQV7u7B

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.