topic
stringclasses 108
values | source
stringclasses 192
values | bias
class label 3
classes | url
stringlengths 30
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 79
values | bias_text
class label 3
classes | ID
stringlengths 16
16
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/13/trump-impeachment-hearing-change-mind-congress-070145
|
Can the Impeachment Hearings Actually Change Anyone’s Mind?
|
2019-11-13
|
This happens for different reasons , but a key element is the vicious cycle between holding strong attitudes on an issue and something called “ selective perception. ” Essentially , the stronger your views are on an issue like Trump ’ s impeachment , the more likely you are to attend more carefully to information that supports your views and to ignore or disregard information that contradicts them . Consuming more belief-consistent information will , in turn , increase your original support or disapproval for impeachment , which just fortifies your attitudes . So , no , not much change will be seen in the minds of the 33 percent .
Except , maybe . One of the more interesting findings from research on attitude change is that our more important , self-defining attitudes do not seem to change incrementally , a little at a time , but they can change dramatically , from one extreme to another . Typically , when others try to change our views on important issues that we hold firmly , their attempts to persuade us with facts and figures end up bolstering our original attitudes or pushing us out to even further extremes . But strong attitudes can experience what psychologists call “ threshold-effect changes. ” Over time , when we are exposed to information contradicting our attitudes , that information—even if we ignore , discount or deny it—can seep into our thinking and accumulate to a point where , across some threshold , people radically change their views to the opposite side of the spectrum . In other words , nothing much changes until everything changes .
These jumps from one extreme attitude to another on self-defining issues are not uncommon , and have been seen with former skinheads turned tolerance trainers , peace activists turned violent militants , and religious zealots turned atheists . This type of drastic transformation is , of course , hard to predict , and it can be triggered by seemingly insignificant events ( the tipping point for one skinhead was when his black co-worker tossed him half of his submarine sandwich when he had no lunch ) . But it typically occurs after repeated exposure to information contradicting their attitudes .
So , yes , it is possible that if some of the testimonies in the hearings are experienced by true believers ( at either extreme ) as counter to their beliefs but also persuasive , this information can plant seeds of a different point of view , that might , someday , lead to a big change . Still , this is unlikely to happen very soon .
Minds , however , can change among the vast majority of people who don ’ t hold extreme views . A recent study by the nonpartisan group More in Common found that about 67 percent of moderate Americans on both sides of the political divide—a group the authors of the study call “ the exhausted majority ” —are fed up with our current dysfunction , despise the contemptuous state of polarization we are in , and are eager to find ways to talk , compromise and work together again . These folks , particularly the 26 percent of moderates who are politically disengaged and thus are much less identified with either tribe , can be swayed . Of course , this assumes that they are not so burned out by the vitriol of our politics that they are unwilling to devote some attention to information coming out of the hearings .
Research suggests a few basic strategies for changing minds that are , well , changeable . First , immediately establishing the credibility of the witnesses—to both progressives and conservatives —is paramount . For example , the introductions of the witnesses should emphasize their merits for both the left and the right to see . Second , logic and evidence can matter when they are clearly laid out , compelling and derived from trusted sources . Third , moving testimony by witnesses about the profound moral dilemmas they faced in coming forward , and any specific threats they experienced to their and their family ’ s physical safety , can help to humanize otherwise dry , technical testimony and move the listener . And finally , because most viewers tend to lean either red or blue ( even though they are “ exhausted ” ) and so will view the proceedings to some degree through their team ’ s lens , it is critical for the lawmakers to choose to emphasize just a few takeaway points , and then to stress the urgency and importance of the viewers ’ attention to them . This can serve to move viewers from their more automatic , heuristic modes of cognitive processing to more intentional , systematic modes , where they will be more likely to take in new information and learn .
But here is a caution for our leaders in Congress on both sides . Clearly , by many accounts , America is more polarized , anxious and exhausted by our political climate today than ever before . No , this is not all Congress ’ doing , but many in Washington are playing their part . The resulting rise in the toxicity of our culture is such that today 86 percent of Americans are seriously concerned that our divisions will soon lead to violence .
So , as our Republican and Democratic members of Congress prepare for the public hearings—ready themselves to make their case and score points and change minds—they should understand what is at stake . A narrow focus on short wins today can bring devastating outcomes tomorrow . Of course , members of Congress have a job to do to reveal the truth and share the facts with the American public . But our social fabric is stretched to the limit , and the future of our society , in the form of our basic capacities for compassion , connection and shared humanity across our divide , is on the line . The impeachment hearings ’ primary audience—the 67 percent ( not base voters ) —is persuadable through credibility , logic and evidence . This is a chance for lawmakers to plant seeds for changing minds in the future . So , please , for our nation ’ s sake , rise to your best selves .
As someone who knew something about divisions once wrote , “ We are not enemies , but friends . We must not be enemies . Though passion may have strained , it must not break our bonds of affection . The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched , as surely they will be , by the better angels of our nature. ” Come Wednesday , lawmakers will need to find a way to make their public case effectively , while not inflaming our already heightened sense of contempt and enmity for the other side . In the long run , this is all that will matter .
|
This happens for different reasons, but a key element is the vicious cycle between holding strong attitudes on an issue and something called “selective perception.” Essentially, the stronger your views are on an issue like Trump’s impeachment, the more likely you are to attend more carefully to information that supports your views and to ignore or disregard information that contradicts them. Consuming more belief-consistent information will, in turn, increase your original support or disapproval for impeachment, which just fortifies your attitudes. So, no, not much change will be seen in the minds of the 33 percent.
Except, maybe. One of the more interesting findings from research on attitude change is that our more important, self-defining attitudes do not seem to change incrementally, a little at a time, but they can change dramatically, from one extreme to another. Typically, when others try to change our views on important issues that we hold firmly, their attempts to persuade us with facts and figures end up bolstering our original attitudes or pushing us out to even further extremes. But strong attitudes can experience what psychologists call “threshold-effect changes.” Over time, when we are exposed to information contradicting our attitudes, that information—even if we ignore, discount or deny it—can seep into our thinking and accumulate to a point where, across some threshold, people radically change their views to the opposite side of the spectrum. In other words, nothing much changes until everything changes.
These jumps from one extreme attitude to another on self-defining issues are not uncommon, and have been seen with former skinheads turned tolerance trainers, peace activists turned violent militants, and religious zealots turned atheists. This type of drastic transformation is, of course, hard to predict, and it can be triggered by seemingly insignificant events (the tipping point for one skinhead was when his black co-worker tossed him half of his submarine sandwich when he had no lunch). But it typically occurs after repeated exposure to information contradicting their attitudes.
So, yes, it is possible that if some of the testimonies in the hearings are experienced by true believers (at either extreme) as counter to their beliefs but also persuasive, this information can plant seeds of a different point of view, that might, someday, lead to a big change. Still, this is unlikely to happen very soon.
Minds, however, can change among the vast majority of people who don’t hold extreme views. A recent study by the nonpartisan group More in Common found that about 67 percent of moderate Americans on both sides of the political divide—a group the authors of the study call “the exhausted majority”—are fed up with our current dysfunction, despise the contemptuous state of polarization we are in, and are eager to find ways to talk, compromise and work together again. These folks, particularly the 26 percent of moderates who are politically disengaged and thus are much less identified with either tribe, can be swayed. Of course, this assumes that they are not so burned out by the vitriol of our politics that they are unwilling to devote some attention to information coming out of the hearings.
Research suggests a few basic strategies for changing minds that are, well, changeable. First, immediately establishing the credibility of the witnesses—to both progressives and conservatives —is paramount. For example, the introductions of the witnesses should emphasize their merits for both the left and the right to see. Second, logic and evidence can matter when they are clearly laid out, compelling and derived from trusted sources. Third, moving testimony by witnesses about the profound moral dilemmas they faced in coming forward, and any specific threats they experienced to their and their family’s physical safety, can help to humanize otherwise dry, technical testimony and move the listener. And finally, because most viewers tend to lean either red or blue (even though they are “exhausted”) and so will view the proceedings to some degree through their team’s lens, it is critical for the lawmakers to choose to emphasize just a few takeaway points, and then to stress the urgency and importance of the viewers’ attention to them. This can serve to move viewers from their more automatic, heuristic modes of cognitive processing to more intentional, systematic modes, where they will be more likely to take in new information and learn.
But here is a caution for our leaders in Congress on both sides. Clearly, by many accounts, America is more polarized, anxious and exhausted by our political climate today than ever before. No, this is not all Congress’ doing, but many in Washington are playing their part. The resulting rise in the toxicity of our culture is such that today 86 percent of Americans are seriously concerned that our divisions will soon lead to violence.
So, as our Republican and Democratic members of Congress prepare for the public hearings—ready themselves to make their case and score points and change minds—they should understand what is at stake. A narrow focus on short wins today can bring devastating outcomes tomorrow. Of course, members of Congress have a job to do to reveal the truth and share the facts with the American public. But our social fabric is stretched to the limit, and the future of our society, in the form of our basic capacities for compassion, connection and shared humanity across our divide, is on the line. The impeachment hearings’ primary audience—the 67 percent ( not base voters)—is persuadable through credibility, logic and evidence. This is a chance for lawmakers to plant seeds for changing minds in the future. So, please, for our nation’s sake, rise to your best selves.
As someone who knew something about divisions once wrote, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Come Wednesday, lawmakers will need to find a way to make their public case effectively, while not inflaming our already heightened sense of contempt and enmity for the other side. In the long run, this is all that will matter.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
bpp2Cqpvyi2ER5Lr
|
|
china
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/trump-s-tariff-barrage-pushes-china-fight-to-point-of-no-return
|
Trump’s Tariff Barrage Pushes China Fight to Point of No Return
|
2018-07-11
|
Brendan Scott, Enda Curran
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:37 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his trade conflict with China toward a point where neither side can back down .
By Aug. 30 , as the U.S. nears mid-term elections vital for Trump ’ s legislative agenda , the White House will be ready to impose 10 percent tariffs on $ 200 billion of Chinese-made products , ranging from clothing to television parts to refrigerators . The levies announced Tuesday -- together with some $ 50 billion already in the works -- stand to raise import prices on almost half of everything the U.S. buys from the Asian nation .
China has seven weeks to make a deal or dig in and try to outlast the U.S. leader . President Xi Jinping , facing his own political pressures to look tough , has vowed to respond blow-for-blow . He ’ s already imposed retaliatory duties targeting Trump ’ s base including Iowa soybeans and Kentucky bourbon .
Yet matching the latest U.S. barrage would force China to either levy much higher tariffs or take more disruptive steps like canceling purchase orders , encouraging consumer boycotts and putting up regulatory hurdles . Not only does that risk provoking Trump to follow through on threats to tax virtually all Chinese products , it could unleash nationalist sentiment on both sides that fuels a deeper struggle for geopolitical dominance .
Trump on Wednesday framed his trade actions as necessary to shield American businesses and farmers from harmful trading practices .
“ Other countries ’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses . I will open things up , better than ever before , but it can ’ t go too quickly , ” Trump said in a Twitter post from Brussels , where he ’ s attending a NATO summit . “ I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers , and will win ! ”
“ It ’ s already past the point of no return , ” said Pauline Loong , managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong . “ What ’ s next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States . ”
Read more on the escalating conflict Handbags and Cameras Hit as Trump Tariffs Target Consumers
You Have a Month to Comment on Bull Semen , Vegetable Hair Tariff
Trump Must Meet Xi to Stop Trade War , Top House Republican Says
Those Cheap Chinese TVs ? They May Just Get a Lot More Expensive
Stocks fell and commodities slid with emerging-market assets Wednesday as investors assessed the fallout . The S & P 500 Index ended the longest rally in a month and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index retreated . While earlier tariffs were expected to have only a limited impact , economists warn a full-blown trade war could derail the strongest economic upswing in years .
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that it would be forced to retaliate against what it called “ totally unacceptable ” U.S. tariffs . There have been no confirmed high-level talks between the two sides since an early June visit to Beijing by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that achieved no breakthroughs .
Beijing “ never yields to threat or blackmail ” and will retaliate against the “ groundless ” tariffs , China ’ s Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said in written comments to ███ . “ The U.S. side ignored the progress , adopted unilateral and protectionist measures , and started the trade war . ”
What Our Economists Say ... “ As the targeted imports broaden to include more consumer products , a hit to household wallets and a bump to inflation could start to shift the political calculus in the U.S. , ” said ███ ’ s China economist Fielding Chen .
The Aug. 30 date ensures the trade fight features prominently in November ’ s U.S. congressional elections , and the announcement exposed fissures between Trump and his Republican Party about the strategy . House Ways and Means Committee chief Kevin Brady , of Texas , warned of “ a long , multi-year trade war between the two largest economies in the world that engulfs more and more of the globe . ”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch , of Utah , called the new levies “ reckless ” and not “ targeted. ” Senator Chuck Grassley , a Republican from Iowa , said he had a “ great deal of concern ” about the trade spat with China and the level of uncertainty it ’ s creating among farmers and businesses in his state. “ When you don ’ t know what ’ s going to be the outcome , it ’ s very uncertain , and it ’ s had a definite impact , ” he told ███ Television . “ How long is this going to go on ? I hope we can settle pretty soon . ”
Read more : Some tariffs apply to flows that don ’ t exist
The latest move suggests that Trump -- who in March declared that “ trade wars are good and easy to win ” -- may be compromising on his pledge to spare consumers from the pain . The tariffs could raise the prices of everything from baseball gloves to handbags to digital cameras just as voters are heading to the polls . Other high-profile items such as mobile phones have so far been spared .
The U.S. felt it had no choice , but to move forward on the new tariffs after China failed to respond to the administration ’ s concerns over unfair trade practices and Beijing ’ s abuse of American intellectual property , according to two senior officials who spoke to reporters . The Trump administration has so far rejected Chinese offers to trim its massive trade surplus by buying more American goods , and is demanding more systemic change .
“ For over a year , the Trump administration has patiently urged China to stop its unfair practices , open its market , and engage in true market competition , ” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement . “ China has not changed its behavior -- behavior that puts the future of the U.S. economy at risk . ”
Although the looming elections provide an immediate concern for Trump , a trade war poses a more existential concern for Xi , whose Communist Party has built its legitimacy on economic success . Prominent academics and some government officials have begun to question if China ’ s slowing , trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump , which has already weighed heavily on stock prices .
Among other things , the U.S. is asking China to roll back its “ Made-in-China 2025 ” program , a signature Xi initiative to dominate several strategic industries , such as semiconductors to aerospace development . Since abolishing presidential term limits , Xi has strengthened his control over the levers of power and money in China and can ’ t afford to look weak .
“ China is showing no signs of backing down and instead looks like it is preparing for a drawn out conflict , ” said Scott Kennedy , deputy director of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington . “ China has a million and one ways to retaliate . ”
— With assistance by Jenny Leonard , Andrew Mayeda , Bryce Baschuk , and Kevin Cirilli
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 5:37 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing his trade conflict with China toward a point where neither side can back down.
By Aug. 30, as the U.S. nears mid-term elections vital for Trump’s legislative agenda, the White House will be ready to impose 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese-made products, ranging from clothing to television parts to refrigerators. The levies announced Tuesday -- together with some $50 billion already in the works -- stand to raise import prices on almost half of everything the U.S. buys from the Asian nation.
China has seven weeks to make a deal or dig in and try to outlast the U.S. leader. President Xi Jinping, facing his own political pressures to look tough, has vowed to respond blow-for-blow. He’s already imposed retaliatory duties targeting Trump’s base including Iowa soybeans and Kentucky bourbon.
Yet matching the latest U.S. barrage would force China to either levy much higher tariffs or take more disruptive steps like canceling purchase orders, encouraging consumer boycotts and putting up regulatory hurdles. Not only does that risk provoking Trump to follow through on threats to tax virtually all Chinese products, it could unleash nationalist sentiment on both sides that fuels a deeper struggle for geopolitical dominance.
Trump on Wednesday framed his trade actions as necessary to shield American businesses and farmers from harmful trading practices.
“Other countries’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses. I will open things up, better than ever before, but it can’t go too quickly,” Trump said in a Twitter post from Brussels, where he’s attending a NATO summit. “I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers, and will win!”
“It’s already past the point of no return,” said Pauline Loong, managing director at research firm Asia-Analytica in Hong Kong. “What’s next is not so much a trade war or even a cold war as the dawn of an ice age in relations between China and the United States.”
Read more on the escalating conflict Handbags and Cameras Hit as Trump Tariffs Target Consumers
You Have a Month to Comment on Bull Semen, Vegetable Hair Tariff
Trump Must Meet Xi to Stop Trade War, Top House Republican Says
Those Cheap Chinese TVs? They May Just Get a Lot More Expensive
Stocks fell and commodities slid with emerging-market assets Wednesday as investors assessed the fallout. The S&P 500 Index ended the longest rally in a month and the Stoxx Europe 600 Index retreated. While earlier tariffs were expected to have only a limited impact, economists warn a full-blown trade war could derail the strongest economic upswing in years.
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said Tuesday that it would be forced to retaliate against what it called “ totally unacceptable” U.S. tariffs. There have been no confirmed high-level talks between the two sides since an early June visit to Beijing by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that achieved no breakthroughs.
Beijing “never yields to threat or blackmail” and will retaliate against the “groundless” tariffs, China’s Vice Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen said in written comments to Bloomberg. “The U.S. side ignored the progress, adopted unilateral and protectionist measures, and started the trade war.”
What Our Economists Say... “As the targeted imports broaden to include more consumer products, a hit to household wallets and a bump to inflation could start to shift the political calculus in the U.S.,” said Bloomberg’s China economist Fielding Chen.
The Aug. 30 date ensures the trade fight features prominently in November’s U.S. congressional elections, and the announcement exposed fissures between Trump and his Republican Party about the strategy. House Ways and Means Committee chief Kevin Brady, of Texas, warned of “a long, multi-year trade war between the two largest economies in the world that engulfs more and more of the globe.”
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, of Utah, called the new levies “reckless” and not “targeted.” Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said he had a “great deal of concern” about the trade spat with China and the level of uncertainty it’s creating among farmers and businesses in his state.“When you don’t know what’s going to be the outcome, it’s very uncertain, and it’s had a definite impact,” he told Bloomberg Television. “How long is this going to go on? I hope we can settle pretty soon.”
Read more: Some tariffs apply to flows that don’t exist
The latest move suggests that Trump -- who in March declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win” -- may be compromising on his pledge to spare consumers from the pain. The tariffs could raise the prices of everything from baseball gloves to handbags to digital cameras just as voters are heading to the polls. Other high-profile items such as mobile phones have so far been spared.
Unfair Practices
The U.S. felt it had no choice, but to move forward on the new tariffs after China failed to respond to the administration’s concerns over unfair trade practices and Beijing’s abuse of American intellectual property, according to two senior officials who spoke to reporters. The Trump administration has so far rejected Chinese offers to trim its massive trade surplus by buying more American goods, and is demanding more systemic change.
“For over a year, the Trump administration has patiently urged China to stop its unfair practices, open its market, and engage in true market competition,” Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in a statement. “China has not changed its behavior -- behavior that puts the future of the U.S. economy at risk.”
Although the looming elections provide an immediate concern for Trump, a trade war poses a more existential concern for Xi, whose Communist Party has built its legitimacy on economic success. Prominent academics and some government officials have begun to question if China’s slowing, trade-dependent economy can withstand a sustained attack from Trump, which has already weighed heavily on stock prices.
Among other things, the U.S. is asking China to roll back its “Made-in-China 2025” program, a signature Xi initiative to dominate several strategic industries, such as semiconductors to aerospace development. Since abolishing presidential term limits, Xi has strengthened his control over the levers of power and money in China and can’t afford to look weak.
“China is showing no signs of backing down and instead looks like it is preparing for a drawn out conflict,” said Scott Kennedy, deputy director of China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “China has a million and one ways to retaliate.”
— With assistance by Jenny Leonard, Andrew Mayeda, Bryce Baschuk, and Kevin Cirilli
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
PnVV1v7F0D8bhd5X
|
terrorism
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/16/top-general-foley-rescue-highest-risk-mission-ever/
|
Top general: Failed Foley rescue was ‘highest-risk mission’ ever
|
2014-09-16
|
Stephen Dinan
|
The Pentagon ’ s top general said Tuesday that the failed special forces mission to rescue James Foley and other hostages being kept by Islamic State militants was the toughest he ’ s ever seen .
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , didn ’ t go into details , but said the effort expended should answer some of the criticisms raised that the U.S. government didn ’ t do enough to try to get hostages released .
“ That was the most complex , highest-risk mission we ’ ve ever taken , ” the Army general said .
Foley , a reporter captured in 2012 , was beheaded by an Islamic State terrorist in a brutal execution the militants filmed and released on the Internet on Aug. 19 .
Foley ’ s parents have complained that the U.S. government didn ’ t communicate with them about steps that were being taken to try to free him , and said they were told they could be prosecuted if they tried to pay a ransom .
While Gen. Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wouldn ’ t go into details of the rescue mission , they said it showed they were trying to do something .
“ We have some limitations in our ability to collect intelligence inside Syria , but when we had the opportunity to do so , we tried to get ‘ em , ” Gen. Dempsey said .
Mr. Hagel said that while there are boundaries to what the U.S. can do , including a strict policy that the country does not pay ransoms , officials could do a better job of “ dealing with families and the human part of this . ”
During the mission , which reportedly took place earlier in the summer , special operations forces slipped into Syria but were unable to locate Foley or other hostages , who had apparently been moved in the time since the last intelligence the U.S. had .
Some military officials have reportedly second-guessed President Obama ’ s decision-making , with one report saying that his hesitation to give the go-ahead reduced the chances for success .
The White House , though , said Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead as soon as they believed the mission could be carried out successfully .
Islamic State militants have also killed American journalist Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines . But another American reporter , Peter Theo Curtis , was released late last month , apparently by the Nusra Front , an al Qaeda-linked group .
|
The Pentagon’s top general said Tuesday that the failed special forces mission to rescue James Foley and other hostages being kept by Islamic State militants was the toughest he’s ever seen.
Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, didn’t go into details, but said the effort expended should answer some of the criticisms raised that the U.S. government didn’t do enough to try to get hostages released.
“That was the most complex, highest-risk mission we’ve ever taken,” the Army general said.
Foley, a reporter captured in 2012, was beheaded by an Islamic State terrorist in a brutal execution the militants filmed and released on the Internet on Aug. 19.
Foley’s parents have complained that the U.S. government didn’t communicate with them about steps that were being taken to try to free him, and said they were told they could be prosecuted if they tried to pay a ransom.
While Gen. Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wouldn’t go into details of the rescue mission, they said it showed they were trying to do something.
“We have some limitations in our ability to collect intelligence inside Syria, but when we had the opportunity to do so, we tried to get ‘em,” Gen. Dempsey said.
Mr. Hagel said that while there are boundaries to what the U.S. can do, including a strict policy that the country does not pay ransoms, officials could do a better job of “dealing with families and the human part of this.”
During the mission, which reportedly took place earlier in the summer, special operations forces slipped into Syria but were unable to locate Foley or other hostages, who had apparently been moved in the time since the last intelligence the U.S. had.
Some military officials have reportedly second-guessed President Obama’s decision-making, with one report saying that his hesitation to give the go-ahead reduced the chances for success.
The White House, though, said Mr. Obama gave the go-ahead as soon as they believed the mission could be carried out successfully.
Islamic State militants have also killed American journalist Steven Sotloff and British aid worker David Haines. But another American reporter, Peter Theo Curtis, was released late last month, apparently by the Nusra Front, an al Qaeda-linked group.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
pZlutCuZNm832qqK
|
nsa
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/russia-snowden/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
Edward Snowden won't be pressured to end asylum, Russia says
|
2014-01-24
|
Elise Labott, Mariano Castillo
|
Story highlights A Russian lawmaker says Russia will not push Snowden out
Snowden wants to return home , but he wants protection from prosecution
Edward Snowden may stay in Russia longer than first thought .
Snowden has said the time is n't right for him to return to the United States , where he could face criminal charges for leaking classified information . Russia gave him asylum for a year .
Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and wo n't send him back home .
That word came Friday from Alexy Pushkov , a legislator who is head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Duma , Russia 's lower house . He spoke about Snowden at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
Russia 's position basically buys Snowden more time as he mulls his next move .
JUST WATCHED Edward Snowden responds to CNN Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Edward Snowden responds to CNN 01:45
JUST WATCHED A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden ? 04:56
JUST WATCHED Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case 01:36
Snowden has said he wants to return home but also wants whistle-blower protection . The U.S. government , meanwhile , says it will not offer clemency .
In an online chat Thursday , Snowden said that returning to the U.S. `` is the best resolution for all parties , '' but `` it 's unfortunately not possible in the face of current whistle-blower protection laws . ''
He pointed out that the U.S. government 's Whistleblower Protection Act does n't cover someone like him , a former government contractor .
`` There are so many holes in the laws , the protections they afford are so weak , and the processes for reporting they provide are so ineffective that they appear to be intended to discourage reporting of even the clearest wrongdoing , '' he wrote . `` ... My case clearly demonstrates the need for comprehensive whistle-blower protection act reform . ''
Snowden offered his remarks from Russia , where he 's been since June , having been granted a one-year asylum . Pushkov 's remarks appear to open the door to an extension of that asylum .
The U.S. government has n't stayed silent on his case , either .
On Thursday , around the time that Snowden was answering questions online , Attorney General Eric Holder said that `` if Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea , we would engage with his lawyers . ''
The government would take the same tack with anyone willing to plead guilty , Holder said at an event at the University of Virginia 's Miller Center .
But in Snowden 's case , the attorney general insisted , `` Clemency is n't something that we ( are ) willing to consider . ''
|
Story highlights A Russian lawmaker says Russia will not push Snowden out
Snowden wants to return home, but he wants protection from prosecution
The U.S. government says clemency is not an option
Edward Snowden may stay in Russia longer than first thought.
Snowden has said the time isn't right for him to return to the United States, where he could face criminal charges for leaking classified information. Russia gave him asylum for a year.
Now Russia says it will continue to extend asylum protections to Snowden and won't send him back home.
That word came Friday from Alexy Pushkov, a legislator who is head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Duma, Russia's lower house. He spoke about Snowden at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Russia's position basically buys Snowden more time as he mulls his next move.
JUST WATCHED Edward Snowden responds to CNN Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Edward Snowden responds to CNN 01:45
JUST WATCHED A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH A DOJ deal for Edward Snowden? 04:56
JUST WATCHED Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Atty Gen. Holder discusses Snowden case 01:36
Snowden has said he wants to return home but also wants whistle-blower protection. The U.S. government, meanwhile, says it will not offer clemency.
In an online chat Thursday, Snowden said that returning to the U.S. "is the best resolution for all parties," but "it's unfortunately not possible in the face of current whistle-blower protection laws."
He pointed out that the U.S. government's Whistleblower Protection Act doesn't cover someone like him, a former government contractor.
"There are so many holes in the laws, the protections they afford are so weak, and the processes for reporting they provide are so ineffective that they appear to be intended to discourage reporting of even the clearest wrongdoing," he wrote. "... My case clearly demonstrates the need for comprehensive whistle-blower protection act reform."
Snowden offered his remarks from Russia, where he's been since June, having been granted a one-year asylum. Pushkov's remarks appear to open the door to an extension of that asylum.
The U.S. government hasn't stayed silent on his case, either.
On Thursday, around the time that Snowden was answering questions online, Attorney General Eric Holder said that "if Mr. Snowden wanted to come back to the United States and enter a plea, we would engage with his lawyers."
The government would take the same tack with anyone willing to plead guilty, Holder said at an event at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.
But in Snowden's case, the attorney general insisted, "Clemency isn't something that we (are) willing to consider."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
VCAqVCCkTWioWWLE
|
capital_punishment_and_death_penalty
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/18/iran-happy-dancers-sentenced-to-1-lashes-jail/
|
Iran's 'Happy' dancers sentenced to 91 lashes, jail
|
2014-09-18
|
Lisa Daftari
|
Iran 's latest crackdown on freedom includes lashes and prison for seven young adults who posted a video of themselves dancing to the American pop hit `` Happy '' and a death sentence for a blogger accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad .
The seven men and women were arrested in May , but then released after self-professed `` moderate '' President Hassan Rouhani tweeted that the regime should lighten up . But the group was forced nonetheless to apologize on television and endure a trial in which they were convicted and each sentenced to 91 lashes . One was given a full year in prison while the others got six months , although their attorney told Iranwire.com the sentences were suspended .
“ A suspended sentence becomes null and void after a certain period of time , ” attorney Farshid Rofugaran said . For the Happy Group , that period will be three years . “ When it ’ s a suspended sentence , the verdict is not carried out , but if during this period a similar offense is committed , then the accused is subject to legal punishment and the suspended sentence will then be carried out as well . ”
The video was part of a global campaign launched by pop star Pharrell Williams and was viewed by more than 100,000 people on YouTube . The six who appeared on the video and a man who shot the footage apologized and said they had been tricked into doing it . After the confession , they were released on bail .
“ We can accept the verdict or appeal , ” said Rofugaran , adding that his clients are not banned from leaving the country .
Meanwhile , the ultimate penalty was handed down to Soheil Arabi , a blogger found guilty of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in his postings on Facebook . The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reported that Arabi will be able to appeal the decision .
Revolutionary Guard agents arrested Arabi , 30 , and his wife last November . Arabi 's wife was released a few hours later , but Arabi was kept in solitary confinement for two months inside the notorious Evin Prison before being found guilty of “ sabb al-nabi ” ( insulting the Prophet ) , on Aug. 30 .
“ Soheil had eight Facebook pages under different names , and he was charged with insulting the Imams and the Prophet because of the contents of those pages . He has accepted his charges , but throughout the trial , he stated that he wrote the material without thinking and in poor psychological condition , ” a source told the Campaign .
|
Iran's latest crackdown on freedom includes lashes and prison for seven young adults who posted a video of themselves dancing to the American pop hit "Happy" and a death sentence for a blogger accused of insulting Prophet Muhammad.
The seven men and women were arrested in May, but then released after self-professed "moderate" President Hassan Rouhani tweeted that the regime should lighten up. But the group was forced nonetheless to apologize on television and endure a trial in which they were convicted and each sentenced to 91 lashes. One was given a full year in prison while the others got six months, although their attorney told Iranwire.com the sentences were suspended.
“A suspended sentence becomes null and void after a certain period of time,” attorney Farshid Rofugaran said. For the Happy Group, that period will be three years. “When it’s a suspended sentence, the verdict is not carried out, but if during this period a similar offense is committed, then the accused is subject to legal punishment and the suspended sentence will then be carried out as well.”
The video was part of a global campaign launched by pop star Pharrell Williams and was viewed by more than 100,000 people on YouTube. The six who appeared on the video and a man who shot the footage apologized and said they had been tricked into doing it. After the confession, they were released on bail.
“We can accept the verdict or appeal,” said Rofugaran, adding that his clients are not banned from leaving the country.
Meanwhile, the ultimate penalty was handed down to Soheil Arabi, a blogger found guilty of insulting the Prophet Muhammad in his postings on Facebook. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reported that Arabi will be able to appeal the decision.
Revolutionary Guard agents arrested Arabi, 30, and his wife last November. Arabi's wife was released a few hours later, but Arabi was kept in solitary confinement for two months inside the notorious Evin Prison before being found guilty of “sabb al-nabi” (insulting the Prophet), on Aug. 30.
“Soheil had eight Facebook pages under different names, and he was charged with insulting the Imams and the Prophet because of the contents of those pages. He has accepted his charges, but throughout the trial, he stated that he wrote the material without thinking and in poor psychological condition,” a source told the Campaign.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
7QcjilFOQGEhuaEP
|
elections
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://www.apnews.com/9628a151610840dd93c3b0e3e65ecf9b
|
Tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans demand governor resign
|
2019-07-22
|
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin , front atop truck , participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan , Puerto Rico , Monday , July 22 , 2019 . Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island 's finance . ( AP Photo/Carlos Giusti )
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin , front atop truck , participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan , Puerto Rico , Monday , July 22 , 2019 . Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island 's finance . ( AP Photo/Carlos Giusti )
SAN JUAN , Puerto Rico ( AP ) — Waving flags , chanting and banging pots and pans , tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans jammed a highway Monday to demand the resignation of Gov . Ricardo Rosselló in a crisis triggered by a leak of offensive , obscenity-laden chat messages between him and his advisers .
The demonstration appeared to be the biggest protest on the island in nearly two decades .
“ Finally , the government ’ s mask has fallen , ” said Jannice Rivera , a 43-year-old mechanical engineer who lives in Houston but was born and raised in Puerto Rico and flew in to join the crowds .
The protest came 10 days after the leak of 889 pages of online chats in which Rosselló and some of his close aides insulted women and mocked constituents , including victims of Hurricane Maria .
The leak has intensified long-smoldering anger in the U.S. territory over persistent corruption and mismanagement by the island ’ s two main political parties , a severe debt crisis , a sickly economy and a slow recovery from Maria , which devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017 .
“ The people have awakened after so much outrage , ” said 69-year-old retired nurse Benedicta Villegas . “ There are still people without roofs and highways without lights . The chat was the tip of the iceberg . ”
The crowd surged along the Americas Expressway despite the punishing heat — toddlers , teenagers , professionals and the elderly , all dripping in sweat and smiling as they waved Puerto Rico flags large and small and hoisted signs .
“ This is to show that the people respect themselves , ” said Ana Carrasquillo , 26 . “ We ’ ve put up with corruption for so many years . ”
In an interview Monday with Fox News , Rosselló said that he will not resign and that he is focused on tackling corruption and helping the island recover from Maria .
“ I ’ m making amends , ” he said . “ I ’ ve apologized for all the comments that I made on the chat . ”
On Sunday evening , Rosselló , a Democrat , sought to calm the unrest by promising not to seek re-election in 2020 or continue as head of his pro-statehood New Progressive Party . That only further angered his critics , who have mounted street demonstrations for more than a week .
“ The people are not going to go away , ” said Johanna Soto , of the city of Carolina . “ That ’ s what he ’ s hoping for , but we outnumber him . ”
Asked who was advising Rosselló on staying in office , Rosselló ‘ s secretary of public affairs , Anthony Maceira , said the governor was speaking with his family , and “ that carries a great weight. ” Rosselló ’ s father , Pedro , was governor from 1993 to 2001 .
The biggest newspaper in this territory of more than 3 million American citizens , El Nuevo Dia , added to the pressure with the front-page headline : “ Governor , it ’ s time to listen to the people : You have to resign . ”
Asked whether the governor should step down , President Donald Trump said that Rosselló is a “ terrible ” governor and that hurricane relief money sent to Puerto Rico has been “ squandered , wasted and stolen ” and the island ’ s top leadership is “ totally , grossly incompetent . ”
The demonstrations represent the biggest protest movement on the island since Puerto Ricans rallied to put an end to U.S. Navy training on the island of Vieques more than 15 years ago .
Monday was the 10th consecutive day of protests , and more are being called for later in the week . The island ’ s largest mall , Plaza de las Américas , closed ahead of the protest , as did dozens of other businesses . The upheaval also prompted at least four cruise ships to cancel visits to Puerto Rico .
The crisis has stirred fears about the effects on the already fragile economy .
Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure part of its $ 70 billion in debt under federal supervision and deal with a 13-year recession through school closings , cutbacks in infrastructure maintenance and other austerity measures .
At the same time , the island is trying to rebuild from Maria , which caused more than $ 100 billion in damage , threw Puerto Rico into a year-long blackout and left thousands dead , most of them succumbing during the sweltering aftermath .
The island has also seen a recent string of arrests of Puerto Rico officials on corruption charges . Those arrested included the former education secretary .
|
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin, front atop truck, participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Monday, July 22, 2019. Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island's finance. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)
Puerto Rican singer Ricky Martin, front atop truck, participates with other local celebrities in a protest demanding the resignation of governor Ricardo Rossello in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Monday, July 22, 2019. Protesters are demanding Rossello step down for his involvement in a private chat in which he used profanities to describe an ex-New York City councilwoman and a federal control board overseeing the island's finance. (AP Photo/Carlos Giusti)
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Waving flags, chanting and banging pots and pans, tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans jammed a highway Monday to demand the resignation of Gov. Ricardo Rosselló in a crisis triggered by a leak of offensive, obscenity-laden chat messages between him and his advisers.
The demonstration appeared to be the biggest protest on the island in nearly two decades.
“Finally, the government’s mask has fallen,” said Jannice Rivera, a 43-year-old mechanical engineer who lives in Houston but was born and raised in Puerto Rico and flew in to join the crowds.
The protest came 10 days after the leak of 889 pages of online chats in which Rosselló and some of his close aides insulted women and mocked constituents, including victims of Hurricane Maria.
The leak has intensified long-smoldering anger in the U.S. territory over persistent corruption and mismanagement by the island’s two main political parties, a severe debt crisis, a sickly economy and a slow recovery from Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico in September 2017.
“The people have awakened after so much outrage,” said 69-year-old retired nurse Benedicta Villegas. “There are still people without roofs and highways without lights. The chat was the tip of the iceberg.”
The crowd surged along the Americas Expressway despite the punishing heat — toddlers, teenagers, professionals and the elderly, all dripping in sweat and smiling as they waved Puerto Rico flags large and small and hoisted signs.
“This is to show that the people respect themselves,” said Ana Carrasquillo, 26. “We’ve put up with corruption for so many years.”
In an interview Monday with Fox News, Rosselló said that he will not resign and that he is focused on tackling corruption and helping the island recover from Maria.
“I’m making amends,” he said. “I’ve apologized for all the comments that I made on the chat.”
On Sunday evening, Rosselló, a Democrat, sought to calm the unrest by promising not to seek re-election in 2020 or continue as head of his pro-statehood New Progressive Party. That only further angered his critics, who have mounted street demonstrations for more than a week.
“The people are not going to go away,” said Johanna Soto, of the city of Carolina. “That’s what he’s hoping for, but we outnumber him.”
Asked who was advising Rosselló on staying in office, Rosselló‘s secretary of public affairs, Anthony Maceira, said the governor was speaking with his family, and “that carries a great weight.” Rosselló’s father, Pedro, was governor from 1993 to 2001.
The biggest newspaper in this territory of more than 3 million American citizens, El Nuevo Dia, added to the pressure with the front-page headline: “Governor, it’s time to listen to the people: You have to resign.”
Asked whether the governor should step down, President Donald Trump said that Rosselló is a “terrible” governor and that hurricane relief money sent to Puerto Rico has been “squandered, wasted and stolen” and the island’s top leadership is “totally, grossly incompetent.”
The demonstrations represent the biggest protest movement on the island since Puerto Ricans rallied to put an end to U.S. Navy training on the island of Vieques more than 15 years ago.
Monday was the 10th consecutive day of protests, and more are being called for later in the week. The island’s largest mall, Plaza de las Américas, closed ahead of the protest, as did dozens of other businesses. The upheaval also prompted at least four cruise ships to cancel visits to Puerto Rico.
The crisis has stirred fears about the effects on the already fragile economy.
Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure part of its $70 billion in debt under federal supervision and deal with a 13-year recession through school closings, cutbacks in infrastructure maintenance and other austerity measures.
At the same time, the island is trying to rebuild from Maria, which caused more than $100 billion in damage, threw Puerto Rico into a year-long blackout and left thousands dead, most of them succumbing during the sweltering aftermath.
The island has also seen a recent string of arrests of Puerto Rico officials on corruption charges. Those arrested included the former education secretary.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
JzHvoMfYCFcIVboO
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/15/democrats-to-romney-stop-whining-over-felony-remark/
|
Democrats to Romney: 'Stop whining' over felony remark
|
2012-07-15
|
( CNN ) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as CEO of Bain Capital after leaving the firm was picked apart Sunday , with Republicans decrying the remark as the worst type of divisive politics and Obama 's team urging its rivals to `` stop whining . ''
Stephanie Cutter , Obama 's deputy campaign manager , originally made the claim Thursday on a conference call .
`` Either Mitt Romney , through his own words and his own signature was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC , which is a felony , or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments , '' Cutter said , responding to a newspaper report that Romney was listed as Bain Capital 's CEO after 1999 , when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm .
The significance of Romney 's date of departure centers on companies acquired by Bain that later shipped jobs overseas . Romney claims he left the company before those decisions were made , but Democrats point to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that indicate Romney was still listed as the firm 's CEO .
Cutter 's words drew a quick response from Obama 's opponents , who said the suggestion that the presumptive GOP nominee had committed a felony was below the office of the presidency .
Romney himself said in an interview with CNN on Friday that the charge was `` disgusting '' and `` demeaning , '' and called on Obama and his campaign to apologize .
Ed Gillespie , a senior adviser to Romney , echoed that sentiment on Sunday , saying on CNN the charges reflected a `` say anything '' stance adopted by the president 's campaign .
`` We now know that this president will say anything to keep this highest office in the land , even if it means demeaning the highest office in the land , '' Gillespie said .
And Kevin Madden , newly appointed to a more senior role on Romney 's team , said on CBS that the felony suggestion was out of line .
`` I think it is very troubling that the president would direct this campaign to label someone like Gov . Romney , who is a very good and honorable man , as a felon . That 's very troubling , '' Madden said .
Cutter , sitting next to Madden on the CBS set , said she was not calling Romney a felon , but merely stating the Bain documents , if misrepresentative of his role at the company , would amount to a felony . She refused to apologize for the remark .
`` He 's not going to get an apology , '' Cutter said . `` Just a few months ago in the primary Mitt Romney said to his opponents - who were crushing him at the time – 'stop whining . ' And that 's a good message for the Romney campaign . Instead of whining about what the Obama campaign is saying , just put the facts out there and let people decide rather than trying to hide them . ''
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel , who left his post as Obama 's chief of staff in 2010 to run in the mayoral election , had similar advice for the Republican candidate .
`` Give it up about Stephanie . Do n't worry about that , '' Emanuel said on ABC . `` What are you going to do when a China president says something about you ? Stop whining . If you want to claim Bain Capital as your calling card for the White House , defend what happened to Bain Capital and what happened to those jobs that went overseas , those jobs that were actually cut and eliminated . ''
|
7 years ago
(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama campaign official that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by listing himself as CEO of Bain Capital after leaving the firm was picked apart Sunday, with Republicans decrying the remark as the worst type of divisive politics and Obama's team urging its rivals to "stop whining."
Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, originally made the claim Thursday on a conference call.
"Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investments," Cutter said, responding to a newspaper report that Romney was listed as Bain Capital's CEO after 1999, when he has repeatedly said he left the private equity firm.
The significance of Romney's date of departure centers on companies acquired by Bain that later shipped jobs overseas. Romney claims he left the company before those decisions were made, but Democrats point to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that indicate Romney was still listed as the firm's CEO.
Cutter's words drew a quick response from Obama's opponents, who said the suggestion that the presumptive GOP nominee had committed a felony was below the office of the presidency.
Romney himself said in an interview with CNN on Friday that the charge was "disgusting" and "demeaning," and called on Obama and his campaign to apologize.
Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Romney, echoed that sentiment on Sunday, saying on CNN the charges reflected a "say anything" stance adopted by the president's campaign.
"We now know that this president will say anything to keep this highest office in the land, even if it means demeaning the highest office in the land," Gillespie said.
And Kevin Madden, newly appointed to a more senior role on Romney's team, said on CBS that the felony suggestion was out of line.
"I think it is very troubling that the president would direct this campaign to label someone like Gov. Romney, who is a very good and honorable man, as a felon. That's very troubling," Madden said.
Cutter, sitting next to Madden on the CBS set, said she was not calling Romney a felon, but merely stating the Bain documents, if misrepresentative of his role at the company, would amount to a felony. She refused to apologize for the remark.
"He's not going to get an apology," Cutter said. "Just a few months ago in the primary Mitt Romney said to his opponents - who were crushing him at the time – 'stop whining.' And that's a good message for the Romney campaign. Instead of whining about what the Obama campaign is saying, just put the facts out there and let people decide rather than trying to hide them."
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who left his post as Obama's chief of staff in 2010 to run in the mayoral election, had similar advice for the Republican candidate.
"Give it up about Stephanie. Don't worry about that," Emanuel said on ABC. "What are you going to do when a China president says something about you? Stop whining. If you want to claim Bain Capital as your calling card for the White House, defend what happened to Bain Capital and what happened to those jobs that went overseas, those jobs that were actually cut and eliminated."
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
fTISZrMaZG2aEQgA
|
|
elections
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/09/06/dnc_wednesday_fluke_warren_clinton
|
DNC Wednesday: Clinton's Endless Obama Endorsement
|
2012-09-06
|
Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, "Cortney OBrien", Timothy Meads
|
CHARLOTTE , NC - Round two of the 2012 DNC is finally complete , following an interminable stemwinder from former President Bill Clinton . A few thoughts on the evening : Prior to the 10pm ET hour , the convention lineup was wholly unremarkable . Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both spoke for the second time this week . Why ? These speeches lasted nearly six-and-a-half hours in total . Were retreads necessary ? In any case , we heard from more abortion proponents , several union bosses , and a long list of unremarkable politicians . It was tedious in the extreme , especially the mindless Bain demagoguery . On to my `` prime '' prime-time grades :
Sandra Fluke : D. The thirtysomething recent law grad gave a surly and self-pitying speech about birth control and abortion . This is a young woman whose claim to fame is demanding that the Catholic school she chose to attend be coerced by the federal government to cast aside their beliefs and pay for her `` free '' birth control . She cast herself as a courageous victim , repeatedly knocking Mitt Romney for refusing to stand up for her after Rush Limbaugh called her a name . Absolutely pitiful . Her demagoguery about women `` dying '' under the Romney/Ryan plan was unseemly , crass , and befitting her pathetic 15 minutes of fame . Sandra Fluke may be a hero to some liberals , but I ca n't imagine she has even an ounce of appeal to most average people . Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers was decidedly unimpressed with Fluke 's whole schtick .
Jim Sinegal : N/A . The former CEO of Costco 's job was to convince people that Democrats are good for business . His speech was dull and so unmemorable that I have no meaningful analysis to offer .
Elizabeth Warren : C. The Harvard Law professor led the class warfare fight tonight , as is her wont . We do everything `` together , '' the system 's `` rigged , '' etc . She called ( surprise ! ) for much higher levels of government `` investment '' in practically all imaginable sectors . As the author of the original `` you did n't build that '' riff , her message was characteristic and reprehensible . Her delivery was slightly improved and she remembered to smile -- so marks for that , I guess . Interestingly , Warren did n't mention her `` heritage . '' Weird , right ?
Bill Clinton : B+ . It was good . It should have been shorter . If it had , it would have been significantly better . The former president spoke for 48 minutes ; he was reportedly allotted 20-25 minutes . Clinton made the best case available to Obama backers , basically : Things were really bad , he inherited an impossible problem , he 's done as well as anyone possibly could have , things are starting to get better , he 's a good guy , and he needs more time . This argument rests on the hope that voters will believe that they 're better off under Obama and that his policies have not been counter-productive . Tough sledding , but Clinton 's a word wizard . He spun a compelling yarn . He took a risk , though , by ignoring his own pollsters ' advice by crossing into Obama economy happy talk a little too often . Clinton also engaged in a lot of Republican blaming , slightly leavened by a few kind words about his Republican predecessor and successor . He repeated the `` GOP obstructionism '' trope without any acknowledgement of Democrats ' massive majorities for two full years , nor any recognition that the American people elected Republicans in a landslide in 2010 explicitly to slam the brakes on the Obama agenda . After moving through the ( effective ) heart of his remarks , Clinton decided to play fact-checker-in-chief . This is where he wandered . He addressed a litany of Republican arguments and policies , erecting and destroying straw men along the way . His `` arithmetic , '' as he called it , was tendentious and incomplete . Indeed , he repeated many of the claims FactCheck.org dealt with this morning . He talked , and talked , and talked -- on the economy , on healthcare , on Medicare , on the debt , and on welfare reform ( speaking of which , read this and this ) . His mind is still sharp and his political instincts are still keen , but Clinton strayed from the script too often and overstayed his welcome . Not in this hall , of course . The partisan crowd lapped up every last word . But at home . If his address had been shaved down to 30 or even 35 minutes , it would have been dynamite . It was still quite good . The guy loves to talk , and he 's pretty fun to listen to . In the end , Bill Clinton made the most effective sales pitch for `` four more years '' we 've heard at this convention . Did people stick it out through he whole marathon , or were they watching football ? The image of the night was Obama striding on stage to hug Clinton as the pair basked in the crowd 's adulation . Obama wants voters to almost imagine Clinton as his running mate , thus appropriating the 42nd president 's record and enduring good will . Obama 's counting on Clinton 's decade-old legacy to save him from his own .
Odds and Ends : The media is eager to move past today 's floor debacle , so they 'll pump a `` back on track , thanks to a masterful Clinton performance ! '' narrative . Clinton salvaged a lackluster 10pm hour ( and session , really ) then dragged it well into the next . Clinton 's star power and strong endorsement certainly helped Obama ; the rest of the night , not so much .
|
CHARLOTTE, NC - Round two of the 2012 DNC is finally complete, following an interminable stemwinder from former President Bill Clinton. A few thoughts on the evening: Prior to the 10pm ET hour, the convention lineup was wholly unremarkable. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer both spoke for the second time this week. Why? These speeches lasted nearly six-and-a-half hours in total. Were retreads necessary? In any case, we heard from more abortion proponents, several union bosses, and a long list of unremarkable politicians. It was tedious in the extreme, especially the mindless Bain demagoguery. On to my "prime" prime-time grades:
Sandra Fluke: D. The thirtysomething recent law grad gave a surly and self-pitying speech about birth control and abortion. This is a young woman whose claim to fame is demanding that the Catholic school she chose to attend be coerced by the federal government to cast aside their beliefs and pay for her "free" birth control. She cast herself as a courageous victim, repeatedly knocking Mitt Romney for refusing to stand up for her after Rush Limbaugh called her a name. Absolutely pitiful. Her demagoguery about women "dying" under the Romney/Ryan plan was unseemly, crass, and befitting her pathetic 15 minutes of fame. Sandra Fluke may be a hero to some liberals, but I can't imagine she has even an ounce of appeal to most average people. Democratic commentator Kirsten Powers was decidedly unimpressed with Fluke's whole schtick.
Jim Sinegal: N/A. The former CEO of Costco's job was to convince people that Democrats are good for business. His speech was dull and so unmemorable that I have no meaningful analysis to offer.
Elizabeth Warren: C. The Harvard Law professor led the class warfare fight tonight, as is her wont. We do everything "together," the system's "rigged," etc. She called (surprise!) for much higher levels of government "investment" in practically all imaginable sectors. As the author of the original "you didn't build that" riff, her message was characteristic and reprehensible. Her delivery was slightly improved and she remembered to smile -- so marks for that, I guess. Interestingly, Warren didn't mention her "heritage." Weird, right?
Bill Clinton: B+. It was good. It should have been shorter. If it had, it would have been significantly better. The former president spoke for 48 minutes; he was reportedly allotted 20-25 minutes. Clinton made the best case available to Obama backers, basically: Things were really bad, he inherited an impossible problem, he's done as well as anyone possibly could have, things are starting to get better, he's a good guy, and he needs more time. This argument rests on the hope that voters will believe that they're better off under Obama and that his policies have not been counter-productive. Tough sledding, but Clinton's a word wizard. He spun a compelling yarn. He took a risk, though, by ignoring his own pollsters' advice by crossing into Obama economy happy talk a little too often. Clinton also engaged in a lot of Republican blaming, slightly leavened by a few kind words about his Republican predecessor and successor. He repeated the "GOP obstructionism" trope without any acknowledgement of Democrats' massive majorities for two full years, nor any recognition that the American people elected Republicans in a landslide in 2010 explicitly to slam the brakes on the Obama agenda. After moving through the (effective) heart of his remarks, Clinton decided to play fact-checker-in-chief. This is where he wandered. He addressed a litany of Republican arguments and policies, erecting and destroying straw men along the way. His "arithmetic," as he called it, was tendentious and incomplete. Indeed, he repeated many of the claims FactCheck.org dealt with this morning. He talked, and talked, and talked -- on the economy, on healthcare, on Medicare, on the debt, and on welfare reform (speaking of which, read this and this). His mind is still sharp and his political instincts are still keen, but Clinton strayed from the script too often and overstayed his welcome. Not in this hall, of course. The partisan crowd lapped up every last word. But at home. If his address had been shaved down to 30 or even 35 minutes, it would have been dynamite. It was still quite good. The guy loves to talk, and he's pretty fun to listen to. In the end, Bill Clinton made the most effective sales pitch for "four more years" we've heard at this convention. Did people stick it out through he whole marathon, or were they watching football? The image of the night was Obama striding on stage to hug Clinton as the pair basked in the crowd's adulation. Obama wants voters to almost imagine Clinton as his running mate, thus appropriating the 42nd president's record and enduring good will. Obama's counting on Clinton's decade-old legacy to save him from his own.
Odds and Ends: The media is eager to move past today's floor debacle, so they'll pump a "back on track, thanks to a masterful Clinton performance!" narrative. Clinton salvaged a lackluster 10pm hour (and session, really) then dragged it well into the next. Clinton's star power and strong endorsement certainly helped Obama; the rest of the night, not so much.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
PAN7i5rlb0Z6tF1U
|
coronavirus
|
Bloomberg
| 11
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-31/hospitals-tell-doctors-they-ll-be-fired-if-they-talk-to-press
|
Hospitals Tell Doctors They’ll Be Fired If They Speak Out About Lack of Gear
|
2020-03-31
|
Olivia Carville, Emma Court, Kristen V Brown
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:19 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
Hospitals are threatening to fire health-care workers who publicize their working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic -- and have in some cases followed through .
Ming Lin , an emergency room physician in Washington state , said he was told Friday he was out of a job because he ’ d given an interview to a newspaper about a Facebook post detailing what he believed to be inadequate protective equipment and testing . In Chicago , a nurse was fired after emailing colleagues that she wanted to wear a more protective mask while on duty . In New York , the NYU Langone Health system has warned employees they could be terminated if they talk to the media without authorization .
“ Hospitals are muzzling nurses and other health-care workers in an attempt to preserve their image , ” said Ruth Schubert , a spokeswoman for the Washington State Nurses Association . “ It is outrageous . ”
Hospitals have traditionally had strict media guidelines to protect patient privacy , urging staff to talk with journalists only through official public relations offices . But the pandemic has ushered in a new era , Schubert said .
Health-care workers “ must have the ability to tell the public what is really going on inside the facilities where they are caring for Covid-19 patients , ” she said .
One reason is to prepare other nurses and doctors for the looming onslaught of cases and encourage donations of much-needed equipment , particularly the personal protective equipment or PPE that protects them from being infected and in turn infecting other patients as well as their families when they go home .
In China , one of the earliest alarms about the mysterious new illness was raised by a doctor in an online chatroom in late December . He was reprimanded and forced to sign a police statement that the post was illegal . He later contracted the disease from a patient and died .
It ’ s hard to come to grips with the fact that # WhenCoronaVirusIsOver some of us in healthcare will not be standing . And to think that is partially due to a lack of # PPE is infuriating . # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/id5rrHoQFH — Joseph Sakran ( @ JosephSakran ) March 29 , 2020
“ It is good and appropriate for health-care workers to be able to express their own fears and concerns , especially when expressing that might get them better protection , ” said Glenn Cohen , faculty director of Harvard Law School ’ s bioethics center . It ’ s likely hospitals are trying to limit reputational damage because “ when health-care workers say they are not being protected , the public gets very upset at the hospital system . ”
Doctors are a famously independent profession , where individual medical judgment on what ’ s best for the patient is prized over administrative dictates . That ’ s reared its head during the Covid-19 outbreak , with many physicians , nurses and other health-care workers taking to social media to express deep concerns about the lack of protective gear or much-needed patient-care equipment like respirators . Some posts have gone viral and are being shared hundreds of thousands of times , often tagged with # GetMePPE . Privacy laws prohibit disclosing specific patient information , but they don ’ t bar discussing general working conditions .
After examining a hypoxic woman in her 50s with no medical problems who likely has COVID , I had to clean my single-use face shield that I ’ ve worn the past three days with disinfectant used to clean hospital beds since we ran out of sanitizing wipes # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/85xQcmc1dN — Ayrenne Adams , MD MPH ( @ AyrenneAdamsMD ) March 28 , 2020
NYU Langone Health employees received a notice Friday from Kathy Lewis , executive vice president of communications , saying that anyone who talked to the media without authorization would be “ subject to disciplinary action , including termination . ”
Jim Mandler , a spokesman for NYU Langone Health , said the policy was to protect patient and staff confidentiality . “ Because information is constantly evolving , it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media . ”
New York ’ s Montefiore Health System requires staff get permission before speaking publicly , and sent a reminder in a March 17 newsletter that all media requests “ must be shared and vetted ” by the public relations department .
“ Associates are not authorized to interact with reporters or speak on behalf of the institution in any capacity , without pre-approval , ” according to the policy , which was seen by ███ News .
Lauri Mazurkiewicz , the Chicago nurse who was fired by Northwestern Memorial Hospital after urging colleagues to wear more protective equipment , has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit .
“ A lot of hospitals are lying to their workers and saying that simple masks are sufficient and nurses are getting sick and they are dying , ” she said .
Mazurkiewicz , 46 , has asthma and cares for her father , who suffers from a respiratory disease . At 75 , he ’ s in one of the most at-risk groups of dying from the virus . “ I didn ’ t want to get infected because I ’ m not wearing the proper mask and then spread it to my patients and my family , ” she said .
A Northwestern Memorial Hospital spokesperson declined to comment , citing the lawsuit . The hospital said in an emailed statement that it “ is committed to the safety of our employees . ”
My babies are too young to read this now . And they ’ d barely recognize me in my gear . But if they lose me to COVID I want them to know Mommy tried really hard to do her job . # GetMePPE # NYC pic.twitter.com/OMew5G7mjK — Cornelia Griggs ( @ CorneliaLG ) March 29 , 2020
Charles Prosper , chief executive of PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center ’ s Northwest network where Lin worked in Bellingham , said in an email that Lin was “ publicly critical ” of the hospital ’ s readiness to deal with patients . Lin ’ s contract is through TeamHealth , which said it ’ s seeking to find him new work .
“ Our oath is to do no harm , ” Lin said . “ I spoke out for patient safety and as a result I got terminated . ”
Not all hospitals are blocking staff from talking to the press . New York ’ s Mount Sinai has been scheduling media interviews for nurses , physicians and trainees to help the public understand the severity of the crisis , a spokesperson said in an emailed statement . The University of California San Francisco Medical Center has gotten hundreds of such calls and encouraged workers to talk to reporters .
Nisha Mehta is a 38-year radiologist from Charlotte , North Carolina , who runs two Facebook groups for physicians with around 70,000 members . She ’ s fielded numerous requests from health-care workers hoping to get their stories into the public arena .
“ I ’ m hearing widespread stories from physicians across the country and they are all saying : ‘ We have these stories that we think are important to get out , but we are being told by our hospital systems that we are not allowed to speak to the press , and if we do so there will be extreme consequences , ” she said .
Many say they get daily emails urging them not to talk to the media under any circumstances . “ The public needs to hear these stories and other physicians need to hear them to be warned against what ’ s coming , ” Mehta said . “ It ’ s so important that everyone understands how bad this is going to get . ”
|
LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:19 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email
Hospitals are threatening to fire health-care workers who publicize their working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic -- and have in some cases followed through.
Ming Lin, an emergency room physician in Washington state, said he was told Friday he was out of a job because he’d given an interview to a newspaper about a Facebook post detailing what he believed to be inadequate protective equipment and testing. In Chicago, a nurse was fired after emailing colleagues that she wanted to wear a more protective mask while on duty. In New York, the NYU Langone Health system has warned employees they could be terminated if they talk to the media without authorization.
“Hospitals are muzzling nurses and other health-care workers in an attempt to preserve their image,” said Ruth Schubert, a spokeswoman for the Washington State Nurses Association. “It is outrageous.”
Hospitals have traditionally had strict media guidelines to protect patient privacy, urging staff to talk with journalists only through official public relations offices. But the pandemic has ushered in a new era, Schubert said.
Health-care workers “must have the ability to tell the public what is really going on inside the facilities where they are caring for Covid-19 patients,” she said.
Bloomberg News wants to hear from health-care workers on the front lines. Click here to tell us.
One reason is to prepare other nurses and doctors for the looming onslaught of cases and encourage donations of much-needed equipment, particularly the personal protective equipment or PPE that protects them from being infected and in turn infecting other patients as well as their families when they go home.
In China, one of the earliest alarms about the mysterious new illness was raised by a doctor in an online chatroom in late December. He was reprimanded and forced to sign a police statement that the post was illegal. He later contracted the disease from a patient and died.
It’s hard to come to grips with the fact that #WhenCoronaVirusIsOver some of us in healthcare will not be standing. And to think that is partially due to a lack of #PPE is infuriating. #GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/id5rrHoQFH — Joseph Sakran (@JosephSakran) March 29, 2020
“It is good and appropriate for health-care workers to be able to express their own fears and concerns, especially when expressing that might get them better protection,” said Glenn Cohen, faculty director of Harvard Law School’s bioethics center. It’s likely hospitals are trying to limit reputational damage because “when health-care workers say they are not being protected, the public gets very upset at the hospital system.”
Read more about PPE shortages:
Doctors are a famously independent profession, where individual medical judgment on what’s best for the patient is prized over administrative dictates. That’s reared its head during the Covid-19 outbreak, with many physicians, nurses and other health-care workers taking to social media to express deep concerns about the lack of protective gear or much-needed patient-care equipment like respirators. Some posts have gone viral and are being shared hundreds of thousands of times, often tagged with #GetMePPE. Privacy laws prohibit disclosing specific patient information, but they don’t bar discussing general working conditions.
After examining a hypoxic woman in her 50s with no medical problems who likely has COVID, I had to clean my single-use face shield that I’ve worn the past three days with disinfectant used to clean hospital beds since we ran out of sanitizing wipes #GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/85xQcmc1dN — Ayrenne Adams, MD MPH (@AyrenneAdamsMD) March 28, 2020
NYU Langone Health employees received a notice Friday from Kathy Lewis, executive vice president of communications, saying that anyone who talked to the media without authorization would be “subject to disciplinary action, including termination.”
Jim Mandler, a spokesman for NYU Langone Health, said the policy was to protect patient and staff confidentiality. “Because information is constantly evolving, it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media.”
New York’s Montefiore Health System requires staff get permission before speaking publicly, and sent a reminder in a March 17 newsletter that all media requests “must be shared and vetted” by the public relations department.
“Associates are not authorized to interact with reporters or speak on behalf of the institution in any capacity, without pre-approval,” according to the policy, which was seen by Bloomberg News.
Lauri Mazurkiewicz, the Chicago nurse who was fired by Northwestern Memorial Hospital after urging colleagues to wear more protective equipment, has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit.
“A lot of hospitals are lying to their workers and saying that simple masks are sufficient and nurses are getting sick and they are dying,” she said.
Mazurkiewicz, 46, has asthma and cares for her father, who suffers from a respiratory disease. At 75, he’s in one of the most at-risk groups of dying from the virus. “I didn’t want to get infected because I’m not wearing the proper mask and then spread it to my patients and my family,” she said.
A Northwestern Memorial Hospital spokesperson declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. The hospital said in an emailed statement that it “is committed to the safety of our employees.”
My babies are too young to read this now. And they’d barely recognize me in my gear. But if they lose me to COVID I want them to know Mommy tried really hard to do her job. #GetMePPE #NYC pic.twitter.com/OMew5G7mjK — Cornelia Griggs (@CorneliaLG) March 29, 2020
Charles Prosper, chief executive of PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center’s Northwest network where Lin worked in Bellingham, said in an email that Lin was “publicly critical” of the hospital’s readiness to deal with patients. Lin’s contract is through TeamHealth, which said it’s seeking to find him new work.
“Our oath is to do no harm,” Lin said. “I spoke out for patient safety and as a result I got terminated.”
Not all hospitals are blocking staff from talking to the press. New York’s Mount Sinai has been scheduling media interviews for nurses, physicians and trainees to help the public understand the severity of the crisis, a spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The University of California San Francisco Medical Center has gotten hundreds of such calls and encouraged workers to talk to reporters.
Nisha Mehta is a 38-year radiologist from Charlotte, North Carolina, who runs two Facebook groups for physicians with around 70,000 members. She’s fielded numerous requests from health-care workers hoping to get their stories into the public arena.
“I’m hearing widespread stories from physicians across the country and they are all saying: ‘We have these stories that we think are important to get out, but we are being told by our hospital systems that we are not allowed to speak to the press, and if we do so there will be extreme consequences,” she said.
Many say they get daily emails urging them not to talk to the media under any circumstances. “The public needs to hear these stories and other physicians need to hear them to be warned against what’s coming,” Mehta said. “It’s so important that everyone understands how bad this is going to get.”
— With assistance by Riley Griffin
|
www.bloomberg.com
| 2center
|
zt0WI952L6fp3Q9f
|
white_house
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/white-house-allies-refute-gates-criticism/?hpt=po_c1
|
White House allies rebuke Gates criticism
|
2014-01-07
|
( CNN ) - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off shock waves in Washington with accounts from his upcoming memoir , in which he unleashes blistering criticism of Congress and his former colleagues in the Obama administration .
He also claims the President lost faith in his own Afghanistan policy .
Gates ' comments come in his memoir `` Duty : Memoirs of a Secretary at War , '' which was obtained by CNN but set to be released next week .
In the book , Gates writes , `` [ Obama ] eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered in Afghanistan , his doubts fed by top White House civilian advisers opposed to the strategy , who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing . ''
A Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on into Obama 's administration , Gates also writes of a pivotal 2011 meeting in which Obama questions the abilities of Gen. David H. Petraeus .
`` As I sat there , I thought : The president does n't trust his commander , ca n't stand Karzai , does n't believe in his own strategy and does n't consider the war to be his ... For him , it 's all about getting out , '' Gates writes .
A source familiar with White House thinking on how to respond to Gates ' memoir told CNN that White House officials have been in meetings on the issue and were reaching out to allies to defend the President against the claims .
The source said they are being careful not to attack Gates directly , thinking that will backfire .
Officials believe Obama 's foreign policy legacy is strong because of his Afghanistan policies and the killing of Osama bin Laden , and that Gates ' accusations do n't hurt with the Democratic base .
A White House official called attention to two parts of the book that reflect positively on the President . Gates said of Obama 's chief Afghanistan policies , `` I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions . ''
`` I never doubted Obama 's support for the troops , '' Gates writes . The official , however , did not highlight the rest of the sentence , which says `` only his support for their mission . ''
A former White House official contested the excerpts saying , `` I thought the President was a close ally of Gates . It 's disappointing , because if Gates had issues you would 've expected him to raise them . When I spoke to Gates about the president he was always effusive . ''
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the President `` deeply appreciates Gates ' service '' and is open to differing points of view from his national security team .
`` Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years , and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting , dismantling and defeating al Qaeda , while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war , which will end this year , '' Hayden said in response to the comments .
A senior U.S. military official involved in some of the events described in the book expressed dismay with Gates , telling CNN that if Gates had been in uniform and felt that the President and his staff were deficient , he would have had an obligation to resign . He noted some may feel Gates also had the same obligation given that he signed orders sending troops off to war .
This official was directly involved in Afghanistan troop surge discussions . He was adamant the military commanders did not `` game '' the President on the numbers , but they came to realize Obama felt that way .
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted in response to reports of the memoir , criticizing the timing of the former defense secretary 's comments .
Gates was also critical of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden , recounting a conversation between Obama and Clinton suggesting political motives for their positions on Iraq .
`` Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [ 2007 ] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary , ” Gates writes . “ The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political . To hear the two of them making these admissions , and in front of me , was as surprising as it was dismaying . ''
The former White House official responded , `` President Obama evaluated the merits of the surge but his opposition to it was not political , rather in line with his thought that more of the same was not the right path . ''
Of Biden , Gates wrote , `` I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades . ”
Hayden said Obama disagrees with Gates ' assessment of Biden and hailed the Vice President as `` one of the leading statesmen of his time . ''
One day after Gates book bonanza , a rare peek into Obama-Biden lunch
For as scathing as Gates was in describing the Obama administration , the former defense secretary said none of the difficulties he had with the executive branch `` compared with the pain of dealing with Congress , '' a body he describes as phony , self-centered and narrow-minded .
`` Congress is best viewed from a distance – the farther the better – because up close , it is truly ugly , '' Gates wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal , which was adapted from his book .
`` I saw most of Congress as uncivil , incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities ( such as timely appropriations ) , micromanagerial , parochial , hypocritical , egotistical , thin-skinned and prone to put self ( and re-election ) before country . ''
Gates opened the piece by writing that in the numerous times he testified before Congress , he found himself `` tempted to stand up , slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot '' because of the `` rude , insulting , belittling , bullying and all too often highly personal attacks '' one has to endure during congressional testimony .
He said if he had done so , he would have told Congress , `` I may be the secretary of defense , but I am also an American citizen , and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that . ''
`` Members postured and acted as judge , jury and executioner , '' he wrote .
His hypothesis as to why so many members `` were in a permanent state of outrage : '' The members must have `` suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management . ''
Another congressional thorn in Gates ' side brought to light in his opinion editorial is how Congress handled deciding which defense instillations and bases to close during budget tightening .
Gates wrote that `` any defense facility or contract in their district or state , no matter how superfluous or wasteful , was sacrosanct , '' even if the member had `` stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful . ''
Critics of the memoir blasted Gates for publishing the critique in the middle of the Obama ’ s second term , saying the more appropriate move would have been to wait until after his former boss leaves the White House in 2016 .
A source close to Gates noted that he ’ s a historian by nature and wanted to document what went on but did n't want to wait because he believed the content of his book is all still relevant and should be discussed real time , especially issues of war and the troops .
The dysfunction in Washington and the way commanders and generals were treated really upset him , the source added .
Gates disagrees that his decision to release the book now is disloyal . In fact , he believes just the opposite and stands by all of it , the source said .
As for Gates ’ stinging criticism of Congress , the source said Gates had the most disdain for the House Foreign Affairs Committee , though he didn ’ t give specific names of lawmakers .
|
6 years ago
Updated 12:05 p.m. ET, 1/8/2014
(CNN) - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off shock waves in Washington with accounts from his upcoming memoir, in which he unleashes blistering criticism of Congress and his former colleagues in the Obama administration.
He also claims the President lost faith in his own Afghanistan policy.
Follow @politicalticker
Gates' comments come in his memoir "Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War," which was obtained by CNN but set to be released next week.
In the book, Gates writes, "[Obama] eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered in Afghanistan, his doubts fed by top White House civilian advisers opposed to the strategy, who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing."
A Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on into Obama's administration, Gates also writes of a pivotal 2011 meeting in which Obama questions the abilities of Gen. David H. Petraeus.
"As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn't trust his commander, can't stand Karzai, doesn't believe in his own strategy and doesn't consider the war to be his...For him, it's all about getting out," Gates writes.
A source familiar with White House thinking on how to respond to Gates' memoir told CNN that White House officials have been in meetings on the issue and were reaching out to allies to defend the President against the claims.
The source said they are being careful not to attack Gates directly, thinking that will backfire.
Officials believe Obama's foreign policy legacy is strong because of his Afghanistan policies and the killing of Osama bin Laden, and that Gates' accusations don't hurt with the Democratic base.
A White House official called attention to two parts of the book that reflect positively on the President. Gates said of Obama's chief Afghanistan policies, "I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions."
"I never doubted Obama's support for the troops," Gates writes. The official, however, did not highlight the rest of the sentence, which says "only his support for their mission."
A former White House official contested the excerpts saying, "I thought the President was a close ally of Gates. It's disappointing, because if Gates had issues you would've expected him to raise them. When I spoke to Gates about the president he was always effusive."
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the President "deeply appreciates Gates' service" and is open to differing points of view from his national security team.
"Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years, and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al Qaeda, while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war, which will end this year," Hayden said in response to the comments.
A senior U.S. military official involved in some of the events described in the book expressed dismay with Gates, telling CNN that if Gates had been in uniform and felt that the President and his staff were deficient, he would have had an obligation to resign. He noted some may feel Gates also had the same obligation given that he signed orders sending troops off to war.
This official was directly involved in Afghanistan troop surge discussions. He was adamant the military commanders did not "game" the President on the numbers, but they came to realize Obama felt that way.
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted in response to reports of the memoir, criticizing the timing of the former defense secretary's comments.
Criticism of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden
Gates was also critical of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, recounting a conversation between Obama and Clinton suggesting political motives for their positions on Iraq.
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary,” Gates writes. “The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying."
Republicans use Gates' new book to hammer Clinton, Biden
The former White House official responded, "President Obama evaluated the merits of the surge but his opposition to it was not political, rather in line with his thought that more of the same was not the right path."
Of Biden, Gates wrote, "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”
Hayden said Obama disagrees with Gates' assessment of Biden and hailed the Vice President as "one of the leading statesmen of his time."
One day after Gates book bonanza, a rare peek into Obama-Biden lunch
Criticism of Congress more severe
For as scathing as Gates was in describing the Obama administration, the former defense secretary said none of the difficulties he had with the executive branch "compared with the pain of dealing with Congress," a body he describes as phony, self-centered and narrow-minded.
"Congress is best viewed from a distance – the farther the better – because up close, it is truly ugly," Gates wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal, which was adapted from his book.
"I saw most of Congress as uncivil, incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned and prone to put self (and re-election) before country."
Gates opened the piece by writing that in the numerous times he testified before Congress, he found himself "tempted to stand up, slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot" because of the "rude, insulting, belittling, bullying and all too often highly personal attacks" one has to endure during congressional testimony.
He said if he had done so, he would have told Congress, "I may be the secretary of defense, but I am also an American citizen, and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that."
"Members postured and acted as judge, jury and executioner," he wrote.
His hypothesis as to why so many members "were in a permanent state of outrage:" The members must have "suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management."
Another congressional thorn in Gates' side brought to light in his opinion editorial is how Congress handled deciding which defense instillations and bases to close during budget tightening.
Gates wrote that "any defense facility or contract in their district or state, no matter how superfluous or wasteful, was sacrosanct," even if the member had "stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful."
Why he wrote the book—now
Critics of the memoir blasted Gates for publishing the critique in the middle of the Obama’s second term, saying the more appropriate move would have been to wait until after his former boss leaves the White House in 2016.
A source close to Gates noted that he’s a historian by nature and wanted to document what went on but didn't want to wait because he believed the content of his book is all still relevant and should be discussed real time, especially issues of war and the troops.
The dysfunction in Washington and the way commanders and generals were treated really upset him, the source added.
Gates disagrees that his decision to release the book now is disloyal. In fact, he believes just the opposite and stands by all of it, the source said.
As for Gates’ stinging criticism of Congress, the source said Gates had the most disdain for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, though he didn’t give specific names of lawmakers.
- CNN's Brianna Keilar, Barbara Starr, Dana Bash, Dan Merica, Dana Davidsen and Ashley Killough contributed to this report.
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
zuynbXnKEZgc3wKH
|
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/23/us/politics/as-tv-ad-rates-soar-super-pacs-pivot-to-core-campaign-work.html?ref=politics&_r=0&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=7439347D58953CFC299CC3E43A4F7A6F&gwt=pay
|
As TV Ad Rates Soar, ‘Super PACs’ Pivot to Core Campaign Work
|
2015-12-23
|
Nick Corasaniti, Matt Flegenheimer
|
Mr. Sousa said the group had compiled a fund-raising list of more than a million potential donors ’ email addresses , which it is renting to the Carson campaign . That follows the example set by Ready PAC , formerly known as Ready for Hillary , which spent close to a year building support for Hillary Clinton before she announced her candidacy . It never ran a television ad . ( Nor has Correct the Record , a super PAC founded by David Brock that is focusing exclusively on opposition research and rapid response in Mrs. Clinton ’ s defense . )
Many super PACs will turn to television soon enough , but even those that have done so already have recognized the need for more than just TV ads .
New Day for America , the super PAC supporting Mr. Kasich , is pursuing a highly advanced ground game in partnership with a data-analytics firm , Applecart : The firm says it mines data sources like yearbooks and local news reports to decipher which people have personally influential relationships with sought-after voters . Rather than giving phone-bank callers or canvassers lists of random people to contact , for example , the organizers are assigning each of those volunteers to reach 10 to 20 New Hampshire voters they know personally and convert them into Kasich supporters .
Right to Rise , the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush , is also starting to pour more money into online messaging , where — unlike on television — its dollars go just as far as the candidate ’ s . All advertisers — campaigns , super PACs , even Frito-Lay — pay the same rates for digital ads .
“ With TV getting a bit more crowded , we ’ re looking at frequency , ” said Sheena Arora , a digital strategist at Revolution Agency who works with Right to Rise — meaning “ how many times we ’ re hitting individuals across devices. ” The group has been creating a wide range of ads aimed at smartphones , tablets and even Xbox gaming systems .
Not everyone buys into the changing tactics . Rick Shaftan , who leads the pro-Cruz Courageous Conservatives group , suggested that spending money on field efforts made little sense for his operation . “ This is what I did as field guy : hung out with the volunteers , brought people signs and brought people literature , ” he said . “ That was 1984 . Now we ’ re in a world where it ’ s all different . People can get their own signs . ”
|
Mr. Sousa said the group had compiled a fund-raising list of more than a million potential donors’ email addresses, which it is renting to the Carson campaign. That follows the example set by Ready PAC, formerly known as Ready for Hillary, which spent close to a year building support for Hillary Clinton before she announced her candidacy. It never ran a television ad. (Nor has Correct the Record, a super PAC founded by David Brock that is focusing exclusively on opposition research and rapid response in Mrs. Clinton’s defense.)
Many super PACs will turn to television soon enough, but even those that have done so already have recognized the need for more than just TV ads.
New Day for America, the super PAC supporting Mr. Kasich, is pursuing a highly advanced ground game in partnership with a data-analytics firm, Applecart: The firm says it mines data sources like yearbooks and local news reports to decipher which people have personally influential relationships with sought-after voters. Rather than giving phone-bank callers or canvassers lists of random people to contact, for example, the organizers are assigning each of those volunteers to reach 10 to 20 New Hampshire voters they know personally and convert them into Kasich supporters.
Right to Rise, the super PAC supporting Mr. Bush, is also starting to pour more money into online messaging, where — unlike on television — its dollars go just as far as the candidate’s. All advertisers — campaigns, super PACs, even Frito-Lay — pay the same rates for digital ads.
“With TV getting a bit more crowded, we’re looking at frequency,” said Sheena Arora, a digital strategist at Revolution Agency who works with Right to Rise — meaning “how many times we’re hitting individuals across devices.” The group has been creating a wide range of ads aimed at smartphones, tablets and even Xbox gaming systems.
Not everyone buys into the changing tactics. Rick Shaftan, who leads the pro-Cruz Courageous Conservatives group, suggested that spending money on field efforts made little sense for his operation. “This is what I did as field guy: hung out with the volunteers, brought people signs and brought people literature,” he said. “That was 1984. Now we’re in a world where it’s all different. People can get their own signs.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
9Bhj0JnDG8kwZVls
|
federal_budget
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/12/174087587/ryan-says-his-budget-would-balance-in-10-years
|
Ryan Says His Budget Would Balance In 10 Years
|
2013-03-12
|
Mark Memmott
|
( Note at 11:20 a.m . ET : Scroll down to see the GOP plan , which has now been released ; new comments from Rep. Ryan ; and White House reaction . )
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin , the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee , unveiled his latest budget plan Tuesday morning — and as NPR 's Tamara Keith told our Newscast Desk , he says it would bring the federal budget in balance by 2023 .
Ryan 's previous proposal , he said , would balance the budget in 20 years . How has he cut 10 years off that time ? The `` fiscal cliff '' deal reached as 2012 turned into 2013 `` raises $ 600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade , '' Tamara reported , `` and Ryan is including that in his new budget . ''
`` Otherwise , '' she added , `` Ryan has telegraphed that his new plan will include many of the same cuts as past GOP budgets , most notably it would convert Medicare into a premium support program . ''
On the op/ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today , Ryan makes his case for the new plan .
`` How do we do it ? '' he writes . `` We stop spending money the government does n't have . ... Our budget matches spending with income . Under our proposal , the government spends no more than it collects in revenue — or 19.1 % of gross domestic product each year . As a result , we 'll spend $ 4.6 trillion less over the next decade . ... `` Our opponents will shout austerity , but let 's put this in perspective . On the current path , we 'll spend $ 46 trillion over the next 10 years . Under our proposal , we 'll spend $ 41 trillion . On the current path , spending will increase by 5 % each year . Under our proposal , it will increase by 3.4 % . Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending , the budget will balance by 2023 , and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy . ''
President Obama and his fellow Democrats , of course , have other ideas about how to get the federal government books in order . Politico this morning looks at the president 's new efforts to reach out to some Republicans in order to cut a deal . It concludes though , that `` the expectations for both a sustainable civil alliance and a grand bargain remain low for one very simple reason : The parties are further apart on taxes and entitlements than they were in 2011 when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner ( R-Ohio ) first entered into talks and came close to striking the ever-elusive grand bargain . ''
Update at 11:20 a.m . ET . White House Says Ryan 's Math `` Just Does n't Add Up . ''
In a statement just sent to reporters , the White House says , in part :
`` While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit , the math just does n't add up . Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class . By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut , this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction , raise taxes on middle class families by more than $ 2,000 – or both . ... `` The president has put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction with no sacred cows . It includes more Medicare savings over the next decade than the House Republican budget , but it does so by cracking down on waste and fraud , not by asking middle class seniors to bear the burden . It closes tax loopholes for the wealthiest and biggest corporations so we can still afford to create jobs by investing in education , manufacturing , infrastructure , and small businesses . The President 's plan puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and grows our economy from the middle class out . `` While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach , we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children . The President will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way . This is the approach the American people overwhelmingly support , and that is what the president will continue to fight for each day . ''
Update at 10:55 a.m . ET . Ryan Says He Wo n't Surrender His Principles :
Ryan is holding a news conference this hour . A reporter noted that he 's pitched a similar budget plan before — one that focuses on cuts in projected spending and eschews tax increases — and in the time since then was on the losing presidential ticket .
Should losing an election mean `` we surrender our principles ? '' Ryan asks . That Republicans should `` stop believing in what we believe in ? ''
`` We think we owe the country a balanced budget , '' he says , and `` solutions '' to the nation 's problems .
Ryan 's `` Path to Prosperity ; a Responsible , Balanced Budget , '' plan is now out . As Tamara notes , `` it calls for the repeal of the president 's healthcare law , and approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline . It would cut growth in programs for the poor by turning them over to the states . And for future seniors , it would convert Medicare into a premium support program . ''
|
Ryan Says His Budget Would Balance In 10 Years
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Sears /MCT /Landov Michael Sears /MCT /Landov
(Note at 11:20 a.m. ET: Scroll down to see the GOP plan, which has now been released; new comments from Rep. Ryan; and White House reaction.)
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, unveiled his latest budget plan Tuesday morning — and as NPR's Tamara Keith told our Newscast Desk, he says it would bring the federal budget in balance by 2023.
Ryan's previous proposal, he said, would balance the budget in 20 years. How has he cut 10 years off that time? The "fiscal cliff" deal reached as 2012 turned into 2013 "raises $600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade," Tamara reported, "and Ryan is including that in his new budget."
"Otherwise," she added, "Ryan has telegraphed that his new plan will include many of the same cuts as past GOP budgets, most notably it would convert Medicare into a premium support program."
On the op/ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today, Ryan makes his case for the new plan.
"How do we do it?" he writes. "We stop spending money the government doesn't have. ... Our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue — or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we'll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade. ... "Our opponents will shout austerity, but let's put this in perspective. On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy."
President Obama and his fellow Democrats, of course, have other ideas about how to get the federal government books in order. Politico this morning looks at the president's new efforts to reach out to some Republicans in order to cut a deal. It concludes though, that "the expectations for both a sustainable civil alliance and a grand bargain remain low for one very simple reason: The parties are further apart on taxes and entitlements than they were in 2011 when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) first entered into talks and came close to striking the ever-elusive grand bargain."
Update at 11:20 a.m. ET. White House Says Ryan's Math "Just Doesn't Add Up."
In a statement just sent to reporters, the White House says, in part:
"While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up. Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class. By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut, this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction, raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000 – or both. ... "The president has put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction with no sacred cows. It includes more Medicare savings over the next decade than the House Republican budget, but it does so by cracking down on waste and fraud, not by asking middle class seniors to bear the burden. It closes tax loopholes for the wealthiest and biggest corporations so we can still afford to create jobs by investing in education, manufacturing, infrastructure, and small businesses. The President's plan puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and grows our economy from the middle class out. "While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach, we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children. The President will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way. This is the approach the American people overwhelmingly support, and that is what the president will continue to fight for each day."
Update at 10:55 a.m. ET. Ryan Says He Won't Surrender His Principles:
Ryan is holding a news conference this hour. A reporter noted that he's pitched a similar budget plan before — one that focuses on cuts in projected spending and eschews tax increases — and in the time since then was on the losing presidential ticket.
Should losing an election mean "we surrender our principles?" Ryan asks. That Republicans should "stop believing in what we believe in?"
"We think we owe the country a balanced budget," he says, and "solutions" to the nation's problems.
Update at 10 a.m. ET. The Plan Is Out:
Ryan's "Path to Prosperity; a Responsible, Balanced Budget," plan is now out. As Tamara notes, "it calls for the repeal of the president's healthcare law, and approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. It would cut growth in programs for the poor by turning them over to the states. And for future seniors, it would convert Medicare into a premium support program."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
azpNrensPe4f9cyQ
|
world
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/04/politics/white-house-africa-summit/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
5 reasons Obama's Africa leaders' summit matters
|
2014-08-04
|
Kevin Liptak
|
Story highlights Majority of African leaders convene in Washington for first-ever African leaders summit
Ebola outbreak on the continent sure to distract from talks on trade
U.S. hopes to be a player on the African continent and blunt China 's influence
By any measure it 's historic : The vast majority of Africa 's leaders flying to Washington at the invite of the President , whose father was born on the continent , to mark what the White House hopes is a new era of cooperation .
While plans for the first African Leaders Summit this week in the nation 's capital are ambitious , the reality is the United States still has strides to make on the kind of political and economic relationships in Africa that can benefit both sides .
Other nations , namely China , have turned their focus to the continent as a trade partner . Terrorist networks have expanded their reach in some countries , most notably in Nigeria , where hundreds of schoolgirls remain at large after being kidnapped earlier this year . And while U.S.-backed efforts have helped slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa , countries there rate among the lowest in life expectancy and infant mortality .
`` The importance of this for America needs to be understood , '' President Barack Obama said on Friday about the summit .
JUST WATCHED West African Ebola epidemic Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH West African Ebola epidemic 04:32
JUST WATCHED Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients 04:37
JUST WATCHED Obama : U.S. prepared for Ebola Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama : U.S. prepared for Ebola 02:11
He added later that Africa `` happens to be one of the continents where America is most popular and people feel a real affinity for our way of life . ''
Here are five reasons that the U.S.-Africa Leader 's Summit , which kicked off on Monday , is important :
1 . Health scare : The health problems in Africa were underscored this week when an Ebola outbreak prompted leaders of two nations to cancel their trips to Washington .
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf , a Nobel Peace Prize winner , and Ernest Bai Koroma , the leader of Sierra Leone , both said they would remain in their countries .
Ebola has killed more than 700 people in three nations : Guinea , Liberia and Sierra .
Summit leaders , and even Obama , have stressed there is no risk to Washingtonians from those arriving from Africa this week .
Obama said anyone who might have been exposed to the virus would be screened both in their home countries and upon arrival in the United States .
But worry over the worsening outbreak only highlighted challenges Africa faces in combating disease and poverty , despite the billions in U.S. aid over the years .
`` This is an uphill challenge for them , '' said Gayle Smith , Obama 's senior director for development and Democracy , noting both Liberia and Sierra Leone had recently emerged from periods of civil war .
Obama hopes to move past the traditional elements of humanitarian aid to Africa , focusing instead on potential trade .
But promoting commercial ties with countries engulfed in Ebola outbreaks could prove to be difficult . The State Department warned against non-essential travel to Sierra Leone and Libera last week , and some schools and businesses have closed .
`` The timing is very unfortunate , and no one would have wished for this , '' said Howard French , an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University . `` Having high-level discussions between the U.S. and Africa on business and investment are infrequent . So to the extent that this distracts from that I think will be regretted all around . ''
2 . Security challenges : Another potential barrier to U.S. investment in Africa : Growing extremism on the continent , which has overwhelmed certain governments .
The most flagrant example came earlier this summer , when the group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 school girls in Nigeria . The incident prompted international outrage and so far , a U.S.-backed team has not located them .
Nigeria-based Boko Haram opposes western-style education , and there are fears the group 's influence could be crossing borders .
Last month , armed gunman suspected to be Boko Haram militants abducted the wife of Cameroon 's deputy prime minister .
Intra-country sniping has followed . Nigeria has expressed frustration with Cameroon for not doing enough to fight Boko Haram on its side of the border , a charge Cameroon has denied .
The unrest has inflicted damage on African economies , including Nigeria 's , the largest on the continent . Other African nations combating violent extremism , like Mali , Kenya and Somalia , are also tough sells for U.S. investment .
Many of those nations want more U.S. assistance to counter militants , sentiments likely to be expressed at this week 's summit .
`` We are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa , '' said Ben Rhodes , Obama 's deputy national security adviser .
He pointed to U.S. counterterror efforts that aim to partner with nations in stemming unrest .
`` We 're looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups , like Boko Haram , like al-Shabaab , like al-Qaeda , are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation , '' he said .
3 . Countering China : The United States has some catching up to do in Africa when it comes to trade and investment .
China 's imports of African oil and natural minerals have skyrocketed over the past two decades . Alongside have come massive Chinese investments in African infrastructure and construction projects , manned by waves of Chinese workers who ended up remaining in Africa . More than a million Chinese citizens now live there .
`` Africa is in a very particular moment , economically speaking , '' said French during an interview with CNNI from Nairobi . `` The continent has been growing very fast . Demographically , there 's a bulge in terms of it 's youth population . And Africa needs partnerships . ''
Obama wants to make sure the United States is one of those partners , and a more attractive one than China .
`` My advice to African leaders is to make sure that if , in fact , China is putting in roads and bridges , number one , that they 're hiring African workers ; number two , that the roads do n't just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai , but that there 's an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term , '' Obama told The Economist last week .
4 . Cementing legacy : Obama 's two predecessors both secured legacy achievements in Africa -- Bill Clinton through his African Growth and Opportunity Act , and George W. Bush through his program combating HIV/AIDS .
Obama similarly hopes for a way to leave his mark on the continent after he leaves office , though his status as the first president of African descent has already made history .
That fact led some Africans to regard Obama with outsized expectations when he took office in 2009 , leading to some disappointment that he has n't focused more on shoring up U.S.-Africa ties .
During his time in office , Obama has focused on terrorism , uprisings in the Arab world , Russian provocations , and the much-awaited pivot to Asia .
Obama made his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 when he visited Ghana . He did n't return again until 2013 with tour of Senegal , Tanzania and South Africa .
He 's embarked upon an initiative that aims to bring electricity to more Africans , and a program supporting young leaders working toward Democratic governments .
Both are elements to a legacy designed to shore up conditions for individuals on the continent .
And the summit itself , while not expected to produce any large-scale trade agreements , is meant to signal a shift from purely humanitarian assistance to a two-way partnership .
`` We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship , '' Rhodes said of the summit .
5 . Not invited : While the bulk of Africa 's leaders will be in Washington , the continent 's most reviled leaders wo n't be attending . They include Zimbabwe 's Robert Mugabe and Sudan 's Omar al-Bashir .
They were n't invited because of their alleged human rights abuses .
Other controversial leaders -- like Kenya 's Uhuru Kenyatta , accused of crimes at the International Criminal Court -- will attend .
Like any major diplomatic gathering , the Africa Leaders Summit has been an exercise in protocol and careful planning .
Instead of meeting with leaders separately , Obama has been scheduled for larger group discussions , to the disappointment of some who wanted to talk to him one-on-one .
`` We just would n't be able to do bilats with everybody , and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders . That way we 're not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders , '' Rhodes said .
He noted Obama would speak with each leader individually during a dinner at the White House on Tuesday .
That event has taken on state dinner-type proportions , with a large tent constructed on the South Lawn . Organizers have the added stress of accommodating leaders of 50 nations , all with varied religious and cultural sensitivities that must be respected .
For example , servers must know who drinks alcohol and who abstains for religious reasons .
It 's a reflection of just how diverse Africa is , and how high the stakes are for Obama as he forges new relationships there .
|
Story highlights Majority of African leaders convene in Washington for first-ever African leaders summit
Ebola outbreak on the continent sure to distract from talks on trade
U.S. hopes to be a player on the African continent and blunt China's influence
By any measure it's historic: The vast majority of Africa's leaders flying to Washington at the invite of the President, whose father was born on the continent, to mark what the White House hopes is a new era of cooperation.
While plans for the first African Leaders Summit this week in the nation's capital are ambitious, the reality is the United States still has strides to make on the kind of political and economic relationships in Africa that can benefit both sides.
Other nations, namely China, have turned their focus to the continent as a trade partner. Terrorist networks have expanded their reach in some countries, most notably in Nigeria, where hundreds of schoolgirls remain at large after being kidnapped earlier this year. And while U.S.-backed efforts have helped slow the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, countries there rate among the lowest in life expectancy and infant mortality.
"The importance of this for America needs to be understood," President Barack Obama said on Friday about the summit.
JUST WATCHED West African Ebola epidemic Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH West African Ebola epidemic 04:32
JUST WATCHED Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Doctors struggle to treat Ebola patients 04:37
JUST WATCHED Obama: U.S. prepared for Ebola Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama: U.S. prepared for Ebola 02:11
He added later that Africa "happens to be one of the continents where America is most popular and people feel a real affinity for our way of life."
Here are five reasons that the U.S.-Africa Leader's Summit, which kicked off on Monday, is important:
1. Health scare: The health problems in Africa were underscored this week when an Ebola outbreak prompted leaders of two nations to cancel their trips to Washington.
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Ernest Bai Koroma, the leader of Sierra Leone, both said they would remain in their countries.
Ebola has killed more than 700 people in three nations: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra.
Summit leaders, and even Obama, have stressed there is no risk to Washingtonians from those arriving from Africa this week.
Obama said anyone who might have been exposed to the virus would be screened both in their home countries and upon arrival in the United States.
But worry over the worsening outbreak only highlighted challenges Africa faces in combating disease and poverty, despite the billions in U.S. aid over the years.
"This is an uphill challenge for them," said Gayle Smith, Obama's senior director for development and Democracy, noting both Liberia and Sierra Leone had recently emerged from periods of civil war.
Obama hopes to move past the traditional elements of humanitarian aid to Africa, focusing instead on potential trade.
But promoting commercial ties with countries engulfed in Ebola outbreaks could prove to be difficult. The State Department warned against non-essential travel to Sierra Leone and Libera last week, and some schools and businesses have closed.
"The timing is very unfortunate, and no one would have wished for this," said Howard French, an associate professor of international affairs at Columbia University. "Having high-level discussions between the U.S. and Africa on business and investment are infrequent. So to the extent that this distracts from that I think will be regretted all around."
2. Security challenges: Another potential barrier to U.S. investment in Africa: Growing extremism on the continent, which has overwhelmed certain governments.
The most flagrant example came earlier this summer, when the group Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 school girls in Nigeria. The incident prompted international outrage and so far, a U.S.-backed team has not located them.
Nigeria-based Boko Haram opposes western-style education, and there are fears the group's influence could be crossing borders.
Last month, armed gunman suspected to be Boko Haram militants abducted the wife of Cameroon's deputy prime minister.
Intra-country sniping has followed. Nigeria has expressed frustration with Cameroon for not doing enough to fight Boko Haram on its side of the border, a charge Cameroon has denied.
The unrest has inflicted damage on African economies, including Nigeria's, the largest on the continent. Other African nations combating violent extremism, like Mali, Kenya and Somalia, are also tough sells for U.S. investment.
Many of those nations want more U.S. assistance to counter militants, sentiments likely to be expressed at this week's summit.
"We are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.
He pointed to U.S. counterterror efforts that aim to partner with nations in stemming unrest.
"We're looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups, like Boko Haram, like al-Shabaab, like al-Qaeda, are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation," he said.
3. Countering China: The United States has some catching up to do in Africa when it comes to trade and investment.
China's imports of African oil and natural minerals have skyrocketed over the past two decades. Alongside have come massive Chinese investments in African infrastructure and construction projects, manned by waves of Chinese workers who ended up remaining in Africa. More than a million Chinese citizens now live there.
"Africa is in a very particular moment, economically speaking," said French during an interview with CNNI from Nairobi. "The continent has been growing very fast. Demographically, there's a bulge in terms of it's youth population. And Africa needs partnerships."
Obama wants to make sure the United States is one of those partners, and a more attractive one than China.
"My advice to African leaders is to make sure that if, in fact, China is putting in roads and bridges, number one, that they're hiring African workers; number two, that the roads don't just lead from the mine to the port to Shanghai, but that there's an ability for the African governments to shape how this infrastructure is going to benefit them in the long term," Obama told The Economist last week.
4. Cementing legacy: Obama's two predecessors both secured legacy achievements in Africa -- Bill Clinton through his African Growth and Opportunity Act, and George W. Bush through his program combating HIV/AIDS.
Obama similarly hopes for a way to leave his mark on the continent after he leaves office, though his status as the first president of African descent has already made history.
That fact led some Africans to regard Obama with outsized expectations when he took office in 2009, leading to some disappointment that he hasn't focused more on shoring up U.S.-Africa ties.
During his time in office, Obama has focused on terrorism, uprisings in the Arab world, Russian provocations, and the much-awaited pivot to Asia.
Obama made his first presidential trip to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009 when he visited Ghana. He didn't return again until 2013 with tour of Senegal, Tanzania and South Africa.
He's embarked upon an initiative that aims to bring electricity to more Africans, and a program supporting young leaders working toward Democratic governments.
Both are elements to a legacy designed to shore up conditions for individuals on the continent.
And the summit itself, while not expected to produce any large-scale trade agreements, is meant to signal a shift from purely humanitarian assistance to a two-way partnership.
"We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship," Rhodes said of the summit.
5. Not invited: While the bulk of Africa's leaders will be in Washington, the continent's most reviled leaders won't be attending. They include Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir.
They weren't invited because of their alleged human rights abuses.
Other controversial leaders -- like Kenya's Uhuru Kenyatta, accused of crimes at the International Criminal Court -- will attend.
Like any major diplomatic gathering, the Africa Leaders Summit has been an exercise in protocol and careful planning.
Instead of meeting with leaders separately, Obama has been scheduled for larger group discussions, to the disappointment of some who wanted to talk to him one-on-one.
"We just wouldn't be able to do bilats with everybody, and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders. That way we're not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders," Rhodes said.
He noted Obama would speak with each leader individually during a dinner at the White House on Tuesday.
That event has taken on state dinner-type proportions, with a large tent constructed on the South Lawn. Organizers have the added stress of accommodating leaders of 50 nations, all with varied religious and cultural sensitivities that must be respected.
For example, servers must know who drinks alcohol and who abstains for religious reasons.
It's a reflection of just how diverse Africa is, and how high the stakes are for Obama as he forges new relationships there.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
nRVhRQrlqN4s7S5E
|
elections
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/18/reince-priebus-rnc-chief-threatens-john-kasich-oth/
|
RNC chief threatens John Kasich, other Republicans who won’t support Donald Trump
|
2016-09-18
|
David Sherfinski, Ben Wolfgang
|
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday threatened Ohio Gov . John Kasich and other Republicans who refuse to support presidential nominee Donald Trump , saying the party may take steps to ensure it ’ s not “ that easy for them ” to seek the White House again .
Speaking on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation , ” Mr. Priebus said every Republican who ran in 2016 needs to get behind Mr. Trump .
Those who haven ’ t — including Mr. Kasich , former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush , and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — could see diminished support from the party moving forward .
“ People who agreed to support the nominee , that took part in our process , they used tools from the RNC . They agreed to support the nominee . They took part in our process . We ’ re a private party , we ’ re not a public entity . Those people need to get on board , ” Mr. Priebus said .
“ And if they ’ re thinking they ’ re going to run again someday , I think we ’ re going to evaluate our process , the nomination process , and I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be that easy for them , ” he said .
Mr. Kasich said it ’ s “ very unlikely ” he ’ ll vote for Mr. Trump … “ too much water under the bridge , ” the Ohio governor said in an interview with CNN that aired Friday .
SEE ALSO : 48 % of Democratic voters say Bernie Sanders should replace Hillary if she drops out of race
Mr. Bush has expressed similar sentiments , and Mr. Cruz famously withheld an endorsement of Mr. Trump during the Republican National Convention and instead told Republicans to “ vote their conscience ” in November .
Mr. Priebus denied that he was threatening Mr. Kasich , Mr. Cruz or anyone else , yet he clearly suggested the party would put roadblocks in front of the electoral hopes of anyone who hasn ’ t offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Trump .
“ People in our party are talking about what we ’ re going to do about this … It ’ s not a threat . It ’ s just a question , ” the RNC chairman said . “ What should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years ? ”
Mr. Kasich , a former 2016 GOP presidential candidate himself , said it ’ s still important to get out the vote for Republicans like Sen . Rob Portman , who is running for re-election in Ohio .
“ We want to get people out to vote . We want to re-elect Senator Portman , and we want to re-elect people down ticket , ” Mr. Kasich said . “ I ’ m not voting for Hillary [ Clinton ] . ”
“ I ’ ll let everybody know … but I think my actions have spoken very loudly . Louder than even my words , ” he said .
Mr. Kasich was in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention in July , but he did not attend the convention itself .
Asked about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson , Mr. Kasich said : “ I haven ’ t even gone there yet . It ’ s a long way [ until ] Election Day . ”
|
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Sunday threatened Ohio Gov. John Kasich and other Republicans who refuse to support presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying the party may take steps to ensure it’s not “that easy for them” to seek the White House again.
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Mr. Priebus said every Republican who ran in 2016 needs to get behind Mr. Trump.
Those who haven’t — including Mr. Kasich, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — could see diminished support from the party moving forward.
“People who agreed to support the nominee, that took part in our process, they used tools from the RNC. They agreed to support the nominee. They took part in our process. We’re a private party, we’re not a public entity. Those people need to get on board,” Mr. Priebus said.
“And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, I think we’re going to evaluate our process, the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them,” he said.
Mr. Kasich said it’s “very unlikely” he’ll vote for Mr. Trump … “too much water under the bridge,” the Ohio governor said in an interview with CNN that aired Friday.
SEE ALSO: 48% of Democratic voters say Bernie Sanders should replace Hillary if she drops out of race
Mr. Bush has expressed similar sentiments, and Mr. Cruz famously withheld an endorsement of Mr. Trump during the Republican National Convention and instead told Republicans to “vote their conscience” in November.
Mr. Priebus denied that he was threatening Mr. Kasich, Mr. Cruz or anyone else, yet he clearly suggested the party would put roadblocks in front of the electoral hopes of anyone who hasn’t offered a full-throated endorsement of Mr. Trump.
“People in our party are talking about what we’re going to do about this … It’s not a threat. It’s just a question,” the RNC chairman said. “What should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?”
Mr. Kasich, a former 2016 GOP presidential candidate himself, said it’s still important to get out the vote for Republicans like Sen. Rob Portman, who is running for re-election in Ohio.
“We want to get people out to vote. We want to re-elect Senator Portman, and we want to re-elect people down ticket,” Mr. Kasich said. “I’m not voting for Hillary [Clinton].”
“I’ll let everybody know … but I think my actions have spoken very loudly. Louder than even my words,” he said.
Mr. Kasich was in Cleveland during the Republican National Convention in July, but he did not attend the convention itself.
Asked about Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Mr. Kasich said: “I haven’t even gone there yet. It’s a long way [until] Election Day.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
SUFgzIyyoyxOE2zn
|
elections
|
Guest Writer
| 11
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/24/wesley-pruden-with-joe-biden-campaign-2016-fun-abo/
|
OPINION: With Joe Biden, campaign 2016 fun about to begin
|
2015-08-24
|
Wesley Pruden
|
This may be the most entertaining road show yet . Round and round the presidential campaign goes , and where it stops nobody knows . Even Mitt Romney is said to be thinking about jumping in again , no doubt figuring that some of Jeb ’ s “ investors , ” who are familiar indeed , may be looking for another place to place their bets .
Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign still gets respectful attention , but nobody ’ s any longer practicing what to call her if , as in a prospect ever more unlikely , she ’ s actually elected . Madame President ? That sounds like something from a bordello , or worse , from France . Mrs. President ? The feminists wouldn ’ t like that , because it pays homage to a husband . “ Miss President ” sounds like everybody ’ s seventh-period Latin teacher , perhaps fetching in her own way , but not much fun .
Joe Biden , everybody ’ s good old , slightly daffy uncle , lovable but prone to gaffes , boners and extravagant slips not only of the tongue but sometimes of the brain , like his suggestion , meant to warm the hearts of gun owners , that if you hear a varmint or a prowler in the middle of the night , the thing to do is to take your shotgun to the front porch and blast away at the night . ( Hoping nobody is still up across the street is optional . )
The Republican establishment has the opposite problem . They ’ re having to quit laughing at Donald Trump and start taking him seriously . He keeps increasing his polling lead over the field , and where that stops nobody knows , either . He ’ s an “ outlier , ” the currently fashionable $ 2 word for “ outsider , ” but he ’ s not as outsiderly as he used to be .
The liberal media , the Greek chorus assigned to enlightening the halt , the unhip and the dumb , spent the weekend chortling over the fact that the Donald attracted “ only ” 20,000 fans to a football stadium that seats 30,000 in Mobile . The cops wisely declined to offer an estimate of the size of the crowd , but it was bigger than anyone else has drawn so far . Who but the Donald , who compared it to a crowd at a Billy Graham revival meeting , would risk holding a political rally in a football stadium in Alabama , exposing empty seats and inviting unwanted comparisons .
President Obama himself threw a big flat rock in the Democratic pond on Monday with a resounding splash . He sent his press agent out to suggest to reporters that he might endorse someone in the Democratic primaries , and it didn ’ t sound like he was talking about Hillary . The president , said press secretary Josh Earnest , thinks taking Joe Biden on his ticket seven years ago was the smartest political decision he ever made . He reminded everyone that he had spoken “ warmly ” about Hillary , too . Then it was back to praising good old Joe .
“ I ’ ll just say that the vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice . He ’ s been on a national ticket through two election cycles … So I think you could make the case that there is no one who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign … I wouldn ’ t rule out the possibility of an endorsement in the Democratic primary . ”
A press agent always speaks for the man who pays him , so we can safely assume that Mr . Earnest didn ’ t make a semi-endorsement , sort of , on his own .
Mr. Obama ’ s endorsement would be valuable in a Democratic primary , a signal that he has found someone who will protect his “ legacy , ” such as it will be . In the general election , his endorsement might be a sloppy kiss of death , where voters of all kinds could rush to make the judgment that is likely to be the verdict of history — Mr. Obama was a freak of history , elected by a well-meaning but naive electorate eager to show good faith and hope for the best .
Taking a flier is rarely a substitute for making a sound judgment . Nominating a candidate with little political experience can be tempting . The Republicans tried it in 1940 , nominating Wendell Willkie , a Wall Street lawyer who had never been elected to anything , thinking everyone shared their contempt for Franklin D. Roosevelt .
That ’ s what terrifies the Republican establishment about Donald Trump . If the establishment understood politics a little better than it does , establishment Republicans would recognize how they brought the Donald to political prominence themselves . The establishment doesn ’ t understand how cable-TV , the Internet and a succession of mushmouth candidates have changed everything .
The Republican grass roots hankers for rough justice , applied without mercy . These are the grass roots that are a minority of a minority , but they ’ re loud , they ’ re angry , and they ’ re out for blood .
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
This may be the most entertaining road show yet. Round and round the presidential campaign goes, and where it stops nobody knows. Even Mitt Romney is said to be thinking about jumping in again, no doubt figuring that some of Jeb’s “investors,” who are familiar indeed, may be looking for another place to place their bets.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign still gets respectful attention, but nobody’s any longer practicing what to call her if, as in a prospect ever more unlikely, she’s actually elected. Madame President? That sounds like something from a bordello, or worse, from France. Mrs. President? The feminists wouldn’t like that, because it pays homage to a husband. “Miss President” sounds like everybody’s seventh-period Latin teacher, perhaps fetching in her own way, but not much fun.
Joe Biden, everybody’s good old, slightly daffy uncle, lovable but prone to gaffes, boners and extravagant slips not only of the tongue but sometimes of the brain, like his suggestion, meant to warm the hearts of gun owners, that if you hear a varmint or a prowler in the middle of the night, the thing to do is to take your shotgun to the front porch and blast away at the night. (Hoping nobody is still up across the street is optional.)
The Republican establishment has the opposite problem. They’re having to quit laughing at Donald Trump and start taking him seriously. He keeps increasing his polling lead over the field, and where that stops nobody knows, either. He’s an “outlier,” the currently fashionable $2 word for “outsider,” but he’s not as outsiderly as he used to be.
The liberal media, the Greek chorus assigned to enlightening the halt, the unhip and the dumb, spent the weekend chortling over the fact that the Donald attracted “only” 20,000 fans to a football stadium that seats 30,000 in Mobile. The cops wisely declined to offer an estimate of the size of the crowd, but it was bigger than anyone else has drawn so far. Who but the Donald, who compared it to a crowd at a Billy Graham revival meeting, would risk holding a political rally in a football stadium in Alabama, exposing empty seats and inviting unwanted comparisons.
President Obama himself threw a big flat rock in the Democratic pond on Monday with a resounding splash. He sent his press agent out to suggest to reporters that he might endorse someone in the Democratic primaries, and it didn’t sound like he was talking about Hillary. The president, said press secretary Josh Earnest, thinks taking Joe Biden on his ticket seven years ago was the smartest political decision he ever made. He reminded everyone that he had spoken “warmly” about Hillary, too. Then it was back to praising good old Joe.
“I’ll just say that the vice president is somebody who has already run for president twice. He’s been on a national ticket through two election cycles … So I think you could make the case that there is no one who has a better understanding of exactly what is required to mount a successful national presidential campaign … I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of an endorsement in the Democratic primary.”
A press agent always speaks for the man who pays him, so we can safely assume that Mr. Earnest didn’t make a semi-endorsement, sort of, on his own.
Mr. Obama’s endorsement would be valuable in a Democratic primary, a signal that he has found someone who will protect his “legacy,” such as it will be. In the general election, his endorsement might be a sloppy kiss of death, where voters of all kinds could rush to make the judgment that is likely to be the verdict of history — Mr. Obama was a freak of history, elected by a well-meaning but naive electorate eager to show good faith and hope for the best.
Taking a flier is rarely a substitute for making a sound judgment. Nominating a candidate with little political experience can be tempting. The Republicans tried it in 1940, nominating Wendell Willkie, a Wall Street lawyer who had never been elected to anything, thinking everyone shared their contempt for Franklin D. Roosevelt.
That’s what terrifies the Republican establishment about Donald Trump. If the establishment understood politics a little better than it does, establishment Republicans would recognize how they brought the Donald to political prominence themselves. The establishment doesn’t understand how cable-TV, the Internet and a succession of mushmouth candidates have changed everything.
The Republican grass roots hankers for rough justice, applied without mercy. These are the grass roots that are a minority of a minority, but they’re loud, they’re angry, and they’re out for blood.
• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 2center
|
fPrMX9N0tQ7PwU1h
|
immigration
|
HotAir
| 22
|
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/16/illegal-immigration-is-it-a-crime-or-not/
|
Illegal immigration. Is it a crime or not?
|
2013-02-16
|
Jazz Shaw, Ed Morrissey, John Sexton
|
The President has been back out on the road again , spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda , as you ’ d expect any recently reelected leader to do . I ’ ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it , what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all , but there was one theme which caught my attention . He ’ s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform .
President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform , or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic… In a description of Wednesday ’ s meeting , the White House said Obama “ reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan , commonsense effort , including continuing to strengthen border security , creating an earned path to citizenship , holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration . ”
Everyone seems to be talking about it these days , and not just Democrats . Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals , many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about . You can call it a “ path to citizenship ” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like . But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling . For some of us , it may even be hard to quantify exactly what ’ s wrong . But if you harbor any such qualms , of course , you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…
Whatever . But as I considered the question this week , I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling . And to understand it , you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick . Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s , but they were something of a legend . In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $ 7 million . I ’ m not going all anti-hero worship on you here , but you ’ ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention , these guys were good . They stole a LOT of money without getting caught .
But the law finally caught up with them , and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel . Now here ’ s the thing about their story… during the trial , not one person – not in the media , the public , the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following :
You know , yeah… okay .. they stole the money . But they ’ ve had it for a really long time now . And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids ’ college . Some of it is invested in various places and we ’ d have to draw it out . Maybe , after all this time , we should just let them keep it .
Why did nobody say that ? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught . This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration . As things stand now , crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime . Beyond that , continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime . If you do this , you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here . But for some reason , we seem to be reaching the point where we ’ re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover . Yes , it ’ s a crime to come over the border uninvited , but if you make it to home base , maybe we ’ ll just forget about it .
Now , before the inevitable , hollow argument comes flying back at me here , I ’ m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations . ( Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day . ) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run . And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country . If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine . We can have that debate . But it doesn ’ t apply to this situation .
Allow me to also answer the second , inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion . No , I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country . I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it . I also don ’ t know what to do about the 90 % of robberies that go unsolved each year . But I ’ m pretty sure that the answer isn ’ t to decriminalize theft .
I ’ ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself , I confess . But America either is or it is not a nation of laws . If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear . But don ’ t tell us you ’ re doing it just because you can ’ t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law . And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter , that should be made clear also . What we ’ re getting out of Washington now is static , clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn ’ t seem to address any of these questions .
|
The President has been back out on the road again, spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda, as you’d expect any recently reelected leader to do. I’ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it, what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all, but there was one theme which caught my attention. He’s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform.
President Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform, or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic… In a description of Wednesday’s meeting, the White House said Obama “reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan, commonsense effort, including continuing to strengthen border security, creating an earned path to citizenship, holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration.”
Everyone seems to be talking about it these days, and not just Democrats. Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals, many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about. You can call it a “path to citizenship” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like. But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling. For some of us, it may even be hard to quantify exactly what’s wrong. But if you harbor any such qualms, of course, you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…
A racist.
Whatever. But as I considered the question this week, I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling. And to understand it, you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick. Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s, but they were something of a legend. In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $7 million. I’m not going all anti-hero worship on you here, but you’ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention, these guys were good. They stole a LOT of money without getting caught.
But the law finally caught up with them, and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel. Now here’s the thing about their story… during the trial, not one person – not in the media, the public, the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following:
You know, yeah… okay.. they stole the money. But they’ve had it for a really long time now. And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids’ college. Some of it is invested in various places and we’d have to draw it out. Maybe, after all this time, we should just let them keep it.
Why did nobody say that? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught. This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration. As things stand now, crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime. Beyond that, continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime. If you do this, you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here. But for some reason, we seem to be reaching the point where we’re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover. Yes, it’s a crime to come over the border uninvited, but if you make it to home base, maybe we’ll just forget about it.
Now, before the inevitable, hollow argument comes flying back at me here, I’m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations. (Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day.) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run. And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country. If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine. We can have that debate. But it doesn’t apply to this situation.
Allow me to also answer the second, inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion. No, I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country. I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it. I also don’t know what to do about the 90% of robberies that go unsolved each year. But I’m pretty sure that the answer isn’t to decriminalize theft.
I’ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself, I confess. But America either is or it is not a nation of laws. If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear. But don’t tell us you’re doing it just because you can’t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law. And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter, that should be made clear also. What we’re getting out of Washington now is static, clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn’t seem to address any of these questions.
Discuss.
|
www.hotair.com
| 1right
|
xUYb6nZnCIJCrdGy
|
impeachment
|
Yahoo! News
| 00
|
https://news.yahoo.com/marie-yovanovitch-092100947--abc-news-topstories.html
|
Who is Marie Yovanovitch?
|
2019-11-15
|
Stephanie Ebbs, Conor Finnegan
|
But to most of the rest of the world , she 's Marie Yovanovitch , the career diplomat caught up in the blizzard of headlines about Ukraine and President Donald Trump 's possible impeachment .
Until a few months ago , she was the tough-minded U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , living in the embassy in Kyiv with her mother Nadia and her dog Scout , she said in a 2017 interview .
Now , she 's telling her story about being smeared and threatened to millions of Americans watching the House impeachment hearings on television .
Yovanovitch has served under the past six administrations -- both Republican and Democrat -- and won high praise , including the Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the State Department 's Superior Honor Award five times . She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Armenia by George W. Bush and to Ukraine by Barack Obama .
But earlier this year , Yovanovitch was attacked in conservative media and by Ukraine 's former public prosecutor , who accused her of giving him a `` do not prosecute '' list and blocking him from traveling to the U.S. to investigate Democrats after she publicly criticized the country 's lack of progress in tackling corruption .
( MORE : Former Ukraine ambassador felt threatened , told to 'watch my back ' : Deposition )
The State Department and U.S. embassy went on record to deny the allegations , and the prosecutor later recanted them . But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have repeated them , and they may have influenced Trump 's decision to recall Yovanovitch early from her post in May .
She learned only in late September , when the White House released a memo of Trump 's now infamous July 25 with Ukraine 's president , that the president called her `` bad news , '' saying she was `` going to go through some things . ''
Since then , Yovanovitch , who just turned 61 , indeed , has been going through `` some things . ''
Still an active Foreign Service officer , she 's been teaching at Georgetown University while the scandal unfolded across Washington -- her name , her photo , and the accusations , coming up repeatedly in news accounts and on television .
She was heralded as a hero when she complied with a House subpoena in defiance of the White House -- the first current administration official to do so -- marching to Capitol Hill on Oct. 11 to speak to House impeachment investigators behind closed doors .
She learned about being a survivor from her parents , whom she credits as teaching her the values of `` freedom and democracy the U.S . represents . ''
They emigrated to North America in the 1940s -- fleeing Nazi and communist regimes in Europe . Young Masha grew up in Kent , Connecticut , according to The Middletown Press , where her parents taught foreign languages at a private boarding school .
`` My parents survived poverty , war , and displacement , '' she said at her confirmation hearing in 2016 . `` They finally arrived in the United States with me in tow in search of freedom , accountability , and opportunity , the very values that Ukrainians demanded in the revolution of dignity . ''
( MORE : Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump had her removed based on 'false claims ' )
She told a Connecticut newspaper in 2005 that she first thought about working abroad when she was in school but did n't pursue it until years later , after studying in Moscow and working in advertising in New York . She joined the Foreign Service in 1986 .
|
Who is Marie Yovanovitch? originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Her friends and colleagues all know her as "Masha."
But to most of the rest of the world, she's Marie Yovanovitch, the career diplomat caught up in the blizzard of headlines about Ukraine and President Donald Trump's possible impeachment.
Until a few months ago, she was the tough-minded U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, living in the embassy in Kyiv with her mother Nadia and her dog Scout, she said in a 2017 interview.
Then, her whole world changed.
PHOTO: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Louise Yovanovitch is seen during a ceremony to mark World AIDS Day in Kiev, Ukraine, Dec. 1, 2017. (Gleb Garanich/Reuters, FILE) More
Now, she's telling her story about being smeared and threatened to millions of Americans watching the House impeachment hearings on television.
Yovanovitch has served under the past six administrations -- both Republican and Democrat -- and won high praise, including the Senior Foreign Service Performance Award six times and the State Department's Superior Honor Award five times. She was nominated to be U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and Armenia by George W. Bush and to Ukraine by Barack Obama.
But earlier this year, Yovanovitch was attacked in conservative media and by Ukraine's former public prosecutor, who accused her of giving him a "do not prosecute" list and blocking him from traveling to the U.S. to investigate Democrats after she publicly criticized the country's lack of progress in tackling corruption.
(MORE: Former Ukraine ambassador felt threatened, told to 'watch my back': Deposition)
The State Department and U.S. embassy went on record to deny the allegations, and the prosecutor later recanted them. But Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have repeated them, and they may have influenced Trump's decision to recall Yovanovitch early from her post in May.
She learned only in late September, when the White House released a memo of Trump's now infamous July 25 with Ukraine's president, that the president called her "bad news," saying she was "going to go through some things."
Since then, Yovanovitch, who just turned 61, indeed, has been going through "some things."
Still an active Foreign Service officer, she's been teaching at Georgetown University while the scandal unfolded across Washington -- her name, her photo, and the accusations, coming up repeatedly in news accounts and on television.
PHOTO: U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, center, sits during her meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Kyiv, Ukraine, March 6, 2019. (Mikhail Palinchak/AP, FILE) More
She was heralded as a hero when she complied with a House subpoena in defiance of the White House -- the first current administration official to do so -- marching to Capitol Hill on Oct. 11 to speak to House impeachment investigators behind closed doors.
She learned about being a survivor from her parents, whom she credits as teaching her the values of "freedom and democracy the U.S. represents."
They emigrated to North America in the 1940s -- fleeing Nazi and communist regimes in Europe. Young Masha grew up in Kent, Connecticut, according to The Middletown Press, where her parents taught foreign languages at a private boarding school.
"My parents survived poverty, war, and displacement," she said at her confirmation hearing in 2016. "They finally arrived in the United States with me in tow in search of freedom, accountability, and opportunity, the very values that Ukrainians demanded in the revolution of dignity."
(MORE: Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump had her removed based on 'false claims')
She told a Connecticut newspaper in 2005 that she first thought about working abroad when she was in school but didn't pursue it until years later, after studying in Moscow and working in advertising in New York. She joined the Foreign Service in 1986.
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 0left
|
g4DOMamtoHgrf17l
|
education
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/09/six-things-obama-didnt-tell-you-about-his-free-college-plan-n1940903
|
Six Things Obama Didn't Tell You About His "Free" College Tuition Plan
|
2015-01-09
|
Conn Carroll, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Guy Benson, Timothy Meads
|
Previewing yet another item on his 2015 State of the Union Friday , President Obama announced a new plan to make community college tuition `` free . ''
`` Today I 'm announcing an ambitious new plan to bring down the cost of community college tuition in America , '' Obama said . `` I wan na bring it down to zero . I wan na make it free . ''
Obama may have spoken for over half-an-hour in Knoxville , Tennessee , where he was joined by both Sens . Bob Corker ( R-TN ) and Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , but he left out a few details about his new program :
Obama may have sold his plan as `` free '' college tuition , but it is n't free to students and it definitely is n't free to taxpayers . First , Obama 's plan will only cover `` three-qarters of the average cost of community college . '' States are expected to pick up the tab for the remaining 25 percent . But even then , the program will only cover the `` average cost '' of tuition . Many students who go to schools with higher tuitions will still be on the hook for money .
Second , nothing is ever free for taxpayers . On Air Force One today , Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed that the program will cost at least $ 60 billion over ten years .
`` There are no free rides in America , '' Obama insisted today . And he 's right . Nothing is ever really free . `` Colleges would to do their part by offering high quality academics and helping students actually graduate , '' Obama continued . `` States would have to do their part to . This is n't a blank check . It is not a free lunch . ''
All this accountability may sound great in a political speech , but in real life what it all translates to is tons of paperwork and red tape for states and schools . If you loved the federalization of elementary education through No Child Left Behind , and all the millions of hours of paperwork that came with it , then you 'll love Obama 's plan to federalize community colleges .
3 ) Too Many High School Students Are n't Prepared For Community College
Too many high schools are already failing to prepare their graduates for college and making community college as universal as high school , which is what Obama said the goal of his new plan was , would only make the situation worse .
A 2004 study found that not only did 68 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course , but of those that did take remedial courses , they had to take 2.9 of them . All Obama 's plan would really do is create nationally funded 6-year high schools .
If community colleges had a strong track record of taking unprepared or financially strained students through graduation and onto four-year institutions , then maybe Obama 's plan might begin to make some sense . But the simple fact is that they do n't .
Less than 20 percent of first-time , full-time community college students complete their two-year degrees in three years . And of the only 20 percent of community college students who do transfer to four-year institutions , only 72 percent of them will finish or still be in school after another four years .
No government spending program exists in a vacuum . If the government subsidizes the price of a service , then the price of that service will go up . Which is exactly what has happened to the price of four-year college tuition since the federal government has been ramping up their grant and loan-guarantee spending .
Not only will government subsidized tuition at public community colleges drive up the price of tuition at those colleges , but it will also crowd out private sector solutions . The Manhattan Institute 's Judah Bellin explains :
|
Previewing yet another item on his 2015 State of the Union Friday, President Obama announced a new plan to make community college tuition "free."
"Today I'm announcing an ambitious new plan to bring down the cost of community college tuition in America," Obama said. "I wanna bring it down to zero. I wanna make it free."
Obama may have spoken for over half-an-hour in Knoxville, Tennessee, where he was joined by both Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), but he left out a few details about his new program:
1) It Isn't Free
Obama may have sold his plan as "free" college tuition, but it isn't free to students and it definitely isn't free to taxpayers. First, Obama's plan will only cover "three-qarters of the average cost of community college." States are expected to pick up the tab for the remaining 25 percent. But even then, the program will only cover the "average cost" of tuition. Many students who go to schools with higher tuitions will still be on the hook for money.
Second, nothing is ever free for taxpayers. On Air Force One today, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed that the program will cost at least $60 billion over ten years.
2) It Will Drown Community Colleges In Red Tape
"There are no free rides in America," Obama insisted today. And he's right. Nothing is ever really free. "Colleges would to do their part by offering high quality academics and helping students actually graduate," Obama continued. "States would have to do their part to. This isn't a blank check. It is not a free lunch."
All this accountability may sound great in a political speech, but in real life what it all translates to is tons of paperwork and red tape for states and schools. If you loved the federalization of elementary education through No Child Left Behind, and all the millions of hours of paperwork that came with it, then you'll love Obama's plan to federalize community colleges.
3) Too Many High School Students Aren't Prepared For Community College
Too many high schools are already failing to prepare their graduates for college and making community college as universal as high school, which is what Obama said the goal of his new plan was, would only make the situation worse.
A 2004 study found that not only did 68 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course, but of those that did take remedial courses, they had to take 2.9 of them. All Obama's plan would really do is create nationally funded 6-year high schools.
4) Community College's Have A Poor Track Record
If community colleges had a strong track record of taking unprepared or financially strained students through graduation and onto four-year institutions, then maybe Obama's plan might begin to make some sense. But the simple fact is that they don't.
Less than 20 percent of first-time, full-time community college students complete their two-year degrees in three years. And of the only 20 percent of community college students who do transfer to four-year institutions, only 72 percent of them will finish or still be in school after another four years.
5) "Free" Tuition Will Drive Up Costs
No government spending program exists in a vacuum. If the government subsidizes the price of a service, then the price of that service will go up. Which is exactly what has happened to the price of four-year college tuition since the federal government has been ramping up their grant and loan-guarantee spending.
6) Government Spending Crowds Out Private Sector Solutions
Not only will government subsidized tuition at public community colleges drive up the price of tuition at those colleges, but it will also crowd out private sector solutions. The Manhattan Institute's Judah Bellin explains:
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
eJU1UR8yDnZ8ACK8
|
middle_east
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-deal/2017/10/07/id/818292/
|
Iranian President Defends Nuclear Deal, Says Trump Can Not Undermine
|
2017-10-07
|
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended the nuclear deal with Western powers Saturday and said that U.S. President Donald Trump could not undermine it .
Under the 2015 deal , Iran agreed to limit its disputed nuclear programme in return for the easing of economic sanctions .
However , Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the deal , a senior administration official has said , in a step that potentially could cause the accord to unravel .
`` In the nuclear negotiations and agreement we reached issues and benefits that are not reversible . No one can turn that back , not Mr. Trump or anyone else , '' Rouhani said at a ceremony at Tehran University marking the start of the university academic year , according to state media .
`` Even if 10 other Trumps are created in the world , these are not reversible . ''
Trump , who has called the pact an `` embarrassment '' and `` the worst deal ever negotiated '' , has been weighing whether the deal serves U.S. security interests as he faces the Oct. 15 deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with its terms .
The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it , especially as the world grapples with another nuclear crisis , North Korea 's nuclear and ballistic missile development .
If Trump does not certify that Iran is in compliance , the U.S. Congress will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal . U.N. inspectors have verified Iranian compliance with the terms .
Rouhani said Saturday that if the United States violated the deal then it would hurt its own reputation in the international community .
`` If America carries out any violations today , the whole world will condemn America . They will not condemn Iran , '' Rouhani said , according to state media . `` Then they will say why did you trust America and sign an agreement with them ? ''
Separately , former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has been forbidden from attending `` public political , cultural and promotional ceremonies '' , for a period of three months , two of his lawyers told the Iranian Labour News Agency ( ILNA ) on Saturday .
Khatami has long been a lightning rod of criticism for hardliners who accuse him of fomenting unrest in the protests that followed the disputed election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009 . Local media are forbidden from quoting Khatami in articles or publishing his image .
The new restrictions were issued by Iranian security forces , Khatami 's lawyers told ILNA , and there does not appear to be any judicial mechanism to dispute the restrictions .
In the lead-up to the presidential election last May , Khatami posted a message online encouraging his supporters to vote for Rouhani .
Rouhani made a reference to the new restrictions placed on Khatami during his speech Saturday but did not name him .
`` If anybody repeats that people should come to the ballot box , they should be punished ? '' he said , according to ILNA .
Khatami 's lawyers told ILNA that the restrictions began on the first day of the Iranian month of Mehr , which is Sept. 23 . ( Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh ; Editing by Alison Williams )
|
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani defended the nuclear deal with Western powers Saturday and said that U.S. President Donald Trump could not undermine it.
Under the 2015 deal, Iran agreed to limit its disputed nuclear programme in return for the easing of economic sanctions.
However, Trump is expected to announce soon that he will decertify the deal, a senior administration official has said, in a step that potentially could cause the accord to unravel.
"In the nuclear negotiations and agreement we reached issues and benefits that are not reversible. No one can turn that back, not Mr. Trump or anyone else," Rouhani said at a ceremony at Tehran University marking the start of the university academic year, according to state media.
"Even if 10 other Trumps are created in the world, these are not reversible."
Trump, who has called the pact an "embarrassment" and "the worst deal ever negotiated", has been weighing whether the deal serves U.S. security interests as he faces the Oct. 15 deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with its terms.
The prospect of Washington reneging on the deal has worried some of the U.S. allies that helped negotiate it, especially as the world grapples with another nuclear crisis, North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile development.
If Trump does not certify that Iran is in compliance, the U.S. Congress will have 60 days to decide whether to reimpose sanctions waived under the deal. U.N. inspectors have verified Iranian compliance with the terms.
Rouhani said Saturday that if the United States violated the deal then it would hurt its own reputation in the international community.
"If America carries out any violations today, the whole world will condemn America. They will not condemn Iran," Rouhani said, according to state media. "Then they will say why did you trust America and sign an agreement with them?"
Separately, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has been forbidden from attending "public political, cultural and promotional ceremonies", for a period of three months, two of his lawyers told the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA) on Saturday.
Khatami has long been a lightning rod of criticism for hardliners who accuse him of fomenting unrest in the protests that followed the disputed election of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. Local media are forbidden from quoting Khatami in articles or publishing his image.
The new restrictions were issued by Iranian security forces, Khatami's lawyers told ILNA, and there does not appear to be any judicial mechanism to dispute the restrictions.
In the lead-up to the presidential election last May, Khatami posted a message online encouraging his supporters to vote for Rouhani.
Rouhani made a reference to the new restrictions placed on Khatami during his speech Saturday but did not name him.
"If anybody repeats that people should come to the ballot box, they should be punished?" he said, according to ILNA.
Khatami's lawyers told ILNA that the restrictions began on the first day of the Iranian month of Mehr, which is Sept. 23. (Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; Editing by Alison Williams)
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
v1FoROR1ESlXkCWx
|
|
us_house
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77556.html
|
Fast and Furious contempt vote up in the air
|
2012-06-18
|
John Bresnahan, Jake Sherman
|
Eric Holder and Darrell Issa had appeared close to a deal late last week . | AP Photos Holder contempt vote up in the air
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa warned Attorney General Eric Holder late Monday that if the Justice Department failed to turn over documents he is seeking , the California Republican will go ahead with a contempt vote against Holder as planned later this week .
Issa , chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , has been battling with DOJ since last year over documents related to the failed Fast and Furious program . The two sides had seemed close to making a deal late last week , but Issa cautioned Holder that he will only delay the contempt vote — set for his panel on Wednesday — if DOJ makes the Fast and Furious material available by Tuesday .
Issa and Holder are scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee ’ s offices in the Rayburn House Office Building .
“ As the department has not yet produced these documents — and unless it does so tomorrow morning — I will not be able to offer you the committee ’ s assessment of them at tomorrow ’ s meeting , ” Issa said in his letter to Holder , the latest in a flurry of public missives between the two sides .
Issa wants information related to a Feb. 4 , 2011 , letter from DOJ downplaying top officials knowledge of what occurred during the Fast and Furious operation . That letter was later withdrawn by DOJ as inaccurate , and Hill Republicans have been trying to determine how the incident occurred .
Issa also dismissed what Holder has called the “ extraordinary accommodation ” made by DOJ in deciding to turn over “ internal deliberative documents ” to congressional investigators . DOJ had previously said such documents were not subject to congressional subpoenas .
“ There is nothing extraordinary about an offer from a federal agency to fully or partially respond to a subpoena , ” Issa told Holder . “ I do , however , hope the department will decide to produce the documents that would justify a postponement [ of Wednesday ’ s vote ] and will use tomorrow ’ s discussion to better understand what steps it can take if it sincerely seeks an outcome other than continuation of contempt proceedings . ”
DOJ officials met with Issa ’ s investigators last week to turn over some materials , and discussions between the two sides were ongoing throughout the weekend , GOP insiders said .
Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings , the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee , will be part of the session with Holder .
Issa — backed by Speaker John Boehner ( R-Ohio ) and other House GOP leaders — has subpoenaed thousands of pages of DOJ documents related to the Fast and Furious “ gun walking ” program .
That operation , run jointly by DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , allowed thousands of guns purchased in the United States to reach Mexican drug cartels as federal agents attempted to track them .
But the effort failed and two U.S. law-enforcement officers were killed using Fast and Furious weapons , leading to outrage on Capitol Hill .
Issa ’ s panel issued a subpoena last October for the Fast and Furious materials , particularly information related to the Feb. 2011 letter . Holder and other DOJ officials have refused for months to turn over those documents , arguing that previous administrations withheld similar “ internal deliberative ” information .
Yet with what Holder called a “ constitutional crisis ” looming over Fast and Furious , Issa and Holder appeared close to a deal to postpone the contempt vote late last week . Holder offered to turn over some — but not all — of the documents Issa has been seeking . In return , Holder sought a face-to-face meeting with Issa to resolve their dispute . Holder called the move an “ extraordinary accommodation ” to the demands of congressional investigators .
The battle with DOJ over Fast and Furious has become a test of strength for Issa and the House GOP leadership . Boehner and other top party leaders initially did not want to get into a showdown with Holder and the White House , fearing it would distract Republicans from the economic-based message that they have been pushing all year . Congress faces deadlines this month on highway and student loan funding , issues with far broader impact than the Fast and Furious debate , despite the seriousness of the DOJ-House fight .
|
Eric Holder and Darrell Issa had appeared close to a deal late last week. | AP Photos Holder contempt vote up in the air
GOP Rep. Darrell Issa warned Attorney General Eric Holder late Monday that if the Justice Department failed to turn over documents he is seeking, the California Republican will go ahead with a contempt vote against Holder as planned later this week.
Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been battling with DOJ since last year over documents related to the failed Fast and Furious program. The two sides had seemed close to making a deal late last week, but Issa cautioned Holder that he will only delay the contempt vote — set for his panel on Wednesday — if DOJ makes the Fast and Furious material available by Tuesday.
Story Continued Below
( Also on POLITICO: Cummings: Holder acted honorably)
Issa and Holder are scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s offices in the Rayburn House Office Building.
“As the department has not yet produced these documents — and unless it does so tomorrow morning — I will not be able to offer you the committee’s assessment of them at tomorrow’s meeting,” Issa said in his letter to Holder, the latest in a flurry of public missives between the two sides.
Issa wants information related to a Feb. 4, 2011, letter from DOJ downplaying top officials knowledge of what occurred during the Fast and Furious operation. That letter was later withdrawn by DOJ as inaccurate, and Hill Republicans have been trying to determine how the incident occurred.
Issa also dismissed what Holder has called the “extraordinary accommodation” made by DOJ in deciding to turn over “internal deliberative documents” to congressional investigators. DOJ had previously said such documents were not subject to congressional subpoenas.
“There is nothing extraordinary about an offer from a federal agency to fully or partially respond to a subpoena,” Issa told Holder. “I do, however, hope the department will decide to produce the documents that would justify a postponement [of Wednesday’s vote] and will use tomorrow’s discussion to better understand what steps it can take if it sincerely seeks an outcome other than continuation of contempt proceedings.”
DOJ officials met with Issa’s investigators last week to turn over some materials, and discussions between the two sides were ongoing throughout the weekend, GOP insiders said.
Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, will be part of the session with Holder.
Issa — backed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other House GOP leaders — has subpoenaed thousands of pages of DOJ documents related to the Fast and Furious “gun walking” program.
That operation, run jointly by DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, allowed thousands of guns purchased in the United States to reach Mexican drug cartels as federal agents attempted to track them.
But the effort failed and two U.S. law-enforcement officers were killed using Fast and Furious weapons, leading to outrage on Capitol Hill.
Issa’s panel issued a subpoena last October for the Fast and Furious materials, particularly information related to the Feb. 2011 letter. Holder and other DOJ officials have refused for months to turn over those documents, arguing that previous administrations withheld similar “internal deliberative” information.
( PHOTOS: Eric Holder's career)
Yet with what Holder called a “constitutional crisis” looming over Fast and Furious, Issa and Holder appeared close to a deal to postpone the contempt vote late last week. Holder offered to turn over some — but not all — of the documents Issa has been seeking. In return, Holder sought a face-to-face meeting with Issa to resolve their dispute. Holder called the move an “extraordinary accommodation” to the demands of congressional investigators.
The battle with DOJ over Fast and Furious has become a test of strength for Issa and the House GOP leadership. Boehner and other top party leaders initially did not want to get into a showdown with Holder and the White House, fearing it would distract Republicans from the economic-based message that they have been pushing all year. Congress faces deadlines this month on highway and student loan funding, issues with far broader impact than the Fast and Furious debate, despite the seriousness of the DOJ-House fight.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
sg1SCwPWtclz8Yty
|
democratic_party
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-president.html?ref=politics
|
Bernie Sanders Announces He Is Running for President
|
2015-04-30
|
Alan Rappeport
|
SHOWS : WASHINGTON , DC , UNITED STATES ( APRIL 30 , 2015 ) ( REUTERS - ACCESS ALL ) 1 . U.S . SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WALKING TO PODIUM 2 . ( SOUNDBITE ) ( English ) U.S . SENATOR , BERNIE SANDERS , SAYING : “ This country today , in my view , has more serious crises than any time since the Great Depression of the 1930 ’ s . For most Americans , their reality is that they are working longer hours for lower wages and inflation-adjusted income , they are earning less money than they used to years ago despite a great increase in technology and productivity . So , all over this country , I have been talking to people and they say - how does it happen ? I am producing more , but I am working longer hours for lower wages . My kid can ’ t afford to go to college , I am having a hard time affording healthcare . How does that happen ? While at exactly the same time , 99 percent of all new income generated in this country is going to the top one percent . How does it happen ? That the top one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent . And my conclusion is that that type of economics is not only immoral , it is not only wrong , it is unsustainable . It can ’ t continue . We can ’ t continue having a nation in which we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major nation on earth at the same time as we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. ” 3 . WIDE OF SANDER AT MICROPHONE , PAN TO PRESS 4 . ( SOUNDBITE ) ( English ) U.S . SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS , SAYING : “ We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates . Let ’ s not kid ourselves . That is the reality right now . So you got the Koch brothers and other billionaire families now prepared to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in elections to buy the candidates of their choice , often extreme right wing candidates . I am the former chairman of the Senate Veterans ( Affairs ) Committee , and I can tell you , I don ’ t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process . ”
|
SHOWS: WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES (APRIL 30, 2015) (REUTERS - ACCESS ALL) 1. U.S. SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WALKING TO PODIUM 2. (SOUNDBITE) (English) U.S. SENATOR, BERNIE SANDERS, SAYING: “This country today, in my view, has more serious crises than any time since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. For most Americans, their reality is that they are working longer hours for lower wages and inflation-adjusted income, they are earning less money than they used to years ago despite a great increase in technology and productivity. So, all over this country, I have been talking to people and they say - how does it happen? I am producing more, but I am working longer hours for lower wages. My kid can’t afford to go to college, I am having a hard time affording healthcare. How does that happen? While at exactly the same time, 99 percent of all new income generated in this country is going to the top one percent. How does it happen? That the top one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. And my conclusion is that that type of economics is not only immoral, it is not only wrong, it is unsustainable. It can’t continue. We can’t continue having a nation in which we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major nation on earth at the same time as we are seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires.” 3. WIDE OF SANDER AT MICROPHONE, PAN TO PRESS 4. (SOUNDBITE) (English) U.S. SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, SAYING: “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates. Let’s not kid ourselves. That is the reality right now. So you got the Koch brothers and other billionaire families now prepared to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in elections to buy the candidates of their choice, often extreme right wing candidates. I am the former chairman of the Senate Veterans (Affairs) Committee, and I can tell you, I don’t believe that the men and women who defended American democracy fought to create a situation where billionaires own the political process.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
tD0g8Bo8SMyeiIgL
|
federal_budget
|
John Stossel
| 22
|
http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/09/government-shutdown-dont-believe-the-hyp?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20reason/Articles%20%28Reason%20Online%20-%20All%20Articles%20%28except%20Hit%20%26%20Run%20blog%29%29
|
Government Shutdown: Don’t Believe the Hype
|
2013-10-09
|
Veronique De Rugy, Jim Lindgren, Brian Doherty, Ronald Bailey, Eric Boehm, Joe Setyon, Christian Britschgi, Cosmo Wenman
|
Government wants you to play a role in the `` shutdown '' of the federal government . Your role is to panic .
Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing . The press concurs . `` Shutdown threatens fragile economy , '' warns Politico . `` Federal workers turn to prayer , '' laments The Washington Post .
If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers , we might get dangerous ideas , like doing without so much government . Politicians do n't want that .
They 'd rather have us worry about how America will cope .
President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture `` out there helping some farmers make sure that they 're making some modest profit , '' and the Department of Housing and Urban Development `` helping somebody buy a house for the first time . ''
Give me a break . Farmers do n't need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit , and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few . Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they did n't have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes .
Bureaucrats , acting like bullies , protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks—even privately funded ones . Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt . Rushmore . They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land . The Washington Free Beacon reports , `` The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land , even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation . ''
It 's similar to the fake `` austerity measures '' in other countries . We 're told that Europe 's slow economic growth is a result of `` austerity '' embraced by European governments .
But there has n't really been any austerity . England , where a `` conservative '' government is in charge , ( SET ITAL ) increased ( END ITAL ) government spending by 4 percent .
`` Austerity '' in Greece—supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest—meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year ( instead of two ! ) .
In the U.S. , Rep. Nancy Pelosi ( D-Cal . ) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there 's just nothing left to cut : `` The cupboard is bare ! There 's no more cuts to make ! ''
What ? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars ! The government cupboard overflows ! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless . The Labor Department ( SET ITAL ) interferes ( END ITAL ) with actual labor . Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies .
The government has n't cut spending—it never does . After the last shutdowns , politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who did n't work . Bet they do it again this time . The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country . President Obama says so with pride .
Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times : AT & T cut 40,000 workers . Sears cut 50,000 . IBM : 60,000 . They were n't easy decisions , but they enabled the companies to stay profitable . With fewer workers , leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done .
And the rest of us barely noticed . We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions . But it does n't happen in government . Government just grows .
Maybe the ugliest part of this story is that the city that whines most about suffering through the shutdown , Washington , D.C. , is now the richest geographic area in America . Washington got richer while the rest of America did n't . Over the past 12 years , median income in the U.S. dropped about 6.5 percent—but not in D.C. ! There , it rose 23 percent . Four of the five richest counties now surround Washington , D.C .
No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going—it is essential to keep them going .
|
Government wants you to play a role in the "shutdown" of the federal government. Your role is to panic.
Republicans and Democrats both assume that shutting some government is a terrible thing. The press concurs. "Shutdown threatens fragile economy," warns Politico. "Federal workers turn to prayer," laments The Washington Post.
If the public starts noticing that life goes on as usual without all 3.4 million federal workers, we might get dangerous ideas, like doing without so much government. Politicians don't want that.
They'd rather have us worry about how America will cope.
President Obama gave a speech where he actually said we need to keep government open for the sake of people like the person working for the Department of Agriculture "out there helping some farmers make sure that they're making some modest profit," and the Department of Housing and Urban Development "helping somebody buy a house for the first time."
Give me a break. Farmers don't need bureaucrats to teach them how to make a profit, and Americans can buy first homes without HUD helping a chosen few. Americans would make more profit and afford better homes if they didn't have to spend a third of national income on federal taxes.
Bureaucrats, acting like bullies, protest the partial closures by doing things like cutting off access to public parks—even privately funded ones. Federal cops block access to outdoor war memorials and much of Mt. Rushmore. They block access to motels and order people out of private homes that happen to sit on federal land. The Washington Free Beacon reports, "The closure of a Virginia park that sits on federal land, even though the government provides no resources for its maintenance or operation."
This is shutdown theater.
It's similar to the fake "austerity measures" in other countries. We're told that Europe's slow economic growth is a result of "austerity" embraced by European governments.
But there hasn't really been any austerity. England, where a "conservative" government is in charge, (SET ITAL) increased (END ITAL) government spending by 4 percent.
"Austerity" in Greece—supposedly so drastic that the public has little choice but to riot in protest—meant changes like reducing mandatory severance pay to one entire year (instead of two!).
In the U.S., Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) told CNN the federal government has cut so much spending that there's just nothing left to cut: "The cupboard is bare! There's no more cuts to make!"
What? The federal government spends almost 4 trillion dollars! The government cupboard overflows! We fund entire cabinet departments that are worse than useless. The Labor Department (SET ITAL) interferes (END ITAL) with actual labor. Commerce would flow more smoothly without Commerce Department bureaucrats channeling money to their cronies.
The government hasn't cut spending—it never does. After the last shutdowns, politicians even voted to award retroactive pay to government workers who didn't work. Bet they do it again this time. The federal government remains the biggest employer in the country. President Obama says so with pride.
Compare this to what happens in the private sector in tough times: AT&T cut 40,000 workers. Sears cut 50,000. IBM: 60,000. They weren't easy decisions, but they enabled the companies to stay profitable. With fewer workers, leaner companies found more efficient ways to get things done.
And the rest of us barely noticed. We expect change and adaptation in free-market institutions. But it doesn't happen in government. Government just grows.
Maybe the ugliest part of this story is that the city that whines most about suffering through the shutdown, Washington, D.C., is now the richest geographic area in America. Washington got richer while the rest of America didn't. Over the past 12 years, median income in the U.S. dropped about 6.5 percent—but not in D.C.! There, it rose 23 percent. Four of the five richest counties now surround Washington, D.C.
No wonder politicians and bureaucrats are convinced big government is essential to keep the economy going—it is essential to keep them going.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
bDuQU3qRfhmhbbgk
|
middle_east
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/06/egypt-on-edge-after-deadly-clashes-and-islamist-pushback/?test=latestnews
|
Egypt's president holds crisis talks with security officials, names opposition leader interim prime minister
|
2013-07-06
|
Egypt 's new president has backed away from an announcement that pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei would be the interim prime minister .
A spokesman for interim President Adly Mansour , Ahmed el-Musilamani , told reporters on Saturday that consultations were continuing , denying that the appointment of the Nobel Peace laureate was ever certain .
However , reporters gathered at the presidential palace were ushered in to a room where they were told by official to wait for the president who would arrive shortly to announce ElBaradei 's appointment .
A senior opposition official , Munir Fakhry Abdelnur , tells The Associated Press that the reversal was because the ultraconservative Salafi el-Nour party objected to ElBardei 's appointment and mediation was underway .
Earlier Mansour held crisis talks with security officials on efforts to reclaim control of the streets .
More On This ... Key events in Egypt ’ s uprising and unrest
After a night of clashes that claimed at least 36 lives and injured more than 200 , both sides appeared to be preparing for the possibility of more violence as Egypt 's political unraveling increasingly left little room for middle ground or dialogue . Only a fraction of Cairo 's normally heavy traffic was on the streets amid worries that violence could flare up again .
Security forces stepped up their presence near the largest concentration of Morsi supporters on the streets : A sit-in outside a mosque in Cairo 's eastern Nasr City district , a traditionally Muslim Brotherhood stronghold .
In Nasr City lines of fighters brandished homemade weapons and body armor at road blocks affixed with Morsi 's picture .
Next door in the relatively upscale Heliopolis district , people chanted against Morsi and honked car horns in appreciation of roadblocks manned by Egypt 's military -- whose snub of Morsi 's authority earlier this week tipped the scales against Egypt 's first elected leader .
In a further sign of the concern the unrest could spin out of control , Mansour , held talks with the army chief and Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sissi as well as Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim .
It was the first time Mansour has worked out of the president 's main offices since he was sworn-in Thursday as the country 's interim leader .
Mansour also met with leaders of Tamrod , or Rebel , the youth movement that organized the mass anti-Morsi demonstrations , according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity .
Gunmen shot dead a Christian priest Saturday while he shopped for food in an outdoor market in the northern Sinai Peninsula Saturday .
It was not immediately clear if the shooting was linked to the political crisis , but there has been a backlash against Christians since just before and after Morsi 's ouster . Attacks have occurred on members of the minority by Islamists in at least three provinces south of Egypt . Morsi 's Brotherhood and hard-line allies claim the Christians played a big part in inciting against the ousted leader .
Officials have briefly detained top figures from Morsi 's Muslim Brotherhood and have kept him from the public eye , under detention in an undisclosed location .
Morsi 's supporters have vowed to take to the streets until he is reinstated . His opponents , meanwhile , have called for more mass rallies to defend what they call the `` gains of June 30 , '' a reference to the start of massive protests to call for the ouster of the president .
There were no reports of major clashes after dawn Saturday , following a night of street battles that added to an overall death toll of at least 75 in the past week .
The Interior Ministry reported that at least eight policemen have been killed since June 30 .
The Health Ministry official ’ s deputy , Khairat el-Shater , considered the most powerful figure in the organization , was arrested in a Cairo apartment along with his brother on allegations of inciting violence , Interior Ministry spokesman Hani Abdel-Latif told The Associated Press .
Egyptian troops reportedly opened fire on Morsi supporters Friday outside Republican Guard headquarters near Cairo , where Morsi was believed held . There were initially conflicting reports on casualties , but an army spokesman denied troops shot at Morsi supporters , saying only blanks and teargas were used .
Crowds of Islamists gathered to cross a bridge over the Nile River after nightfall and clashed with Morsi opponents near Tahrir Square and outside the state TV building . TV images showed groups of youths running and fireworks going off near the bridge . One witness reported stone throwing and gunfire .
In a dramatic appearance -- his first since Morsi 's ouster -- the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood defiantly vowed the president would return . `` God make Morsi victorious and bring him back to the palace , '' Mohammed Badie proclaimed from a stage before a crowd of cheering supporters at a Cairo mosque . `` We are his soldiers we defend him with our lives . ''
Badie , who was taken into custody shortly after Morsi was ousted , addressed the military , saying it was a matter of honor for it to abide by its pledge of loyalty to the president , in what appeared to be an attempt to pull it away from its leadership that removed Morsi . `` Your leader is Morsi ... Return to the people of Egypt , '' he said . `` Your bullets are not to be fired on your sons and your own people . ''
State prosecutors said that Morsi would face an investigation next week into claims that he `` insulted the presidency . ''
Morsi was ousted in what was described by the presidential palace as a `` complete military coup . '' The White House has not labeled Morsi ouster a coup . Doing so would have U.S. aid implications .
Morsi said on his presidential Facebook page that the military 's action `` presents a military coup and it is unacceptable . ''
The U.S. State Department condemned the violence and called on all Egyptian leaders to denounce the use of force and prevent further bloodshed among their supporters .
|
Egypt's new president has backed away from an announcement that pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei would be the interim prime minister.
A spokesman for interim President Adly Mansour, Ahmed el-Musilamani, told reporters on Saturday that consultations were continuing, denying that the appointment of the Nobel Peace laureate was ever certain.
However, reporters gathered at the presidential palace were ushered in to a room where they were told by official to wait for the president who would arrive shortly to announce ElBaradei's appointment.
A senior opposition official, Munir Fakhry Abdelnur, tells The Associated Press that the reversal was because the ultraconservative Salafi el-Nour party objected to ElBardei's appointment and mediation was underway.
Earlier Mansour held crisis talks with security officials on efforts to reclaim control of the streets.
More On This... Key events in Egypt’s uprising and unrest
After a night of clashes that claimed at least 36 lives and injured more than 200, both sides appeared to be preparing for the possibility of more violence as Egypt's political unraveling increasingly left little room for middle ground or dialogue. Only a fraction of Cairo's normally heavy traffic was on the streets amid worries that violence could flare up again.
Security forces stepped up their presence near the largest concentration of Morsi supporters on the streets: A sit-in outside a mosque in Cairo's eastern Nasr City district, a traditionally Muslim Brotherhood stronghold.
In Nasr City lines of fighters brandished homemade weapons and body armor at road blocks affixed with Morsi's picture.
Next door in the relatively upscale Heliopolis district, people chanted against Morsi and honked car horns in appreciation of roadblocks manned by Egypt's military -- whose snub of Morsi's authority earlier this week tipped the scales against Egypt's first elected leader.
In a further sign of the concern the unrest could spin out of control, Mansour, held talks with the army chief and Defense Minister Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sissi as well as Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim.
It was the first time Mansour has worked out of the president's main offices since he was sworn-in Thursday as the country's interim leader.
Mansour also met with leaders of Tamrod, or Rebel, the youth movement that organized the mass anti-Morsi demonstrations, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Gunmen shot dead a Christian priest Saturday while he shopped for food in an outdoor market in the northern Sinai Peninsula Saturday.
It was not immediately clear if the shooting was linked to the political crisis, but there has been a backlash against Christians since just before and after Morsi's ouster. Attacks have occurred on members of the minority by Islamists in at least three provinces south of Egypt. Morsi's Brotherhood and hard-line allies claim the Christians played a big part in inciting against the ousted leader.
Officials have briefly detained top figures from Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood and have kept him from the public eye, under detention in an undisclosed location.
Morsi's supporters have vowed to take to the streets until he is reinstated. His opponents, meanwhile, have called for more mass rallies to defend what they call the "gains of June 30," a reference to the start of massive protests to call for the ouster of the president.
There were no reports of major clashes after dawn Saturday, following a night of street battles that added to an overall death toll of at least 75 in the past week.
The Interior Ministry reported that at least eight policemen have been killed since June 30.
The Health Ministry official’s deputy, Khairat el-Shater, considered the most powerful figure in the organization, was arrested in a Cairo apartment along with his brother on allegations of inciting violence, Interior Ministry spokesman Hani Abdel-Latif told The Associated Press.
Egyptian troops reportedly opened fire on Morsi supporters Friday outside Republican Guard headquarters near Cairo, where Morsi was believed held. There were initially conflicting reports on casualties, but an army spokesman denied troops shot at Morsi supporters, saying only blanks and teargas were used.
Crowds of Islamists gathered to cross a bridge over the Nile River after nightfall and clashed with Morsi opponents near Tahrir Square and outside the state TV building. TV images showed groups of youths running and fireworks going off near the bridge. One witness reported stone throwing and gunfire.
In a dramatic appearance -- his first since Morsi's ouster -- the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood defiantly vowed the president would return. "God make Morsi victorious and bring him back to the palace," Mohammed Badie proclaimed from a stage before a crowd of cheering supporters at a Cairo mosque. "We are his soldiers we defend him with our lives."
Badie, who was taken into custody shortly after Morsi was ousted, addressed the military, saying it was a matter of honor for it to abide by its pledge of loyalty to the president, in what appeared to be an attempt to pull it away from its leadership that removed Morsi. "Your leader is Morsi ... Return to the people of Egypt," he said. "Your bullets are not to be fired on your sons and your own people."
State prosecutors said that Morsi would face an investigation next week into claims that he "insulted the presidency."
Morsi was ousted in what was described by the presidential palace as a "complete military coup." The White House has not labeled Morsi ouster a coup. Doing so would have U.S. aid implications.
Morsi said on his presidential Facebook page that the military's action "presents a military coup and it is unacceptable."
The U.S. State Department condemned the violence and called on all Egyptian leaders to denounce the use of force and prevent further bloodshed among their supporters.
Click for more from the BBC.
Fox News' Greg Palkot, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
ELItuvrRuGYyCN9w
|
|
republican_party
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/president-trump-political-instincts-trade-immigration-sovereignty/
|
Republicans Still Don’t Get Trump
|
2018-03-24
|
Matthew Continetti, John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Mairead Mcardle, Robert Verbruggen, Carrie Severino, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, John Fund
|
‘ The heart and soul of the Republican Party belongs to Donald Trump , ” writes Lloyd Green . If so , the GOP has an odd way of showing affection . Green cites a lack of Republican criticism of Trump , the president ’ s continued popularity within the party , and Trump ’ s rescue of incumbent Nevada senator Dean Heller from a primary challenge . All true . But when it comes to the president ’ s priorities and the nationalist-populist style of politics he represents , Trump and the Republican Congress could not be farther apart .
Trump won the nomination and the presidency after distinguishing himself from the party in four ways . Since Ronald Reagan , Republicans have tended to support global economic integration , immigration , democratic internationalism , and entitlement reform . And yet Trump opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership , called to renegotiate NAFTA , and wanted tariffs on China . His 2015 immigration plan championed a wall across the southern border , workplace enforcement , an end to birthright citizenship , and a tripling of border and customs agents . He repudiated the Iraq war and questioned the future of NATO . He swore that Social Security and Medicare would be off-limits . His brashness , colorfulness , insults , willingness to transgress norms , humor , novelty , and lack of political experience separated him from the GOP pack .
This program and its avatar won three Great Lakes states that had been missing from the Republican column for a generation . Trump also came within striking distance in Minnesota and New Hampshire . Obviously , we do not know the exact relation between Trump ’ s nationalism and populism and the roughly 78,000 votes in three states that gave him an Electoral College victory . But the unexpected shape of his upset suggests that the trademark Trump issues of immigration , trade , nonintervention , and retirement security played some role both in attracting support for him and depressing turnout for Hillary Clinton .
Yet the 16 months since the election have seen the gradual , fitful , and partial regularization of Trump into the GOP that predated and opposed him . Until recently , the president and congressional leadership were aligned : They seated a justice and lower-court judges , rolled back Obama-era regulations , failed to repeal and replace Obamacare , and passed a large tax cut . Trump ’ s foreign policy also became more conventionally Republican . He bombed Syria , turned down his criticism of NATO , maintained a troop presence in Afghanistan despite his instincts to withdraw , and increased defense spending . The signature Trump policies — including the travel ban , exit from the TPP and the Paris Climate Accord , and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — were greeted with friendly skepticism from party elites . By the end of 2017 , one would have thought the party would change Trump more than he would change it .
That hasn ’ t happened . Instead , both Trump and the GOP seem to be reverting to form : Trump has pressed for changes to legal immigration , visited prototypes for the border wall , called for the death penalty for opioid dealers , and imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as against China , amid anxiety and dissent and resistance from congressmen of his own party . Trump ’ s instincts and impulsiveness have driven him to re-embrace the portfolio that delivered his electoral coalition at the very moment Republicans in Congress want nothing so much as to return to their districts , publicize the tax cut , and vainly attempt to divorce their campaigns from national politics . And so we are faced with the oddity that Trump ’ s approval rating is creeping upward even as Democrats press their midterm advantage .
Trump and the Republicans operate according to different hierarchies of values . To the degree that his behavior can be categorized by a single idea , Trump ’ s most singular policies address the question of sovereignty : Who rules ? Here , in America , the people rule , or are supposed to . Trump ’ s rhetoric defines the people as American citizens , regardless of racial or ethnic identity . The domestic objective of his presidency is to reassert popular control over judges , bureaucracies , and elected officials . The extent of sovereignty must be defined , which is why we have borders and require a wall to protect a porous one . And national sovereignty is important , too . That is why America must reestablish its privileges and ability to maneuver vis-à-vis multilateral institutions such as the United Nations , international agreements , and the World Trade Organization .
If I had to choose a guiding principle of congressional Republicans , it would be freedom . The freedom of the individual to live the life he chooses , the freedom of people and goods and services to move across borders , the freedom to work , spend , and invest as one sees fit , the freedom of people around the world to govern themselves .
Now , sovereignty and freedom are not necessarily in conflict . They overlap , and they can move in tandem . They often have done so in American history . But one must also balance the other . A sovereign without regard for freedom would be unjust , and increasing social and economic freedom can lead to the loss of sovereignty . The thrust of populist politics since 2016 indicates that voters believe that the mix of sovereignty and freedom is out of whack , that national and democratic sovereignty must be upheld even if it means tighter regulation of the global economy and especially of global migration .
A sovereign without regard for freedom would be unjust , and increasing social and economic freedom can lead to the loss of sovereignty .
At its most politically successful , the party of Trump pits miners , hard hats , farmers , soldiers , veterans , and public-safety officers against CEOs , bankers , lawyers , doctors , bureaucrats , professors , and educators . Yet none of Trump ’ s personal or policy decisions occasioned as much intra-party pushback , including a high-profile resignation , as the imposition of tariffs . Not only do Republicans seem largely ignorant of the fact that Donald Trump ’ s political instincts are better than their own , they also refuse to learn .
This divergence between Trump and the Republicans is apparent in the $ 1.3 trillion government-funding bill . If there is one thing every American knows about Donald Trump , it is that he wants to build a wall along the Mexican border . Yet Republican congressmen , most of whom adhere to pre-Trump views of immigration , secured only $ 1.6 billion for the project . Democrats are crowing . “ Democrats won explicit language restricting border construction to the same see-through fencing that was already authorized under current law , ” Nancy Pelosi said in a statement . “ The bill does not allow any increase in deportation officers or detention beds. ” Part of the responsibility for this setback goes to Trump , who seems to have been disengaged from the negotiations until the last minute . But the main reason the money isn ’ t there is the fact that congressional leadership had neither the desire nor the stomach to fight for it .
Something similar has happened with trade . Whatever the economic consequences of Trump ’ s protectionism — and they could be bad — it can not be denied that this is the issue on which he has been most consistent over 30 years in the public eye . Nor can the political appeal of siding with domestic manufacturers over multinational corporations be ignored by anyone who has seen Democrats rhetorically position themselves on the side of the American worker since 1992 . By dividing trades and construction-union membership against leadership in 2016 , Trump called forth the Reagan Democrats who had vanished from the scene , and convinced millions of white working-class voters to defect from the Obama coalition .
They can just as easily switch back , of course . When I visited the websites of the two candidates in the recent Pennsylvania special election , I was struck that it was the Democrat , rather than the Republican , who highlighted infrastructure , opioids , and protecting entitlements , three topics of keen interest to Trump voters . By neutralizing the hot-button cultural issues of guns and abortion , and highlighting Rick Saccone ’ s support for right-to-work and other pro-business measures , Conor Lamb reappropriated the economic program that Donald Trump used to win PA-18 by 20 points . He won ’ t be the last Democrat to do so .
|
(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
Trade, immigration, and the new politics of sovereignty
‘The heart and soul of the Republican Party belongs to Donald Trump,” writes Lloyd Green. If so, the GOP has an odd way of showing affection. Green cites a lack of Republican criticism of Trump, the president’s continued popularity within the party, and Trump’s rescue of incumbent Nevada senator Dean Heller from a primary challenge. All true. But when it comes to the president’s priorities and the nationalist-populist style of politics he represents, Trump and the Republican Congress could not be farther apart.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trump won the nomination and the presidency after distinguishing himself from the party in four ways. Since Ronald Reagan, Republicans have tended to support global economic integration, immigration, democratic internationalism, and entitlement reform. And yet Trump opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, called to renegotiate NAFTA, and wanted tariffs on China. His 2015 immigration plan championed a wall across the southern border, workplace enforcement, an end to birthright citizenship, and a tripling of border and customs agents. He repudiated the Iraq war and questioned the future of NATO. He swore that Social Security and Medicare would be off-limits. His brashness, colorfulness, insults, willingness to transgress norms, humor, novelty, and lack of political experience separated him from the GOP pack.
This program and its avatar won three Great Lakes states that had been missing from the Republican column for a generation. Trump also came within striking distance in Minnesota and New Hampshire. Obviously, we do not know the exact relation between Trump’s nationalism and populism and the roughly 78,000 votes in three states that gave him an Electoral College victory. But the unexpected shape of his upset suggests that the trademark Trump issues of immigration, trade, nonintervention, and retirement security played some role both in attracting support for him and depressing turnout for Hillary Clinton.
Advertisement
Yet the 16 months since the election have seen the gradual, fitful, and partial regularization of Trump into the GOP that predated and opposed him. Until recently, the president and congressional leadership were aligned: They seated a justice and lower-court judges, rolled back Obama-era regulations, failed to repeal and replace Obamacare, and passed a large tax cut. Trump’s foreign policy also became more conventionally Republican. He bombed Syria, turned down his criticism of NATO, maintained a troop presence in Afghanistan despite his instincts to withdraw, and increased defense spending. The signature Trump policies — including the travel ban, exit from the TPP and the Paris Climate Accord, and moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — were greeted with friendly skepticism from party elites. By the end of 2017, one would have thought the party would change Trump more than he would change it.
That hasn’t happened. Instead, both Trump and the GOP seem to be reverting to form: Trump has pressed for changes to legal immigration, visited prototypes for the border wall, called for the death penalty for opioid dealers, and imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as against China, amid anxiety and dissent and resistance from congressmen of his own party. Trump’s instincts and impulsiveness have driven him to re-embrace the portfolio that delivered his electoral coalition at the very moment Republicans in Congress want nothing so much as to return to their districts, publicize the tax cut, and vainly attempt to divorce their campaigns from national politics. And so we are faced with the oddity that Trump’s approval rating is creeping upward even as Democrats press their midterm advantage.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trump and the Republicans operate according to different hierarchies of values. To the degree that his behavior can be categorized by a single idea, Trump’s most singular policies address the question of sovereignty: Who rules? Here, in America, the people rule, or are supposed to. Trump’s rhetoric defines the people as American citizens, regardless of racial or ethnic identity. The domestic objective of his presidency is to reassert popular control over judges, bureaucracies, and elected officials. The extent of sovereignty must be defined, which is why we have borders and require a wall to protect a porous one. And national sovereignty is important, too. That is why America must reestablish its privileges and ability to maneuver vis-à-vis multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, international agreements, and the World Trade Organization.
If I had to choose a guiding principle of congressional Republicans, it would be freedom. The freedom of the individual to live the life he chooses, the freedom of people and goods and services to move across borders, the freedom to work, spend, and invest as one sees fit, the freedom of people around the world to govern themselves.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Now, sovereignty and freedom are not necessarily in conflict. They overlap, and they can move in tandem. They often have done so in American history. But one must also balance the other. A sovereign without regard for freedom would be unjust, and increasing social and economic freedom can lead to the loss of sovereignty. The thrust of populist politics since 2016 indicates that voters believe that the mix of sovereignty and freedom is out of whack, that national and democratic sovereignty must be upheld even if it means tighter regulation of the global economy and especially of global migration.
A sovereign without regard for freedom would be unjust, and increasing social and economic freedom can lead to the loss of sovereignty.
At its most politically successful, the party of Trump pits miners, hard hats, farmers, soldiers, veterans, and public-safety officers against CEOs, bankers, lawyers, doctors, bureaucrats, professors, and educators. Yet none of Trump’s personal or policy decisions occasioned as much intra-party pushback, including a high-profile resignation, as the imposition of tariffs. Not only do Republicans seem largely ignorant of the fact that Donald Trump’s political instincts are better than their own, they also refuse to learn.
Advertisement
This divergence between Trump and the Republicans is apparent in the $1.3 trillion government-funding bill. If there is one thing every American knows about Donald Trump, it is that he wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Yet Republican congressmen, most of whom adhere to pre-Trump views of immigration, secured only $1.6 billion for the project. Democrats are crowing. “Democrats won explicit language restricting border construction to the same see-through fencing that was already authorized under current law,” Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “The bill does not allow any increase in deportation officers or detention beds.” Part of the responsibility for this setback goes to Trump, who seems to have been disengaged from the negotiations until the last minute. But the main reason the money isn’t there is the fact that congressional leadership had neither the desire nor the stomach to fight for it.
Advertisement
Something similar has happened with trade. Whatever the economic consequences of Trump’s protectionism — and they could be bad — it cannot be denied that this is the issue on which he has been most consistent over 30 years in the public eye. Nor can the political appeal of siding with domestic manufacturers over multinational corporations be ignored by anyone who has seen Democrats rhetorically position themselves on the side of the American worker since 1992. By dividing trades and construction-union membership against leadership in 2016, Trump called forth the Reagan Democrats who had vanished from the scene, and convinced millions of white working-class voters to defect from the Obama coalition.
Advertisement
They can just as easily switch back, of course. When I visited the websites of the two candidates in the recent Pennsylvania special election, I was struck that it was the Democrat, rather than the Republican, who highlighted infrastructure, opioids, and protecting entitlements, three topics of keen interest to Trump voters. By neutralizing the hot-button cultural issues of guns and abortion, and highlighting Rick Saccone’s support for right-to-work and other pro-business measures, Conor Lamb reappropriated the economic program that Donald Trump used to win PA-18 by 20 points. He won’t be the last Democrat to do so.
This article first appeared in the Washington Free Beacon.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
8H1RXuPk0gE25oY1
|
us_senate
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-calls-for-swift-end-to-impeachment-trial-warns-dems-against-calling-witnesses
|
Graham calls for swift end to impeachment trial, warns Dems against calling witnesses
|
Ronn Blitzer
|
Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , announced that his initial plan of a pre-trial dismissal of the impeachment case against President Trump is now unlikely to happen , but he is pushing for the trial to begin and end as quickly as possible .
The Senate trial is set to begin Tuesday . Graham had previously floated the idea that the GOP majority could immediately vote to dismiss the case before hearing any arguments , but now he states that this does not appear to be a possibility given the lack of sufficient Republican support for such action .
“ Yeah that ’ s dead for practical purposes , ” Graham told “ Fox News Sunday , ” explaining , “ the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen ; we don ’ t have the votes for that . ”
Graham remains confident that Republicans are still united enough to acquit Trump at the conclusion of the trial . How long the trial goes is still up in the air . Graham would neither confirm nor deny reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans on keeping the Senate in session for 12 hours a day so that House Democrats would be done presenting their arguments Wednesday .
In addition to presenting their arguments , House Democrats want to call witnesses such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who did not testify during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry due to Trump ’ s claim of executive privilege . Bolton indicated he would comply with a Senate subpoena .
Senators Ted Cruz , R-Texas ; Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska ; and Susan Collins , R-Maine , are among a small group of Republicans who have yet to completely shut the door on new witnesses , wanting to hear arguments first . Democrats would need them and at least one more in order to be able to call witnesses , but Graham warned that if they get their wish , the GOP will look to call defense witnesses such as Hunter Biden .
“ If we call one witness , we ’ re going to call all the witnesses , ” Graham said .
HOUSE DEMOCRATS URGE SENATE TO 'ELIMINATE THE THREAT ' OF TRUMP , IN OPENING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SALVO
Personally , Graham said he would rather look into Hunter Biden ’ s dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings outside of the context of the impeachment trial , and would rather not have any witnesses called during the trial from either side .
While the trial itself will first begin on Tuesday , both sides have already filed documents presenting arguments .
The Democratic House impeachment managers filed a lengthy brief Saturday night arguing that Trump abused the power of the presidency by using military aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter , as well as whether Democrats used Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election .
They also claim that the president obstructed Congress by blocking key witnesses from testifying during the House ’ s impeachment inquiry .
In his answer to the impeachment articles -- also filed Saturday -- Trump and his attorneys argued that he committed no wrongdoing when it comes to his dealings with Ukraine , claiming that he did not pressure Ukrainian President Volodydmyr Zelensky into conducting investigations into political rivals , and that the military aid was released without any investigations being announced .
Additionally , Trump argues that the obstruction of Congress charge is meritless because his instructions for witnesses like Bolton not to testify were done under executive privilege , and House Democrats who claimed this was improper never allowed the courts to make a ruling on the matter because they either withdrew subpoenas or opted not to issue them .
|
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced that his initial plan of a pre-trial dismissal of the impeachment case against President Trump is now unlikely to happen, but he is pushing for the trial to begin and end as quickly as possible.
The Senate trial is set to begin Tuesday. Graham had previously floated the idea that the GOP majority could immediately vote to dismiss the case before hearing any arguments, but now he states that this does not appear to be a possibility given the lack of sufficient Republican support for such action.
TRUMP LAWYERS RESPOND TO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT: 'CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID'
“Yeah that’s dead for practical purposes,” Graham told “Fox News Sunday,” explaining, “the idea of dismissing the case early on is not going to happen; we don’t have the votes for that.”
Graham remains confident that Republicans are still united enough to acquit Trump at the conclusion of the trial. How long the trial goes is still up in the air. Graham would neither confirm nor deny reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans on keeping the Senate in session for 12 hours a day so that House Democrats would be done presenting their arguments Wednesday.
In addition to presenting their arguments, House Democrats want to call witnesses such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton, who did not testify during the House’s impeachment inquiry due to Trump’s claim of executive privilege. Bolton indicated he would comply with a Senate subpoena.
Senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are among a small group of Republicans who have yet to completely shut the door on new witnesses, wanting to hear arguments first. Democrats would need them and at least one more in order to be able to call witnesses, but Graham warned that if they get their wish, the GOP will look to call defense witnesses such as Hunter Biden.
“If we call one witness, we’re going to call all the witnesses,” Graham said.
HOUSE DEMOCRATS URGE SENATE TO 'ELIMINATE THE THREAT' OF TRUMP, IN OPENING IMPEACHMENT TRIAL SALVO
Personally, Graham said he would rather look into Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings outside of the context of the impeachment trial, and would rather not have any witnesses called during the trial from either side.
“The sooner this is over the better,” he said.
While the trial itself will first begin on Tuesday, both sides have already filed documents presenting arguments.
The Democratic House impeachment managers filed a lengthy brief Saturday night arguing that Trump abused the power of the presidency by using military aid as leverage to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as whether Democrats used Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election.
They also claim that the president obstructed Congress by blocking key witnesses from testifying during the House’s impeachment inquiry.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In his answer to the impeachment articles -- also filed Saturday -- Trump and his attorneys argued that he committed no wrongdoing when it comes to his dealings with Ukraine, claiming that he did not pressure Ukrainian President Volodydmyr Zelensky into conducting investigations into political rivals, and that the military aid was released without any investigations being announced.
Additionally, Trump argues that the obstruction of Congress charge is meritless because his instructions for witnesses like Bolton not to testify were done under executive privilege, and House Democrats who claimed this was improper never allowed the courts to make a ruling on the matter because they either withdrew subpoenas or opted not to issue them.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
BP1sLDE8l2w3yvRx
|
|
elections
|
Vox
| 00
|
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/3/8537607/Baltimore-Bush-Clinton-politics
|
What Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton told us with their responses to Baltimore
|
2015-05-03
|
Jonathan Allen, Ella Nilsen, Alex Ward, Peter Kafka, Alissa Wilkinson, Estelle Caswell
|
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton each took a crack at addressing the most pressing of policy issues in the wake of Freddie Gray 's death and the ensuing riots in Baltimore : how to break cycles of poverty and violence in America 's cities .
They both looked back to the 1990s and came to some very different conclusions .
Bush , in remarks at the National Review Institute , emphasized reforming the nation 's education and welfare systems — ideas he espoused in his campaigns for , and time in , the Florida governor 's office . It was a bout of now-more-than-ever-ism firmly rooted in the era of Bill Clinton 's presidency .
Clinton , on the other hand , called for an end to `` mass incarceration , '' implicitly rejecting the tough-on-crime policies her husband signed into law and then campaigned on in 1996 . The words `` welfare reform , '' which she supported when her husband was president , did n't escape her lips . Instead , she proposed providing body cameras for police forces nationwide .
Their divergent prescriptions are revelatory about the opposite political needs of Bush and Clinton at the moment . He needs white conservatives . She needs black liberals .
With fellow conservatives angry over Bush 's support for Common Core education standards and immigration reform , Bush is using his record as Florida 's governor to show that he 's conservative enough to carry the party 's banner in 2016 .
The retro kick presents a little bit of a danger to Bush because fellow Republican hopeful Marco Rubio is painting him — along with Clinton — as yesterday 's news .
But it 's far better for Bush to talk with Republican voters about a shared appreciation for ideas taken off the GOP shelf than to spend more time debating the policies on which they disagree . Besides , talking about his time as Florida 's governor creates a contrast he really wants to hammer : his executive experience against the lack thereof among the three first-term senators — Marco Rubio , Rand Paul , and Ted Cruz — who are running for the GOP nomination .
And at a time when violence in Baltimore has divided the nation over race again , Bush knows he does n't need many black voters to win either the Republican nomination or the presidency . His brother won 7 percent of the black vote in 2004 and 3 percent in 2000 . In the first caucus and primary states , only 3.3 percent of the population of Iowa is black and only 1.5 percent of New Hampshire residents are black . Even in South Carolina , where black residents account for 28 percent of the population , they accounted for only 1 percent of the 2012 Republican primary electorate .
Welfare reform is a touchy subject in Democratic circles , particularly in minority communities . The vast majority of black and Hispanic lawmakers voted against the welfare and Medicaid reform deal Bill Clinton struck with Republicans in Congress . But it 's a political winner for a Republican whose path to victory includes whites and Hispanics and only a smattering of African-American voters . No Republican senators and just two House Republicans voted against the 1996 welfare law .
Even without a high-profile challenger in her way — and in part to prevent one from jumping in — Clinton has been moving left . What 's remarkable about her shift is that it 's occurring even at a time when her approval ratings within the Democratic Party are strongest among self-described liberals . She 's shoring up the base now , moving from constituency to constituency .
The 2008 primary was tough on Clinton 's relationship with black voters . Once Obama proved himself viable , Clinton lost a set of supporters that she thought she 'd be able to keep in whole , or at least in part . Toni Morrison calling Bill Clinton the `` first black president '' — a phrase she later said was misunderstood — was n't quite the same thing as Obama winning that title for real .
The concern for Clinton is n't lingering hard feelings . Working for Obama for four years appears to have repaired the relationship . But after black turnout helped propel Obama to victory in 2008 and even more so in 2012 , Clinton can ill afford to lose the voters Obama attracted to the polls .
Even before Gray 's death and the rioting in Baltimore 's streets , Clinton was prepared to discuss criminal justice reform in the speech at Columbia , according to a person familiar with her plans . As she noted , her call for equipping all police departments with body cameras goes beyond what Obama has proposed . To keep black voters energized to help elect her , Clinton will have to show she shares the concerns of the black community . That is , do n't expect her to talk a whole lot about another round of welfare reform .
A Clinton aide declined to answer whether Clinton still supports her husband 's welfare reform law .
It 's reasonable to ask what 's meant by welfare reform , particularly in the context of inner-city men . After all , the country 's basic welfare program , Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , primarily assists women and children .
Lawrence Mead , a New York University political science professor who has studied welfare reform extensively , says the government should create a new welfare program designed to encourage poor men to work .
Here 's how he put it in testimony before a House subcommittee in 2013 :
Even creating jobs for them has little effect . Recent work programs run by the child support and criminal justice systems , however , show greater promise . These programs are aimed at low-income men owing child support or out of prison on parole . They offer the men help to work , but they also enforce employment because these groups are required to work , on pain of going to jail or returning to prison . Enforcement coupled with close supervision by case managers has allowed these programs to raise work levels and reduce recidivism , at least somewhat , compared to earlier programs . With further development , these efforts could provide a basis for `` welfare reform for men . ''
`` They are both right in a sense , '' Mead said of Bush and Clinton in an interview with ███ .
`` There 's little question that it 's counterproductive to have so many young men taken away from their neighborhoods and put in prison , '' he said of Clinton 's proposal . `` It is not , however , the most direct answer . ''
Aside from political barriers , there 's also a problem with the welfare-reform-for-men model .
`` We don ’ t have programs that are ready for prime time , '' Mead said . `` They are not that good yet . ''
The truth is that the Bush and Clinton positions have overlapped over time . Bush has supported prison reform , and Clinton backed her husband 's welfare law . Clinton 's cautious embrace of charter schools puts her in the same ballpark as Bush , whose passion for school choice led to him starting Florida 's first charter school in one of the state 's poorest areas .
Their respective solutions might actually complement each other . But for now , it should n't be surprising that they 're emphasizing opposite ends of the issue . They 're courting opposite sides of the racial divide .
|
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton each took a crack at addressing the most pressing of policy issues in the wake of Freddie Gray's death and the ensuing riots in Baltimore: how to break cycles of poverty and violence in America's cities.
They both looked back to the 1990s and came to some very different conclusions.
Bush, in remarks at the National Review Institute, emphasized reforming the nation's education and welfare systems — ideas he espoused in his campaigns for, and time in, the Florida governor's office. It was a bout of now-more-than-ever-ism firmly rooted in the era of Bill Clinton's presidency.
Clinton, on the other hand, called for an end to "mass incarceration," implicitly rejecting the tough-on-crime policies her husband signed into law and then campaigned on in 1996. The words "welfare reform," which she supported when her husband was president, didn't escape her lips. Instead, she proposed providing body cameras for police forces nationwide.
Their divergent prescriptions are revelatory about the opposite political needs of Bush and Clinton at the moment. He needs white conservatives. She needs black liberals.
What Bush needs
With fellow conservatives angry over Bush's support for Common Core education standards and immigration reform, Bush is using his record as Florida's governor to show that he's conservative enough to carry the party's banner in 2016.
The retro kick presents a little bit of a danger to Bush because fellow Republican hopeful Marco Rubio is painting him — along with Clinton — as yesterday's news.
But it's far better for Bush to talk with Republican voters about a shared appreciation for ideas taken off the GOP shelf than to spend more time debating the policies on which they disagree. Besides, talking about his time as Florida's governor creates a contrast he really wants to hammer: his executive experience against the lack thereof among the three first-term senators — Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz — who are running for the GOP nomination.
And at a time when violence in Baltimore has divided the nation over race again, Bush knows he doesn't need many black voters to win either the Republican nomination or the presidency. His brother won 7 percent of the black vote in 2004 and 3 percent in 2000. In the first caucus and primary states, only 3.3 percent of the population of Iowa is black and only 1.5 percent of New Hampshire residents are black. Even in South Carolina, where black residents account for 28 percent of the population, they accounted for only 1 percent of the 2012 Republican primary electorate.
Welfare reform is a touchy subject in Democratic circles, particularly in minority communities. The vast majority of black and Hispanic lawmakers voted against the welfare and Medicaid reform deal Bill Clinton struck with Republicans in Congress. But it's a political winner for a Republican whose path to victory includes whites and Hispanics and only a smattering of African-American voters. No Republican senators and just two House Republicans voted against the 1996 welfare law.
What Clinton needs
Even without a high-profile challenger in her way — and in part to prevent one from jumping in — Clinton has been moving left. What's remarkable about her shift is that it's occurring even at a time when her approval ratings within the Democratic Party are strongest among self-described liberals. She's shoring up the base now, moving from constituency to constituency.
The 2008 primary was tough on Clinton's relationship with black voters. Once Obama proved himself viable, Clinton lost a set of supporters that she thought she'd be able to keep in whole, or at least in part. Toni Morrison calling Bill Clinton the "first black president" — a phrase she later said was misunderstood — wasn't quite the same thing as Obama winning that title for real.
The concern for Clinton isn't lingering hard feelings. Working for Obama for four years appears to have repaired the relationship. But after black turnout helped propel Obama to victory in 2008 and even more so in 2012, Clinton can ill afford to lose the voters Obama attracted to the polls.
Even before Gray's death and the rioting in Baltimore's streets, Clinton was prepared to discuss criminal justice reform in the speech at Columbia, according to a person familiar with her plans. As she noted, her call for equipping all police departments with body cameras goes beyond what Obama has proposed. To keep black voters energized to help elect her, Clinton will have to show she shares the concerns of the black community. That is, don't expect her to talk a whole lot about another round of welfare reform.
A Clinton aide declined to answer whether Clinton still supports her husband's welfare reform law.
Overlapping pasts
It's reasonable to ask what's meant by welfare reform, particularly in the context of inner-city men. After all, the country's basic welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, primarily assists women and children.
Lawrence Mead, a New York University political science professor who has studied welfare reform extensively, says the government should create a new welfare program designed to encourage poor men to work.
Here's how he put it in testimony before a House subcommittee in 2013:
Even creating jobs for them has little effect. Recent work programs run by the child support and criminal justice systems, however, show greater promise. These programs are aimed at low-income men owing child support or out of prison on parole. They offer the men help to work, but they also enforce employment because these groups are required to work, on pain of going to jail or returning to prison. Enforcement coupled with close supervision by case managers has allowed these programs to raise work levels and reduce recidivism, at least somewhat, compared to earlier programs. With further development, these efforts could provide a basis for "welfare reform for men."
"They are both right in a sense," Mead said of Bush and Clinton in an interview with Vox.
"There's little question that it's counterproductive to have so many young men taken away from their neighborhoods and put in prison," he said of Clinton's proposal. "It is not, however, the most direct answer."
Aside from political barriers, there's also a problem with the welfare-reform-for-men model.
"We don’t have programs that are ready for prime time," Mead said. "They are not that good yet."
The truth is that the Bush and Clinton positions have overlapped over time. Bush has supported prison reform, and Clinton backed her husband's welfare law. Clinton's cautious embrace of charter schools puts her in the same ballpark as Bush, whose passion for school choice led to him starting Florida's first charter school in one of the state's poorest areas.
Their respective solutions might actually complement each other. But for now, it shouldn't be surprising that they're emphasizing opposite ends of the issue. They're courting opposite sides of the racial divide.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
8Y31Q5rCys9Zv8PO
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/marco-rubio-ive-done-more-immigration-hillary-clin/
|
Marco Rubio: I’ve done more on immigration than Hillary Clinton ever has
|
2015-04-14
|
David Sherfinski
|
Sen. Marco Rubio says he ’ s done more on the issue of immigration than former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton ever has .
“ I mean , I helped pass an immigration bill in a Senate dominated by Democrats . And that ’ s more than she ’ s ever done . She ’ s given speeches on it , but she ’ s never done anything on it . So I have a record of trying to do something on it , ” the Florida Republican , who announced his 2016 presidential bid on Monday , told NPR .
Mr. Rubio ’ s support in 2013 for the comprehensive bill , which he eventually backed away from , ended up costing him with some conservatives . He said that the push ultimately didn ’ t work because the issue of illegal immigration was not sufficiently addressed and that he warned about that through the process — but said immigration reform is still necessary .
“ I just don ’ t think you can do it in a comprehensive , massive piece of legislation , given the lack of trust that there is today in the federal government , ” he said .
“ I honestly believe that the key to moving forward on immigration is to first and foremost prove to the American people that we are going to bring future illegal immigration under control — that if we legalize 12 million people , they won ’ t be replaced by 12 million more who are here illegally , ” Mr. Rubio said . “ And I honestly believe , given my experiences on this issue now , that if we did that , the American people and the majority of Republicans and conservatives will be very reasonable and , and responsible about how we address the reality that we have 12 million human beings living in this country illegally . ”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz , chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee , though , skewered Mr. Rubio ’ s position on the issue .
SEE ALSO : Marco Rubio hails inspirational personal story in launching 2016 bid
“ He even went so far as to run away from his own immigration plan when the most extreme wing of his party put pressure on him , ” said Ms. Wasserman Schultz , Florida Democrat . “ Rubio says he ’ s a new type of Republican , but the only things he ’ s ever championed are the same failed policies the public has already rejected , and the only cause he ’ s ever advanced is his own . ”
|
Sen. Marco Rubio says he’s done more on the issue of immigration than former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton ever has.
“I mean, I helped pass an immigration bill in a Senate dominated by Democrats. And that’s more than she’s ever done. She’s given speeches on it, but she’s never done anything on it. So I have a record of trying to do something on it,” the Florida Republican, who announced his 2016 presidential bid on Monday, told NPR.
Mr. Rubio’s support in 2013 for the comprehensive bill, which he eventually backed away from, ended up costing him with some conservatives. He said that the push ultimately didn’t work because the issue of illegal immigration was not sufficiently addressed and that he warned about that through the process — but said immigration reform is still necessary.
“I just don’t think you can do it in a comprehensive, massive piece of legislation, given the lack of trust that there is today in the federal government,” he said.
“I honestly believe that the key to moving forward on immigration is to first and foremost prove to the American people that we are going to bring future illegal immigration under control — that if we legalize 12 million people, they won’t be replaced by 12 million more who are here illegally,” Mr. Rubio said. “And I honestly believe, given my experiences on this issue now, that if we did that, the American people and the majority of Republicans and conservatives will be very reasonable and, and responsible about how we address the reality that we have 12 million human beings living in this country illegally.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, though, skewered Mr. Rubio’s position on the issue.
SEE ALSO: Marco Rubio hails inspirational personal story in launching 2016 bid
“He even went so far as to run away from his own immigration plan when the most extreme wing of his party put pressure on him,” said Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat. “Rubio says he’s a new type of Republican, but the only things he’s ever championed are the same failed policies the public has already rejected, and the only cause he’s ever advanced is his own.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
rY7Ll4HYFwe5J3RD
|
healthcare
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/18/obama-touts-health-care-rebates-lower-premiums-in-affordable-care-act/
|
Obama touts health care rebates, pushing back after House votes to delay mandates
|
2013-07-18
|
President Obama touted a provision in his Affordable Care Act on Thursday that would require health insurance providers to return money to consumers , pushing back on Republican criticism a day after the GOP-led House voted to delay key parts of the law .
The president ’ s signature health care overhaul -- commonly referred to as ObamaCare -- has come under fire by many Republicans who have worked to defeat , delay or gut major parts of it .
At the White House event Thursday , Obama highlighted more of the financial benefits tied to it -- specifically , a half billion dollars in rebates going to 9 million people under a provision of the law .
Insurers must spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on medical care or quality improvement , or refund the difference . That 's the $ 500 million consumers are getting in rebates averaging about $ 100 . For Americans who get insurance through their work , the rebates go to their employers to be refunded or used to lower premiums .
`` If they 're not spending your premium dollars on health care , they have to give you some money back , '' Obama said , appearing with a group of health care consumers in the East Room .
The president ’ s comments come a day after House lawmakers voted to delay two key components of ObamaCare , in an effort to chip away at the plan after the administration acknowledged new issues with its implementation .
Obama also noted that some states , ahead of the law 's requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance , are anticipating lower premiums because of health insurance marketplaces that are being set up under the law so consumers can comparison shop for the coverage .
Obama pushed his pitch a day after the Republican-controlled House voted for the 38th time to eliminate , cut funding or scale back the 3-year-old law since the GOP took control of the House in January 2011 .
Republican leaders swiftly organized the votes after the administration , in early July , said it would delay until 2015 a requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide insurance coverage or pay a penalty .
The House voted 264-161 for a measure that would do exactly that . But they also voted 251-174 for a measure that would delay the individual mandate -- the requirement on individuals to buy health insurance -- for a year as well .
Republicans argue that both delays are necessary . While they endorsed the delay for businesses , House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP lawmakers say it 's unfair to deny everyone else a similar reprieve .
`` It is not fair that the president is choosing to protect big business from ObamaCare , but not hardworking American taxpayers , '' Rep. Marsha Blackburn , R-Tenn. , said on the House floor ahead of the vote .
She also said the delay was an admission that `` this is a train wreck , and it is not ready for prime-time . ''
But Democrats sharply disagreed , and accused Republicans of wasting time with yet another set of votes against the health care law . Rep. Joseph Crowley , D-N.Y. , said Republicans were n't simply trying to delay the requirements . `` It is their intention to destroy the Affordable Care Act ... to do away with it , to annihilate it entirely , '' Crowley said .
The votes marked the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate , defund or scale back the program since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011 . It is unlikely the Democrat-controlled Senate will advance the latest bills .
|
President Obama touted a provision in his Affordable Care Act on Thursday that would require health insurance providers to return money to consumers, pushing back on Republican criticism a day after the GOP-led House voted to delay key parts of the law.
The president’s signature health care overhaul -- commonly referred to as ObamaCare -- has come under fire by many Republicans who have worked to defeat, delay or gut major parts of it.
At the White House event Thursday, Obama highlighted more of the financial benefits tied to it -- specifically, a half billion dollars in rebates going to 9 million people under a provision of the law.
Insurers must spend at least 80 cents of every dollar on medical care or quality improvement, or refund the difference. That's the $500 million consumers are getting in rebates averaging about $100. For Americans who get insurance through their work, the rebates go to their employers to be refunded or used to lower premiums.
"If they're not spending your premium dollars on health care, they have to give you some money back," Obama said, appearing with a group of health care consumers in the East Room.
The president’s comments come a day after House lawmakers voted to delay two key components of ObamaCare, in an effort to chip away at the plan after the administration acknowledged new issues with its implementation.
Obama also noted that some states, ahead of the law's requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance, are anticipating lower premiums because of health insurance marketplaces that are being set up under the law so consumers can comparison shop for the coverage.
Obama pushed his pitch a day after the Republican-controlled House voted for the 38th time to eliminate, cut funding or scale back the 3-year-old law since the GOP took control of the House in January 2011.
Republican leaders swiftly organized the votes after the administration, in early July, said it would delay until 2015 a requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
The House voted 264-161 for a measure that would do exactly that. But they also voted 251-174 for a measure that would delay the individual mandate -- the requirement on individuals to buy health insurance -- for a year as well.
Republicans argue that both delays are necessary. While they endorsed the delay for businesses, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP lawmakers say it's unfair to deny everyone else a similar reprieve.
"It is not fair that the president is choosing to protect big business from ObamaCare, but not hardworking American taxpayers," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said on the House floor ahead of the vote.
She also said the delay was an admission that "this is a train wreck, and it is not ready for prime-time."
But Democrats sharply disagreed, and accused Republicans of wasting time with yet another set of votes against the health care law. Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., said Republicans weren't simply trying to delay the requirements. "It is their intention to destroy the Affordable Care Act ... to do away with it, to annihilate it entirely," Crowley said.
Obama has already threatened to veto the bills.
The votes marked the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the program since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. It is unlikely the Democrat-controlled Senate will advance the latest bills.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
oQEGCiSF7z3xgWfO
|
|
impeachment
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/21/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-donald-trump-1337143
|
Pelosi faces rising pressure to launch impeachment inquiry
|
2019-05-21
|
Sarah Ferris, Heather Caygle, Kyle Cheney
|
Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn ’ t want to impeach President Donald Trump , but a growing number of her members are trying to drag her there .
Despite repeated pronouncements from the California Democrat that she doesn ’ t want to try to remove Trump from office — including taking a hard line in a series of tense leadership meetings Monday night — Pelosi faces increasing calls from her rank and file to trigger an impeachment inquiry .
`` It 's time to start , '' said Rep. Joaquin Castro ( D-Texas ) , a member of the House Intelligence Committee .
In an effort to mollify the growing pro-impeachment faction , Pelosi will hold a special members-only meeting Wednesday morning to fully brief lawmakers on House Democrats ’ sprawling oversight efforts and investigations .
`` Speaker Pelosi strongly encourages your boss to attend , '' read a notice sent to members from her office late Tuesday , adding that the meeting would focus on `` the great '' victory Democrats won Monday regarding Trump 's financial records and `` other litigation . ''
The members-only huddle is Pelosi 's latest attempt to keep her caucus in line as the White House continues to fuel the conflict with the new House majority over its investigations and more Democrats speak out in favor of impeachment .
Trump on Tuesday blocked his former White House counsel from testifying in a highly anticipated House Judiciary Committee hearing . Lawmakers on the panel , which has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings , said former White House counsel Don McGahn 's no-show was an `` inflection point '' in their thinking about what should happen next .
`` I ’ m not saying this as the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus , '' said Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) , a member of the Judiciary Committee backing the push to open an impeachment inquiry .
`` There are actually a lot of frontline members who are coming up to me and saying ... ' A situation in which the president and the administration can completely , not just undermine , but actually destroy the foundations of checks and balances is something we can ’ t live with . ' ''
Still , there were some signs late Tuesday that Pelosi 's attempt to buttress leadership 's posture against impeachment was working .
Rep. Steve Cohen , a member of the Judiciary Committee , said he has drafted articles of impeachment and they 're `` ready to go . '' But the Tennessee Democrat later said that without Pelosi 's backing , `` it 's not going to happen . ''
And Rep. David Cicilline ( D-R.I. ) , one of the members of Pelosi ’ s own leadership team who pressed her on impeachment Monday night , was also taking a much more subdued approach on Tuesday .
“ This isn ’ t a decision that gets to be made by me , ” Cicilline said . “ We recognize that the speaker will make that judgment , and I fully support her , obviously . ”
The shift in tone comes after a remarkable few hours on Monday night when Pelosi and other top Democrats clashed with fellow members of the Democratic leadership team — including Cicilline — who pushed to begin impeachment proceedings . And the relative calm may be short-lived as House Democrats and the White House both opened new fronts in their ongoing war Tuesday .
The Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas for two former administration aides — Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson — likely setting up another legal battle with Trump . House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff received a last-ditch attempt from the Justice Department to stave off a likely vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for a second time .
Trump also moved to appeal a Monday court ruling requiring his accounting firm to turn over eight years ' worth of his financial records to the House Oversight Committee .
`` I don ’ t know what the president ’ s lawyers have up their sleeve . I don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen . I ’ m just going to play it day by day , '' Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings ( D-Md . ) , said . `` I have not been running around declaring victory . I just want to do my job . I don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen . ''
And Democrats are increasingly frustrated with their inability to secure testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller , who is so far wary of testifying .
Calls for moving toward impeachment surfaced in multiple closed-door meetings Monday , as frustrated members of the Judiciary Committee and other rank-and-file Democrats vented about the White House ’ s repeated stonewalling of their investigations and urged Pelosi to begin the impeachment process .
“ Yes , we do need to start an inquiry , ” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon ( D-Pa. ) , one of several members of Judiciary who sharpened her stance his week .
“ I think we ’ re at an inflection point . We ’ re no longer dealing with a president who obstructed the Mueller inquiry . He ’ s now obstructing Congress at every turn including telling witnesses who no longer work for the government that they can not speak about public documents , ” Scanlon said .
But at an emergency private meeting later Monday night , Pelosi rejected calls from House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry , according to multiple sources . Nadler was also instructed to tell members of the panel not to bring up the notion of an impeachment inquiry at the panel ’ s high-profile hearing Tuesday , which McGahn skipped , defying a Democratic subpoena .
And not all Judiciary members are on board with opening an impeachment inquiry . Rep. Lucy McBath ( D-Ga. ) hails from a Republican-leaning district and said she worries about the politics of the committee 's Trump investigation every day .
`` I don ’ t take joy in this process at all , and I ’ m in great angst over this , '' McBath said . `` Nobody wants to see that we ’ re thinking about impeaching the leader of the free world . I don ’ t want to have to do that. ``
McBath said the committee should stay focused on efforts to win subpoena fights in court — a push that got a boost Monday when a federal judge ruled that Congress has broad latitude to investigate the president , even without opening an impeachment inquiry .
Reps. Lou Correa ( D-Calif. ) and Zoe Lofgren ( D-Calif. ) similarly suggested that Congress should stay its current course and not immediately pursue impeachment .
The issue did not come up at the caucus ’ hour-long meeting Tuesday morning , which focused on the Trump administration ’ s heightened tensions with Iran .
But with McGahn defying Democrats , impeachment was on the minds of many rank-and-file members — several of whom said they were warming to the idea of moving toward impeachment .
“ A couple of more moves like that latest is probably going to push me over . And I don ’ t celebrate it , it ’ s not something that makes me happy , ” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver ( D-Mo . ) said .
Nadler stopped short of endorsing an impeachment push at Tuesday 's empty-chair hearing with McGahn . But he vowed to take action in response .
“ We will hold this president accountable , one way or the other , ” Nadler said .
Key members of leadership are also backing the speaker , who worries any impeachment push would distract from the party ’ s agenda and could backfire politically .
“ It ’ s clear to anybody who ’ s paying attention . We ’ re in the majority because of ... [ members ] who did not run on impeachment , did not run on collusion , did not run on obstruction of justice , ” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries ( D-N.Y. ) said .
“ That remains the North Star for the overwhelming majority of the House Democratic Caucus , ” he said .
Other Pelosi allies insisted any movement toward impeachment was mostly contained to the Judiciary Committee .
“ Judiciary members may be intense . But I fully support Nancy Pelosi where she is right now , ” Rep. Debbie Dingell ( D-Mich. ) said . “ We also have to deliver on prescription drugs and infrastructure , and a partisan impeachment would tear this country apart . ”
CORRECTION : This story is updated to correct Rep. Lou Correa 's home state ,
|
Speaker Nancy Pelosi will hold a closed-door meeting Wednesday to fully brief members on the House Democrats’ sprawling oversight efforts and investigations. | Zach Gibson/Getty Images congress 'We’re at an inflection point': More Dems pressure Pelosi on impeachment But the speaker is resisting the push, fearful that it would hurt Democrats at the polls.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to impeach President Donald Trump, but a growing number of her members are trying to drag her there.
Despite repeated pronouncements from the California Democrat that she doesn’t want to try to remove Trump from office — including taking a hard line in a series of tense leadership meetings Monday night — Pelosi faces increasing calls from her rank and file to trigger an impeachment inquiry.
Story Continued Below
"It's time to start," said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.
In an effort to mollify the growing pro-impeachment faction, Pelosi will hold a special members-only meeting Wednesday morning to fully brief lawmakers on House Democrats’ sprawling oversight efforts and investigations.
"Speaker Pelosi strongly encourages your boss to attend," read a notice sent to members from her office late Tuesday, adding that the meeting would focus on "the great" victory Democrats won Monday regarding Trump's financial records and "other litigation."
The members-only huddle is Pelosi's latest attempt to keep her caucus in line as the White House continues to fuel the conflict with the new House majority over its investigations and more Democrats speak out in favor of impeachment.
Trump on Tuesday blocked his former White House counsel from testifying in a highly anticipated House Judiciary Committee hearing. Lawmakers on the panel, which has jurisdiction over impeachment proceedings, said former White House counsel Don McGahn's no-show was an "inflection point" in their thinking about what should happen next.
"I’m not saying this as the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a member of the Judiciary Committee backing the push to open an impeachment inquiry.
"There are actually a lot of frontline members who are coming up to me and saying ... 'A situation in which the president and the administration can completely, not just undermine, but actually destroy the foundations of checks and balances is something we can’t live with.'"
Still, there were some signs late Tuesday that Pelosi's attempt to buttress leadership's posture against impeachment was working.
Rep. Steve Cohen, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he has drafted articles of impeachment and they're "ready to go." But the Tennessee Democrat later said that without Pelosi's backing, "it's not going to happen."
And Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), one of the members of Pelosi’s own leadership team who pressed her on impeachment Monday night, was also taking a much more subdued approach on Tuesday.
“This isn’t a decision that gets to be made by me,” Cicilline said. “We recognize that the speaker will make that judgment, and I fully support her, obviously.”
The shift in tone comes after a remarkable few hours on Monday night when Pelosi and other top Democrats clashed with fellow members of the Democratic leadership team — including Cicilline — who pushed to begin impeachment proceedings. And the relative calm may be short-lived as House Democrats and the White House both opened new fronts in their ongoing war Tuesday.
The Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas for two former administration aides — Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson — likely setting up another legal battle with Trump. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff received a last-ditch attempt from the Justice Department to stave off a likely vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress for a second time.
Trump also moved to appeal a Monday court ruling requiring his accounting firm to turn over eight years' worth of his financial records to the House Oversight Committee.
"I don’t know what the president’s lawyers have up their sleeve. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I’m just going to play it day by day," Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), said. "I have not been running around declaring victory. I just want to do my job. I don’t know what’s going to happen."
And Democrats are increasingly frustrated with their inability to secure testimony from special counsel Robert Mueller, who is so far wary of testifying.
Calls for moving toward impeachment surfaced in multiple closed-door meetings Monday, as frustrated members of the Judiciary Committee and other rank-and-file Democrats vented about the White House’s repeated stonewalling of their investigations and urged Pelosi to begin the impeachment process.
“Yes, we do need to start an inquiry,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), one of several members of Judiciary who sharpened her stance his week.
“I think we’re at an inflection point. We’re no longer dealing with a president who obstructed the Mueller inquiry. He’s now obstructing Congress at every turn including telling witnesses who no longer work for the government that they cannot speak about public documents,” Scanlon said.
But at an emergency private meeting later Monday night, Pelosi rejected calls from House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to move ahead with an impeachment inquiry, according to multiple sources. Nadler was also instructed to tell members of the panel not to bring up the notion of an impeachment inquiry at the panel’s high-profile hearing Tuesday, which McGahn skipped, defying a Democratic subpoena.
And not all Judiciary members are on board with opening an impeachment inquiry. Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) hails from a Republican-leaning district and said she worries about the politics of the committee's Trump investigation every day.
"I don’t take joy in this process at all, and I’m in great angst over this," McBath said. "Nobody wants to see that we’re thinking about impeaching the leader of the free world. I don’t want to have to do that. "
McBath said the committee should stay focused on efforts to win subpoena fights in court — a push that got a boost Monday when a federal judge ruled that Congress has broad latitude to investigate the president, even without opening an impeachment inquiry.
Reps. Lou Correa (D-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) similarly suggested that Congress should stay its current course and not immediately pursue impeachment.
The issue did not come up at the caucus’ hour-long meeting Tuesday morning, which focused on the Trump administration’s heightened tensions with Iran.
But with McGahn defying Democrats, impeachment was on the minds of many rank-and-file members — several of whom said they were warming to the idea of moving toward impeachment.
“A couple of more moves like that latest is probably going to push me over. And I don’t celebrate it, it’s not something that makes me happy,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said.
Nadler stopped short of endorsing an impeachment push at Tuesday's empty-chair hearing with McGahn. But he vowed to take action in response.
“We will hold this president accountable, one way or the other,” Nadler said.
Key members of leadership are also backing the speaker, who worries any impeachment push would distract from the party’s agenda and could backfire politically.
“It’s clear to anybody who’s paying attention. We’re in the majority because of ... [members] who did not run on impeachment, did not run on collusion, did not run on obstruction of justice,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said.
“That remains the North Star for the overwhelming majority of the House Democratic Caucus,” he said.
Other Pelosi allies insisted any movement toward impeachment was mostly contained to the Judiciary Committee.
“Judiciary members may be intense. But I fully support Nancy Pelosi where she is right now,” Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said. “We also have to deliver on prescription drugs and infrastructure, and a partisan impeachment would tear this country apart.”
John Bresnahan contributed to this story.
CORRECTION: This story is updated to correct Rep. Lou Correa's home state,
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
j4BZs4t2agyHiqDL
|
food
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-a-food-desert-oklahoma-city-seeks-to-limit-dollar-stores-11576422000
|
Facing a ‘Food Desert,’ Oklahoma City Wants Dollar Stores to Sell Fresh Food
|
Talal Ansari, Talal.Ansari Wsj.Com
|
In the nine square miles that cover the 73111 ZIP Code in northeast Oklahoma City , there isn ’ t a single grocery store . The last one closed over the summer .
There are , however , four dollar stores in the area , where 32 % of the 11,000 residents live below the poverty level—roughly three times the national average .
“ That ZIP Code is one of the unhealthiest in our city , ” said Oklahoma City Councilwoman Nikki Nice . “ Changing that starts with access to food . ”
This week , the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on a plan requiring new retailers in the area to designate at least 500 square feet of space to fresh food . The measure is expected to pass .
Forcing dollar stores to change is one tactic local governments around the country are using to address the lack of access to fresh fruit , vegetables and meat in “ food deserts. ” Cities are also trying to bring in fresh produce by creating zoning allowances or public financing to attract grocery stores .
One of Oklahoma City ’ s lowest income areas , ZIP Code 73111 , has four dollar stores but no grocery stores . Officials are considering a measure to require all retailers there to designate some space to fresh food .
Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 City border 44 ZIP code 73111 OKLAHOMA CITY Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 City border 44 OKLAHOMA CITY ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 City border 44 OKLAHOMA CITY ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income $ 20,000 $ 40,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 Grocery stores Dollar stores City border OKLAHOMA CITY 44 ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles
Dollar stores , which carry everything from greeting cards to household supplies , sell food but it is often packaged or frozen , like chips , canned soups and frozen meats . Politicians and advocacy groups say the stores ’ presence in—and saturation of—low-income neighborhoods eats into the profits of full-service grocery stores , which have higher overhead , and causes some to close . Dollar stores say they offer a good value for shoppers and never intended to be full-service grocers .
The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food deserts as low-income areas where residents don ’ t live near grocers or other food vendors that carry affordable and nutritious food .
The USDA estimates that 39 million people , or 12.8 % of Americans , live in food deserts . Residents of these neighborhoods often must travel significant distances to reach stores with fresh food . Compounding the problem , many don ’ t have reliable means of transportation .
From his house in Oklahoma City ’ s 73111 ZIP Code , an area dotted with suburban neighborhoods and home to the city ’ s sprawling zoo and science museum , Gregory McCauley estimates it takes him more than an hour by bus to get to a grocery store .
His 2006 Pontiac G6 doesn ’ t run well , so he limits driving distances to a mile or so and relies on the bus for longer trips .
“ Most of the time I just go by the little convenience store to get what I can , or the dollar store , ” said the 47-year-old , who works as a cashier at Leo ’ s BBQ , a popular restaurant . He has nothing against dollar stores , saying they provide a service to a community with no other option . But he is also certain that having a supermarket nearby would help him make better dietary choices . “ To get real food , I have to go to a grocery store , ” he said .
Food deserts have proven a stubborn problem for cities . The Obama administration announced its Healthy Food Financing Initiative in 2010 to help deliver healthy food to communities with inadequate access . But as local governments have taken on the issue in recent years , they have redrawn the battle lines to include dollar stores .
Dollar stores are one of the few bricks-and-mortar stores expanding at a time when online sales have prompted other retailers to close or contract , fueled by low- and middle-income shoppers searching out value and convenience .
Dollar Tree Inc. , which bought Family Dollar in 2015 , and Dollar General Corp. dominate this landscape . The retailers went from operating just over 20,000 stores in 2010 to around 30,000 by the end of the decade .
Dollar General isn ’ t and never intended to be a grocery store , but every store offers its customers essentials such as eggs , milk and bread , said spokeswoman Crystal Ghassemi .
“ We ’ re proud to serve these communities and to provide them an option , ” Ms. Ghassemi said . By January 2020 , 650 Dollar General locations will sell produce , she added , which is about 4.1 % of the company ’ s 16,000 stores .
The company said restrictive zoning ordinances and moratoria weren ’ t the solution to the issues , and those measures would only adversely affect their customers .
Dollar Tree and Family Dollar offer a “ broad range of basic essentials to families at low prices they can afford , ” said a spokesman , and don ’ t intend to be grocery stores .
“ Dollar stores help alleviate the effects of ‘ food deserts ’ in urban communities by helping serve the underserved , ” the spokesman said . He added that the majority of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar locations are within a few miles of a full-service grocer .
The first known local initiative to block new discount stores from opening in proximity to others was in 2016 in Wyandotte County , a part of Kansas City , Kan. That ordinance required a special-use permit to build a small-box variety store within 10,000 feet of another . Three years later , Tulsa , Okla. , passed a similar zoning law .
“ It seemed like every time dirt was turning in my district , it ended up being another dollar store , ” said Tulsa City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper , who championed the effort for more than a year . “ I have never said we don ’ t want any of these dollar stores . I ’ m just saying they ’ re a problem when they ’ re allowed to proliferate in communities . ”
Tulsa ’ s ordinance restricts the opening of new dollar stores within a mile of another in Ms. Hall-Harper ’ s district . To entice grocery stores into the neighborhood , the city also loosened parking requirements for any new supermarket .
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS What are some community efforts that could help fill in the gaps of grocery stores ? Join the conversation below .
Other cities followed suit . In May , the Oklahoma City council placed a 180-day moratorium on new small-box discount stores in the 73111 Zip Code . This month , the city council in Fort Worth , Texas , passed a measure blocking new dollar stores within two miles of another store . Similar rules were enacted in New Orleans and Mesquite , Texas , just outside of Dallas .
Earlier this year , Birmingham , Ala. , Mayor Randall Woodfin created a “ healthy food overlay district ” as part of an initiative to address the city ’ s outsize food deserts . An estimated 69 % of the population lives in one .
The three-pronged effort includes plans to limit dollar stores , loosen restrictions to invite new grocery stores and allow more farmers markets .
“ We ’ re looking for a comprehensive and strategic approach , ” said Josh Carpenter , the city ’ s director of innovation and economic opportunity . “ There are the short-term repercussions for not being able to cook a healthy meal but also the long-term health consequences for a community that has been deprived of access to healthy food over time . ”
Dollar General has 16,000 stores . An earlier version of this story incorrectly said it had over 14,000 . ( Dec. 15 , 2019 )
|
In the nine square miles that cover the 73111 ZIP Code in northeast Oklahoma City, there isn’t a single grocery store. The last one closed over the summer.
There are, however, four dollar stores in the area, where 32% of the 11,000 residents live below the poverty level—roughly three times the national average.
“That ZIP Code is one of the unhealthiest in our city,” said Oklahoma City Councilwoman Nikki Nice. “Changing that starts with access to food.”
This week, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on a plan requiring new retailers in the area to designate at least 500 square feet of space to fresh food. The measure is expected to pass.
Forcing dollar stores to change is one tactic local governments around the country are using to address the lack of access to fresh fruit, vegetables and meat in “food deserts.” Cities are also trying to bring in fresh produce by creating zoning allowances or public financing to attract grocery stores.
Food Desert
One of Oklahoma City’s lowest income areas, ZIP Code 73111, has four dollar stores but no grocery stores. Officials are considering a measure to require all retailers there to designate some space to fresh food.
Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 City border 44 ZIP code 73111 OKLAHOMA CITY Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 City border 44 OKLAHOMA CITY ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income Grocery stores Dollar stores $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 City border 44 OKLAHOMA CITY ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles Median household income $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Grocery stores Dollar stores City border OKLAHOMA CITY 44 ZIP code 73111 Downtown 40 35 Will Rogers World Airport 2 miles
Dollar stores, which carry everything from greeting cards to household supplies, sell food but it is often packaged or frozen, like chips, canned soups and frozen meats. Politicians and advocacy groups say the stores’ presence in—and saturation of—low-income neighborhoods eats into the profits of full-service grocery stores, which have higher overhead, and causes some to close. Dollar stores say they offer a good value for shoppers and never intended to be full-service grocers.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food deserts as low-income areas where residents don’t live near grocers or other food vendors that carry affordable and nutritious food.
The USDA estimates that 39 million people, or 12.8% of Americans, live in food deserts. Residents of these neighborhoods often must travel significant distances to reach stores with fresh food. Compounding the problem, many don’t have reliable means of transportation.
From his house in Oklahoma City’s 73111 ZIP Code, an area dotted with suburban neighborhoods and home to the city’s sprawling zoo and science museum, Gregory McCauley estimates it takes him more than an hour by bus to get to a grocery store.
His 2006 Pontiac G6 doesn’t run well, so he limits driving distances to a mile or so and relies on the bus for longer trips.
“Most of the time I just go by the little convenience store to get what I can, or the dollar store,” said the 47-year-old, who works as a cashier at Leo’s BBQ, a popular restaurant. He has nothing against dollar stores, saying they provide a service to a community with no other option. But he is also certain that having a supermarket nearby would help him make better dietary choices. “To get real food, I have to go to a grocery store,” he said.
Food deserts have proven a stubborn problem for cities. The Obama administration announced its Healthy Food Financing Initiative in 2010 to help deliver healthy food to communities with inadequate access. But as local governments have taken on the issue in recent years, they have redrawn the battle lines to include dollar stores.
Dollar stores are one of the few bricks-and-mortar stores expanding at a time when online sales have prompted other retailers to close or contract, fueled by low- and middle-income shoppers searching out value and convenience.
Dollar Tree Inc., which bought Family Dollar in 2015, and Dollar General Corp. dominate this landscape. The retailers went from operating just over 20,000 stores in 2010 to around 30,000 by the end of the decade.
Dollar General isn’t and never intended to be a grocery store, but every store offers its customers essentials such as eggs, milk and bread, said spokeswoman Crystal Ghassemi.
“We’re proud to serve these communities and to provide them an option,” Ms. Ghassemi said. By January 2020, 650 Dollar General locations will sell produce, she added, which is about 4.1% of the company’s 16,000 stores.
Oklahoma City Councilwoman Nikki Nice, by a recently closed Smart Saver grocery store, said access to fresh food is the first step in addressing the poor health of many residents in Zip Code 73111. Photo: Nick Oxford for The Wall Street Journal
The company said restrictive zoning ordinances and moratoria weren’t the solution to the issues, and those measures would only adversely affect their customers.
Dollar Tree and Family Dollar offer a “broad range of basic essentials to families at low prices they can afford,” said a spokesman, and don’t intend to be grocery stores.
“Dollar stores help alleviate the effects of ‘food deserts’ in urban communities by helping serve the underserved,” the spokesman said. He added that the majority of Dollar Tree and Family Dollar locations are within a few miles of a full-service grocer.
The first known local initiative to block new discount stores from opening in proximity to others was in 2016 in Wyandotte County, a part of Kansas City, Kan. That ordinance required a special-use permit to build a small-box variety store within 10,000 feet of another. Three years later, Tulsa, Okla., passed a similar zoning law.
“It seemed like every time dirt was turning in my district, it ended up being another dollar store,” said Tulsa City Councilor Vanessa Hall-Harper, who championed the effort for more than a year. “I have never said we don’t want any of these dollar stores. I’m just saying they’re a problem when they’re allowed to proliferate in communities.”
Tulsa’s ordinance restricts the opening of new dollar stores within a mile of another in Ms. Hall-Harper’s district. To entice grocery stores into the neighborhood, the city also loosened parking requirements for any new supermarket.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS What are some community efforts that could help fill in the gaps of grocery stores? Join the conversation below.
Other cities followed suit. In May, the Oklahoma City council placed a 180-day moratorium on new small-box discount stores in the 73111 Zip Code. This month, the city council in Fort Worth, Texas, passed a measure blocking new dollar stores within two miles of another store. Similar rules were enacted in New Orleans and Mesquite, Texas, just outside of Dallas.
Earlier this year, Birmingham, Ala., Mayor Randall Woodfin created a “healthy food overlay district” as part of an initiative to address the city’s outsize food deserts. An estimated 69% of the population lives in one.
The three-pronged effort includes plans to limit dollar stores, loosen restrictions to invite new grocery stores and allow more farmers markets.
“We’re looking for a comprehensive and strategic approach,” said Josh Carpenter, the city’s director of innovation and economic opportunity. “There are the short-term repercussions for not being able to cook a healthy meal but also the long-term health consequences for a community that has been deprived of access to healthy food over time.”
A Family Dollar store is reflected in the front doors of the recently closed Smart Saver grocery store in Oklahoma City. Photo: Nick Oxford for The Wall Street Journal
Corrections & Amplifications
Dollar General has 16,000 stores. An earlier version of this story incorrectly said it had over 14,000. (Dec. 15, 2019)
Write to Talal Ansari at [email protected]
|
www.wsj.com
| 2center
|
aJiEIuYQgPBbff23
|
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/donald-trump-first-100-days-plans/index.html
|
Trump's grand plans collide with 100-day mark
|
2017-04-24
|
Stephen Collinson
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump lives for superlatives -- he wants the biggest , the best , the greatest . So it 's no surprise he 's already fuming about uncomplimentary reviews of his first 100 days in office .
Trump is approaching the first symbolic milestone of his presidency on Saturday with a familiar mix of bluster and smokescreens , meant to disguise the reality that he has produced one of the least-prolific first 100 day debuts of any president in modern history .
`` No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days , & it has been a lot ( including S.C. ) , media will kill ! '' Trump wrote on Twitter Friday , despite playing up the significance of the first 100 days marker in the past .
No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days , & it has been a lot ( including S.C. ) , media will kill !
The tweet was classic Trump -- getting ahead of bad news by using his press critics as a foil while fogging the line between truth and falsehood to evade serious political harm .
Top Trump aides , meanwhile , reject any idea that the President is struggling .
`` He is fulfilling his promises and doing it at breakneck speed , '' White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told NBC 's `` Meet the Press '' on Sunday , citing Trump 's moves to increase military spending and to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade pact .
But Trump 's critics argue that not only has the President failed to muster a record of significant political achievement in his first 100 days , he has tarnished his office .
They say that with his claims that former President Barack Obama tapped his phones and that millions of illegal voters threw the popular vote to Hillary Clinton , he has devalued the currency of truth on which successful presidencies depend . They accuse him of insulting US allies and presiding over a White House characterized by feuds , leaks and indiscipline .
`` It 's not me ... 65 % of the American public , maybe 60 % , are saying he is doing a bad job , he has got to figure out something for his second 100 days because it has n't been very good so far , '' said CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley , on `` CNN Tonight '' Friday .
Trump is not the only new president to take issue with being judged so early in their term . Many other presidents have bemoaned comparisons with Franklin Roosevelt 's legislative frenzy in 1933 that set the 100-day bar
And Trump is such a unique public figure that judging him by established political conventions has never been a reliable gauge of his future prospects .
So a more important question might be whether it actually matters that Trump had a rocky first 100 days . Does history suggest that a rough start leads to a poor presidency ? Or can presidents learn and adjust and still build a successful administration ?
JUST WATCHED Poll : Only 2 % say they regret voting for Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Poll : Only 2 % say they regret voting for Trump 01:21
Trump will start his second 100 days from a low point , though his base support has thus far stuck with him .
Unlike many new presidents , he lacks a large legislative triumph : His predecessor Barack Obama passed a huge stimulus plan and equal pay legislation in his first 100 days . The House backed George W. Bush 's tax cut plan , which he eventually signed into law in June . Bill Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act . Roosevelt used a banking crisis to pass the most consequential flurry of bills in decades . Lyndon Johnson picked a mourning nation off its knees after the assassination of John F. Kennedy .
Trump , by comparison , struggled to implement parts of his own agenda at a moment when a new president is seen as being at the apex of his political power .
JUST WATCHED Trump 's common speech habits as US President Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump 's common speech habits as US President 01:11
Mexico is not paying for the wall . His travel ban has twice been blocked by the courts . He has failed to mobilize a Republican monopoly on power in Washington and his big legislative goal -- repealing Obamacare -- crashed .
An FBI investigation over alleged links between Trump campaign operatives and Russia is casting a shadow over the White House . He lost his first national security adviser , Michael Flynn , over Russia questions less than a month into his term .
Unlike Ronald Reagan , for instance , who used his first 100 days to turn around the nation 's mood and lay the foundation for a successful presidency , Trump has exacerbated questions about his inexperience and temperament .
And even Bush , who like Trump came into office hampered by deep political divisions after a polarizing general election , used his time to heal political wounds -- his approval rating 100 days in was 62 % , according to Gallup .
Trump 's rating averages in the low 40 % range -- easily the lowest ever mark for a president this early in his administration in the modern era -- and one that poses real questions for Trump 's capacity to enact his future agenda .
JUST WATCHED Trump supporter : I salute a cardboard Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump supporter : I salute a cardboard Trump 04:41
But on the upside for him , Trump 's base is standing firm . An ABC/Washington Post poll published Sunday showed that his approval rating among people who voted for him was 94 % , validating an administration strategy of placating those supporters with a flurry of executive orders cutting regulations and prioritizing US workers .
Supporters also cite Trump 's moves to strengthen immigration enforcement , vows to hike military spending and missile strike against Syria to punish the use of chemical weapons as evidence of strong leadership . His White House also confirmed a new Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch , though Republicans had to blow up Senate rules to get around a Democratic filibuster .
But each of those wins has alienated as many voters as it cheered , raising questions about Trump 's capacity to improve his prospects and unite the nation .
`` This was not Abraham Lincoln . This was not John Kennedy . This was n't Ronald Reagan . This was someone who has a different appreciation for America , '' said Rep. Joseph Crowley , a New York Democrat , in an interview midway through the first 100 days .
JUST WATCHED Reagan 's first 100 days Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Reagan 's first 100 days 05:28
History has mixed lessons when it comes to judging whether a rocky first 100 days sets the tone for the rest of the presidency .
Kennedy 's Bay of Pigs foreign policy debacle over a botched invasion of Cuba by the CIA-backed exiles during his first 100 days led to changes in his approach to foreign policy , and historians now view his tragically truncated presidency as a success .
On the other hand , a turbulent first 100 days for Democratic President Jimmy Carter pointed to clumsy dealings with Congress that haunted him for the rest of a much-pilloried single term .
Clinton , meanwhile , had a chaotic first 100 days but went on to preside over an economic expansion and left office with high approval ratings .
But some critics believe Trump is flouting the lessons of history and approached the presidency in the first 100 days in a way that makes such a comeback more difficult .
`` This White House is one of the most dysfunctional in modern history , and I think a lot of that is on Trump , but a good deal of it is also on the chief of staff and the senior staff , '' said Chris Whipple , an author and documentary maker who has just published a new book `` The Gatekeepers '' about how White House chiefs of staff define each presidency .
`` One of the problems is that nobody 's in charge in the White House in the senior staff , '' Whipple said . `` ( So-called ) chaos management where you have senior advisers competing for the attention of the boss , that might work in some areas of the business world , but it can not work in the White House , never has worked . We 've seen this movie before . It 's never a happy ending . ''
JUST WATCHED Trump calls 100-day marker ridiculous Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump calls 100-day marker ridiculous 02:31
Still , some Republicans who backed Trump early argue that his voters understand that fulfilling his promises will take time .
`` They give him an ' A ' for effort . They know he 's trying very hard and they know it 's going to be a long process , '' said Bryan Lanza , a deputy communications director for the Trump-Pence presidential campaign who is now a managing director of Mercury , a public relations firm . `` DC is not going to be changed in a 100 days . What you 're talking about is disrupting an institution that does n't want to change . ''
Those Republicans who want Trump to change have noticed that in recent days , he has begun to reverse some campaign positions , including his criticism of NATO , and angered some supporters by ordering missile strikes in Syria .
`` I 've been glad that he 's made some of the changes he has on foreign policy , '' said former Sen. Kelly Ayotte , who was once deeply critical of Trump . `` I 'm impressed with his team there . ( national security adviser ) H.R . McMaster , General ( James ) Mattis , ( Admiral John ) Kelly , Ambassador ( Nikki ) Haley -- I think they 're very strong team , and that , to me , is very important that he has made some shifts there . ''
Other Republicans who opposed Trump also see signs that the President has become more comfortable in his job and are optimistic the Trump of the first 100 days is not necessarily the Trump of the rest of his presidency .
`` We 're still in the first 100 days , so it 's early . I think he 's starting to settle , '' said Ryan Williams , who worked for former GOP candidate Mitt Romney .
`` It 's such an unconventional presidency , and the first three-four weeks were such a shock to everybody , because he does n't operate like a traditional politician , '' he said . `` I see people becoming more comfortable with it and saying , 'All right . He 's our President now . ' ``
There 's another reason why it might be premature to judge Trump at the 100-day mark .
The trends , events and crises that will define his tenure in history are most likely yet to take place . For example , George W. Bush won good reviews for the first 100 days , but in hindsight , the period was far less consequential that the years after the 9/11 attacks that defined his presidential legacy .
And Roosevelt -- despite creating the 100-day measuring stick because of his efforts to recover from the Great Depression -- would be judged by posterity for his role in saving Western civilization from the threat of Nazism .
|
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump lives for superlatives -- he wants the biggest, the best, the greatest. So it's no surprise he's already fuming about uncomplimentary reviews of his first 100 days in office.
Trump is approaching the first symbolic milestone of his presidency on Saturday with a familiar mix of bluster and smokescreens, meant to disguise the reality that he has produced one of the least-prolific first 100 day debuts of any president in modern history.
"No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!" Trump wrote on Twitter Friday, despite playing up the significance of the first 100 days marker in the past.
No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
The tweet was classic Trump -- getting ahead of bad news by using his press critics as a foil while fogging the line between truth and falsehood to evade serious political harm.
Top Trump aides, meanwhile, reject any idea that the President is struggling.
"He is fulfilling his promises and doing it at breakneck speed," White House chief of staff Reince Priebus told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, citing Trump's moves to increase military spending and to exit the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade pact.
But Trump's critics argue that not only has the President failed to muster a record of significant political achievement in his first 100 days, he has tarnished his office.
They say that with his claims that former President Barack Obama tapped his phones and that millions of illegal voters threw the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, he has devalued the currency of truth on which successful presidencies depend. They accuse him of insulting US allies and presiding over a White House characterized by feuds, leaks and indiscipline.
"It's not me ... 65% of the American public, maybe 60%, are saying he is doing a bad job, he has got to figure out something for his second 100 days because it hasn't been very good so far," said CNN presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, on "CNN Tonight" Friday.
Trump is not the only new president to take issue with being judged so early in their term. Many other presidents have bemoaned comparisons with Franklin Roosevelt's legislative frenzy in 1933 that set the 100-day bar
And Trump is such a unique public figure that judging him by established political conventions has never been a reliable gauge of his future prospects.
So a more important question might be whether it actually matters that Trump had a rocky first 100 days. Does history suggest that a rough start leads to a poor presidency? Or can presidents learn and adjust and still build a successful administration?
JUST WATCHED Poll: Only 2% say they regret voting for Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Poll: Only 2% say they regret voting for Trump 01:21
Low point
Trump will start his second 100 days from a low point, though his base support has thus far stuck with him.
Unlike many new presidents, he lacks a large legislative triumph: His predecessor Barack Obama passed a huge stimulus plan and equal pay legislation in his first 100 days. The House backed George W. Bush's tax cut plan, which he eventually signed into law in June. Bill Clinton passed the Family and Medical Leave Act. Roosevelt used a banking crisis to pass the most consequential flurry of bills in decades. Lyndon Johnson picked a mourning nation off its knees after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Trump, by comparison, struggled to implement parts of his own agenda at a moment when a new president is seen as being at the apex of his political power.
JUST WATCHED Trump's common speech habits as US President Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump's common speech habits as US President 01:11
Mexico is not paying for the wall. His travel ban has twice been blocked by the courts. He has failed to mobilize a Republican monopoly on power in Washington and his big legislative goal -- repealing Obamacare -- crashed.
An FBI investigation over alleged links between Trump campaign operatives and Russia is casting a shadow over the White House. He lost his first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, over Russia questions less than a month into his term.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, for instance, who used his first 100 days to turn around the nation's mood and lay the foundation for a successful presidency, Trump has exacerbated questions about his inexperience and temperament.
And even Bush, who like Trump came into office hampered by deep political divisions after a polarizing general election, used his time to heal political wounds -- his approval rating 100 days in was 62%, according to Gallup.
Trump's rating averages in the low 40% range -- easily the lowest ever mark for a president this early in his administration in the modern era -- and one that poses real questions for Trump's capacity to enact his future agenda.
JUST WATCHED Trump supporter: I salute a cardboard Trump Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump supporter: I salute a cardboard Trump 04:41
Base support holds
But on the upside for him, Trump's base is standing firm. An ABC/Washington Post poll published Sunday showed that his approval rating among people who voted for him was 94%, validating an administration strategy of placating those supporters with a flurry of executive orders cutting regulations and prioritizing US workers.
Supporters also cite Trump's moves to strengthen immigration enforcement, vows to hike military spending and missile strike against Syria to punish the use of chemical weapons as evidence of strong leadership. His White House also confirmed a new Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch, though Republicans had to blow up Senate rules to get around a Democratic filibuster.
But each of those wins has alienated as many voters as it cheered, raising questions about Trump's capacity to improve his prospects and unite the nation.
"This was not Abraham Lincoln. This was not John Kennedy. This wasn't Ronald Reagan. This was someone who has a different appreciation for America," said Rep. Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat, in an interview midway through the first 100 days.
JUST WATCHED Reagan's first 100 days Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Reagan's first 100 days 05:28
History lessons
History has mixed lessons when it comes to judging whether a rocky first 100 days sets the tone for the rest of the presidency.
Kennedy's Bay of Pigs foreign policy debacle over a botched invasion of Cuba by the CIA-backed exiles during his first 100 days led to changes in his approach to foreign policy, and historians now view his tragically truncated presidency as a success.
On the other hand, a turbulent first 100 days for Democratic President Jimmy Carter pointed to clumsy dealings with Congress that haunted him for the rest of a much-pilloried single term.
Clinton, meanwhile, had a chaotic first 100 days but went on to preside over an economic expansion and left office with high approval ratings.
But some critics believe Trump is flouting the lessons of history and approached the presidency in the first 100 days in a way that makes such a comeback more difficult.
"This White House is one of the most dysfunctional in modern history, and I think a lot of that is on Trump, but a good deal of it is also on the chief of staff and the senior staff," said Chris Whipple, an author and documentary maker who has just published a new book "The Gatekeepers" about how White House chiefs of staff define each presidency.
"One of the problems is that nobody's in charge in the White House in the senior staff," Whipple said. "(So-called) chaos management where you have senior advisers competing for the attention of the boss, that might work in some areas of the business world, but it cannot work in the White House, never has worked. We've seen this movie before. It's never a happy ending."
JUST WATCHED Trump calls 100-day marker ridiculous Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump calls 100-day marker ridiculous 02:31
Change takes time?
Still, some Republicans who backed Trump early argue that his voters understand that fulfilling his promises will take time.
"They give him an 'A' for effort. They know he's trying very hard and they know it's going to be a long process," said Bryan Lanza, a deputy communications director for the Trump-Pence presidential campaign who is now a managing director of Mercury, a public relations firm. "DC is not going to be changed in a 100 days. What you're talking about is disrupting an institution that doesn't want to change."
Those Republicans who want Trump to change have noticed that in recent days, he has begun to reverse some campaign positions, including his criticism of NATO, and angered some supporters by ordering missile strikes in Syria.
"I've been glad that he's made some of the changes he has on foreign policy," said former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who was once deeply critical of Trump. "I'm impressed with his team there. (national security adviser) H.R. McMaster, General (James) Mattis, (Admiral John) Kelly, Ambassador (Nikki) Haley -- I think they're very strong team, and that, to me, is very important that he has made some shifts there."
Other Republicans who opposed Trump also see signs that the President has become more comfortable in his job and are optimistic the Trump of the first 100 days is not necessarily the Trump of the rest of his presidency.
"We're still in the first 100 days, so it's early. I think he's starting to settle," said Ryan Williams, who worked for former GOP candidate Mitt Romney.
"It's such an unconventional presidency, and the first three-four weeks were such a shock to everybody, because he doesn't operate like a traditional politician," he said. "I see people becoming more comfortable with it and saying, 'All right. He's our President now.' "
There's another reason why it might be premature to judge Trump at the 100-day mark.
The trends, events and crises that will define his tenure in history are most likely yet to take place. For example, George W. Bush won good reviews for the first 100 days, but in hindsight, the period was far less consequential that the years after the 9/11 attacks that defined his presidential legacy.
And Roosevelt -- despite creating the 100-day measuring stick because of his efforts to recover from the Great Depression -- would be judged by posterity for his role in saving Western civilization from the threat of Nazism.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
NEvKV01miXmKCQmg
|
coronavirus
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/lockdown-protests-spread-coronavirus-cellphone-data
|
US lockdown protests may have spread virus widely, cellphone data suggests
|
2020-05-18
|
Jason Wilson
|
Cellphone location data suggests that demonstrators at anti-lockdown protests – some of which have been connected with Covid-19 cases – are often traveling hundreds of miles to events , returning to all parts of their states , and even crossing into neighboring ones .
The data , provided to ███ by the progressive campaign group the Committee to Protect Medicare , raises the prospect that the protests will play a role in spreading the coronavirus epidemic to areas which have , so far , experienced relatively few infections .
The anonymized location data was captured from opt-in cellphone apps , and data scientists at the firm VoteMap used it to determine the movements of devices present at protests in late April and early May in five states : Michigan , Wisconsin , Illinois , Colorado and Florida .
Protesters descend on Michigan capitol but rain washes away demonstration Read more
They then created visualizations that tracked the movements of those devices up to 48 hours after the conclusion of protests . The visualizations only show movements within states , due to the queries analysts made in creating them . But the data scientist Jeremy Fair , executive-vice president of VoteMap , says that many of the devices that are seen to reach state borders are seen to continue across them in the underlying raw data .
One visualization shows that in Lansing , Michigan , after a 30 April protest in which armed protesters stormed the capitol building and state police were forced to physically block access to Governor Gretchen Whitmer , devices which had been present at the protest site can be seen returning to all parts of the state , from Detroit to remote towns in the state ’ s north .
One device visible in the data traveled to and from Afton , which is over 180 miles from the capital . Others reached , and some crossed , the Indiana border .
In the 48 hours following a 19 April “ Operation Gridlock ” protest in Denver , devices reached the borders of neighboring states including Wyoming , Nebraska , Oklahoma , New Mexico and Utah .
In Florida on 18 April , devices returned to all parts of the peninsula and up to the Georgia border . In Wisconsin on 24 April , devices returned to smaller towns like Green Bay and Wausau , and the borders of Minnesota and Illinois .
Play Video 4:42 Who is driving the US protests against coronavirus lockdown ? – video explainer
Following the initial wave of anti-lockdown protests in April , epidemiologists warned that they could lead to a new surge in cases .
In North Carolina in late April , one of the leaders of the state ’ s anti-lockdown protests tested positive for Covid-19 but said she would attend future rallies .
Dr Rob Davidson , executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare , said that although “ it ’ s hard to draw a straight line between devices , individuals at these protests , and cases ” , the data suggests that the protests may be epidemiologically significant events .
“ The behavior we ’ re seeing at protests carries a high risk of infection . We can see protesters are going from a highly concentrated event and then dispersing widely , ” he added .
Davidson , who has run for Congress as a Democrat , said that neither he nor his advocacy group were currently affiliated with the Democratic party . The group is made up of more than 300 “ doctors who are concerned that the healthcare for their patients has become unaffordable ” .
In a series of widely shared videos and threads on Twitter , Davidson has criticized Trump , and attempted to dispel what he calls the “ distrust in public health ” which “ Donald Trump has fomented in his movement ” .
|
Cellphone location data suggests that demonstrators at anti-lockdown protests – some of which have been connected with Covid-19 cases – are often traveling hundreds of miles to events, returning to all parts of their states, and even crossing into neighboring ones.
The data, provided to the Guardian by the progressive campaign group the Committee to Protect Medicare, raises the prospect that the protests will play a role in spreading the coronavirus epidemic to areas which have, so far, experienced relatively few infections.
The anonymized location data was captured from opt-in cellphone apps, and data scientists at the firm VoteMap used it to determine the movements of devices present at protests in late April and early May in five states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado and Florida.
Protesters descend on Michigan capitol but rain washes away demonstration Read more
They then created visualizations that tracked the movements of those devices up to 48 hours after the conclusion of protests. The visualizations only show movements within states, due to the queries analysts made in creating them. But the data scientist Jeremy Fair, executive-vice president of VoteMap, says that many of the devices that are seen to reach state borders are seen to continue across them in the underlying raw data.
One visualization shows that in Lansing, Michigan, after a 30 April protest in which armed protesters stormed the capitol building and state police were forced to physically block access to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, devices which had been present at the protest site can be seen returning to all parts of the state, from Detroit to remote towns in the state’s north.
One device visible in the data traveled to and from Afton, which is over 180 miles from the capital. Others reached, and some crossed, the Indiana border.
In the 48 hours following a 19 April “Operation Gridlock” protest in Denver, devices reached the borders of neighboring states including Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Utah.
In Florida on 18 April, devices returned to all parts of the peninsula and up to the Georgia border. In Wisconsin on 24 April, devices returned to smaller towns like Green Bay and Wausau, and the borders of Minnesota and Illinois.
Play Video 4:42 Who is driving the US protests against coronavirus lockdown? – video explainer
Following the initial wave of anti-lockdown protests in April, epidemiologists warned that they could lead to a new surge in cases.
In North Carolina in late April, one of the leaders of the state’s anti-lockdown protests tested positive for Covid-19 but said she would attend future rallies.
Dr Rob Davidson, executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare, said that although “it’s hard to draw a straight line between devices, individuals at these protests, and cases”, the data suggests that the protests may be epidemiologically significant events.
“The behavior we’re seeing at protests carries a high risk of infection. We can see protesters are going from a highly concentrated event and then dispersing widely,” he added.
Davidson, who has run for Congress as a Democrat, said that neither he nor his advocacy group were currently affiliated with the Democratic party. The group is made up of more than 300 “doctors who are concerned that the healthcare for their patients has become unaffordable”.
In a series of widely shared videos and threads on Twitter, Davidson has criticized Trump, and attempted to dispel what he calls the “distrust in public health” which “Donald Trump has fomented in his movement”.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
WZxO4tldpUdAbNKX
|
privacy
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/05/07/404898259/federal-court-bulk-collection-of-phone-metadata-is-illegal
|
NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules
|
2015-05-07
|
Eyder Peralta
|
NSA 's Bulk Collection Of Americans ' Phone Data Is Illegal , Appeals Court Rules
The National Security Agency 's practice of collecting data about Americans ' telephone calls in bulk goes beyond what Congress intended when it wrote Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act , a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday .
The three-judge panel was asked to consider whether the program violated the Constitution . Instead , the 2nd U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals panel punted on the constitutional claim , deciding the program was simply not authorized by federal law .
One of the big reasons it is hard to discern congressional intent in this case , the court wrote , is that the bulk collection program has been shrouded in secrecy . So it can not `` reasonably be said '' that Congress OK 'd `` a program of which many members of Congress — and all members of the public — were not aware . ''
The court concludes that it has no qualms about taking this step because if Congress wants to `` authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program , it has every opportunity to do so , and to do so unambiguously . ''
According to The New York Times , this is `` the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program , which since 2006 has repeatedly been approved in secret by a national security court . ''
The NSA 's collection of phone metadata came back into the spotlight after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that shed light on the scope of the program .
One of the first leaked documents was a secret court ruling that ordered Verizon to hand over the telephone metadata of all its customers . Metadata does not mean the content of calls . Instead it means things like time , phone numbers and duration of calls .
The panel has vacated a lower court 's decision to dismiss the case and has sent it back for further review . The panel also refused to order a preliminary end to the program , saying Congress is currently debating the NSA 's bulk collection program .
`` We deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may ( or may not ) profoundly alter the legal landscape , '' the panel wrote .
Update at 11:47 a.m . ET . Obama Believes Bulk Collection Should End :
Without specifically commenting on the court 's ruling , Ned Price , a spokesman for the White House National Security Council , said President Obama has already expressed a preference for ending the bulk collection of metadata as it exists today .
As we reported back in January 2014 , Obama said he would prefer that the government not keep a massive database of Americans ' telephone data . Instead , the data could live elsewhere and the U.S. government could query the information based on each investigation .
`` We continue to work closely with members of Congress from both parties to do just that and we have been encouraged by good progress on bipartisan , bicameral legislation that would implement these important reforms , '' Price said in a statement .
Update at 11:44 a.m . ET . 'Resounding Victory For The Rule Of Law ' :
`` This decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law , '' ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo , who argued the case before the three-judge panel last September , said in a statement . `` For years , the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority . The court rightly rejected the government 's theory that it may stockpile information on all of us in case that information proves useful in the future . Mass surveillance does not make us any safer , and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society . ''
The ACLU also urged Congress to `` up its reform game '' to align itself with the concerns raised by the 2nd Circuit .
The panel argued that when Congress passed the Patriot Act , it could not have understood the sweeping nature of the program . The panel explains :
`` Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans . Perhaps such a contraction is required by national security needs in the face of the dangers of contemporary domestic and international terrorism . But we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate , and expressed in unmistakable language . There is no evidence of such a debate in the legislative history of § 215 , and the language of the statute , on its face , is not naturally read as permitting investigative agencies , on the approval of the FISC [ the secret national security court ] , to do any more than obtain the sorts of information routinely acquired in the course of criminal investigations of 'money laundering [ and ] drug dealing . ' ``
Update at 9:57 a.m . ET . Echoes Some Members Of Congress :
NPR 's David Welna , who covers national security for the network , tells us the ruling echoes what some members of Congress have been saying . David reports :
|
NSA's Bulk Collection Of Americans' Phone Data Is Illegal, Appeals Court Rules
Enlarge this image toggle caption Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
The National Security Agency's practice of collecting data about Americans' telephone calls in bulk goes beyond what Congress intended when it wrote Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.
The three-judge panel was asked to consider whether the program violated the Constitution. Instead, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel punted on the constitutional claim, deciding the program was simply not authorized by federal law.
One of the big reasons it is hard to discern congressional intent in this case, the court wrote, is that the bulk collection program has been shrouded in secrecy. So it cannot "reasonably be said" that Congress OK'd "a program of which many members of Congress — and all members of the public — were not aware."
The court concludes that it has no qualms about taking this step because if Congress wants to "authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously."
According to The New York Times, this is "the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program, which since 2006 has repeatedly been approved in secret by a national security court."
The NSA's collection of phone metadata came back into the spotlight after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that shed light on the scope of the program.
One of the first leaked documents was a secret court ruling that ordered Verizon to hand over the telephone metadata of all its customers. Metadata does not mean the content of calls. Instead it means things like time, phone numbers and duration of calls.
The panel has vacated a lower court's decision to dismiss the case and has sent it back for further review. The panel also refused to order a preliminary end to the program, saying Congress is currently debating the NSA's bulk collection program.
"We deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape," the panel wrote.
Update at 11:47 a.m. ET. Obama Believes Bulk Collection Should End:
Without specifically commenting on the court's ruling, Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, said President Obama has already expressed a preference for ending the bulk collection of metadata as it exists today.
As we reported back in January 2014, Obama said he would prefer that the government not keep a massive database of Americans' telephone data. Instead, the data could live elsewhere and the U.S. government could query the information based on each investigation.
"We continue to work closely with members of Congress from both parties to do just that and we have been encouraged by good progress on bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would implement these important reforms," Price said in a statement.
Update at 11:44 a.m. ET. 'Resounding Victory For The Rule Of Law':
"This decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law," ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo, who argued the case before the three-judge panel last September, said in a statement. "For years, the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority. The court rightly rejected the government's theory that it may stockpile information on all of us in case that information proves useful in the future. Mass surveillance does not make us any safer, and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society."
The ACLU also urged Congress to "up its reform game" to align itself with the concerns raised by the 2nd Circuit.
Update at 10:21 a.m. ET. 'Preceded By Substantial Debate':
The panel argued that when Congress passed the Patriot Act, it could not have understood the sweeping nature of the program. The panel explains:
"Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans. Perhaps such a contraction is required by national security needs in the face of the dangers of contemporary domestic and international terrorism. But we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate, and expressed in unmistakable language. There is no evidence of such a debate in the legislative history of § 215, and the language of the statute, on its face, is not naturally read as permitting investigative agencies, on the approval of the FISC [the secret national security court], to do any more than obtain the sorts of information routinely acquired in the course of criminal investigations of 'money laundering [and] drug dealing.' "
Update at 9:57 a.m. ET. Echoes Some Members Of Congress:
NPR's David Welna, who covers national security for the network, tells us the ruling echoes what some members of Congress have been saying. David reports:
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
hpwTLNnRhjL07bT3
|
world
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/trade-talks-justin-trudeau-canada-not-an-adversary/
|
Trudeau Is Annoying, Not an Adversary
|
2018-06-12
|
Rich Lowry, John Mccormack, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Mairead Mcardle, Tobias Hoonhout, Jim Geraghty
|
President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G-7 summit in Quebec , June 8 , 2018 . ( Leah Millis/Reuters )
Justin Trudeau may be the annoying , youthful avatar of chic progressivism — but he ’ s not our adversary .
After leaving the G-7 summit , President Donald Trump blasted the Canadian prime minister on Twitter as weak and dishonest , in the kind of invective once reserved for “ Little Rocket Man . ”
The Trump presidency routinely produces unprecedented events , and here is another : Never before has a president of the United States spoken as scornfully in public about the head of state of a friendly , allied country . Particularly one who has appeared in Vogue .
Trudeau is not exactly a threatening figure , although his worshipful , celebrity-fueled press coverage qualifies as one of the more vexing political phenomena in all of North America ( Rolling Stone celebrated the fact that he rides a unicycle ; TMZ declared him on the “ clear path to hottest leader in the world ” ) .
It ’ s not clear what exactly led to the great U.S.–Canada tiff of 2018 . White House aides fanned out over the weekend to try to lend meaning and justification to the flap .
They said Trudeau had stabbed the president in the back at the meeting . But Trudeau didn ’ t say anything after Trump left the G-7 that he hadn ’ t signaled before — namely that Canada finds Trump ’ s steel and aluminum tariffs insulting and will retaliate .
They said that Trudeau risked undermining the president ’ s position at his imminent summit in Singapore with Kim Jong-un . But the North Korea dictator is not recalibrating his diplomacy based on the statements of a leader of an inoffensive country half a world away .
The incident is a great misdirection . Canada ’ s trade practices are hardly above reproach . Its tariff on milk of 270 percent , highlighted by Trump officials the past few days , is stupid and indefensible . It is guilty of subsidizing and protecting favored companies and sectors , the way most countries are .
It is nothing compared with the world ’ s great mercantilist power , though . China routinely steals U.S. intellectual property , seeks to distort the entire system of international commerce to its advantage , and is pouring resources into a massive military buildup , with which it eventually hopes to expel the United States from East Asia .
That we are dissipating our energies with steel and aluminum tariffs against allies and potentially alienating friends speaks to a key mistake .
Trudeau is the facile , democratically elected leader of a Western society ; President Xi Jinping is the remorseless president for life of a hostile dictatorship . It ’ s not a remotely close call who we should be aiming our fire at .
That we are dissipating our energies with steel and aluminum tariffs against allies and potentially alienating friends in what should be a united front against China speaks to a key mistake . Trump views the U.S. trade deficit — with any country , friend or foe — as the problem rather than China as the unique commercial and geostrategic competitor .
One of the advantages that the United States has in the long-term conflict with China is that we border peaceable , friendly countries . This is a blessing that shouldn ’ t be treated dismissively or recklessly .
The flare-up with Trudeau is not an encouraging sign for prospects of renegotiating NAFTA , which also should be viewed in strategic terms . As Derek Scissors of the American Enterprise Institute points out , the trade agreement could extend beyond North America to Britain , which is seeking a new trade arrangement as it exits the EU , and the Philippines and Taiwan , which are pressured by China .
“ A completed NAFTA 2.0 , ” Scissors writes , “ would provide the concrete foundation for rapid conclusion of comprehensive or partial trade agreements with these and other countries , while reassuring partners that the Trump administration is willing and able to move forward on trade if they are willing to meet some American demands . ”
None of this will happen if Trump is determined to pursue a protectionist policy no matter what , or he lets his pique at friends get the best of him . The trade war — and the fight for our paramount interests — won ’ t be won or lost against Justin Trudeau . Beijing , not Ottawa , is our enemy .
|
President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G-7 summit in Quebec, June 8, 2018. (Leah Millis/Reuters)
Beijing, not Ottawa, is our enemy.
Justin Trudeau may be the annoying, youthful avatar of chic progressivism — but he’s not our adversary.
After leaving the G-7 summit, President Donald Trump blasted the Canadian prime minister on Twitter as weak and dishonest, in the kind of invective once reserved for “Little Rocket Man.”
The Trump presidency routinely produces unprecedented events, and here is another: Never before has a president of the United States spoken as scornfully in public about the head of state of a friendly, allied country. Particularly one who has appeared in Vogue.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trudeau is not exactly a threatening figure, although his worshipful, celebrity-fueled press coverage qualifies as one of the more vexing political phenomena in all of North America (Rolling Stone celebrated the fact that he rides a unicycle; TMZ declared him on the “clear path to hottest leader in the world”).
It’s not clear what exactly led to the great U.S.–Canada tiff of 2018. White House aides fanned out over the weekend to try to lend meaning and justification to the flap.
Advertisement
They said Trudeau had stabbed the president in the back at the meeting. But Trudeau didn’t say anything after Trump left the G-7 that he hadn’t signaled before — namely that Canada finds Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs insulting and will retaliate.
They said that Trudeau risked undermining the president’s position at his imminent summit in Singapore with Kim Jong-un. But the North Korea dictator is not recalibrating his diplomacy based on the statements of a leader of an inoffensive country half a world away.
Advertisement
The incident is a great misdirection. Canada’s trade practices are hardly above reproach. Its tariff on milk of 270 percent, highlighted by Trump officials the past few days, is stupid and indefensible. It is guilty of subsidizing and protecting favored companies and sectors, the way most countries are.
It is nothing compared with the world’s great mercantilist power, though. China routinely steals U.S. intellectual property, seeks to distort the entire system of international commerce to its advantage, and is pouring resources into a massive military buildup, with which it eventually hopes to expel the United States from East Asia.
That we are dissipating our energies with steel and aluminum tariffs against allies and potentially alienating friends speaks to a key mistake.
Trudeau is the facile, democratically elected leader of a Western society; President Xi Jinping is the remorseless president for life of a hostile dictatorship. It’s not a remotely close call who we should be aiming our fire at.
Advertisement
That we are dissipating our energies with steel and aluminum tariffs against allies and potentially alienating friends in what should be a united front against China speaks to a key mistake. Trump views the U.S. trade deficit — with any country, friend or foe — as the problem rather than China as the unique commercial and geostrategic competitor.
Advertisement
One of the advantages that the United States has in the long-term conflict with China is that we border peaceable, friendly countries. This is a blessing that shouldn’t be treated dismissively or recklessly.
The flare-up with Trudeau is not an encouraging sign for prospects of renegotiating NAFTA, which also should be viewed in strategic terms. As Derek Scissors of the American Enterprise Institute points out, the trade agreement could extend beyond North America to Britain, which is seeking a new trade arrangement as it exits the EU, and the Philippines and Taiwan, which are pressured by China.
“A completed NAFTA 2.0,” Scissors writes, “would provide the concrete foundation for rapid conclusion of comprehensive or partial trade agreements with these and other countries, while reassuring partners that the Trump administration is willing and able to move forward on trade if they are willing to meet some American demands.”
Advertisement
None of this will happen if Trump is determined to pursue a protectionist policy no matter what, or he lets his pique at friends get the best of him. The trade war — and the fight for our paramount interests — won’t be won or lost against Justin Trudeau. Beijing, not Ottawa, is our enemy.
© 2018 King Features Syndicate
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
W2V3kJKHoPyWmeby
|
elections
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/3/bernie-sanders-wins-indiana-primary/
|
Surprise Indiana win vaults Bernie Sanders toward convention
|
2016-05-03
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
Sen. Bernard Sanders captured a surprise win in the Indiana primary Tuesday , giving his campaign more fuel to fight until the Democratic National Convention in July and frustrating Hillary Clinton , who desperately wants to shift into general election mode .
Networks called the race by 9:10 p.m. EDT , just over two hours after the Indiana polls closed . With 84 percent of the vote counted at 10 p.m. , Mr. Sanders had 53 percent compared with 47 percent for Mrs. Clinton .
The Indiana win ends an impressive string of victories for Mrs. Clinton , who captured six of the past seven contests heading into Tuesday . The Sanders victory also prolongs a race that the former first lady is eager to put behind her as she turns her attention to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump .
Despite having little realistic path to his party ’ s nomination , Mr. Sanders appears intent on remaining in the race to continue pushing Mrs. Clinton further left on issues such as Wall Street reform and income inequality .
Speaking to supporters in Louisville , Kentucky , Mr. Sanders said his message is resonating with key constituencies in the Democratic Party , and that the platform he crafted has struck a chord across the country . He gave no indication that he is taking his foot off the gas pedal anytime soon .
“ I ’ ll tell you what is extremely exciting for me , and that is that in primary after primary , caucus after caucus , we end up winning the vote of people 45 years of age or younger , and that is important because if tells me that the ideas we are fighting for are the ideas for the future of America , and the future of the Democratic Party , ” Mr. Sanders said before blasting income inequality , Wall Street , college debt and other issues that have become central themes in his stump speech .
“ In America today , we have millions of people working longer hours , for lower wages , ” he said . “ We have families today where mom is working 40 hours , dad is working 40 hours , the kids are working and they ’ re still not earning enough money to provide for their family . That is why we are going to create an economy that works for all of us , not just the 1 percent . ”
Despite the outcome in Indiana , the race increasingly looks like Mrs. Clinton ’ s to lose . Heading into Tuesday ’ s primary , she had a substantial lead over Mr. Sanders in the delegate race , 2,165 to 1,357 , according to an Associated Press tally .
Among pledged delegates , Mrs. Clinton still leads 1,645 to 1,318 . Among superdelegates , she is ahead 520 to 39 .
There are 83 pledged delegates at stake in the Indiana primary , and the state also has nine superdelegates , seven of whom have said they will support Mrs. Clinton .
With such a substantial lead , Mrs. Clinton has made clear that she intends to virtually ignore attacks from the Sanders campaign and will instead focus on the general election , where she almost certainly will face Republican Donald Trump .
Mr. Trump ’ s chief competition , Sen. Ted Cruz , dropped out of the Republican race Tuesday night after a crushing defeat in Indiana .
“ I ’ m really focused on moving into the general election , ” the former first lady told MSNBC on Tuesday . “ I think that ’ s where we have to be , because we ’ re going to have a tough campaign against a candidate who will literally say or do anything . And we ’ re going to take him on at every turn on what ’ s really important to the people of our country . ”
But Mrs. Clinton already has stumbled in the early phase of her general election campaign .
On Monday , an out-of-work coal miner confronted Mrs. Clinton in West Virginia and questioned her about past statements that more coal miners will be out of work under her administration and that the entire industry would be put “ out of business ” as she transitions the nation to clean energy .
Mrs. Clinton was touring Appalachia ahead of next week ’ s West Virginia primary and the May 17 contest in Kentucky . The two states remain the heart of the U.S. coal industry , and Mrs. Clinton ’ s comments could carry political consequences in her contests against Mr. Sanders .
At a town hall meeting in West Virginia , she tried to clarify her position .
“ I don ’ t know how to explain it other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time , and I did put out a plan last summer , ” she said . “ I didn ’ t mean that we were going to do it . What I said was that is going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it . ”
Mr. Sanders , meanwhile , has mounted a campaign aimed at persuading superdelegates to change their minds at the party convention in July , saying he has a better shot at defeating Mr. Trump in the fall than does Mrs. Clinton . Indeed , polls show him faring better against the billionaire businessman than his opponent .
The Sanders campaign also continues to attack Mrs. Clinton on a host of issues , some of which could weaken her in a general election by fueling the notion that she is dishonest and untrustworthy .
On Tuesday , for example , Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told supporters that the Clinton campaign is skirting campaign finance laws and misleading Democratic donors by holding joint fundraisers with other Democratic Party organizations .
The system allows donors to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Hillary Victory Fund , which is supposed to benefit both the Clinton campaign and state Democratic parties .
A Politico investigation this week found that about 99 percent of the $ 61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund has been used on the Clinton campaign . The Sanders campaign capitalized by circulating a petition calling on Mrs. Clinton to return millions of dollars to the state party organizations .
“ It ’ s unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary . But it ’ s not too late for her campaign to do the right thing by the state parties we ’ re going to need to win elections up and down the ticket this November , ” Mr. Weaver said in an email .
|
Sen. Bernard Sanders captured a surprise win in the Indiana primary Tuesday, giving his campaign more fuel to fight until the Democratic National Convention in July and frustrating Hillary Clinton, who desperately wants to shift into general election mode.
Networks called the race by 9:10 p.m. EDT, just over two hours after the Indiana polls closed. With 84 percent of the vote counted at 10 p.m., Mr. Sanders had 53 percent compared with 47 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
The Indiana win ends an impressive string of victories for Mrs. Clinton, who captured six of the past seven contests heading into Tuesday. The Sanders victory also prolongs a race that the former first lady is eager to put behind her as she turns her attention to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Despite having little realistic path to his party’s nomination, Mr. Sanders appears intent on remaining in the race to continue pushing Mrs. Clinton further left on issues such as Wall Street reform and income inequality.
Speaking to supporters in Louisville, Kentucky, Mr. Sanders said his message is resonating with key constituencies in the Democratic Party, and that the platform he crafted has struck a chord across the country. He gave no indication that he is taking his foot off the gas pedal anytime soon.
“I’ll tell you what is extremely exciting for me, and that is that in primary after primary, caucus after caucus, we end up winning the vote of people 45 years of age or younger, and that is important because if tells me that the ideas we are fighting for are the ideas for the future of America, and the future of the Democratic Party,” Mr. Sanders said before blasting income inequality, Wall Street, college debt and other issues that have become central themes in his stump speech.
“In America today, we have millions of people working longer hours, for lower wages,” he said. “We have families today where mom is working 40 hours, dad is working 40 hours, the kids are working and they’re still not earning enough money to provide for their family. That is why we are going to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”
Despite the outcome in Indiana, the race increasingly looks like Mrs. Clinton’s to lose. Heading into Tuesday’s primary, she had a substantial lead over Mr. Sanders in the delegate race, 2,165 to 1,357, according to an Associated Press tally.
Among pledged delegates, Mrs. Clinton still leads 1,645 to 1,318. Among superdelegates, she is ahead 520 to 39.
There are 83 pledged delegates at stake in the Indiana primary, and the state also has nine superdelegates, seven of whom have said they will support Mrs. Clinton.
With such a substantial lead, Mrs. Clinton has made clear that she intends to virtually ignore attacks from the Sanders campaign and will instead focus on the general election, where she almost certainly will face Republican Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump’s chief competition, Sen. Ted Cruz, dropped out of the Republican race Tuesday night after a crushing defeat in Indiana.
“I’m really focused on moving into the general election,” the former first lady told MSNBC on Tuesday. “I think that’s where we have to be, because we’re going to have a tough campaign against a candidate who will literally say or do anything. And we’re going to take him on at every turn on what’s really important to the people of our country.”
But Mrs. Clinton already has stumbled in the early phase of her general election campaign.
On Monday, an out-of-work coal miner confronted Mrs. Clinton in West Virginia and questioned her about past statements that more coal miners will be out of work under her administration and that the entire industry would be put “out of business” as she transitions the nation to clean energy.
Mrs. Clinton was touring Appalachia ahead of next week’s West Virginia primary and the May 17 contest in Kentucky. The two states remain the heart of the U.S. coal industry, and Mrs. Clinton’s comments could carry political consequences in her contests against Mr. Sanders.
At a town hall meeting in West Virginia, she tried to clarify her position.
“I don’t know how to explain it other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time, and I did put out a plan last summer,” she said. “I didn’t mean that we were going to do it. What I said was that is going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it.”
Mr. Sanders, meanwhile, has mounted a campaign aimed at persuading superdelegates to change their minds at the party convention in July, saying he has a better shot at defeating Mr. Trump in the fall than does Mrs. Clinton. Indeed, polls show him faring better against the billionaire businessman than his opponent.
The Sanders campaign also continues to attack Mrs. Clinton on a host of issues, some of which could weaken her in a general election by fueling the notion that she is dishonest and untrustworthy.
On Tuesday, for example, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told supporters that the Clinton campaign is skirting campaign finance laws and misleading Democratic donors by holding joint fundraisers with other Democratic Party organizations.
The system allows donors to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Hillary Victory Fund, which is supposed to benefit both the Clinton campaign and state Democratic parties.
A Politico investigation this week found that about 99 percent of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund has been used on the Clinton campaign. The Sanders campaign capitalized by circulating a petition calling on Mrs. Clinton to return millions of dollars to the state party organizations.
“It’s unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary. But it’s not too late for her campaign to do the right thing by the state parties we’re going to need to win elections up and down the ticket this November,” Mr. Weaver said in an email.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
8jiN0zwbr0K2bPeq
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/politics/gorsuch-senate-hearing-supreme-court/index.html
|
Gorsuch grilled on Trump: 'No man is above the law'
|
2017-03-21
|
Ashley Killough, Ariane De Vogue
|
Washington ( CNN ) Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch sought to prove his judicial independence and asserted that he had no problem ruling against the President who appointed him , saying , `` no man is above the law . ''
In his second day of confirmation hearings , Gorsuch repeatedly tried to avoid prejudging any future cases , maintaining before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he 's a `` fair judge . ''
Tuesday marked the committee 's first chance to publicly ask him questions . Some senators tried to quiz the federal judge on previous positions and actions taken by President Donald Trump on issues like immigration and torture .
Without stating his personal opinions , Gorsuch attempted to stay on independent turf , though he appeared to distance himself from the President 's past comments calling for the reinstatement of torture .
Asked by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont whether he thinks the President has the right to authorize torture if it violates law , Gorsuch ticked off a list of precedents that ban torture .
`` We have a convention against torture and implementing legislation which bans torture , '' he said . `` We have the Detainee Treatment Act , which we talked about earlier , which bans cruel , inhumane and degrading treatment . We also have an 8th Amendment . ''
Gorsuch also stated that the Trump administration never asked him to make promises to rule certain ways on certain decisions .
Asked specifically by Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-South Carolina , if he was asked by the president to overturn Roe v. Wade , Gorsuch said no .
He was further pressed on what he would have done if Trump had asked him to do so .
`` Senator , I would have walked out the door , '' Gorsuch said , as the room fell silent . `` That 's not what judges do . They do n't do it at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and they should n't do it at this end either . ''
On the President 's travel ban that prevents immigration from six majority Muslim countries , Gorsuch said he will `` apply the law faithfully and fearlessly '' when asked about whether a blanket religious test is consistent with the First Amendment .
`` We have a Constitution and it does guarantee free exercise and it also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else , '' Gorsuch said in reply to a question from Leahy . `` The Supreme Court , in ( Zubayadah ) , said that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country . I will apply the law . I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly . ''
`` Anyone , any law is going to get a fair and square deal with me , '' he added .
Answering his first question of the day , Gorsuch said that he would n't have any trouble ruling against the President who nominated him .
While there was no mention of Trump in the question -- which came from the top Republican on the committee , Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley -- nor in Gorsuch 's answer , it comes as Trump has made headlines twice in the past year for criticizing federal judges whose decisions he did n't like .
Grassley argued that `` no one -- not even the President -- is above the law , '' and asked Gorsuch if it would be problematic for him to decide against the President .
`` That 's a softball , Mr. Chairman , '' Gorsuch responded . `` I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts in the particular case require . ''
Gorsuch pushed back against Democratic criticism that he has mostly ruled in favor of big companies or government , arguing Tuesday that he 's ruled in favor of `` the little guy , '' as well .
`` I 'd like to convey to you -- from the bottom of my heart -- is that I am a fair judge , '' Gorsuch said to Sen. Dianne Feinstein , the committee 's top Democrat .
He listed off a number of cases in which he felt he ruled against `` the big guy . ''
`` I have participated in 2,700 opinions over 10 and a half years . And , if you want cases where I 've ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy , there are plenty of them , '' he said .
He specifically named a ruling in favor of landowners in a lawsuit over nuclear waste at the Rocky Flats plant , which he said `` vindicated the rights of people who had been subject to pollution by large companies in Colorado . ''
Critics have pointed to his decision in a case in which a trucker was fired for abandoning his broken-down trailer in freezing temperatures to seek safety .
The trucker , Alphonse Maddin , filed a complaint asserting that his firing violated a federal safety law . In a 2-1 decision the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Maddin 's favor .
Gorsuch dissented . `` A trucker was stranded on the side of the road , late at night , in cold weather , and his trailer brakes were stuck , '' Gorsuch wrote and noted that the company `` fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods . ''
`` It might be fair to ask whether TransAm 's decision was a wise or kind one , '' he wrote . `` But it 's not our job to answer questions like that . Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one . ''
Sen. Al Franken , D-Minnesota , lambasted Gorsuch for his decision , calling it absurd .
`` It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle . That 's absurd . Now , I had a career in identifying absurdity , and I know it when I see it and it makes me question your judgment . ''
Gorsuch sharply denied accusations made by a former student that he suggested in a law class last year that women unethically use companies for maternity benefits .
Jennifer Sisk , a former student in Gorsuch 's ethics class at the University of Colorado Law School , wrote a letter to the committee saying Gorsuch asked for students ' opinions about a hypothetical scenario , in which , a woman applied for a job at a large law firm and planned to start a family with her husband in the near future .
`` He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby , '' she writes .
Sisk writes that at one point Gorsuch `` became more animated saying ' C'mon guys . ' He then announced that all our hands should be raised because 'many ' women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born . ''
Sisk , a registered Democrat who once worked for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado , said she raised her concerns to the school 's administration , but the school apologized Monday night , saying it never notified Gorsuch of the complaint .
Sen. Dick Durbin , D-Illinois , asked Gorsuch about the incident . Gorsuch said he pulled the scenario from a textbook when talking about some of the challenges young lawyers will face in the workforce .
He said he posed the hypothetical , asking students to weigh in on how they would respond if they faced such a question and then discussed the pros and cons of potential answers .
`` I do ask for a show of hands -- not about the question you asked , but about the following question , and I ask it of everybody : How many of you have had questions like this asked of you in the employment environment ? An inappropriate question about your family planning ? '' Gorsuch said . `` And I am shocked every year senator how many young women raise their hands , it 's disturbing to me . ''
Supporters of Gorsuch also put forth statements from three other students who claimed that Sisk inaccurately framed the class discussion .
Gorsuch was also pressed on his view of previous cases . As is tradition with Supreme Court nominees , Gorsuch declined to give direct answers , saying it would be `` inappropriate '' to suggest how he would rule on already established precedents .
`` I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind , '' he said .
His answers are consistent with what 's called the `` Ginsburg standard , '' a precedent set by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 confirmation to not comment on cases , so as not to hint at how she would rule in future cases .
Asked specifically by Feinstein about Roe v. Wade , Gorsuch would not state his personal views or say whether he thought it was a `` super-precedent , '' like she asked .
`` It has been reaffirmed many times , I can say that , '' he said .
As senators tried to dig and prod to get his political views on the record , Gorsuch continuously dodged , citing a need to remain objective .
`` A good judge does n't give a wit about politics or the political implications of his or her decision , '' he said .
Gorsuch was slightly more open to talking about issues of religious liberty , something he has written extensively about . This is also consistent with the Ginsburg standard -- talking more freely about what topics the nominee has previously written about than things that might be before the court .
Nearly six hours into the hearing , Gorsuch appeared to show some frustration with the confirmation process .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse , a Democrat from Rhode Island and staunch opponent of the Citizens United ruling , was questioning Gorsuch on money spent in favor of his nomination by groups that do n't disclose their donors and asked if that concerned him .
`` Senator , there 's a lot about the confirmation process today that I regret . A lot . A lot , '' he said . `` When ( former Supreme Court Justice ) Byron White sat here , it was 90 minutes . He was through this body in two weeks and he smoked cigarettes while he gave his testimony . There 's a great deal about this process I regret . I regret putting my family through this . ''
Whitehouse kept asking him about what 's known as dark money groups and whether it bothers him . Gorsuch , who was trying not to indicate how he would rule on any cases involving the issue , avoided sharing his personal view .
`` Senator , the fact of the matter is it is what it is , '' Gorsuch said , somewhat agitated . `` And it 's this body that makes the laws and if you wish to have more disclosure , pass a law and a judge will enforce it , Senator . ''
Later , Sen Mike Lee , R-Utah , argued it was `` unfair '' for Whitehouse to question Gorsuch on Citizens United-related issues and asked the judge if he had any involvement in the Supreme Court ruling .
`` I was not involved , '' he said , before adding forcefully , in an apparent reference to the group spending money , that he speaks only for himself .
`` Nobody speaks for me . Nobody . I speak for me . I am a judge . I do n't have spokesman . I speak for myself . ''
|
Washington (CNN) Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch sought to prove his judicial independence and asserted that he had no problem ruling against the President who appointed him, saying, "no man is above the law."
In his second day of confirmation hearings, Gorsuch repeatedly tried to avoid prejudging any future cases, maintaining before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he's a "fair judge."
Tuesday marked the committee's first chance to publicly ask him questions. Some senators tried to quiz the federal judge on previous positions and actions taken by President Donald Trump on issues like immigration and torture.
Without stating his personal opinions, Gorsuch attempted to stay on independent turf, though he appeared to distance himself from the President's past comments calling for the reinstatement of torture.
Asked by Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont whether he thinks the President has the right to authorize torture if it violates law, Gorsuch ticked off a list of precedents that ban torture.
"We have a convention against torture and implementing legislation which bans torture," he said. "We have the Detainee Treatment Act, which we talked about earlier, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. We also have an 8th Amendment."
Leahy asked Gorsuch the same question once again.
"Senator, no man is above the law," Gorsuch responded.
Questions about Trump's statements, policies
Gorsuch also stated that the Trump administration never asked him to make promises to rule certain ways on certain decisions.
Asked specifically by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, if he was asked by the president to overturn Roe v. Wade, Gorsuch said no.
He was further pressed on what he would have done if Trump had asked him to do so.
"Senator, I would have walked out the door," Gorsuch said, as the room fell silent. "That's not what judges do. They don't do it at that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and they shouldn't do it at this end either."
On the President's travel ban that prevents immigration from six majority Muslim countries, Gorsuch said he will "apply the law faithfully and fearlessly" when asked about whether a blanket religious test is consistent with the First Amendment.
"We have a Constitution and it does guarantee free exercise and it also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else," Gorsuch said in reply to a question from Leahy. "The Supreme Court, in (Zubayadah), said that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly."
"Anyone, any law is going to get a fair and square deal with me," he added.
Answering his first question of the day, Gorsuch said that he wouldn't have any trouble ruling against the President who nominated him.
While there was no mention of Trump in the question -- which came from the top Republican on the committee, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley -- nor in Gorsuch's answer, it comes as Trump has made headlines twice in the past year for criticizing federal judges whose decisions he didn't like.
Grassley argued that "no one -- not even the President -- is above the law," and asked Gorsuch if it would be problematic for him to decide against the President.
"That's a softball, Mr. Chairman," Gorsuch responded. "I have no difficulty ruling against or for any party other than based on what the law and the facts in the particular case require."
Big guy vs. little guy
Gorsuch pushed back against Democratic criticism that he has mostly ruled in favor of big companies or government, arguing Tuesday that he's ruled in favor of "the little guy," as well.
"I'd like to convey to you -- from the bottom of my heart -- is that I am a fair judge," Gorsuch said to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee's top Democrat.
He listed off a number of cases in which he felt he ruled against "the big guy."
"I have participated in 2,700 opinions over 10 and a half years. And, if you want cases where I've ruled for the little guy as well as the big guy, there are plenty of them," he said.
He specifically named a ruling in favor of landowners in a lawsuit over nuclear waste at the Rocky Flats plant, which he said "vindicated the rights of people who had been subject to pollution by large companies in Colorado."
Critics have pointed to his decision in a case in which a trucker was fired for abandoning his broken-down trailer in freezing temperatures to seek safety.
The trucker, Alphonse Maddin, filed a complaint asserting that his firing violated a federal safety law. In a 2-1 decision the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Maddin's favor.
Gorsuch dissented. "A trucker was stranded on the side of the road, late at night, in cold weather, and his trailer brakes were stuck," Gorsuch wrote and noted that the company "fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods."
"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one," he wrote. "But it's not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one."
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, lambasted Gorsuch for his decision, calling it absurd.
"It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die possibly by driving an unsafe vehicle. That's absurd. Now, I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it and it makes me question your judgment."
Gorsuch hits back at claims made by former student
Gorsuch sharply denied accusations made by a former student that he suggested in a law class last year that women unethically use companies for maternity benefits.
Jennifer Sisk, a former student in Gorsuch's ethics class at the University of Colorado Law School, wrote a letter to the committee saying Gorsuch asked for students' opinions about a hypothetical scenario, in which, a woman applied for a job at a large law firm and planned to start a family with her husband in the near future.
"He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby," she writes.
Sisk writes that at one point Gorsuch "became more animated saying 'C'mon guys.' He then announced that all our hands should be raised because 'many' women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born."
Sisk, a registered Democrat who once worked for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, said she raised her concerns to the school's administration, but the school apologized Monday night, saying it never notified Gorsuch of the complaint.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, asked Gorsuch about the incident. Gorsuch said he pulled the scenario from a textbook when talking about some of the challenges young lawyers will face in the workforce.
He said he posed the hypothetical, asking students to weigh in on how they would respond if they faced such a question and then discussed the pros and cons of potential answers.
"I do ask for a show of hands -- not about the question you asked, but about the following question, and I ask it of everybody: How many of you have had questions like this asked of you in the employment environment? An inappropriate question about your family planning?" Gorsuch said. "And I am shocked every year senator how many young women raise their hands, it's disturbing to me."
Supporters of Gorsuch also put forth statements from three other students who claimed that Sisk inaccurately framed the class discussion.
Gorsuch tries not to 'tip his hand'
Gorsuch was also pressed on his view of previous cases. As is tradition with Supreme Court nominees, Gorsuch declined to give direct answers, saying it would be "inappropriate" to suggest how he would rule on already established precedents.
"I would be tipping my hand and suggesting to litigants that I have already made up my mind," he said.
His answers are consistent with what's called the "Ginsburg standard," a precedent set by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her 1993 confirmation to not comment on cases, so as not to hint at how she would rule in future cases.
Asked specifically by Feinstein about Roe v. Wade, Gorsuch would not state his personal views or say whether he thought it was a "super-precedent," like she asked.
"It has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that," he said.
As senators tried to dig and prod to get his political views on the record, Gorsuch continuously dodged, citing a need to remain objective.
"A good judge doesn't give a wit about politics or the political implications of his or her decision," he said.
Gorsuch was slightly more open to talking about issues of religious liberty, something he has written extensively about. This is also consistent with the Ginsburg standard -- talking more freely about what topics the nominee has previously written about than things that might be before the court.
Nearly six hours into the hearing, Gorsuch appeared to show some frustration with the confirmation process.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and staunch opponent of the Citizens United ruling, was questioning Gorsuch on money spent in favor of his nomination by groups that don't disclose their donors and asked if that concerned him.
"Senator, there's a lot about the confirmation process today that I regret. A lot. A lot," he said. "When (former Supreme Court Justice) Byron White sat here, it was 90 minutes. He was through this body in two weeks and he smoked cigarettes while he gave his testimony. There's a great deal about this process I regret. I regret putting my family through this."
Whitehouse kept asking him about what's known as dark money groups and whether it bothers him. Gorsuch, who was trying not to indicate how he would rule on any cases involving the issue, avoided sharing his personal view.
"Senator, the fact of the matter is it is what it is," Gorsuch said, somewhat agitated. "And it's this body that makes the laws and if you wish to have more disclosure, pass a law and a judge will enforce it, Senator."
Later, Sen Mike Lee, R-Utah, argued it was "unfair" for Whitehouse to question Gorsuch on Citizens United-related issues and asked the judge if he had any involvement in the Supreme Court ruling.
"I was not involved," he said, before adding forcefully, in an apparent reference to the group spending money, that he speaks only for himself.
"Nobody speaks for me. Nobody. I speak for me. I am a judge. I don't have spokesman. I speak for myself."
This story has been updated to reflect breaking news.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
FEDUgsPZ2sHQJCXg
|
disaster
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/28/trump-waives-shipping-restrictions-puerto-rico/711541001/
|
Trump waives Jones Act shipping restrictions for Puerto Rico
|
2017-09-28
|
President Trump waived shipping restrictions for Puerto Rico on Thursday at the request of the island 's governor and after an outcry from Congress about shortages of fuel , food and emergency supplies in the wake of Hurricane Maria .
The decision temporarily lifts the Jones Act 's restrictions prohibiting foreign-flagged vessels from picking up and delivering fuel between U.S. ports .
A one-two punch by Hurricanes Irma and Maria battered the island in recent weeks , leaving residents with shortages of all supplies . Maria wiped out the power supply , destroyed cell towers and led to massive fuel shortages on the island that relies on diesel for much of its power .
More : On the defensive over response to Hurricane Maria , Trump to visit Puerto Rico
Elaine Duke , acting secretary of Homeland Security , said the waiver followed Puerto Rico Gov . Ricardo Rossello 's request and the Defense Department 's determination that lifting the restrictions was in the interest of national defense . The waiver is in effect 10 days and covers all products .
`` It is intended to ensure we have enough fuel and commodities to support lifesaving efforts , respond to the storm , and restore critical services and critical infrastructure operations in the wake of these devastating storms , '' Duke said .
More : Why Puerto Rico is being denied shipping deliveries of fuel
But members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Thursday continued to blast the administration for a slow response and said the 10-day waiver isn ’ t long enough .
“ This is Katrina 2017 , ” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez , D-Ill. “ Think of 3.4 million people who have no escape route from the island of Puerto Rico . ”
Rep. Nydia Velázquez , D-N.Y. , called on Trump to waive the Jones Act for a year .
The administration waived the act for Southeastern states — and included Puerto Rico for petroleum products — from Sept. 8 through 22 , after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma . But Defense and Homeland Security officials said there were plenty of ships to supply Puerto Rico — the problem was moving supplies around the island because of roads blocked by trees and landslides .
Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz. , has tried repeatedly to repeal the Jones Act , which he called archaic and burdensome . He and Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , proposed Thursday to permanently exempt Puerto Rico from the Jones Act , as the U.S. Virgin Islands are already exempt .
`` It ’ s time for Congress to take action , end this injustice , and help our fellow citizens in this time of need , '' McCain said .
“ The Jones Act is just another example of a federal regulation that harms American consumers , gives foreign corporations an edge over American businesses , and makes disaster response harder , '' Lee said . “ It is far past time to repeal it . ”
But Rep. John Garamendi , D-Calif. , said Puerto Rico ’ s problem is moving cargo from ports to gas stations , warehouses , supermarkets and relief agencies , rather than shipping cargo to the island . Of 6,000 containers filled with supplies already sitting at the island 's port terminals , only about 400 will be moving Thursday , he said .
“ The log jam is the freight movement on the island , which is simply not going well , ” said Garamendi , who serves on the maritime transportation subcommittee . “ It ’ s picking up a little bit each day , but the problem is on the land side , not the water side . ”
About two-thirds of Puerto Rico ’ s imports typically come from foreign vessels and international ports , including six of the seven petroleum tankers that arrived within the last week , Garamendi said .
The Jones Act is crucial to maintaining the U.S. maritime industry and protecting national security , rather than to allow foreign vessels to move between U.S. ports along inland waterways such as the Mississippi River , he said .
“ It would be a major national-security issue to open those waterways in the heart of America to foreign vessels , foreign crews , which would be impossible to maintain any level of security , ” Garamendi said .
Trump , who plans to visit the island next week , said Wednesday that he was studying the matter , but the U.S. shipping industry was opposed to waiving the law .
Sarah Sanders , Trump ’ s spokeswoman , tweeted Thursday the Jones Act would be waived .
|
Bart Jansen
USA TODAY
President Trump waived shipping restrictions for Puerto Rico on Thursday at the request of the island's governor and after an outcry from Congress about shortages of fuel, food and emergency supplies in the wake of Hurricane Maria.
The decision temporarily lifts the Jones Act's restrictions prohibiting foreign-flagged vessels from picking up and delivering fuel between U.S. ports.
A one-two punch by Hurricanes Irma and Maria battered the island in recent weeks, leaving residents with shortages of all supplies. Maria wiped out the power supply, destroyed cell towers and led to massive fuel shortages on the island that relies on diesel for much of its power.
More:Why Puerto Rico faces a monumental recovery effort
More:Yes, Puerto Rico is part of the United States
More:On the defensive over response to Hurricane Maria, Trump to visit Puerto Rico
Elaine Duke, acting secretary of Homeland Security, said the waiver followed Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello's request and the Defense Department's determination that lifting the restrictions was in the interest of national defense. The waiver is in effect 10 days and covers all products.
"It is intended to ensure we have enough fuel and commodities to support lifesaving efforts, respond to the storm, and restore critical services and critical infrastructure operations in the wake of these devastating storms," Duke said.
Rossello quickly thanked Trump for the assistance on Twitter.
More:Why Puerto Rico is being denied shipping deliveries of fuel
But members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Thursday continued to blast the administration for a slow response and said the 10-day waiver isn’t long enough.
“This is Katrina 2017,” said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill. “Think of 3.4 million people who have no escape route from the island of Puerto Rico.”
Rep. Nydia Velázquez, D-N.Y., called on Trump to waive the Jones Act for a year.
The administration waived the act for Southeastern states — and included Puerto Rico for petroleum products — from Sept. 8 through 22, after Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. But Defense and Homeland Security officials said there were plenty of ships to supply Puerto Rico — the problem was moving supplies around the island because of roads blocked by trees and landslides.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has tried repeatedly to repeal the Jones Act, which he called archaic and burdensome. He and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, proposed Thursday to permanently exempt Puerto Rico from the Jones Act, as the U.S. Virgin Islands are already exempt.
"It’s time for Congress to take action, end this injustice, and help our fellow citizens in this time of need," McCain said.
“The Jones Act is just another example of a federal regulation that harms American consumers, gives foreign corporations an edge over American businesses, and makes disaster response harder," Lee said. “It is far past time to repeal it.”
But Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., said Puerto Rico’s problem is moving cargo from ports to gas stations, warehouses, supermarkets and relief agencies, rather than shipping cargo to the island. Of 6,000 containers filled with supplies already sitting at the island's port terminals, only about 400 will be moving Thursday, he said.
“The log jam is the freight movement on the island, which is simply not going well,” said Garamendi, who serves on the maritime transportation subcommittee. “It’s picking up a little bit each day, but the problem is on the land side, not the water side.”
About two-thirds of Puerto Rico’s imports typically come from foreign vessels and international ports, including six of the seven petroleum tankers that arrived within the last week, Garamendi said.
The Jones Act is crucial to maintaining the U.S. maritime industry and protecting national security, rather than to allow foreign vessels to move between U.S. ports along inland waterways such as the Mississippi River, he said.
“It would be a major national-security issue to open those waterways in the heart of America to foreign vessels, foreign crews, which would be impossible to maintain any level of security,” Garamendi said.
Trump, who plans to visit the island next week, said Wednesday that he was studying the matter, but the U.S. shipping industry was opposed to waiving the law.
Sarah Sanders, Trump’s spokeswoman, tweeted Thursday the Jones Act would be waived.
“It will go into effect immediately,” Sanders said.
Contributing: Nicole Gaudiano.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
b9uhpvCQCmdx7H7k
|
|
elections
|
The Nation
| 00
|
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire/
|
Bernie Sanders Wins New Hampshire
|
2020-02-12
|
John Nichols, Bill Bramhall, Jessica Loudis, Laila Lalami, Zoë Carpenter, Mychal Denzel Smith
|
Ready to fight back ? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week . You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support ███ ’ s journalism . You can read our Privacy Policy here . Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week .
Thank you for signing up . For more from ███ , check out our latest issue
Support Progressive Journalism ███ is reader supported : Chip in $ 10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter . ███ is reader supported : Chip in $ 10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter .
Fight Back ! Sign up for Take Action Now and we ’ ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week . You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support ███ ’ s journalism . You can read our Privacy Policy here . Sign up for Take Action Now and we ’ ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week .
Thank you for signing up . For more from ███ , check out our latest issue
Travel With ███ Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations , and explore the world with kindred spirits . Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations , and explore the world with kindred spirits .
Concord , New Hampshire—Two days before New Hampshire ’ s first-in-the-nation primary , Bernie Sanders challenged a crowd of young supporters gathered at Keene State College to lift him to victory : “ Let us win here in New Hampshire , let us win the Democratic nomination , let us defeat Donald Trump , let us transform this country , let us go forward together . ”
On Tuesday , New Hampshire did its part . Now , the senator must convince voters in upcoming caucus and primary states that he will make the rest of the pieces fall into place .
The Sanders campaign must go beyond “ Bernie Beats Trump ” sloganeering and deliver a comprehensive and convincing argument that the senator is the most electable contender .
It certainly helps to have won the first primary . With 95 percent of precincts reporting , the networks declared Sanders the winner , with 26 percent of the vote . Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg , who moved into the top tier of the competition after a tight finish with Sanders in Iowa , was in second with 24 percent . Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar surged into third place with 20 percent . It was a steep drop off to fourth place for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , who had 9.4 percent . Former vice president Joe Biden , who fled to the upcoming primary state of South Carolina before a “ victory party ” that wasn ’ t , finished fifth with 8.5 percent . Sanders , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar won delegates , Warren and Biden did not . MORE FROM John Nichols Trump Wants You to Ignore His Republican Challenger February 15 , 2020 The Senate Rejects Outsourcing War Powers to Trump February 14 , 2020 Climate Is on the Ballot in New Hampshire February 11 , 2020 Author page
The New Hampshire results were not so decisive as they were for Sanders when he swept the state ’ s 2016 primary . But they were still reassuring for the senator , who secured the first clear win of 2020 after a stumbling start in Iowa .
At the same time , however , New Hampshire handed Sanders a message about what matters most to primary voters in that state and beyond its borders . “ About 6 in 10 Democratic voters in exit polls in New Hampshire said they preferred a candidate who can beat President Trump , rather than one who agrees with them on the issues , ” explained a Washington Post analysis . Iowa entrance polls had that number at 61 percent .
Of the 63 percent of New Hampshire voters who said they want a candidate who can beat Trump , 28 percent backed Buttigieg , while 21 percent were Sanders voters and 20 percent were for Klobuchar . Biden and Warren each got 11 percent . Among the “ agrees with you on the issues ” crowd , Sanders was the big winner , with 39 percent , while Buttigieg was at 22 percent and no one else was above 11 percent .
But there ’ s a twist . While almost half of voters said Sanders was “ too liberal , ” overwhelming majorities of those same voters embraced the issues most closely identified with his campaign . The Post noted :
About 6 in 10 New Hampshire Democratic primary voters in preliminary exit polls said they support replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan for everyone… About two-thirds of Democratic voters in early exit polling said they support making tuition free at public colleges and universities…
If the issues that Sanders has been raising have such broad appeal , why then is he considered “ too liberal ” ? The answer has a lot to do with how he ’ s covered by media outlets that often go out of their way to portray Sanders , and to a lesser extent Warren , as “ too extreme. ” But it also has to do with the messaging that comes from the candidate and his campaign . “ Bernie Beats Trump ” can ’ t be just a motto on a button ; it has to be in his campaign ’ s DNA .
Klobuchar ’ s campaign has figured out that message , and it showed in New Hampshire . She finished the primary campaign telling crowds , “ I ’ ve won every race , every place , every time , all the way down to fourth grade. ” TV commentators relish lines like that , and the Minnesota senator is sure to enjoy plenty of good press as she heads toward contests in Nevada , South Carolina , and the 14 Super Tuesday states that vote March 3 .
It is unlikely that the media will be so friendly to Sanders . So it will fall to him to stake a claim on the “ electability ” label .
Make no mistake , he can stake that claim , as savvy Democrats have recognized . Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Mark Pocan , a Wisconsin Democratic who did not endorse in the 2016 Democratic contest between Sanders and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton , traveled to New Hampshire this year to make stops across the state on behalf of the Vermonter . “ I ’ m here to speak for the candidate who I know can defeat Donald Trump , ” Pocan told a crowd in Hudson . Arguing that Sanders is best positioned to win battleground states such as Michigan , Pennsylvania , and his native Wisconsin , Pocan says , “ The electability discussion is very different outside Washington . You don ’ t hear people dismissing Bernie Sanders . You hear people saying , ‘ You know , this is the guy who could beat Trump . ’ ”
Another key Sanders backer , US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told a crowd of 7,000 in Durham the night before the primary , “ Let ’ s talk about November ! ” said AOC . “ In every poll , Bernie beats Trump. ” Sanders does , indeed , beat Trump in national and state polls . The Real Clear Politics average of recent national surveys has Sanders at 49.3 to 45 for Trump , and a new Quinnipiac survey has Sanders opening up a wide 51-43 lead over the president . By comparison , the RCP average has Buttigieg at 46.1 to 45.1 for Trump . Klobuchar is up 46-43.4 , while Warren leads Trump 47.8 to 45 .
After spending hundreds of millions of dollars positioning him as a November prospect , Bloomberg beats Trump 49.8-43.8 in the RCP average . Biden ’ s numbers have also been solid against Trump , although his weak finish in New Hampshire will make it hard for the former vice president to maintain them .
Clearly , Sanders can make a credible argument for himself as an electable candidate . But he will have to sharpen that message going forward .
Coming out of New Hampshire , as the senator makes stops in Super Tuesday states such as North Carolina and Texas , he will find himself going head to head with contenders who argue that Sanders—as a democratic socialist with a bold agenda for Medicare for All , making higher education free for all , and addressing the climate crisis with a plan based on Green New Deal principles—is just too radical . Klobuchar , who raised more than $ 3 million in online donations after a strong performance in last Friday ’ s debate , has been selling herself as the candidate who can reach swing voters—with the message : “ If you are tired of the extremes in our politics and the noise and the nonsense , you have a home with me . ”
Pundits love that line . But it misses something fundamental about the 2020 race . Instead of building his campaign around appeals to a dwindling universe of “ swing ” voters , Sanders is talking about building the electorate out to include new voters—many of them young , many of them from low-income and historically disenfranchised communities . In Iowa and New Hampshire , he has been successful in attracting young voters . He also had notable success mobilizing Latino voters and diverse immigrant communities in Iowa . In the upcoming Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary , he ’ ll have to keep proving himself .
Actor and author John Cusack , who campaigned for Sanders in New Hampshire , argues that the candidate and his supporters must now amplify the message that his ideas represent the new mainstream . “ The ‘ center ’ has moved to Bernie on policy , ” says Cusack , who notes that all the candidates are discussing ideas that were popularized by Sanders in 2016 .
This amplification doesn ’ t involve abandoning positions or principles , as presidential contenders frequently do when they gain traction . Rather , Sanders must define his campaign as a new center where Democrats , independents , and millions of new voters have a place—in much the way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did as he crafted a sprawling “ New Deal Coalition ” that reached across what had been lines of division to welcome the great mass of Americans who wanted a new politics .
|
Ready to fight back? Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Fight Back! Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week. You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Travel With The Nation Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits. Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Concord, New Hampshire—Two days before New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary, Bernie Sanders challenged a crowd of young supporters gathered at Keene State College to lift him to victory: “Let us win here in New Hampshire, let us win the Democratic nomination, let us defeat Donald Trump, let us transform this country, let us go forward together.”
On Tuesday, New Hampshire did its part. Now, the senator must convince voters in upcoming caucus and primary states that he will make the rest of the pieces fall into place.
The Sanders campaign must go beyond “Bernie Beats Trump” sloganeering and deliver a comprehensive and convincing argument that the senator is the most electable contender.
It certainly helps to have won the first primary. With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the networks declared Sanders the winner, with 26 percent of the vote. Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, who moved into the top tier of the competition after a tight finish with Sanders in Iowa, was in second with 24 percent. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar surged into third place with 20 percent. It was a steep drop off to fourth place for Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who had 9.4 percent. Former vice president Joe Biden, who fled to the upcoming primary state of South Carolina before a “victory party” that wasn’t, finished fifth with 8.5 percent. Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar won delegates, Warren and Biden did not. MORE FROM John Nichols Trump Wants You to Ignore His Republican Challenger February 15, 2020 The Senate Rejects Outsourcing War Powers to Trump February 14, 2020 Climate Is on the Ballot in New Hampshire February 11, 2020 Author page
The New Hampshire results were not so decisive as they were for Sanders when he swept the state’s 2016 primary. But they were still reassuring for the senator, who secured the first clear win of 2020 after a stumbling start in Iowa.
At the same time, however, New Hampshire handed Sanders a message about what matters most to primary voters in that state and beyond its borders. “About 6 in 10 Democratic voters in exit polls in New Hampshire said they preferred a candidate who can beat President Trump, rather than one who agrees with them on the issues,” explained a Washington Post analysis. Iowa entrance polls had that number at 61 percent.
Of the 63 percent of New Hampshire voters who said they want a candidate who can beat Trump, 28 percent backed Buttigieg, while 21 percent were Sanders voters and 20 percent were for Klobuchar. Biden and Warren each got 11 percent. Among the “agrees with you on the issues” crowd, Sanders was the big winner, with 39 percent, while Buttigieg was at 22 percent and no one else was above 11 percent.
But there’s a twist. While almost half of voters said Sanders was “too liberal,” overwhelming majorities of those same voters embraced the issues most closely identified with his campaign. The Post noted:
About 6 in 10 New Hampshire Democratic primary voters in preliminary exit polls said they support replacing all private health insurance with a single government plan for everyone… About two-thirds of Democratic voters in early exit polling said they support making tuition free at public colleges and universities…
If the issues that Sanders has been raising have such broad appeal, why then is he considered “too liberal”? The answer has a lot to do with how he’s covered by media outlets that often go out of their way to portray Sanders, and to a lesser extent Warren, as “too extreme.” But it also has to do with the messaging that comes from the candidate and his campaign. “Bernie Beats Trump” can’t be just a motto on a button; it has to be in his campaign’s DNA.
Klobuchar’s campaign has figured out that message, and it showed in New Hampshire. She finished the primary campaign telling crowds, “I’ve won every race, every place, every time, all the way down to fourth grade.” TV commentators relish lines like that, and the Minnesota senator is sure to enjoy plenty of good press as she heads toward contests in Nevada, South Carolina, and the 14 Super Tuesday states that vote March 3.
It is unlikely that the media will be so friendly to Sanders. So it will fall to him to stake a claim on the “electability” label.
Make no mistake, he can stake that claim, as savvy Democrats have recognized. Congressional Progressive Caucus cochair Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin Democratic who did not endorse in the 2016 Democratic contest between Sanders and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, traveled to New Hampshire this year to make stops across the state on behalf of the Vermonter. “I’m here to speak for the candidate who I know can defeat Donald Trump,” Pocan told a crowd in Hudson. Arguing that Sanders is best positioned to win battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and his native Wisconsin, Pocan says, “The electability discussion is very different outside Washington. You don’t hear people dismissing Bernie Sanders. You hear people saying, ‘You know, this is the guy who could beat Trump.’”
Another key Sanders backer, US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told a crowd of 7,000 in Durham the night before the primary, “Let’s talk about November!” said AOC. “In every poll, Bernie beats Trump.” Sanders does, indeed, beat Trump in national and state polls. The Real Clear Politics average of recent national surveys has Sanders at 49.3 to 45 for Trump, and a new Quinnipiac survey has Sanders opening up a wide 51-43 lead over the president. By comparison, the RCP average has Buttigieg at 46.1 to 45.1 for Trump. Klobuchar is up 46-43.4, while Warren leads Trump 47.8 to 45.
After spending hundreds of millions of dollars positioning him as a November prospect, Bloomberg beats Trump 49.8-43.8 in the RCP average. Biden’s numbers have also been solid against Trump, although his weak finish in New Hampshire will make it hard for the former vice president to maintain them.
Clearly, Sanders can make a credible argument for himself as an electable candidate. But he will have to sharpen that message going forward.
Coming out of New Hampshire, as the senator makes stops in Super Tuesday states such as North Carolina and Texas, he will find himself going head to head with contenders who argue that Sanders—as a democratic socialist with a bold agenda for Medicare for All, making higher education free for all, and addressing the climate crisis with a plan based on Green New Deal principles—is just too radical. Klobuchar, who raised more than $3 million in online donations after a strong performance in last Friday’s debate, has been selling herself as the candidate who can reach swing voters—with the message: “If you are tired of the extremes in our politics and the noise and the nonsense, you have a home with me.”
Pundits love that line. But it misses something fundamental about the 2020 race. Instead of building his campaign around appeals to a dwindling universe of “swing” voters, Sanders is talking about building the electorate out to include new voters—many of them young, many of them from low-income and historically disenfranchised communities. In Iowa and New Hampshire, he has been successful in attracting young voters. He also had notable success mobilizing Latino voters and diverse immigrant communities in Iowa. In the upcoming Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary, he’ll have to keep proving himself.
Actor and author John Cusack, who campaigned for Sanders in New Hampshire, argues that the candidate and his supporters must now amplify the message that his ideas represent the new mainstream. “The ‘center’ has moved to Bernie on policy,” says Cusack, who notes that all the candidates are discussing ideas that were popularized by Sanders in 2016.
This amplification doesn’t involve abandoning positions or principles, as presidential contenders frequently do when they gain traction. Rather, Sanders must define his campaign as a new center where Democrats, independents, and millions of new voters have a place—in much the way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did as he crafted a sprawling “New Deal Coalition” that reached across what had been lines of division to welcome the great mass of Americans who wanted a new politics.
|
www.thenation.com
| 0left
|
ZtgB8QVAVZNGDLvv
|
politics
|
HotAir
| 22
|
https://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/05/will-hillary-face-another-liberal-revolt-in-iowa/
|
Will Hillary face another liberal revolt in Iowa?
|
2015-01-05
|
Noah Rothman, Ed Morrissey, John Sexton, Jazz Shaw, Karen Townsend
|
It was the Hawkeye State that scuttled Hillary Clinton ’ s presidential ambitions in 2008 . Iowa ’ s energetic caucus-goers were not moved by Clinton ’ s self-professed qualities of electability and inevitability , and they voted for both Barack Obama and John Edwards over the former first lady . Clinton learned that she would have to earn her party ’ s nomination that night , and the primary campaign that followed the Iowa caucuses would prove to be an intensely fought one . It was a fight , however , from which she was not fated to emerge victorious .
As Clinton is preparing to mount a new campaign for the presidency , she faces a predicament similar to the one she faced six years ago . In Iowa , all the energy is behind non-establishment ideals ( as opposed to flesh and blood candidates ) , and the caucus system rewards enthusiasm and organization over raw support . While another upset seems unlikely , the ingredients that make for a political surprise are present .
“ Interviews with more than half of Democratic chiefs in Iowa ’ s 99 counties show a state party leadership so far reluctant to coalesce behind Mrs. Clinton . County Democratic officials also voiced qualms about Mrs. Clinton ’ s ability to win a general election and her fundraising ties to Wall Street firms and corporations , which remain a target of liberal ire , ” read a report in Monday ’ s Wall Street Journal that should concern Team Hillary .
Many county officials said they would like to see senators including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont enter the race , though they were split over whether any could gain traction and overtake Mrs. Clinton . “ My heart wouldn ’ t be in it for Hillary to the extent that it might be if it was a different candidate , ” said Jennifer Herrington , chair of the Page County Democrats in southwest Iowa . “ I admire Hillary , she ’ d be a great president , but you know , she isn ’ t my first choice I guess . ”
In many ways , Iowa ’ s Democratic electorate mirrors its Republican counterpart . 2012 proved that there are a sizable number of GOP voters in Iowa who are happy to back the contender dubbed most electable in spite of the pejorative label “ establishment. ” Mitt Romney came in an extraordinarily narrow second place behind former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum , and for much of the evening it looked like Romney had shocked the political world by emerging from Iowa victorious . But for all of Romney ’ s 24.5 percent of the Iowa vote , another three-quarters backed a non-establishment candidate . It was a narrow loss that shattered Romney ’ s own cultivated sense of inevitability , and one which fueled a fierce opposition to his candidacy that continued until May .
Even a narrow loss for Clinton in Iowa could spell disaster for her second presidential bid , but that prospect seems remote . You can ’ t lose to nobody , and the Clinton machine has , thus far , been able to fend off top-tier challengers . But how long can Democratic politicians with aspirations for higher office ignore the Siren Song of Iowa ’ s county-level party chairs crying out for a liberal champion ? Discontent with Clinton is palpable , and her support in the polls could be an artificial result of standing alone on the presidential stage .
But Democrats who want to see Clinton challenged in a primary are also smartly laying the foundations to blame her for a 2016 defeat if a challenge does not materialize . According to The Journal , local Democrats note that the energy , donations , and political infrastructure acquired during a contested primary also become critical tools to use in the general election . Without those , the Democratic nominee is likely to be at a disadvantage when the vibrant and ideologically diverse GOP concludes its primary contest . Could appeals like these prompt Clinton to rein in her loyal soldiers ? Some of these allies are apparently so trigger happy that , simply for displaying the gall to consider a likely doomed challenge to Clinton , they would seek to impugn one-term Sen. Jim Webb for having penned mildly racy content in his novels .
While the argument that a party that undergoes a contested primary is a stronger party is a valid contention , Clinton is unlikely to welcome a serious challenge . 2008 ’ s memories from Iowa are too fresh . Anti-Clinton forces , too , seem resigned . Those disaffected liberals who are prepared to accept her coronation are also preparing to consign the name Clinton to history ’ s dishonorable scrap piles should she lose . It would be a bitter irony that the name Clinton , one which for the last 20 years has been associated with reviving the moribund Democratic brand , might soon become synonymous with its destruction .
|
It was the Hawkeye State that scuttled Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions in 2008. Iowa’s energetic caucus-goers were not moved by Clinton’s self-professed qualities of electability and inevitability, and they voted for both Barack Obama and John Edwards over the former first lady. Clinton learned that she would have to earn her party’s nomination that night, and the primary campaign that followed the Iowa caucuses would prove to be an intensely fought one. It was a fight, however, from which she was not fated to emerge victorious.
As Clinton is preparing to mount a new campaign for the presidency, she faces a predicament similar to the one she faced six years ago. In Iowa, all the energy is behind non-establishment ideals (as opposed to flesh and blood candidates), and the caucus system rewards enthusiasm and organization over raw support. While another upset seems unlikely, the ingredients that make for a political surprise are present.
“Interviews with more than half of Democratic chiefs in Iowa’s 99 counties show a state party leadership so far reluctant to coalesce behind Mrs. Clinton. County Democratic officials also voiced qualms about Mrs. Clinton’s ability to win a general election and her fundraising ties to Wall Street firms and corporations, which remain a target of liberal ire,” read a report in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that should concern Team Hillary.
Many county officials said they would like to see senators including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont enter the race, though they were split over whether any could gain traction and overtake Mrs. Clinton. “My heart wouldn’t be in it for Hillary to the extent that it might be if it was a different candidate,” said Jennifer Herrington, chair of the Page County Democrats in southwest Iowa. “I admire Hillary, she’d be a great president, but you know, she isn’t my first choice I guess.”
In many ways, Iowa’s Democratic electorate mirrors its Republican counterpart. 2012 proved that there are a sizable number of GOP voters in Iowa who are happy to back the contender dubbed most electable in spite of the pejorative label “establishment.” Mitt Romney came in an extraordinarily narrow second place behind former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and for much of the evening it looked like Romney had shocked the political world by emerging from Iowa victorious. But for all of Romney’s 24.5 percent of the Iowa vote, another three-quarters backed a non-establishment candidate. It was a narrow loss that shattered Romney’s own cultivated sense of inevitability, and one which fueled a fierce opposition to his candidacy that continued until May.
Even a narrow loss for Clinton in Iowa could spell disaster for her second presidential bid, but that prospect seems remote. You can’t lose to nobody, and the Clinton machine has, thus far, been able to fend off top-tier challengers. But how long can Democratic politicians with aspirations for higher office ignore the Siren Song of Iowa’s county-level party chairs crying out for a liberal champion? Discontent with Clinton is palpable, and her support in the polls could be an artificial result of standing alone on the presidential stage.
But Democrats who want to see Clinton challenged in a primary are also smartly laying the foundations to blame her for a 2016 defeat if a challenge does not materialize. According to The Journal, local Democrats note that the energy, donations, and political infrastructure acquired during a contested primary also become critical tools to use in the general election. Without those, the Democratic nominee is likely to be at a disadvantage when the vibrant and ideologically diverse GOP concludes its primary contest. Could appeals like these prompt Clinton to rein in her loyal soldiers? Some of these allies are apparently so trigger happy that, simply for displaying the gall to consider a likely doomed challenge to Clinton, they would seek to impugn one-term Sen. Jim Webb for having penned mildly racy content in his novels.
While the argument that a party that undergoes a contested primary is a stronger party is a valid contention, Clinton is unlikely to welcome a serious challenge. 2008’s memories from Iowa are too fresh. Anti-Clinton forces, too, seem resigned. Those disaffected liberals who are prepared to accept her coronation are also preparing to consign the name Clinton to history’s dishonorable scrap piles should she lose. It would be a bitter irony that the name Clinton, one which for the last 20 years has been associated with reviving the moribund Democratic brand, might soon become synonymous with its destruction.
|
www.hotair.com
| 1right
|
q1sDdjdTtUe5vQs5
|
taxes
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/13/lawmakers-urge-compromise-but-refuse-to-budge-from/
|
Lawmakers urge compromise, but refuse to budge from ‘cliff’
|
2012-11-13
|
Stephen Dinan
|
Republicans and Democrats returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday pledging to try to reach common ground — but as each side reinforced its pre-election battle lines , last week ’ s results appear to have shifted little other than the rhetoric .
Majority Leader Harry Reid , Nevada Democrat , opened the Senate ’ s lame-duck session pleading for the chance to rescue the 112th Congress from being the most lethargic on record .
He said the looming “ fiscal cliff ” depends on better cooperation . In his opening bid , he told Republicans in the House to quickly pass tax legislation that would mean a rate increase for the wealthy , but keep rates low for everyone else .
But Republicans have rejected that plan repeatedly , and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , Kentucky Republican , instead said it was up to President Obama to make overtures to Republicans now that he has secured election to a second term .
The White House , though , was in no mood to break from its pre-election posture . Press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama still will veto any bill that doesn ’ t include a tax-rate increase on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans , and shot down other proposals , such as cutting out loopholes but not raising the rates themselves , as “ hypotheticals . ”
“ What I can tell you is that the president will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts , ” Mr. Carney said .
Congress had been in recess for most of the past two months , and lawmakers watched with bemusement as their colleagues dug in again .
“ People are stuck in suspended animation , ” said Sen. Ben Nelson , a Nebraska Democrat who is retiring at the end of this year . “ My hope is that as everybody adjusts to the outcome of the election and looks to their positions that maybe then action will occur . But if it doesn ’ t , then this country is stuck in neutral . But the problem with being stuck is neutral is that it is actually reverse . ”
Mr. Nelson said he doesn ’ t want to talk about raising more tax revenues until he has seen more spending cuts put on the table .
Republicans say they are willing to break with their past stance and allow the government to collect more revenue — though for now , they don ’ t appear to be talking about new direct money from higher taxes .
Instead , they propose a streamlined tax code , with lower rates and fewer deductions , which they say will expand the economy . With a better economy , they say , the government can take in more money .
However , budget analysts have said the hole is so deep that the government can not grow its way out of the problem , and will need either deep spending cuts , significant tax increases or a combination of the two in order to bring the deficit to manageable levels .
Mr. Obama and Democrats have said they need to see tax rates rise , while Republicans have said entitlement programs must face spending cuts .
But both sides are also under enormous pressure to resist each other ’ s demands . On Tuesday , Mr. Obama met with liberal leaders at the White House and they urged him to reject any deal that would cut Social Security or Medicare .
“ The truth is America does not face an ‘ entitlement crisis. ’ We should not be cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to put our fiscal house in order , ” said Max Richtman , president of the National Committee to Protect Social Security & Medicare .
The so-called fiscal cliff hits early next year . The Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1 , and $ 110 billion in automatic spending cuts take effect Jan. 2 as a result of last year ’ s debt deal . The tax increases would apply across the board , while the spending cuts would be divided equally between defense and domestic appropriations .
Together , they would plunge the economy into a short but sharp recession — though the tax increases and spending cuts also would reduce the budget deficit dramatically in 2013 , and would produce a stronger economy by the end of the decade , according to the Congressional Budget Office .
Some Democrats have suggested that their party should let the fiscal cliff hit and then negotiate from a position of strength when Democrats get additional members early next year . They gained seats last week in both chambers , though they will hold a majority only in the Senate .
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , California Democrat , flatly rejected that Tuesday .
“ I want you to be disabused of any notion that there ’ s any widespread thought that it would be a good thing for our country for us to go over the cliff , ” she told reporters .
Getting there , however , will take a deal — which has been elusive for the past 18 months .
Mr. Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday to start negotiations anew .
In one ominous sign , the Senate picked up right where it left off in September , fighting over a bill to open more federal lands to fishing and hunting .
Mr. Reid used procedural tactics to lock out Republican amendments , saying the GOP is threatening to delay the bill , as it did with many of Democrats ’ priorities over the past two years .
“ I can ’ t imagine why we ’ re still fighting the battles of the last election , ” he said .
But Republicans say Mr. Reid is pushing a partisan agenda and in restricting amendments he is refusing to allow the freewheeling debate the Senate usually enjoys .
|
Republicans and Democrats returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday pledging to try to reach common ground — but as each side reinforced its pre-election battle lines, last week’s results appear to have shifted little other than the rhetoric.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, opened the Senate’s lame-duck session pleading for the chance to rescue the 112th Congress from being the most lethargic on record.
He said the looming “fiscal cliff” depends on better cooperation. In his opening bid, he told Republicans in the House to quickly pass tax legislation that would mean a rate increase for the wealthy, but keep rates low for everyone else.
But Republicans have rejected that plan repeatedly, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, instead said it was up to President Obama to make overtures to Republicans now that he has secured election to a second term.
“It’s the president’s move,” Mr. McConnell said flatly.
The White House, though, was in no mood to break from its pre-election posture. Press secretary Jay Carney said Mr. Obama still will veto any bill that doesn’t include a tax-rate increase on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, and shot down other proposals, such as cutting out loopholes but not raising the rates themselves, as “hypotheticals.”
“What I can tell you is that the president will not sign a bill that extends tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts,” Mr. Carney said.
Congress had been in recess for most of the past two months, and lawmakers watched with bemusement as their colleagues dug in again.
“People are stuck in suspended animation,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who is retiring at the end of this year. “My hope is that as everybody adjusts to the outcome of the election and looks to their positions that maybe then action will occur. But if it doesn’t, then this country is stuck in neutral. But the problem with being stuck is neutral is that it is actually reverse.”
Mr. Nelson said he doesn’t want to talk about raising more tax revenues until he has seen more spending cuts put on the table.
Republicans say they are willing to break with their past stance and allow the government to collect more revenue — though for now, they don’t appear to be talking about new direct money from higher taxes.
Instead, they propose a streamlined tax code, with lower rates and fewer deductions, which they say will expand the economy. With a better economy, they say, the government can take in more money.
However, budget analysts have said the hole is so deep that the government cannot grow its way out of the problem, and will need either deep spending cuts, significant tax increases or a combination of the two in order to bring the deficit to manageable levels.
All sides have drawn some lines.
Mr. Obama and Democrats have said they need to see tax rates rise, while Republicans have said entitlement programs must face spending cuts.
But both sides are also under enormous pressure to resist each other’s demands. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama met with liberal leaders at the White House and they urged him to reject any deal that would cut Social Security or Medicare.
“The truth is America does not face an ‘entitlement crisis.’ We should not be cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to put our fiscal house in order,” said Max Richtman, president of the National Committee to Protect Social Security & Medicare.
The so-called fiscal cliff hits early next year. The Bush-era tax cuts expire Jan. 1, and $110 billion in automatic spending cuts take effect Jan. 2 as a result of last year’s debt deal. The tax increases would apply across the board, while the spending cuts would be divided equally between defense and domestic appropriations.
Together, they would plunge the economy into a short but sharp recession — though the tax increases and spending cuts also would reduce the budget deficit dramatically in 2013, and would produce a stronger economy by the end of the decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Some Democrats have suggested that their party should let the fiscal cliff hit and then negotiate from a position of strength when Democrats get additional members early next year. They gained seats last week in both chambers, though they will hold a majority only in the Senate.
But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, flatly rejected that Tuesday.
“I want you to be disabused of any notion that there’s any widespread thought that it would be a good thing for our country for us to go over the cliff,” she told reporters.
Getting there, however, will take a deal — which has been elusive for the past 18 months.
Mr. Obama has invited congressional leaders to the White House on Friday to start negotiations anew.
But signs of calcification already are setting in.
In one ominous sign, the Senate picked up right where it left off in September, fighting over a bill to open more federal lands to fishing and hunting.
Mr. Reid used procedural tactics to lock out Republican amendments, saying the GOP is threatening to delay the bill, as it did with many of Democrats’ priorities over the past two years.
“I can’t imagine why we’re still fighting the battles of the last election,” he said.
But Republicans say Mr. Reid is pushing a partisan agenda and in restricting amendments he is refusing to allow the freewheeling debate the Senate usually enjoys.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
aFfg4lVURBBOU79Q
|
general_news
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/south-carolina-flooding/index.html
|
South Carolina flooding: dams breached, more trouble ahead
|
2015-10-06
|
Holly Yan, Ray Sanchez
|
( CNN ) The rain may have stopped , but South Carolina is grappling with a host of new concerns . Dam breaks . Billions of dollars in damage . And rivers that still have n't crested .
`` We still have to be cautious , '' Gov . Nikki Haley told reporters on Tuesday afternoon . `` The next 36 to 48 hours are going to be a time that we need to continue to be careful . ''
Haley declined to provide an estimated cost of the damage -- which she called `` disturbing '' -- but said state and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials were making assessments .
`` It 's hard to look at the loss we 're going to have , '' she said . `` This could be any amount of dollars . ''
More than 400,000 state residents were under a `` boil water advisory '' affecting about 16 water systems , said Jim Beasley , a spokesman for the S.C . Emergency Response Team .
Here 's the latest on the mammoth flooding in the region :
At least 11 dams have failed in South Carolina since Saturday , the state 's Emergency Management Division said . Another 35 dams were being monitored .
One failure , of the Overcreek Bridge dam in Richland County 's Forest Acres , sent a torrent of floodwater raging downstream and forced evacuations near Columbia .
MANDATORY EVACUATION : OVERCREEK RESIDENTS LIVING BETWEEN FOREST DR. & PERCIVAL RD . IN FOREST ACRES — SCEMD ( @ SCEMD ) October 5 , 2015
Officials allowed water to breach at least one other dam , also in Richland County . Officials conduct these controlled breaches `` to prevent a much larger incident and a much larger amount of water escaping from the dam , '' emergency management spokesman Derrec Becker said .
Haley said National Guard members were helping with sandbagging operations and other mitigation efforts .
So far , at least 17 people have died in weather-related incidents : 15 in South Carolina and two in North Carolina .
At least nine people drowned and six died in traffic accidents , South Carolina 's Department of Public Safety said .
North Carolina reported two deaths from traffic accidents , in Cumberland and Jackson counties , a state emergency management spokeswoman said .
Haley said there had been 175 water rescues so far in South Carolina , and more than 800 people were temporarily housed in shelters .
More than 70 miles of Interstate 95 in the state remained closed , with five to eight bridges still awaiting structural checks , she said .
Of all the scenes of items drifting away in the flooding , perhaps none appeared as dramatic as a casket unearthed from a cemetery .
Wayne Reeves , pastor of New Life Ministries in Summerville , was in the middle of an interview when he saw the casket float away .
So he headed into the waist-deep floodwater to retrieve it .
This was the scene an hour ago as a SC pastor pushed an unearthed casket out of the flood waters @ WCBD pic.twitter.com/qLVe3q4i5l — Matt Alba ( @ mattalbaWCBD ) October 5 , 2015
`` That 's somebody 's family out there , '' he told CNN affiliate WCBD-TV . `` That 's ( a ) family suffering . That 's their family there that popped up from under the ground . And I think it 's the human thing to do . ''
The casket , still adorned with white and pink flowers , carried the remains of a woman buried in May , WCBD said . Another casket , that of the woman 's husband , also drifted away , but Dorchester County sheriff 's officials later recovered it .
As it turned out , the woman 's family was watching nearby as Reeves went into the water .
`` This family do n't want to sit on the edge of this road all night long watching their family members bob in the water like that , '' the pastor told WCBD .
`` If that was my mom or my dad , I 'd walk through hell and high water . And today it happened to be high water . ''
Some Columbia residents left their homes as victims of flooding . They returned to find their homes looted .
On Sunday , an apparent dam breach led to the flooding of the Willow Creek Apartments , property manager Heather Lovell told CNN affiliate WACH-TV
So rescue crews in boats came to the complex and helped residents to safety .
On Monday , Pamela Courts returned to her apartment and found not just flood damage but signs of theft .
`` Overnight , we had a break-in , so whatever was upstairs they came and took : TVs , jewelry , everything , '' she told WACH .
Resident Juamaame Evins told the affiliate he was trying to stay positive despite the back-to-back hardships .
`` Even though we lost everything and stuff got stolen , we can rebuild together and help each other and be each other 's backbones and carry each other through this time because we need each other , '' he said .
The flooding is far from over . Rivers might not crest for another two weeks , CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said .
And the mayor of Columbia , who has said he believes damage `` will probably be in the billions of dollars , '' is bracing for more trouble .
`` We are n't close to being out of the woods , '' Mayor Steve Benjamin said Tuesday , adding that even more dams could be in danger of breaking or being topped by water . `` We still expect the water to start coming down from the Upstate , coming downhill to the Midlands . ''
The situation is the result of a weather system that funneled tropical moisture into South Carolina last week and refused to move on , Myers said .
`` It was a garden hose that just kept pouring ashore in one spot , and that spot was South Carolina , '' he said .
Flooding conditions could force the South Carolina Gamecocks to move Saturday 's game against Louisiana State University to Baton Rouge , University of South Carolina Athletics Director Ray Tanner said . The school hopes to make a decision in the next day or two .
The University of South Carolina has canceled classes through Friday , saying that resuming normal operations for its 34,000 students and 6,000 faculty would `` place an undue burden on a recovering infrastructure in the city . ''
|
(CNN) The rain may have stopped, but South Carolina is grappling with a host of new concerns. Dam breaks. Billions of dollars in damage. And rivers that still haven't crested.
"We still have to be cautious," Gov. Nikki Haley told reporters on Tuesday afternoon. "The next 36 to 48 hours are going to be a time that we need to continue to be careful."
Haley declined to provide an estimated cost of the damage -- which she called "disturbing" -- but said state and Federal Emergency Management Agency officials were making assessments.
"It's hard to look at the loss we're going to have," she said. "This could be any amount of dollars."
More than 400,000 state residents were under a "boil water advisory" affecting about 16 water systems, said Jim Beasley, a spokesman for the S.C. Emergency Response Team.
Here's the latest on the mammoth flooding in the region:
Dam breaks
At least 11 dams have failed in South Carolina since Saturday, the state's Emergency Management Division said. Another 35 dams were being monitored.
One failure, of the Overcreek Bridge dam in Richland County's Forest Acres, sent a torrent of floodwater raging downstream and forced evacuations near Columbia.
MANDATORY EVACUATION: OVERCREEK RESIDENTS LIVING BETWEEN FOREST DR. & PERCIVAL RD. IN FOREST ACRES — SCEMD (@SCEMD) October 5, 2015
Officials allowed water to breach at least one other dam, also in Richland County. Officials conduct these controlled breaches "to prevent a much larger incident and a much larger amount of water escaping from the dam," emergency management spokesman Derrec Becker said.
Haley said National Guard members were helping with sandbagging operations and other mitigation efforts.
Death toll rises
Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years The last 30 years have brought plenty of deadly and destructive storms to the United States, including 2005's Hurricane Katrina (here, police and others use boats to rescue people in a flooded New Orleans neighborhood). Click through the gallery to see more photos of disastrous hurricanes over the last three decades, and check out this video to find out which states have been hit the most often. Hide Caption 1 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 2 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Sandy, 2012: It technically lost its hurricane status shortly before striking New Jersey, but its gigantic size -- it covered 1.8 million square miles at landfall -- sent devastating storm surges to the coast. Here, a man looks for pieces of his beach house after It technically lost its hurricane status shortly before striking New Jersey, but its gigantic size -- it covered 1.8 million square miles at landfall -- sent devastating storm surges to the coast. Here, a man looks for pieces of his beach house after Sandy demolished it in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. With 72 directly killed in eight states, this was the most deadly tropical cyclone outside the South since 1972's Hurricane Agnes. At least 650,000 U.S. homes were damaged or destroyed in the U.S. Hide Caption 3 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 4 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Irene, 2011: After hitting North Carolina, After hitting North Carolina, Irene did most of its damage in the way of heavy rain and flooding in New York and New England. In southern Vermont alone, nearly 2,400 roads were damaged or destroyed, NOAA says. Here, Tony Carr carries a TV set September 1 from his home, which was destroyed by Irene-related floods in Prattsville, New York. Hide Caption 5 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 6 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Ike, 2008: After killing scores in the Caribbean, Ike turned to Texas, sending storm surges that leveled homes on Galveston Island. It's remnants did extensive damage as far north as Ohio, where 2.6 million people lost power. Here, an Air Force Reserve pararescueman scans the ravaged Texas landscape shortly after Ike. Hide Caption 7 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 8 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Katrina, 2005: Unforgettable Unforgettable Katrina -- the costliest hurricane and one of the five deadliest to hit the United States, according to NOAA -- devastated the Gulf Coast days after crossing Florida. Flooding destroyed thousands of homes in the New Orleans area alone; storm surges wiped out coastal towns in Mississippi. Here, people stand stranded on a roof in New Orleans. Hide Caption 9 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 10 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Rita, 2005: Just a month after Katrina, : Just a month after Katrina, Hurricane Rita piled on, slamming into the Louisiana coast. Wind, rain and tornadoes left billions in damages from eastern Texas to Alabama. Here, surging water from Rita reach the streets of New Orleans' Ninth Ward, topping a levee that had just been patched after Katrina damaged it. Hide Caption 11 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 12 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Wilma, 2005: The year might be remembered for the one-two punch of Katrina and Rita, but : The year might be remembered for the one-two punch of Katrina and Rita, but Wilma , which hit Florida after devastating Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, would become (as of May 2015) the U.S.'s fifth most costly cyclone. Here, workers remove debris from a Miami flower and plant shop on October 28. Millions were without power in the state. Hide Caption 13 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 14 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Beta, 2005: Beta wasn't one of the most devastating cyclones, but we include it here to make a point: There were so many named storms in the Atlantic in 2005 that forecasters' pre-approved 21-name list for the year was exhausted. So they went to the Greek alphabet six times, including for Hurricane Beta, which directly hit part of Nicaragua. Here, people wade through a street flooded by Beta in Honduras on October 30. Hide Caption 15 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 16 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Ivan, 2004: This year also was hurricane-heavy, punctuated by : This year also was hurricane-heavy, punctuated by Ivan , a storm with two lives. First, it killed dozens in the Caribbean and slammed into Alabama. Later, its remnants went back over Florida from the Atlantic and re-formed in the Gulf as a tropical storm, making another landfall in southwestern Louisiana. It spawned more than 100 tornadoes, one of the factors that left considerable damage across the Southeast and some mid-Atlantic states. Here, a woman walks over debris as she visits her home, destroyed by Ivan, in Perdido Key, Florida, on September 20. Hide Caption 17 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 18 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Floyd, 1999: Deadly flooding, especially in North Carolina, was one of Floyd's main legacies. Parts of eastern North Carolina and Virginia received 15 to 20 inches of rain, and flooding led to the razing of thousands of buildings -- most of them homes -- from North Carolina to New Jersey. At the time, it was the deadliest U.S. hurricane since 1972. Here,a beach house, severely damaged by Floyd, sits crumbled sits in the sand on the Oak Island town of Long Beach, North Carolina, on November 10. Hide Caption 19 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 20 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Andrew, 1992: Andrew blasted its way across south Florida on August 24 as a Category 4 with peak gusts measured at 164 mph. After raking entire neighborhoods in an around Homestead, it moved across the Gulf to hit Louisiana as a Category 3. It was responsible for 23 U.S. deaths and three in the Bahamas. Here, a sailboat sits on a sidewalk at Dinner Key in Miami after Andrew washed it ashore. Hide Caption 21 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hide Caption 22 of 23 Photos: Devastating hurricanes of the last 30 years Hugo, 1989: Hugo ripped through the Carolinas, starting with Charleston, South Carolina, on September 22 as a Category 4 after raking the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. Here, a man stands in a destroyed house on September 27 in South Carolina. Hide Caption 23 of 23
So far, at least 17 people have died in weather-related incidents: 15 in South Carolina and two in North Carolina.
At least nine people drowned and six died in traffic accidents, South Carolina's Department of Public Safety said.
North Carolina reported two deaths from traffic accidents, in Cumberland and Jackson counties, a state emergency management spokeswoman said.
Haley said there had been 175 water rescues so far in South Carolina, and more than 800 people were temporarily housed in shelters.
More than 70 miles of Interstate 95 in the state remained closed, with five to eight bridges still awaiting structural checks, she said.
Caskets float away
Of all the scenes of items drifting away in the flooding, perhaps none appeared as dramatic as a casket unearthed from a cemetery.
Wayne Reeves, pastor of New Life Ministries in Summerville, was in the middle of an interview when he saw the casket float away.
So he headed into the waist-deep floodwater to retrieve it.
This was the scene an hour ago as a SC pastor pushed an unearthed casket out of the flood waters @WCBD pic.twitter.com/qLVe3q4i5l — Matt Alba (@mattalbaWCBD) October 5, 2015
"That's somebody's family out there," he told CNN affiliate WCBD-TV . "That's (a) family suffering. That's their family there that popped up from under the ground. And I think it's the human thing to do."
The casket, still adorned with white and pink flowers, carried the remains of a woman buried in May, WCBD said. Another casket, that of the woman's husband, also drifted away, but Dorchester County sheriff's officials later recovered it.
As it turned out, the woman's family was watching nearby as Reeves went into the water.
"This family don't want to sit on the edge of this road all night long watching their family members bob in the water like that," the pastor told WCBD.
"If that was my mom or my dad, I'd walk through hell and high water. And today it happened to be high water."
Apartments looted
Some Columbia residents left their homes as victims of flooding. They returned to find their homes looted.
Photos: Storms flood East Coast Photos: Storms flood East Coast This aerial photo shows flooding around Aberdeen Country Club in Longs, South Carolina, on Tuesday, October 6. South Carolina experienced record rainfall amounts over the weekend, forcing hundreds of evacuations and rescues. Hide Caption 1 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A woman uses her boat to check on neighbors and see if they want to evacuate in Summerville, South Carolina, on Monday, October 5. Hide Caption 2 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Police officers carry a woman to dry land after she was rescued from her home in the St. Andrews area of Columbia, South Carolina, on October 5. Hide Caption 3 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Neighbors and friends help clean up a home affected by flooding in Columbia on October 5. Hide Caption 4 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Five-month-old Jeremiah Odum, left, and his 2-year-old brother, Braxton Odum, nap on a cot in a high school gymnasium being used as a Red Cross shelter for flood evacuees in Rowesville, South Carolina, on October 5. Hide Caption 5 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Rescue teams wait for an emergency vehicle in the Forest Acres neighborhood of Columbia on Monday, October 5. Hide Caption 6 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast An oil sheen floats atop floodwater in a subdivision west of the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina, on October 5. Hide Caption 7 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A dog is cut off from its home in Florence, South Carolina, on October 5. Florence is about 85 miles east of the capital city, Columbia. Hide Caption 8 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Hunter Baker drives his boat down a flooded East Black Creek Road to his home following heavy rains in Florence on October 5. Hide Caption 9 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A man makes his way through floodwaters in the parking lot of The Citadel Beach Club on Isle of Palms, South Carolina, on October 5. Charleston and surrounding areas are still struggling with flooding, as are areas 100 miles inland. Hide Caption 10 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Members of Norfolk Fire-Rescue pull a man from his car in Norfolk, Virginia, on Sunday, October 4. Hide Caption 11 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast David Linnen takes a yard rake to clear drains in front of the Winyah Apartments in Georgetown, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 12 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Charlene Stennis is escorted to safety after her son was rescued from a stranded vehicle during the heavy rains on October 4 in Columbia, South Carolina. Hide Caption 13 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast The roof of a submerged vehicle peeks above the flood waters on October 4 in Columbia, South Carolina. Hide Caption 14 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Tripp Adams, 8, walks through flood waters in Georgetown, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 15 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A person walks through the flooded Market and Water streets in downtown Wilmington, North Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 16 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Neighbors watch employees with the city of Isle of Palms, South Carolina, cut a live oak tree that fell after heavy rain on October 4. Hide Caption 17 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A man watches as a vehicle tries to navigate flood waters in Florence, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 18 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Two men row a boat on a flooded street in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 19 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Police block an entrance to Highway 17 in Charleston, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 20 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A man paddles up to a flooded store in Columbia, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 21 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A firefighter walks down a flooded street in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on October 4. Hide Caption 22 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A worker cleans a drain on a flooded street in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on Saturday, October 3. Hide Caption 23 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A utility worker examines the damage to a home Charlotte, North Carolina, on October 3. Hide Caption 24 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A motorist turns back as floodwater rises in Harrisburg, North Carolina, on October 3. Hide Caption 25 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A woman walks through One City Plaza in downtown Greenville, South Carolina, as rain and wind pound the area on October 3. Hide Caption 26 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Bob Ashbaugh, from Pittsburgh, takes video of waves crashing over homes at risk from erosion during high tide in Isle of Palms, South Carolina, on October 3. Hide Caption 27 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Stuart Tait ties together wood after his house collapsed into an inlet on Grassy Sound during high tide on October 3 north of North Wildwood, New Jersey. Hide Caption 28 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Will Cunningham, 14, rides his bike down Station 29 on Sullivan's Island, South Carolina, ahead of his paddling friend Patrick Kelly, 14, on October 3. Hide Caption 29 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Paul Banker paddles a kayak as his wife, Wink Banker, takes photos on a flooded street in Charleston, South Carolina, on October 3. Hide Caption 30 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Up to 4 inches of rain could strike the waterfront between Georgia and New Jersey. Motorists deal with the conditions on Friday, October 2, in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. Hide Caption 31 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Workers install a flood barrier at the entrance to the Market Pavilion Hotel in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, on Friday, October 2. Parts of the South Carolina coast braced for likely flooding. Hide Caption 32 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Flooding engulfs a neighborhood in the Strathmere section of Upper Township, New Jersey, on October 2. Hide Caption 33 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Sandbags surround a building in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. Hide Caption 34 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast A man closes a storefront on October 2 in Seaside Heights, New Jersey. Hide Caption 35 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Floodwater rises along Central Avenue in Sea Isle City, New Jersey, on October 2. Hide Caption 36 of 37 Photos: Storms flood East Coast Cars negotiate flooded streets on October 2 in Midland Beach on Staten Island, New York. Hide Caption 37 of 37
On Sunday, an apparent dam breach led to the flooding of the Willow Creek Apartments, property manager Heather Lovell told CNN affiliate WACH-TV
So rescue crews in boats came to the complex and helped residents to safety.
On Monday, Pamela Courts returned to her apartment and found not just flood damage but signs of theft.
"Overnight, we had a break-in, so whatever was upstairs they came and took: TVs, jewelry, everything," she told WACH.
Resident Juamaame Evins told the affiliate he was trying to stay positive despite the back-to-back hardships.
"Even though we lost everything and stuff got stolen, we can rebuild together and help each other and be each other's backbones and carry each other through this time because we need each other," he said.
Rivers still rising
The flooding is far from over. Rivers might not crest for another two weeks, CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said.
And the mayor of Columbia, who has said he believes damage "will probably be in the billions of dollars," is bracing for more trouble.
"We aren't close to being out of the woods," Mayor Steve Benjamin said Tuesday, adding that even more dams could be in danger of breaking or being topped by water. "We still expect the water to start coming down from the Upstate, coming downhill to the Midlands."
The situation is the result of a weather system that funneled tropical moisture into South Carolina last week and refused to move on, Myers said.
"It was a garden hose that just kept pouring ashore in one spot, and that spot was South Carolina," he said.
Flooding conditions could force the South Carolina Gamecocks to move Saturday's game against Louisiana State University to Baton Rouge, University of South Carolina Athletics Director Ray Tanner said. The school hopes to make a decision in the next day or two.
The University of South Carolina has canceled classes through Friday, saying that resuming normal operations for its 34,000 students and 6,000 faculty would "place an undue burden on a recovering infrastructure in the city."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
f7E30bjKr1AJViLr
|
veterans_affairs
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-defends-VA-accountability/2014/08/26/id/591007/
|
Obama Promises 'Culture of Accountability' at VA Hospitals
|
2014-08-26
|
Jim Kuhnhenn
|
His standing with veterans damaged by scandal , President Barack Obama on Tuesday defended his administration 's response to Veterans Affairs lapses that delayed health care for thousands of former service members , but conceded more needed to be done to regain their trust .
His appearance also had deep political overtones in a state where the Democratic senator , Kay Hagan , is facing a difficult re-election and has sought to distance herself from Obama 's policies , declaring as recently as Friday that his administration had not `` done enough to earn the lasting trust of our veterans . ''
But Hagan and the state 's Republican Senator , Richard Burr , were at the North Carolina Air National Guard Base to greet Obama . She welcomed him warmly and he gave her a peck on the cheek .
Obama and Hagan were both addressing the American Legion 's National convention , with the president 's address to the legionnaires the latest administration response to the health care uproar that led to the resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki in May .
Obama declared that the nation owes veterans for their service and that the lengthy wait times and attempts to hide scheduling flaws were `` outrageous and inexcusable . ''
`` We are very clear-eyed about the problems that are still there , '' Obama said . `` And those problems require us to regain the trust of our veterans and live up to our vision of a VA that is more effective and more efficient and that truly puts veterans first . And I will not be satisfied until that happens . ''
Obama promised `` a new culture of accountability '' under new Secretary Bob McDonald . `` Bob does n't play , '' Obama said .
He announced steps to strengthen access to mental health care by members of the military , to improve the transition for those leaving the military from care administered by the Defense Department to that run by Veterans Affairs , and to foster suicide prevention and better treatments for post-traumatic stress syndrome .
Earlier this month , Obama signed a $ 16.3 billion law aimed at easing the long waits that tens of thousands of military veterans had endured to get medical care .
The law , a product of rare bipartisanship in the House and Senate , followed reports of veterans dying while awaiting appointments to see VA doctors and of a widespread practice of employees covering up months-long wait times for appointments . In some cases , employees received bonuses based on falsified records .
The VA says investigators have found no proof that delays in care caused any deaths at a VA hospital in Phoenix .
Moving beyond the steps included in the law , Obama planned to take executive actions that :
— Automatically enroll military personnel who are receiving care for mental health conditions and are leaving the service in a program that transfers them to a new care team in the VA .
— Undertake a study designed to detect whether people show signs of being vulnerable to suicide or post-traumatic stress syndrome .
— Spends $ 34.4 million in a VA suicide prevention study and about $ 80 million on a program to treat diseases , including post-traumatic stress syndrome .
Obama also announced a partnership with lenders such as Wells Fargo Bank , CitiMortgage , Bank of America , Ocwen Loan Servicing and Quicken Loans to make it easier for active-duty service members to obtain mortgage interest rate reductions .
|
His standing with veterans damaged by scandal, President Barack Obama on Tuesday defended his administration's response to Veterans Affairs lapses that delayed health care for thousands of former service members, but conceded more needed to be done to regain their trust.
His appearance also had deep political overtones in a state where the Democratic senator, Kay Hagan, is facing a difficult re-election and has sought to distance herself from Obama's policies, declaring as recently as Friday that his administration had not "done enough to earn the lasting trust of our veterans."
But Hagan and the state's Republican Senator, Richard Burr, were at the North Carolina Air National Guard Base to greet Obama. She welcomed him warmly and he gave her a peck on the cheek.
Obama and Hagan were both addressing the American Legion's National convention, with the president's address to the legionnaires the latest administration response to the health care uproar that led to the resignation of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki in May.
Obama declared that the nation owes veterans for their service and that the lengthy wait times and attempts to hide scheduling flaws were "outrageous and inexcusable."
"We are very clear-eyed about the problems that are still there," Obama said. "And those problems require us to regain the trust of our veterans and live up to our vision of a VA that is more effective and more efficient and that truly puts veterans first. And I will not be satisfied until that happens."
Obama promised "a new culture of accountability" under new Secretary Bob McDonald. "Bob doesn't play," Obama said.
He announced steps to strengthen access to mental health care by members of the military, to improve the transition for those leaving the military from care administered by the Defense Department to that run by Veterans Affairs, and to foster suicide prevention and better treatments for post-traumatic stress syndrome.
Earlier this month, Obama signed a $16.3 billion law aimed at easing the long waits that tens of thousands of military veterans had endured to get medical care.
The law, a product of rare bipartisanship in the House and Senate, followed reports of veterans dying while awaiting appointments to see VA doctors and of a widespread practice of employees covering up months-long wait times for appointments. In some cases, employees received bonuses based on falsified records.
The VA says investigators have found no proof that delays in care caused any deaths at a VA hospital in Phoenix.
Moving beyond the steps included in the law, Obama planned to take executive actions that:
— Automatically enroll military personnel who are receiving care for mental health conditions and are leaving the service in a program that transfers them to a new care team in the VA.
— Undertake a study designed to detect whether people show signs of being vulnerable to suicide or post-traumatic stress syndrome.
— Spends $34.4 million in a VA suicide prevention study and about $80 million on a program to treat diseases, including post-traumatic stress syndrome.
Obama also announced a partnership with lenders such as Wells Fargo Bank, CitiMortgage, Bank of America, Ocwen Loan Servicing and Quicken Loans to make it easier for active-duty service members to obtain mortgage interest rate reductions.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
Vt9F4Me1o4PdJlpe
|
asia
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/07/09/4-freed-from-thailand-cave-but-rescuers-face-war-with-water-and-time-to-get-to-others.html
|
More boys freed from Thailand cave, but rescuers face 'war with water and time' to get to others
|
2018-07-09
|
Edmund Demarche
|
Rescuers in Thailand on Monday freed four more members of the boys soccer team stranded in a flooded cave complex , as part of the second phase of a desperate rescue operation that aims to save four more kids and the team 's coach before heavy rains imperil the effort .
Four ambulances with flashing lights were spotted leaving the area as Thai navy SEALs said on Facebook that four boys were brought out of the cave on Monday , bringing the total to eight rescued so far before rescue operations were suspended for the day .
Chiang Rai acting Gov . Narongsak Osatanakorn said at a news conference the rescue mission on Monday took only 9 hours compared to the 11 hours the previous day , adding that rescue crews are more familiar with the mission and additional help was present . A Thai army deputy commander added that the operation went `` smoothly '' but warned the next phase `` will depend on all conditions , '' according to Sky News .
Narongsak said that rescuers , which included 18 divers and 100 personnel , may need to adjust their operation if they choose to bring out the remaining five people on Tuesday , and that it may take multiple steps .
Thai officials stressed they are hoping the rescue operation will be wrapped up by Tuesday , and that the four who were first pulled out of the cave on Sunday are eating solid food now and in `` good condition . ''
The newest set of rescues came about six hours after Chiang Rai acting Gov . Narongsak Osatanakorn said the second phase was underway . One helicopter carried the sixth and seventh boys to be rescued to a hospital , while the eighth boy was being transported on another helicopter for medical treatment .
`` All conditions are still as good as they were yesterday , '' Narongsak told a news conference . `` The boys ' strength , the plan — today we are ready like before . And we will do it faster because we are afraid of the rain . ''
On Sunday , Thai navy SEALs successfully retrieved the first four members of the youth soccer team from the cave where they had been trapped for more than two weeks in the first rescue operation .
Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda said early Monday the same group of expert divers who took part in Sunday 's rescue returned to extricate the others because they know the cave conditions and what to do . He said fresh air tanks needed to be laid along the underwater route , as officials continue to pump water out of the cave .
'DO N'T BLAME YOURSELF , ' PARENT OF TRAPPED THAI YOUTH WRITES TO BOYS ' COACH
Reuters , citing an unnamed source at a nearby hospital , reported the boys ’ conditions were “ not bad ” but will continue to be monitored .
`` This morning they said they were hungry and wanted to eat khao pad grapao , '' Narongsak said , according to the Associated Press , referring to a Thai dish of meat fried with chili and basil and served over rice .
It was not immediately clear Monday how the overnight rains had impacted water levels inside the flooded cave . Officials have said storms forecast for Chiang Rai province in Thailand 's far north had factored into their decision to go ahead with a complicated and dangerous plan to have the boys and their coach dive out of the cave . If everything goes to according to plan , the operation should be completed on Tuesday , officials previously told The Wall Street Journal .
DR. MARC SIEGEL : BOYS RESCUED FROM THAI CAVE NOW FACE POSSIBLE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
Narongsak previously said experts told him flooding from new rain could shrink the unflooded space where the boys are sheltering to just 108 square feet .
`` I confirm that we are at war with water and time from the first day up to today , '' he said . `` Finding the boys does n't mean we 've finished our mission . It is only a small battle we 've won , but the war has not ended . The war ends when we win all three battles — the battles to search , rescue and send them home . ''
The death Friday of a former Thai navy SEAL underscored the risks . The diver , the first fatality of the rescue effort , was working in a volunteer capacity and died on a mission to place air canisters along the passage to where the boys are , a necessary task in order for divers to safely travel the five- to six-hour route .
4 BOYS FROM THAI SOCCER TEAM RESCUED FROM FLOODED CAVE
Authorities spent hours replenishing air tanks along the cave 's treacherous exit route .
Trips from the entrance to where the team is trapped and back to the entrance take about 11 hours and include walking , wading , climbing and diving , the BBC reported . There is reportedly a guide rope in place . Two divers will accompany each boy as they are gradually extracted .
An international team of expert divers—90 in all , 40 from Thailand and 50 from overseas—have been working in the area .
About 40 U.S. Air Force special operations personnel -- including an 18-person personnel recovery team -- were on the ground in Thailand at two locations , a U.S. defense official told Fox News .
The stranded boys , members of the Wild Boars soccer team , have been invited to the World Cup Final in Moscow if they make it out in time and can physically handle the trip .
Fox News ' Jeff Paul and Melissa Chrise in Chiang Rai , Thailand , Fox News ' Lucas Tomlinson , and The Associated Press contributed to this report
|
Rescuers in Thailand on Monday freed four more members of the boys soccer team stranded in a flooded cave complex, as part of the second phase of a desperate rescue operation that aims to save four more kids and the team's coach before heavy rains imperil the effort.
Four ambulances with flashing lights were spotted leaving the area as Thai navy SEALs said on Facebook that four boys were brought out of the cave on Monday, bringing the total to eight rescued so far before rescue operations were suspended for the day.
Chiang Rai acting Gov. Narongsak Osatanakorn said at a news conference the rescue mission on Monday took only 9 hours compared to the 11 hours the previous day, adding that rescue crews are more familiar with the mission and additional help was present. A Thai army deputy commander added that the operation went "smoothly" but warned the next phase "will depend on all conditions," according to Sky News.
Narongsak said that rescuers, which included 18 divers and 100 personnel, may need to adjust their operation if they choose to bring out the remaining five people on Tuesday, and that it may take multiple steps.
Thai officials stressed they are hoping the rescue operation will be wrapped up by Tuesday, and that the four who were first pulled out of the cave on Sunday are eating solid food now and in "good condition."
The newest set of rescues came about six hours after Chiang Rai acting Gov. Narongsak Osatanakorn said the second phase was underway. One helicopter carried the sixth and seventh boys to be rescued to a hospital, while the eighth boy was being transported on another helicopter for medical treatment.
"All conditions are still as good as they were yesterday," Narongsak told a news conference. "The boys' strength, the plan — today we are ready like before. And we will do it faster because we are afraid of the rain."
On Sunday, Thai navy SEALs successfully retrieved the first four members of the youth soccer team from the cave where they had been trapped for more than two weeks in the first rescue operation.
Interior Minister Anupong Paojinda said early Monday the same group of expert divers who took part in Sunday's rescue returned to extricate the others because they know the cave conditions and what to do. He said fresh air tanks needed to be laid along the underwater route, as officials continue to pump water out of the cave.
'DON'T BLAME YOURSELF,' PARENT OF TRAPPED THAI YOUTH WRITES TO BOYS' COACH
Reuters, citing an unnamed source at a nearby hospital, reported the boys’ conditions were “not bad” but will continue to be monitored.
"This morning they said they were hungry and wanted to eat khao pad grapao," Narongsak said, according to the Associated Press, referring to a Thai dish of meat fried with chili and basil and served over rice.
It was not immediately clear Monday how the overnight rains had impacted water levels inside the flooded cave. Officials have said storms forecast for Chiang Rai province in Thailand's far north had factored into their decision to go ahead with a complicated and dangerous plan to have the boys and their coach dive out of the cave. If everything goes to according to plan, the operation should be completed on Tuesday, officials previously told The Wall Street Journal.
DR. MARC SIEGEL: BOYS RESCUED FROM THAI CAVE NOW FACE POSSIBLE MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES
Narongsak previously said experts told him flooding from new rain could shrink the unflooded space where the boys are sheltering to just 108 square feet.
"I confirm that we are at war with water and time from the first day up to today," he said. "Finding the boys doesn't mean we've finished our mission. It is only a small battle we've won, but the war has not ended. The war ends when we win all three battles — the battles to search, rescue and send them home."
The death Friday of a former Thai navy SEAL underscored the risks. The diver, the first fatality of the rescue effort, was working in a volunteer capacity and died on a mission to place air canisters along the passage to where the boys are, a necessary task in order for divers to safely travel the five- to six-hour route.
4 BOYS FROM THAI SOCCER TEAM RESCUED FROM FLOODED CAVE
Authorities spent hours replenishing air tanks along the cave's treacherous exit route.
Trips from the entrance to where the team is trapped and back to the entrance take about 11 hours and include walking, wading, climbing and diving, the BBC reported. There is reportedly a guide rope in place. Two divers will accompany each boy as they are gradually extracted.
An international team of expert divers—90 in all, 40 from Thailand and 50 from overseas—have been working in the area.
About 40 U.S. Air Force special operations personnel -- including an 18-person personnel recovery team -- were on the ground in Thailand at two locations, a U.S. defense official told Fox News.
The stranded boys, members of the Wild Boars soccer team, have been invited to the World Cup Final in Moscow if they make it out in time and can physically handle the trip.
Fox News' Jeff Paul and Melissa Chrise in Chiang Rai, Thailand, Fox News' Lucas Tomlinson, and The Associated Press contributed to this report
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
riyPRlVHhODXg95C
|
epa
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/25/epa-head-suggests-rollback-obama-era-rules-may-begin-next-week/98409448/
|
EPA head suggests rollback of Obama-era rules may begin next week
|
2017-02-25
|
WASHINGTON – The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested to a gathering of conservative Republicans on Saturday that the agency could begin as early as next week the process of rolling back some of the federal regulations put in place by the Obama administration .
`` The future ain ’ t what it used to be '' at the EPA , Scott Pruitt said during an address at the Conservative Political Action Conference , or CPAC .
Pruitt , who started at the agency Tuesday , did not specifically indicate what rules President Trump 's administration will target immediately . But he cited a controversial clean water rule as an example of a regulation that went too far .
The regulation – known as the Waters of the United States Rule and adopted by the Obama administration – expands the definition of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the EPA under the Clean Water Act .
Critics charge the rule so broadly expands the federal government ’ s authority that it would be able to regulate ditches and small bodies of water . The EPA finalized the rule in May 2015 but it has been blocked by a federal appeals court pending further legal challenges .
Congress voted last year to overturn the rule by invoking a rarely used law known as the Congressional Review Act . But President Obama vetoed that resolution .
New EPA head tells employees to 'avoid abuses ' in regulating process
Trump 's new EPA head is in the middle of an email controversy
Senate confirms Scott Pruitt for EPA chief amid last-minute drama
In his CPAC address , Pruitt , who as Oklahoma attorney general sued the EPA 14 times , said people who want to eliminate the agency are `` justified '' for such attitudes because of the regulatory overreach by the Obama administration .
`` People across this country look at the EPA like they look at the IRS , '' he said . `` I hope to be able to change that . ''
Under his leadership , Pruitt said , the EPA would pay close attention to the rule-making process to ensure any new rules do not go beyond what is allowed under federal law .
“ Executive agencies only have the power that Congress has given them , ” he said . “ They can ’ t make it up as they go . They can ’ t fill in the blank . ”
One of his top priorities , he said , will be providing businesses with “ regulatory certainty . ”
“ We ’ re going to provide certainty by living within the framework that Congress has passed , ” he said . Obama-era regulations that don ’ t fit within that framework will be rolled back , Pruitt added .
Pruitt also promised to work with the states as “ partners , not adversaries ” on issues such as clean air and water .
|
Michael Collins
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency suggested to a gathering of conservative Republicans on Saturday that the agency could begin as early as next week the process of rolling back some of the federal regulations put in place by the Obama administration.
"The future ain’t what it used to be" at the EPA, Scott Pruitt said during an address at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.
Pruitt, who started at the agency Tuesday, did not specifically indicate what rules President Trump's administration will target immediately. But he cited a controversial clean water rule as an example of a regulation that went too far.
The regulation – known as the Waters of the United States Rule and adopted by the Obama administration – expands the definition of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the EPA under the Clean Water Act.
Critics charge the rule so broadly expands the federal government’s authority that it would be able to regulate ditches and small bodies of water. The EPA finalized the rule in May 2015 but it has been blocked by a federal appeals court pending further legal challenges.
Congress voted last year to overturn the rule by invoking a rarely used law known as the Congressional Review Act. But President Obama vetoed that resolution.
Read more:
New EPA head tells employees to 'avoid abuses' in regulating process
Trump's new EPA head is in the middle of an email controversy
Senate confirms Scott Pruitt for EPA chief amid last-minute drama
In his CPAC address, Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general sued the EPA 14 times, said people who want to eliminate the agency are "justified" for such attitudes because of the regulatory overreach by the Obama administration.
"People across this country look at the EPA like they look at the IRS," he said. "I hope to be able to change that."
Under his leadership, Pruitt said, the EPA would pay close attention to the rule-making process to ensure any new rules do not go beyond what is allowed under federal law.
“Executive agencies only have the power that Congress has given them,” he said. “They can’t make it up as they go. They can’t fill in the blank.”
One of his top priorities, he said, will be providing businesses with “regulatory certainty.”
“We’re going to provide certainty by living within the framework that Congress has passed,” he said. Obama-era regulations that don’t fit within that framework will be rolled back, Pruitt added.
Pruitt also promised to work with the states as “partners, not adversaries” on issues such as clean air and water.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
uRTggAeSEyi06HO3
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/polls-nevada-caucuses-democrats-latinos/index.html
|
Polling snapshot: Survey raises questions over Latino vote in Nevada
|
2016-02-22
|
Jennifer Agiesta, Cnn Polling Director
|
( CNN ) A data-driven controversy has erupted over a finding in the entrance poll of Nevada 's Democratic caucusgoers Saturday , with the results of the poll among Latinos seemingly at odds with widely held expectations that the group was a strong one for Hillary Clinton .
The results of the Nevada entrance poll Saturday showed black voters squarely in Clinton 's corner , as expected , while Latino voters broke for Sanders over Clinton by an 8-point margin , just outside the margin of sampling error for the group .
The latter finding prompted doubts in some corners , including from the Clinton campaign . Their criticisms mostly rest on an analysis of the vote by precinct , conducted by the New York Times . Looking at the vote by precinct in locations with a higher concentration of Hispanic voters , the analysis suggested Clinton won more county delegates in those precincts than those in other locations .
With the slate of upcoming primary and caucus states shifting from nearly all-white Iowa and New Hampshire to a more diverse batch of states including Nevada , South Carolina and many of the states set to vote on March 1 , whether the racial and ethnic minorities in those states would prove a firewall for Clinton 's campaign against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been a sharp focus for both campaigns .
The preferences of Latino voters as reported in exit and entrance polling has been a source of controversy for more than a decade , since a 2004 national exit poll finding estimated that Republican President George W. Bush captured 44 % of the Latino vote in his re-election bid . Since that time , some have argued that the exit poll often underestimates the Democratic share of the Latino vote , or that it misrepresents the preferences of Latinos more generally , as is the argument here .
Those arguments often rest on comparisons to data collected in telephone polling of Latinos that are either sampled from areas with a high concentration of Hispanic residents , or from lists of Latino voters identified by their Hispanic surname .
In both instances , these surveys miss a substantial share of the Hispanic population , either by not drawing samples from places where Latinos are not heavily concentrated , or by ignoring those who do not have a Hispanic surname , and that 's on top of the general difficulty of identifying likely voters in telephone surveys .
In this case , the comparison is to county delegate counts in precincts that appear to represent heavily Hispanic areas , again based on a surname analysis .
That analysis assumes proportional turnout by race within any given precinct , and perhaps more importantly , assumes that once caucusgoers arrived , the vote along racial and ethnic lines for those Latinos who voted in heavily Hispanic precincts was about the same as that seen in Hispanics voting in other precinct locations around the state , something that ca n't be proven by either entrance polls or this style of precinct-level analysis .
Still , exit and entrance polls have their own methodological challenges when measuring the vote among subgroups of the population , such as Latinos , that are not evenly spread throughout a state . A sample of precincts that has three heavily Hispanic precincts in one election year and only one in the following year could suggest a drop in turnout among Hispanics , for example , but that finding would be better chalked up to sampling error than any real change in the electorate .
But there are reasons to believe that the entrance poll findings reflect a race among Latinos that is actually tighter than was broadly expected before this first contest featuring a substantial minority population , and the key is age .
Latino voters in Nevada are generally younger than whites or blacks in the state , and as we 've seen in both national polls and exit polls so far , younger voters are perhaps more apt to back Sanders than any other group in the Democratic electorate .
According to the Census Bureau , the median age of all Latinos in Nevada is 26 years old , compared with a median age of 44 for whites and 33 for blacks . And looking at past votes in the state , the general election exit poll there in 2012 found that 34 % of Latino voters were under age 30 compared with 9 % of whites and 27 % of blacks .
In Saturday 's entrance poll , 38 % of Latinos who showed up to caucus were under age 30 , similar to the share in the 2012 presidential election exit poll , but almost double the share of Latino caucusgoers who were under age 30 in 2008 , when Clinton narrowly carried the group with 20 % support , just ahead of John Edwards and Barack Obama . In Saturday 's data , 14 % of blacks and 12 % of whites were under age 30 .
Those younger Latinos broke sharply for Sanders over Clinton in this entrance poll , while Latino voters over age 30 broke in Clinton 's favor by about a 2-to-1 margin .
The real wildcard is whether that sharp age divide combined with heavier turnout among younger Latinos carries over into any other states where Latino voters make up a significant share of the population , and that assessment will likely have to wait until after South Carolina 's Democrats go to the polls .
Looking ahead to the Democratic side of South Carolina 's primaries , polling conducted mostly last week has found Clinton holding a broad lead over Sanders in the run-up to that contest , set to be held Saturday . A new CNN Poll of Polls covering live-interviewer telephone surveys conducted between February 10 and 17 finds Clinton averages 57 % support while Sanders holds 32 % .
Most of the polling conducted in South Carolina shows Clinton 's candidacy boosted by strong support among black voters , who are expected to make up a majority of Saturday 's primary voters . It may be the first opportunity to look in-depth at the demographic divides among black voters , to see whether Sanders ' appeal to young voters extends to African Americans in their 20s .
Another element to watch for Saturday that could boost Clinton 's numbers : Turnout .
Every Democratic contest held so far has seen turnout drop compared with 2008 levels , while on the Republican side , turnout has climbed .
South Carolina is the first state with a truly open primary . There is no party registration , so any voter can choose to participate in either party 's event , but they can only choose one .
With the Republican primary having drawn record turnout , it 's possible the numbers participating on the Democratic side will be lower and more concentrated among the party 's faithful . Those who consider themselves Democrats have been more firmly in Clinton 's corner across contests this year , and the CNN/ORC Poll in South Carolina showed Clinton 's margin even larger among self-identified Democrats .
For the Nevada Republican caucuses , little methodologically-sound polling has been conducted , but a CNN/ORC Poll conducted before the South Carolina primary suggested Donald Trump will head into Tuesday night 's event with a wide lead over the field , garnering the support of more than 4 in 10 of those who say they plan to caucus .
|
(CNN) A data-driven controversy has erupted over a finding in the entrance poll of Nevada's Democratic caucusgoers Saturday, with the results of the poll among Latinos seemingly at odds with widely held expectations that the group was a strong one for Hillary Clinton.
The results of the Nevada entrance poll Saturday showed black voters squarely in Clinton's corner, as expected, while Latino voters broke for Sanders over Clinton by an 8-point margin , just outside the margin of sampling error for the group.
The latter finding prompted doubts in some corners, including from the Clinton campaign. Their criticisms mostly rest on an analysis of the vote by precinct, conducted by the New York Times . Looking at the vote by precinct in locations with a higher concentration of Hispanic voters, the analysis suggested Clinton won more county delegates in those precincts than those in other locations.
With the slate of upcoming primary and caucus states shifting from nearly all-white Iowa and New Hampshire to a more diverse batch of states including Nevada, South Carolina and many of the states set to vote on March 1, whether the racial and ethnic minorities in those states would prove a firewall for Clinton's campaign against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been a sharp focus for both campaigns.
Polling issues
The preferences of Latino voters as reported in exit and entrance polling has been a source of controversy for more than a decade, since a 2004 national exit poll finding estimated that Republican President George W. Bush captured 44% of the Latino vote in his re-election bid. Since that time, some have argued that the exit poll often underestimates the Democratic share of the Latino vote, or that it misrepresents the preferences of Latinos more generally, as is the argument here.
Those arguments often rest on comparisons to data collected in telephone polling of Latinos that are either sampled from areas with a high concentration of Hispanic residents, or from lists of Latino voters identified by their Hispanic surname.
In both instances, these surveys miss a substantial share of the Hispanic population, either by not drawing samples from places where Latinos are not heavily concentrated, or by ignoring those who do not have a Hispanic surname, and that's on top of the general difficulty of identifying likely voters in telephone surveys.
In this case, the comparison is to county delegate counts in precincts that appear to represent heavily Hispanic areas, again based on a surname analysis.
That analysis assumes proportional turnout by race within any given precinct, and perhaps more importantly, assumes that once caucusgoers arrived, the vote along racial and ethnic lines for those Latinos who voted in heavily Hispanic precincts was about the same as that seen in Hispanics voting in other precinct locations around the state, something that can't be proven by either entrance polls or this style of precinct-level analysis.
Still, exit and entrance polls have their own methodological challenges when measuring the vote among subgroups of the population, such as Latinos, that are not evenly spread throughout a state. A sample of precincts that has three heavily Hispanic precincts in one election year and only one in the following year could suggest a drop in turnout among Hispanics, for example, but that finding would be better chalked up to sampling error than any real change in the electorate.
In 2016, age is key
But there are reasons to believe that the entrance poll findings reflect a race among Latinos that is actually tighter than was broadly expected before this first contest featuring a substantial minority population, and the key is age.
Latino voters in Nevada are generally younger than whites or blacks in the state, and as we've seen in both national polls and exit polls so far, younger voters are perhaps more apt to back Sanders than any other group in the Democratic electorate.
According to the Census Bureau, the median age of all Latinos in Nevada is 26 years old, compared with a median age of 44 for whites and 33 for blacks. And looking at past votes in the state, the general election exit poll there in 2012 found that 34% of Latino voters were under age 30 compared with 9% of whites and 27% of blacks.
In Saturday's entrance poll, 38% of Latinos who showed up to caucus were under age 30, similar to the share in the 2012 presidential election exit poll, but almost double the share of Latino caucusgoers who were under age 30 in 2008, when Clinton narrowly carried the group with 20% support, just ahead of John Edwards and Barack Obama. In Saturday's data, 14% of blacks and 12% of whites were under age 30.
Those younger Latinos broke sharply for Sanders over Clinton in this entrance poll, while Latino voters over age 30 broke in Clinton's favor by about a 2-to-1 margin.
The real wildcard is whether that sharp age divide combined with heavier turnout among younger Latinos carries over into any other states where Latino voters make up a significant share of the population, and that assessment will likely have to wait until after South Carolina's Democrats go to the polls.
This week: South Carolina, Nevada - Take two
Looking ahead to the Democratic side of South Carolina's primaries, polling conducted mostly last week has found Clinton holding a broad lead over Sanders in the run-up to that contest, set to be held Saturday. A new CNN Poll of Polls covering live-interviewer telephone surveys conducted between February 10 and 17 finds Clinton averages 57% support while Sanders holds 32%.
Most of the polling conducted in South Carolina shows Clinton's candidacy boosted by strong support among black voters, who are expected to make up a majority of Saturday's primary voters. It may be the first opportunity to look in-depth at the demographic divides among black voters, to see whether Sanders' appeal to young voters extends to African Americans in their 20s.
Another element to watch for Saturday that could boost Clinton's numbers: Turnout.
Every Democratic contest held so far has seen turnout drop compared with 2008 levels, while on the Republican side, turnout has climbed.
South Carolina is the first state with a truly open primary. There is no party registration, so any voter can choose to participate in either party's event, but they can only choose one.
With the Republican primary having drawn record turnout, it's possible the numbers participating on the Democratic side will be lower and more concentrated among the party's faithful. Those who consider themselves Democrats have been more firmly in Clinton's corner across contests this year, and the CNN/ORC Poll in South Carolina showed Clinton's margin even larger among self-identified Democrats.
For the Nevada Republican caucuses, little methodologically-sound polling has been conducted, but a CNN/ORC Poll conducted before the South Carolina primary suggested Donald Trump will head into Tuesday night's event with a wide lead over the field, garnering the support of more than 4 in 10 of those who say they plan to caucus.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
buB2cL7bmM9ApXHl
|
elections
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/democratic-debate-2019-night-2-donald-trump-weighs-while-g-20/1552760001/
|
Donald Trump declares a winner of the Democratic debates ... himself
|
2019-06-27
|
John Fritze, Michael Collins, David Jackson
|
CLOSE Who won the Democratic debate remains to be seen , but here are some of the best moments from the first ten contenders to take the stage . ███
OSAKA , Japan – President Donald Trump on Thursday slammed Democrats taking part in the second of two presidential debates this week , breaking from a meeting of global leaders taking place in Japan to suggest their performance guaranteed his re-election .
Trump blasted Democrats for universally pledging their health care proposals would provide coverage for immigrants in the country illegally .
`` All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare . How about taking care of American Citizens first ! ? '' Trump posted on Twitter in between meetings with other world leaders . `` That ’ s the end of that race ! ''
As Democrats held their second debate Thursday evening , Trump was in Japan for the annual G-20 meeting . The international stage did n't stop him from keeping an eye on politics at home .
Live coverage : The 2nd night of the Democratic debates , and blistering attacks , is over . Biden was battered , Harris strong
Biden on defense : Joe Biden , Kamala Harris square off as Democratic rivals go on the attack on the debate stage
Trump mocked the Democrats during a meeting with Angela Merkel , telling the German chancellor he would rather be `` spending time with you than watching the debate . ''
The president went on to speak at length about the debate during that meeting , at one point again citing pledges by candidates to extend health care plans to migrants .
Trump said he `` passed a television set '' and `` saw that maximum health care was given to 100 % of the illegal immigrants coming into our country by the Democrats . ”
He said Democrats have not given similar attention to American citizens .
Trump later took another shot at the Democrats while denouncing the socialist government in Venezuela .
“ I heard a rumor that the Democrats are going to change their name from the Democratic Party to the Socialist Party , ” he joked .
Early Friday morning , Trump took another swipe , this time sending insults to former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
I am in Japan at the G-20 , representing our Country well , but I heard it was not a good day for Sleepy Joe or Crazy Bernie . One is exhausted , the other is nuts - so what ’ s the big deal ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) June 28 , 2019
Trump suggested Wednesday that he would n't tweet much during the first Democratic presidential debate because he was on Air Force One en route to Japan and off “ to save the world . '' But roughly 30 minutes into the debate , the president tweeted out his snarky , all-caps , one-word review : “ BORING ! ”
By Thursday evening – Friday morning in Japan – Trump was scheduled for a busy slate of meetings with world leaders .
Trump ’ s decision to weigh in on the debate ran counter to the advice of many Republican strategists , who suggested he should resist the temptation to respond as Democratic hopefuls battled each other and courted their party ’ s liberal base .
That advice , however , did n't apply to the president 's closest allies . Donald Trump Jr. took to Twitter to offer his review of the debate and Biden ’ s performance in particular .
The post included a photo of the Hindenburg crashing and burning .
Like what you ’ re reading ? Download the ███ app for more
|
CLOSE Who won the Democratic debate remains to be seen, but here are some of the best moments from the first ten contenders to take the stage. USA TODAY
OSAKA, Japan – President Donald Trump on Thursday slammed Democrats taking part in the second of two presidential debates this week, breaking from a meeting of global leaders taking place in Japan to suggest their performance guaranteed his re-election.
Trump blasted Democrats for universally pledging their health care proposals would provide coverage for immigrants in the country illegally.
"All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare. How about taking care of American Citizens first!?" Trump posted on Twitter in between meetings with other world leaders. "That’s the end of that race!"
As Democrats held their second debate Thursday evening, Trump was in Japan for the annual G-20 meeting. The international stage didn't stop him from keeping an eye on politics at home.
Live coverage: The 2nd night of the Democratic debates, and blistering attacks, is over. Biden was battered, Harris strong
Biden on defense: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris square off as Democratic rivals go on the attack on the debate stage
Trump mocked the Democrats during a meeting with Angela Merkel, telling the German chancellor he would rather be "spending time with you than watching the debate."
President Donald Trump (Photo: MANDEL NGAN, AFP/Getty Images)
The president went on to speak at length about the debate during that meeting, at one point again citing pledges by candidates to extend health care plans to migrants.
Trump said he "passed a television set" and "saw that maximum health care was given to 100% of the illegal immigrants coming into our country by the Democrats.”
He said Democrats have not given similar attention to American citizens.
Trump later took another shot at the Democrats while denouncing the socialist government in Venezuela.
“I heard a rumor that the Democrats are going to change their name from the Democratic Party to the Socialist Party,” he joked.
Early Friday morning, Trump took another swipe, this time sending insults to former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
I am in Japan at the G-20, representing our Country well, but I heard it was not a good day for Sleepy Joe or Crazy Bernie. One is exhausted, the other is nuts - so what’s the big deal? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2019
Trump suggested Wednesday that he wouldn't tweet much during the first Democratic presidential debate because he was on Air Force One en route to Japan and off “to save the world." But roughly 30 minutes into the debate, the president tweeted out his snarky, all-caps, one-word review: “BORING!”
By Thursday evening – Friday morning in Japan – Trump was scheduled for a busy slate of meetings with world leaders.
BORING: President Donald Trump, other Republicans slam Democratic debate
Trump’s decision to weigh in on the debate ran counter to the advice of many Republican strategists, who suggested he should resist the temptation to respond as Democratic hopefuls battled each other and courted their party’s liberal base.
That advice, however, didn't apply to the president's closest allies. Donald Trump Jr. took to Twitter to offer his review of the debate and Biden’s performance in particular.
“Live shot inside Biden HQ: #DemDebate2,” he tweeted.
The post included a photo of the Hindenburg crashing and burning.
President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C., on June 24, 2019. (Photo: Alex Brandon/AP)
Like what you’re reading? Download the USA TODAY app for more
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/democratic-debate-2019-night-2-donald-trump-weighs-while-g-20/1552760001/
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
Tt7vkOgC24FkekUO
|
politics
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/16/biden-military-academies-nominations-army-navy/15716749/
|
As VP, Biden keeps academy nominations secret
|
2014-09-16
|
WASHINGTON — During his final year in Congress in 2008 , then-senator Joe Biden heralded his top picks for the nation 's elite service academies with a congratulatory news release and led a group of academy-bound students on a personal tour of his domain as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman .
As vice president , Biden has the power to nominate students to three of the nation 's service academies . However , the names of the students he chooses for these plum assignments are now secret .
Neither Biden 's staff nor the academies would disclose the identities of his nominees to ███ , citing student privacy . So it 's unclear how the vice president uses his nominations — which this year included the daughter of a congressman and an Air Force Academy nominee his office took an interest in .
A ███ examination of the nomination system found a process with little disclosure or oversight . Each member of Congress and the vice president can have up to five nominees in each military academy — the U.S. Military Academy at West Point , N.Y. , the Naval Academy in Annapolis , Md. , and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs , Colo . But the nominations largely are made in secret with no standard process or criteria for awarding them .
Vice presidential nominations are unique . They are the only nominations that everyone can apply for and anyone can receive . For some American students living overseas , it may be the only option available to them .
As a result , the vice president gets thousands of requests for nominations each year . The service academies say they take the lead in vetting the students and submitting to Biden 's office a list of top-scoring applicants who lack only a nomination from another source .
This year , however , Biden 's staff took an interest in a particular candidate and let the Air Force know . `` His contact called me and said , 'Hey , we 've had some express interest in this individual , ' `` said Jim Dahlmann , the Air Force Academy 's congressional liaison .
`` Sure enough , he was a qualified candidate , which is great . And he 's of interest to the vice president . Well that 's easy enough , we 'll make sure he 's on the list , '' he said .
The student also had secured nominations from a U.S. senator and a local congresswoman , but academy officials took the extra step of putting the student at the top of the list they submitted to Biden 's office , Dahlmann said . `` We wanted to make sure they could say , 'Oh yeah , the academy is listening to us . ' ``
Generally , Dahlmann said , Biden 's office is more removed from the process than congressional offices .
At the Naval Academy , the list of vice presidential nominations this year included the daughter of Rep. Andy Harris , R-Md . Harris spokesman Chris Meekins said the younger Harris , a track standout , was recruited for the academy 's track team late in the year — after congressional application deadlines had passed — and the vice presidential nomination was the only option available .
She was offered an appointment to Annapolis but did not accept it . Harris is now studying at Notre Dame on a track scholarship .
The vice president 's office would not discuss any nominations on the record . `` In order to protect the privacy of individuals who are nominated to the service academies and consistent with previous administration practices and service academy protocols , we do n't release names to the public , '' said Kendra Barkoff , a Biden spokeswoman .
But some of the academies say Biden 's office is more engaged in the process than was his predecessor . `` This vice president has been active in making the selections , '' said Col. Deborah McDonald , West Point 's director of admissions . While vice president Dick Cheney 's nominations came in before the deadline , Biden 's often come in months after the congressional nominations are due Jan. 31 — and in some cases as late as June , just before cadets and midshipmen report to the academies .
That additional time allows the vice president 's office to ensure that its nominations are going only to candidates who do n't have any other source of a nomination . `` I 'm guessing what they were doing was making sure they were looking at all the congressional nominations that came in to try to — and I 'm just guessing this — expand the candidate pool , '' she said .
Other vice presidents have taken an interest in their nominations .
Former vice president Walter Mondale , who served in the late 1970s , said his staff took the step of reviewing the applications of nominees recommended by the academies . `` I used the staff to vet them to see if there were any embarrassments there , '' Mondale said . `` Most were just fine . ... I think ( the academies ) were very careful about sending up the best . ''
Under a separate system of nominations , the president also makes nominations for the children of Medal of Honor winners and members of the armed forces . But those nominations are presidential in name only — the entire process is delegated to the Defense Department and the academies , which do n't release those names .
|
Fredreka Schouten, Gregory Korte and Nicole Gaudiano
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — During his final year in Congress in 2008, then-senator Joe Biden heralded his top picks for the nation's elite service academies with a congratulatory news release and led a group of academy-bound students on a personal tour of his domain as Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman.
As vice president, Biden has the power to nominate students to three of the nation's service academies. However, the names of the students he chooses for these plum assignments are now secret.
Neither Biden's staff nor the academies would disclose the identities of his nominees to USA TODAY, citing student privacy. So it's unclear how the vice president uses his nominations — which this year included the daughter of a congressman and an Air Force Academy nominee his office took an interest in.
A USA TODAY examination of the nomination system found a process with little disclosure or oversight. Each member of Congress and the vice president can have up to five nominees in each military academy — the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo. But the nominations largely are made in secret with no standard process or criteria for awarding them.
Vice presidential nominations are unique. They are the only nominations that everyone can apply for and anyone can receive. For some American students living overseas, it may be the only option available to them.
As a result, the vice president gets thousands of requests for nominations each year. The service academies say they take the lead in vetting the students and submitting to Biden's office a list of top-scoring applicants who lack only a nomination from another source.
This year, however, Biden's staff took an interest in a particular candidate and let the Air Force know. "His contact called me and said, 'Hey, we've had some express interest in this individual,' " said Jim Dahlmann, the Air Force Academy's congressional liaison.
"Sure enough, he was a qualified candidate, which is great. And he's of interest to the vice president. Well that's easy enough, we'll make sure he's on the list," he said.
The student also had secured nominations from a U.S. senator and a local congresswoman, but academy officials took the extra step of putting the student at the top of the list they submitted to Biden's office, Dahlmann said. "We wanted to make sure they could say, 'Oh yeah, the academy is listening to us.' "
Generally, Dahlmann said, Biden's office is more removed from the process than congressional offices.
At the Naval Academy, the list of vice presidential nominations this year included the daughter of Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. Harris spokesman Chris Meekins said the younger Harris, a track standout, was recruited for the academy's track team late in the year — after congressional application deadlines had passed — and the vice presidential nomination was the only option available.
She was offered an appointment to Annapolis but did not accept it. Harris is now studying at Notre Dame on a track scholarship.
The vice president's office would not discuss any nominations on the record. "In order to protect the privacy of individuals who are nominated to the service academies and consistent with previous administration practices and service academy protocols, we don't release names to the public," said Kendra Barkoff, a Biden spokeswoman.
But some of the academies say Biden's office is more engaged in the process than was his predecessor. "This vice president has been active in making the selections," said Col. Deborah McDonald, West Point's director of admissions. While vice president Dick Cheney's nominations came in before the deadline, Biden's often come in months after the congressional nominations are due Jan. 31 — and in some cases as late as June, just before cadets and midshipmen report to the academies.
That additional time allows the vice president's office to ensure that its nominations are going only to candidates who don't have any other source of a nomination. "I'm guessing what they were doing was making sure they were looking at all the congressional nominations that came in to try to — and I'm just guessing this — expand the candidate pool," she said.
Other vice presidents have taken an interest in their nominations.
Former vice president Walter Mondale, who served in the late 1970s, said his staff took the step of reviewing the applications of nominees recommended by the academies. "I used the staff to vet them to see if there were any embarrassments there," Mondale said. "Most were just fine. ... I think (the academies) were very careful about sending up the best."
Under a separate system of nominations, the president also makes nominations for the children of Medal of Honor winners and members of the armed forces. But those nominations are presidential in name only — the entire process is delegated to the Defense Department and the academies, which don't release those names.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
CIgOBDhEvoOWd15q
|
|
white_house
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/28/trump-vows-new-chapter-american-greatness-in-speech-to-congress.html
|
Trump, in speech to Congress, calls to ‘restart the engine’ of US economy
|
2017-03-28
|
Judson Berger
|
President Trump declared Tuesday that a “ new chapter of American greatness is now beginning ” as he made economic revival the centerpiece of his first address to Congress – issuing a clarion call to “ restart the engine of the American economy ” through tax cuts , better trade deals , immigration enforcement and a $ 1 trillion infrastructure program .
He also called on Congress to replace what he called the “ imploding ObamaCare disaster ” with legislation that lowers costs and expands access , an ambitious goal for GOP lawmakers still trying to come together on a plan .
The president outlined his agenda in an address to a joint session of Congress that lasted roughly an hour and focused largely on priorities at home , more than abroad . He offered a decidedly upbeat vision for the future of the country that stood in contrast to his at-times foreboding inauguration address .
“ Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed . Every problem can be solved . And every hurting family can find healing , and hope , ” Trump said , urging lawmakers to `` join forces '' to deliver .
Trump for the most part traded the contentious and punchy tone of the last few weeks for loftier – some might say more presidential – rhetoric . Declaring “ the time for small thinking is over , ” Trump appealed to the country to “ believe , once more , in America . ”
“ A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning . A new national pride is sweeping across our nation , ” he said . “ And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp . ”
He described his address as a “ message of unity and strength . ”
The generally well-received speech could mark an opportunity for Trump to reset his young presidency after a rocky start in which clashes with the media and staffing controversies at times overshadowed action on the jobs front .
In perhaps the most memorable moment of the night , the audience broke out into extended applause as Trump introduced the widow of William `` Ryan '' Owens , the Navy SEAL killed in a raid in Yemen last month . Carryn Owens sobbed as lawmakers gave her a standing ovation and Trump said the raid he participated in yielded vital intelligence . His “ legacy is etched into eternity , ” Trump said .
In between the more dramatic moments were a host of policy prescriptions that could have a big impact on discussions in Congress .
Trump called for a “ national rebuilding , ” urging Congress to pass legislation that produces a $ 1 trillion public-private investment in infrastructure .
Speaking to a key campaign promise that has yet to be realized , he said his team is developing “ historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. ” He vowed a “ big , big cut ” including “ massive tax relief for the middle class . ”
And he urged Congress to replace ObamaCare “ with reforms that expand choice , increase access , lower costs , and at the same time , provide better health care . ”
He outlined “ principles ” to guide negotiations , including a call for Americans with pre-existing coverage to keep access to care , for states to have “ flexibility ” with Medicaid , and for Americans to be able to buy insurance across state lines .
Calling education the “ civil rights issue of our time , ” Trump also urged Congress to pass an education bill funding “ school choice . ”
While laying out his agenda , Trump touted his early-administration accomplishments while claiming he inherited many problems .
And as he did during the presidential campaign , he pushed a nationalist message , making big promises for what will happen when America puts its citizens first : “ Dying industries will come roaring back to life . … Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads , bridges , tunnels , airports and railways gleaming across our very , very beautiful land . … Above all else , we will keep our promises to the American people . ”
He said his job is to represent the United States , not the world .
In calling to “ restart ” the American jobs engine , Trump said the U.S. must make it “ easier for companies to do business in the United States , and much , much harder for companies to leave our country . ”
He also defended his stepped-up deportations and other border security plans , casting his immigration agenda as part of the broader economic plan . By enforcing immigration laws , he said , “ we will raise wages , help the unemployed , save billions and billions of dollars , and make our communities safer for everyone. ” He joined GOP lawmakers seeking reforms to legal immigration – and potentially reopened the broader debate in Congress by saying immigration reform is possible .
Trump 's first official status report to Congress came amid a fast-paced opening volley of activity at the start of his term : a slew of executive actions , a forthcoming budget proposal and various side-deals with American companies aimed at creating jobs . Trump was eager to highlight those accomplishments , but also faces early challenges : an order suspending refugee and other admissions on hold by the courts , questions about his team ’ s contacts with Russia and a Congress that has not yet moved legislation on key priorities .
The biggest task ahead is Republicans ’ drive to repeal and replace ObamaCare . As Trump appealed for a comprehensive package , some in the party have been divided over the plans being privately discussed at the Capitol .
House Speaker Paul Ryan played down divisions ahead of Tuesday ’ s speech . “ This is a plan that we are all working on together , ” he told reporters . “ There aren ’ t rival plans here . ”
After the speech , Ryan applauded Trump for what he called a `` home run . ''
But the official Democratic response offered a reminder of the resistance Trump will face on his legislative agenda , particularly on ObamaCare .
Former Kentucky Gov . Steve Beshear warned those efforts would strip affordable health insurance from Americans . “ This isn ’ t a game . It ’ s life and death for people , ” he said .
|
President Trump declared Tuesday that a “new chapter of American greatness is now beginning” as he made economic revival the centerpiece of his first address to Congress – issuing a clarion call to “restart the engine of the American economy” through tax cuts, better trade deals, immigration enforcement and a $1 trillion infrastructure program.
He also called on Congress to replace what he called the “imploding ObamaCare disaster” with legislation that lowers costs and expands access, an ambitious goal for GOP lawmakers still trying to come together on a plan.
The president outlined his agenda in an address to a joint session of Congress that lasted roughly an hour and focused largely on priorities at home, more than abroad. He offered a decidedly upbeat vision for the future of the country that stood in contrast to his at-times foreboding inauguration address.
“Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope,” Trump said, urging lawmakers to "join forces" to deliver.
Trump for the most part traded the contentious and punchy tone of the last few weeks for loftier – some might say more presidential – rhetoric. Declaring “the time for small thinking is over,” Trump appealed to the country to “believe, once more, in America.”
“A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our nation,” he said. “And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.”
He described his address as a “message of unity and strength.”
The generally well-received speech could mark an opportunity for Trump to reset his young presidency after a rocky start in which clashes with the media and staffing controversies at times overshadowed action on the jobs front.
In perhaps the most memorable moment of the night, the audience broke out into extended applause as Trump introduced the widow of William "Ryan" Owens, the Navy SEAL killed in a raid in Yemen last month. Carryn Owens sobbed as lawmakers gave her a standing ovation and Trump said the raid he participated in yielded vital intelligence. His “legacy is etched into eternity,” Trump said.
In between the more dramatic moments were a host of policy prescriptions that could have a big impact on discussions in Congress.
Trump called for a “national rebuilding,” urging Congress to pass legislation that produces a $1 trillion public-private investment in infrastructure.
Speaking to a key campaign promise that has yet to be realized, he said his team is developing “historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He vowed a “big, big cut” including “massive tax relief for the middle class.”
And he urged Congress to replace ObamaCare “with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better health care.”
He outlined “principles” to guide negotiations, including a call for Americans with pre-existing coverage to keep access to care, for states to have “flexibility” with Medicaid, and for Americans to be able to buy insurance across state lines.
Calling education the “civil rights issue of our time,” Trump also urged Congress to pass an education bill funding “school choice.”
While laying out his agenda, Trump touted his early-administration accomplishments while claiming he inherited many problems.
And as he did during the presidential campaign, he pushed a nationalist message, making big promises for what will happen when America puts its citizens first: “Dying industries will come roaring back to life. … Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. … Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.”
He said his job is to represent the United States, not the world.
In calling to “restart” the American jobs engine, Trump said the U.S. must make it “easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much, much harder for companies to leave our country.”
He also defended his stepped-up deportations and other border security plans, casting his immigration agenda as part of the broader economic plan. By enforcing immigration laws, he said, “we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone.” He joined GOP lawmakers seeking reforms to legal immigration – and potentially reopened the broader debate in Congress by saying immigration reform is possible.
Trump's first official status report to Congress came amid a fast-paced opening volley of activity at the start of his term: a slew of executive actions, a forthcoming budget proposal and various side-deals with American companies aimed at creating jobs. Trump was eager to highlight those accomplishments, but also faces early challenges: an order suspending refugee and other admissions on hold by the courts, questions about his team’s contacts with Russia and a Congress that has not yet moved legislation on key priorities.
The biggest task ahead is Republicans’ drive to repeal and replace ObamaCare. As Trump appealed for a comprehensive package, some in the party have been divided over the plans being privately discussed at the Capitol.
House Speaker Paul Ryan played down divisions ahead of Tuesday’s speech. “This is a plan that we are all working on together,” he told reporters. “There aren’t rival plans here.”
After the speech, Ryan applauded Trump for what he called a "home run."
But the official Democratic response offered a reminder of the resistance Trump will face on his legislative agenda, particularly on ObamaCare.
Former Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear warned those efforts would strip affordable health insurance from Americans. “This isn’t a game. It’s life and death for people,” he said.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
lgtL9OxaCwGqvXWb
|
welfare
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/public-charge-rule
|
‘Public Charge’ Rule
|
Some suggest that Congress “ remove Trump from office , so that he can not abuse incumbency to subvert the electoral process , but let the American people make the judgment on whether or not he gets a second term… Removing Trump from office for the remainder of his term would disable him from abusing presidential power again and protect the integrity of the electoral process from inappropriate interference . At the same time , letting him run for a second term would permit the American electorate to decide whether Trump , despite his attempt to subvert the system , should have another chance… Decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus . As long as Trump can run again , Republicans can not hide behind a claim that they are [ the ] ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment. ” Edward B. Foley , Politico
“ The long-run structure of the American welfare state , which is heavily focused on providing health care and retirement security to the elderly , requires a growing population and economy . Immigrants contribute to both goals … Going forward , demographers forecast that immigration — both the people it provides directly and the children that immigrants bear and raise — is the only reason America ’ s working-age population isn ’ t declining . This is doubly true when you consider that immigrants ’ work in the household and child care sectors likely serves to increase native-born Americans ’ childbearing as well… That hundreds of millions of people around the world would like to move to our shores — and that America has a long tradition of assimilating foreigners and a political mythos and civil culture that is conducive to doing so — is an enormous source of national strength . It ’ s time we started to see it that way. ” Matthew Yglesias , Vox
“ By signaling that the huddled masses are no longer welcome while others in the administration ( particularly Jared Kushner ) continue to advocate for the types of visas favored in Silicon Valley , Team Trump spins this as advocating not for ‘ zero immigration , ’ but for the ‘ right kind of immigration ’ … [ But ] ‘ the president has made it more difficult—and expensive—to hire high-skilled tech workers from other countries . The administration has throttled a program that encouraged entrepreneurs to come to the U.S. It ’ s also ending work permits for spouses of H-1B holders , who are often highly skilled professionals themselves. ’ As a result of the administration ’ s efforts , there was a 10 percent decline in H-1Bs issued last year… It isn ’ t just about dissuading the tired and poor from coming , it ’ s about telling everyone to stay away . ” Alex Shephard , New Republic
“ [ The rule ] won ’ t attract greater numbers of better-heeled , success-bound applicants . But it will radically slash the total number of immigrants gaining legal admission . And it will deprive the U.S. economy of badly needed workers of the sort who have a long track record of upward mobility… The fact remains that less-well-heeled immigrants fill jobs for which there are insufficient native-born applicants ; they perform well in those jobs and move up the income bracket . The administration ’ s new rules , while complex — they exempt pregnant women , asylum seekers , refugees , military service personnel and others — would drastically expand the pool of those who could be denied legal permanent residency based on poor predictors of future success. ” Editorial Board , Washington Post
“ The Labor Department reports that seven million jobs are going unfilled even as the economy is slowing… Foreign-born workers include surgeons , computer engineers and financiers , and also those working in restaurant kitchens and driving cabs , doing the less desirable jobs at the lowest wages . But they contribute to the growth of the nation , and if some of them need help at some point with housing or food stamps , it ’ s a bargain in the long term . The economic return makes immigration a great investment for the nation . Which is why Mr. Trump ’ s public charge rule is bad for all Americans , not just those who strive to become one. ” Bill Saporito , New York Times
“ Aside from the strong moral arguments against letting poor people go hungry and sick , no rational government would want immigrant communities to , for example , forgo vaccinating their children in order to avoid a punitive reaction from immigration authorities ; that has all the makings of a public health catastrophe . No rational government of a country with millions of immigrants would want millions of immigrant children to show up at school hungry each morning because their parents are afraid to apply for food stamps . No rational government would want hundreds of thousands of immigrant families to risk homelessness because of a temporary dip in their financial situation . Simply out of self-interest , a country such as the United States can not afford to drive millions of legal immigrants entirely outside the social safety net. ” Sasha Abramsky , The Nation
“ Never mind that immigrants are , for one thing , less likely to rely on welfare benefits than native-born Americans… consider for a moment how many Americans -- our parents , grandparents , or great-grandparents -- would n't be here today if regulations that used the straitened circumstances of new immigrants to measure their future earning potential had been in place. ” Jill Filipovic , CNN
“ The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act , which , among other things , excluded anyone who was ‘ unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge. ’ That principle — the ‘ public-charge doctrine , ’ as it ’ s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation , including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws…
“ The Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency . In other words , an immigrant using food stamps , Medicaid , free school lunch , and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting… Immigrants shouldn ’ t just use welfare less than the native-born — ideally , they shouldn ’ t use it at all . ”
“ This approach is rooted in the common sense notion that immigrants should support themselves , not burden taxpayers . If they can ’ t support themselves , they should leave… However , the rule isn ’ t draconian . It applies to ‘ an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period. ’ Receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months . Thus , immigrants in dire straits can seek assistance of the types addressed in the new rule . Their status will be in jeopardy only if they remain on it for a year or more , total , during a three-year period . And even if they do , they won ’ t automatically be denied green cards . Other factors will be considered in assessing the likelihood that an immigrant who has used welfare extensively will be granted status . ”
Some , however , argue “ there ’ s little evidence that immigrants are free-riding , and the DHS rule cedes too much discretion to bureaucrats over immigration decisions… most immigrants don ’ t qualify for most public benefits until they have lived in the country for at least five years . Thus DHS is directing immigration officers in the 837-page rule to project the likelihood that immigrants might someday become a ‘ public charge ’ based on arbitrary levels of income , employment , education and English proficiency…
“ While supposedly trying to flesh out a vague statute , DHS is essentially rewriting immigration law on its own . And wouldn ’ t you know , the rule bears a striking resemblance to the ‘ merit-based ’ system that restrictionists in the White House have proposed but can ’ t get Congress to pass . If this sounds like Barack Obama ’ s legislate-by-rule strategy on climate change , that ’ s because it is . ”
“ Congress passed a law decades ago establishing that potential immigrants likely to become a ‘ public charge ’ should not be permitted to enter the country . That makes some sense : A new resident should be able to add to , not detract from , the existing community ’ s economic resources . The problem is that Congress did not do its job and clearly establish when an aspiring immigrant meets or fails that test…
“ The rule announced on Monday is 837 pages long . It needed to address all the thorny issues Congress avoided and makes a roomful of contentious value judgments along the way… This is a problem inherent in what conservative lawyers call ‘ the administrative state. ’ Congress passes laws that amount to mere statements of intent , avoiding the difficult choices that invite scrutiny and make enemies . It passes the buck to executive agencies , which then must make the value judgments and trade-offs via processes largely behind closed doors… Judicial oversight is no substitute for congressional abdication . Judges are not equipped to make the moral or technical judgments such laws in all but name require . ”
“ This isn ’ t about race… the story of immigration to the United States has always been about people of every race , color and creed who come here to work and take advantage of American freedoms and opportunity — not a desire to take advantage of the welfare state… Even if you don ’ t share administration hard-liners ’ desire to cut back legal immigration , emphasizing merit is a common-sense concern that is supported by most Americans . Our culture is rooted in self-sufficiency and individual initiative . Our immigration system should reflect our national creed . ”
“ If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy . In recent decades , the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment . Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors ? … the nation does not want another war . How we avoid it , however , is becoming difficult to see . John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing , but his soul is marching on . ”
Others note , “ I ’ d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame . The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by , for instance , mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels . Trump ’ s conversation is typically scattershot , wandering all over the field , leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be… “ I think Joe Sixpack ’ s response is going to be a hearty shrug . After all that has emerged about Trump so far , his approval rating is closely tracking Obama ’ s approval at the same point in his presidency . To get Mr. Sixpack ’ s attention you are going to have to do better than this . ”
|
Some suggest that Congress “remove Trump from office, so that he cannot abuse incumbency to subvert the electoral process, but let the American people make the judgment on whether or not he gets a second term… Removing Trump from office for the remainder of his term would disable him from abusing presidential power again and protect the integrity of the electoral process from inappropriate interference. At the same time, letting him run for a second term would permit the American electorate to decide whether Trump, despite his attempt to subvert the system, should have another chance… Decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus . As long as Trump can run again, Republicans cannot hide behind a claim that they are [the] ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment.” Edward B. Foley, Politico
“The long-run structure of the American welfare state, which is heavily focused on providing health care and retirement security to the elderly, requires a growing population and economy. Immigrants contribute to both goals … Going forward, demographers forecast that immigration — both the people it provides directly and the children that immigrants bear and raise — is the only reason America’s working-age population isn’t declining. This is doubly true when you consider that immigrants’ work in the household and child care sectors likely serves to increase native-born Americans’ childbearing as well… That hundreds of millions of people around the world would like to move to our shores — and that America has a long tradition of assimilating foreigners and a political mythos and civil culture that is conducive to doing so — is an enormous source of national strength. It’s time we started to see it that way.” Matthew Yglesias, Vox
“By signaling that the huddled masses are no longer welcome while others in the administration (particularly Jared Kushner) continue to advocate for the types of visas favored in Silicon Valley, Team Trump spins this as advocating not for ‘zero immigration,’ but for the ‘right kind of immigration’… [But] ‘the president has made it more difficult—and expensive—to hire high-skilled tech workers from other countries. The administration has throttled a program that encouraged entrepreneurs to come to the U.S. It’s also ending work permits for spouses of H-1B holders, who are often highly skilled professionals themselves.’ As a result of the administration’s efforts, there was a 10 percent decline in H-1Bs issued last year… It isn’t just about dissuading the tired and poor from coming, it’s about telling everyone to stay away .” Alex Shephard, New Republic
“[The rule] won’t attract greater numbers of better-heeled, success-bound applicants. But it will radically slash the total number of immigrants gaining legal admission . And it will deprive the U.S. economy of badly needed workers of the sort who have a long track record of upward mobility… The fact remains that less-well-heeled immigrants fill jobs for which there are insufficient native-born applicants; they perform well in those jobs and move up the income bracket. The administration’s new rules, while complex — they exempt pregnant women, asylum seekers, refugees, military service personnel and others — would drastically expand the pool of those who could be denied legal permanent residency based on poor predictors of future success.” Editorial Board, Washington Post
“The Labor Department reports that seven million jobs are going unfilled even as the economy is slowing… Foreign-born workers include surgeons, computer engineers and financiers, and also those working in restaurant kitchens and driving cabs, doing the less desirable jobs at the lowest wages. But they contribute to the growth of the nation, and if some of them need help at some point with housing or food stamps, it’s a bargain in the long term. The economic return makes immigration a great investment for the nation. Which is why Mr. Trump’s public charge rule is bad for all Americans , not just those who strive to become one.” Bill Saporito, New York Times
“Aside from the strong moral arguments against letting poor people go hungry and sick, no rational government would want immigrant communities to, for example, forgo vaccinating their children in order to avoid a punitive reaction from immigration authorities; that has all the makings of a public health catastrophe. No rational government of a country with millions of immigrants would want millions of immigrant children to show up at school hungry each morning because their parents are afraid to apply for food stamps. No rational government would want hundreds of thousands of immigrant families to risk homelessness because of a temporary dip in their financial situation. Simply out of self-interest, a country such as the United States cannot afford to drive millions of legal immigrants entirely outside the social safety net.” Sasha Abramsky, The Nation
“Never mind that immigrants are, for one thing, less likely to rely on welfare benefits than native-born Americans… consider for a moment how many Americans -- our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents--wouldn't be here today if regulations that used the straitened circumstances of new immigrants to measure their future earning potential had been in place.” Jill Filipovic, CNN
From the Right
The right is generally supportive of the rule.
From the Right
The right is generally supportive of the rule.
“The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act, which, among other things, excluded anyone who was ‘unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.’ That principle — the ‘public-charge doctrine,’ as it’s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation, including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws…
“The Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency. In other words, an immigrant using food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunch, and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting… Immigrants shouldn’t just use welfare less than the native-born — ideally, they shouldn’t use it at all.”
Mark Krikorian, National Review
“This approach is rooted in the common sense notion that immigrants should support themselves, not burden taxpayers. If they can’t support themselves, they should leave… However, the rule isn’t draconian. It applies to ‘an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period.’ Receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months. Thus, immigrants in dire straits can seek assistance of the types addressed in the new rule. Their status will be in jeopardy only if they remain on it for a year or more, total, during a three-year period. And even if they do, they won’t automatically be denied green cards. Other factors will be considered in assessing the likelihood that an immigrant who has used welfare extensively will be granted status.”
Paul Mirengoff, Power Line Blog
Some, however, argue “there’s little evidence that immigrants are free-riding, and the DHS rule cedes too much discretion to bureaucrats over immigration decisions… most immigrants don’t qualify for most public benefits until they have lived in the country for at least five years. Thus DHS is directing immigration officers in the 837-page rule to project the likelihood that immigrants might someday become a ‘public charge’ based on arbitrary levels of income, employment, education and English proficiency…
“While supposedly trying to flesh out a vague statute, DHS is essentially rewriting immigration law on its own. And wouldn’t you know, the rule bears a striking resemblance to the ‘merit-based’ system that restrictionists in the White House have proposed but can’t get Congress to pass. If this sounds like Barack Obama ’s legislate-by-rule strategy on climate change, that’s because it is.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“Congress passed a law decades ago establishing that potential immigrants likely to become a ‘public charge’ should not be permitted to enter the country. That makes some sense: A new resident should be able to add to, not detract from, the existing community’s economic resources. The problem is that Congress did not do its job and clearly establish when an aspiring immigrant meets or fails that test…
“The rule announced on Monday is 837 pages long. It needed to address all the thorny issues Congress avoided and makes a roomful of contentious value judgments along the way… This is a problem inherent in what conservative lawyers call ‘the administrative state.’ Congress passes laws that amount to mere statements of intent, avoiding the difficult choices that invite scrutiny and make enemies. It passes the buck to executive agencies, which then must make the value judgments and trade-offs via processes largely behind closed doors… Judicial oversight is no substitute for congressional abdication. Judges are not equipped to make the moral or technical judgments such laws in all but name require.”
Henry Olsen, Washington Post
“This isn’t about race… the story of immigration to the United States has always been about people of every race, color and creed who come here to work and take advantage of American freedoms and opportunity — not a desire to take advantage of the welfare state… Even if you don’t share administration hard-liners’ desire to cut back legal immigration, emphasizing merit is a common-sense concern that is supported by most Americans. Our culture is rooted in self-sufficiency and individual initiative. Our immigration system should reflect our national creed.”
Jonathan S. Tobin, New York Post
“If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy. In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?… the nation does not want another war. How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see. John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.”
Patrick Buchanan, The American Conservative
Others note, “I’d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame. The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by, for instance, mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels. Trump’s conversation is typically scattershot, wandering all over the field, leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be… “I think Joe Sixpack’s response is going to be a hearty shrug. After all that has emerged about Trump so far, his approval rating is closely tracking Obama’s approval at the same point in his presidency. To get Mr. Sixpack’s attention you are going to have to do better than this.”
Kyle Smith, National Review
|
www.theflipside.io
| 2center
|
gOQyFYYgkygUAm9e
|
||
great_britain
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50818134
|
Brexit bill to rule out extension to transition period
|
The government is to add a new clause to the Brexit bill to rule out any extension to the transition period beyond the end of next year .
The post-Brexit transition period - due to conclude in December 2020 - can currently be extended by mutual agreement for up to two years .
But an amended Withdrawal Agreement Bill the Commons is set to vote on this week would rule out any extension .
The PM told MPs it would put an end to years of `` deadlock , dither and delay '' .
As the House of Commons assembled for the first time since the election , Boris Johnson said his priority was to `` get Brexit done '' . He also promised to seek `` common ground '' and to approach politics with a `` new and generous spirit '' after the rancour of recent years .
Jeremy Corbyn congratulated the Conservative leader on his victory but said he would be `` judged '' on whether he delivered on the `` many , many promises '' he had made during the campaign , including to longstanding Labour voters .
The UK is set to leave the EU on 31 January , more than three and a half years after the public backed Brexit in a referendum .
Soon after , the two sides will begin talking about their future economic relationship , including controversial areas such as fishing rights , consumer and environmental standards and financial services .
Trade deals typically take many years to conclude and senior EU figures are sceptical that a deal can be agreed within that time . If it is not , the economic relationship will default to World Trade Organization ( WTO ) terms , with the likelihood of tariffs on imports and exports .
The EU 's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said the bloc would `` do the maximum '' to finalise the deal in time . Asked about the UK 's refusal to contemplate any extra time for the talks , he said `` it is the British choice to choose the procedure it wants '' .
This is a political signal , a moment of early chest beating too , designed to disappoint those who might have been hoping No 10 might slide to a softer Brexit over the next few months .
And designed to gratify those who are adamant that Brexit must be completely `` done '' as soon as possible .
Boris Johnson seems to have concluded that if the talks are to go anywhere fast , there has to be a convincing clear deadline .
It was his vow of a Halloween deadline that got him to Downing Street in the first place , and although it was broken in the end , there 's little question that his attitude towards extending again and again changed the dynamics of the talks with the EU that got the revised deal done .
Putting the deadline into law may also be designed to focus minds in Brussels . How effective that might be ? That 's a different question .
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the PM 's move was `` reckless and irresponsible '' and he argued that Mr Johnson was `` prepared to put people 's jobs at risk '' .
Liberal Democrat interim leader Sir Ed Davey said : `` The only way Johnson can meet the December 2020 timetable is by giving up all his previous promises to Leave voters and agreeing to all the demands of the EU . ''
Downing Street has said the government plans to ask the new Parliament to have its first debate and vote on the withdrawal agreement - the legislation needed to ratify Brexit - on Friday .
With a majority of 80 following Thursday 's general election , Mr Johnson is expected to get the bill into law with few changes in time for the UK to end its EU membership on 31 January .
So , the government is going to pass a law to stop itself doing something that it had already promised not to do .
Because the decision on whether to extend the transition period lies with the prime minister anyway , not with Parliament .
And with his new majority , Mr Johnson knows his critics ca n't do anything to force his hand .
But as a statement of intent , this announcement is important .
By reaffirming Mr Johnson 's guarantee that the transition period will not be extended , it suggests there will only be enough time to agree a pretty basic trade deal which would leave many important issues unresolved .
That means a quick 'zero tariffs zero quotas ' deal on goods could be done , as long as the UK is prepared to sign up to the EU 's main conditions .
They include the UK sticking with EU rules on environmental and social policy , and on state aid for companies .
Such an agreement would n't get rid of all border checks , though , and it would n't do anything for the services sector .
The PM could of course change his mind again - he 's done that before .
But this is also a warning for businesses - they could be in for a bit of a bumpy ride at the end of next year .
As well as ruling out an extension , the Independent reports that the amended withdrawal agreement may omit previous `` provisions to ensure that workers ' rights were not weakened after Brexit '' .
Cabinet minister Michael Gove said workers ' rights would be `` safeguarded '' in separate legislation , adding that the government wanted to make sure the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes through Parliament `` cleanly and clearly '' .
But shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the government would `` sacrifice our basic rights and certainty for business at the altar of turning the UK into a Trump-supporting tax haven '' .
And Labour 's Barry Gardiner said his party would be less likely to support the bill if clauses on workers ' rights and the environment were removed .
The prime minister promised during the general election campaign that he would not seek an extension to the transition period - persuading Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to stand down candidates in Tory seats .
Sam Lowe , from the Centre for European Reform think tank , told BBC Radio 4 's Today programme that a December 2020 deadline could help the PM manage his own party when it comes to making concessions to the EU .
`` The prospect of a no-deal is still there , '' Mr Lowe said . `` The question is whether Boris Johnson wants a no-deal but the evidence of recent time suggests no he does n't . ''
Meanwhile , in the first act of the new Parliament , MPs re-confirmed Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle in his post without any opposition .
The MP for Chorley , who was only succeeded John Bercow at the start of November , said it was the `` greatest privilege '' to be asked to take the chair again and he would do his utmost to `` cherish the best traditions '' of the Parliament .
Commons officials have begun the process of swearing in the new MPs - which will continue on Wednesday .
After the election of the Speaker , the process of swearing in MPs begins . They are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown , or , if they object to this , a solemn affirmation . Those who speak or vote without having done so are deprived of their seat `` as if they were dead '' under the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 .
Two to three days are usually set aside for this process .
The state opening of Parliament . The Queen 's Speech is the centrepiece of this , when she will read a speech written by ministers setting out the government 's programme of legislation for the parliamentary session . A couple of hours after the speech is delivered , MPs will begin debating its contents - a process which usually takes days .
Depending on how rapidly Boris Johnson wants to move , the debate on the Queen 's Speech could continue into Friday .
The government will introduce the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to Parliament .
MPs in the previous Parliament backed Mr Johnson 's bill at its first stage but rejected his plan to fast-track the legislation through Parliament in three days in order to leave the EU by the then Brexit deadline of 31 October .
After the debate on the Queen 's Speech is concluded , MPs will vote on whether to approve it . Not since 1924 has a government 's Queen Speech been defeated .
|
Image copyright PA Media
The government is to add a new clause to the Brexit bill to rule out any extension to the transition period beyond the end of next year.
The post-Brexit transition period - due to conclude in December 2020 - can currently be extended by mutual agreement for up to two years.
But an amended Withdrawal Agreement Bill the Commons is set to vote on this week would rule out any extension.
The PM told MPs it would put an end to years of "deadlock, dither and delay".
As the House of Commons assembled for the first time since the election, Boris Johnson said his priority was to "get Brexit done". He also promised to seek "common ground" and to approach politics with a "new and generous spirit" after the rancour of recent years.
Jeremy Corbyn congratulated the Conservative leader on his victory but said he would be "judged" on whether he delivered on the "many, many promises" he had made during the campaign, including to longstanding Labour voters.
The UK is set to leave the EU on 31 January, more than three and a half years after the public backed Brexit in a referendum.
Soon after, the two sides will begin talking about their future economic relationship, including controversial areas such as fishing rights, consumer and environmental standards and financial services.
Trade deals typically take many years to conclude and senior EU figures are sceptical that a deal can be agreed within that time. If it is not, the economic relationship will default to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms, with the likelihood of tariffs on imports and exports.
The EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said the bloc would "do the maximum" to finalise the deal in time. Asked about the UK's refusal to contemplate any extra time for the talks, he said "it is the British choice to choose the procedure it wants".
Political signal
This is a political signal, a moment of early chest beating too, designed to disappoint those who might have been hoping No 10 might slide to a softer Brexit over the next few months.
And designed to gratify those who are adamant that Brexit must be completely "done" as soon as possible.
Boris Johnson seems to have concluded that if the talks are to go anywhere fast, there has to be a convincing clear deadline.
It was his vow of a Halloween deadline that got him to Downing Street in the first place, and although it was broken in the end, there's little question that his attitude towards extending again and again changed the dynamics of the talks with the EU that got the revised deal done.
Putting the deadline into law may also be designed to focus minds in Brussels. How effective that might be? That's a different question.
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said the PM's move was "reckless and irresponsible" and he argued that Mr Johnson was "prepared to put people's jobs at risk".
Liberal Democrat interim leader Sir Ed Davey said: "The only way Johnson can meet the December 2020 timetable is by giving up all his previous promises to Leave voters and agreeing to all the demands of the EU."
Downing Street has said the government plans to ask the new Parliament to have its first debate and vote on the withdrawal agreement - the legislation needed to ratify Brexit - on Friday.
With a majority of 80 following Thursday's general election, Mr Johnson is expected to get the bill into law with few changes in time for the UK to end its EU membership on 31 January.
So, the government is going to pass a law to stop itself doing something that it had already promised not to do.
On the surface, that doesn't change much.
Because the decision on whether to extend the transition period lies with the prime minister anyway, not with Parliament.
And with his new majority, Mr Johnson knows his critics can't do anything to force his hand.
But as a statement of intent, this announcement is important.
By reaffirming Mr Johnson's guarantee that the transition period will not be extended, it suggests there will only be enough time to agree a pretty basic trade deal which would leave many important issues unresolved.
That means a quick 'zero tariffs zero quotas' deal on goods could be done, as long as the UK is prepared to sign up to the EU's main conditions.
They include the UK sticking with EU rules on environmental and social policy, and on state aid for companies.
Such an agreement wouldn't get rid of all border checks, though, and it wouldn't do anything for the services sector.
The PM could of course change his mind again - he's done that before.
But this is also a warning for businesses - they could be in for a bit of a bumpy ride at the end of next year.
As well as ruling out an extension, the Independent reports that the amended withdrawal agreement may omit previous "provisions to ensure that workers' rights were not weakened after Brexit".
Cabinet minister Michael Gove said workers' rights would be "safeguarded" in separate legislation, adding that the government wanted to make sure the Withdrawal Agreement Bill passes through Parliament "cleanly and clearly".
But shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the government would "sacrifice our basic rights and certainty for business at the altar of turning the UK into a Trump-supporting tax haven".
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Government to bring back Brexit bill to Commons this Friday
And Labour's Barry Gardiner said his party would be less likely to support the bill if clauses on workers' rights and the environment were removed.
The prime minister promised during the general election campaign that he would not seek an extension to the transition period - persuading Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to stand down candidates in Tory seats.
Sam Lowe, from the Centre for European Reform think tank, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that a December 2020 deadline could help the PM manage his own party when it comes to making concessions to the EU.
"The prospect of a no-deal is still there," Mr Lowe said. "The question is whether Boris Johnson wants a no-deal but the evidence of recent time suggests no he doesn't."
Meanwhile, in the first act of the new Parliament, MPs re-confirmed Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle in his post without any opposition.
The MP for Chorley, who was only succeeded John Bercow at the start of November, said it was the "greatest privilege" to be asked to take the chair again and he would do his utmost to "cherish the best traditions" of the Parliament.
Commons officials have begun the process of swearing in the new MPs - which will continue on Wednesday.
What will happen this week?
Tuesday and Wednesday
After the election of the Speaker, the process of swearing in MPs begins. They are required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, or, if they object to this, a solemn affirmation. Those who speak or vote without having done so are deprived of their seat "as if they were dead" under the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866.
Two to three days are usually set aside for this process.
Thursday
The state opening of Parliament. The Queen's Speech is the centrepiece of this, when she will read a speech written by ministers setting out the government's programme of legislation for the parliamentary session. A couple of hours after the speech is delivered, MPs will begin debating its contents - a process which usually takes days.
Friday
Depending on how rapidly Boris Johnson wants to move, the debate on the Queen's Speech could continue into Friday.
The government will introduce the Withdrawal Agreement Bill to Parliament.
MPs in the previous Parliament backed Mr Johnson's bill at its first stage but rejected his plan to fast-track the legislation through Parliament in three days in order to leave the EU by the then Brexit deadline of 31 October.
After the debate on the Queen's Speech is concluded, MPs will vote on whether to approve it. Not since 1924 has a government's Queen Speech been defeated.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
gcToBpiKVinmgzeS
|
||
politics
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-aipac-tweet-condemnation-including-from-chelsea-clinton
|
Ilhan Omar's AIPAC tweet sparks condemnation, including from Chelsea Clinton
|
Samuel Chamberlain
|
Rep. Ilhan Omar , D-Minn. , sparked backlash Sunday evening from members of both parties -- including former first daughter Chelsea Clinton -- after she accused a prominent lobbying group of paying members of Congress to support Israel .
Omar , who became the first Somali-American woman elected to Congress in November , responded to a Twitter post by journalist Glenn Greenwald criticizing House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , for threatening to take action against Omar and another freshman lawmaker , Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , over allegedly anti-Semitic remarks .
`` There ’ s situations in our conference where a member does something that is wrong — I think you ’ ve seen from my own actions that I take action about it , '' McCarthy told reporters Friday , making an apparent reference to Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa . `` I think when they stay silent , they are just as guilty ... I think this will not be the end of this , and if they do not take action then I think you will see action from myself . It ’ s unacceptable in this country , especially when you sit back and think about and listen to what this country went through in World War II . ''
MCCARTHY ASKS DEMS TO DENOUNCE ALLEGED ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS : 'THIS WILL NOT BE THE END OF THIS '
Greenwald accused McCarthy of targeting Omar and Tlaib for their numerous criticisms of Israel , to which Omar chimed in `` It 's all about the Benjamins , baby , '' quoting a 1997 rap song by Puff Daddy . She then doubled down when challenged by Batya Ungar-Sargon , the opinion editor of The Forward newspaper .
`` Would love to know who @ IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel , though I think I can guess , '' Ungar-Sargon tweeted . `` Bad form , Congresswoman . That 's the second anti-Semitic trope you 've tweeted . ''
In response , Omar tweeted `` AIPAC ! '' referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee , which regularly has been accused by progressives of agitating for a conflict with Iran .
`` We are proud that we are engaged in the democratic process to strengthen the US-Israel relationship , '' AIPAC tweeted Sunday evening . `` Our bipartisan efforts are reflective of American values and interests . We will not be deterred in any way by ill-informed and illegitimate attacks on this important work . ''
Another freshman Democrat , Max Rose of New York , tweeted that Omar 's statements `` are deeply hurtful to Jews , including myself . ''
`` When someone uses hateful and offensive tropes and words against people of my faith , I will not be silent , '' Rose said in a statement . `` ... At a time when anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise , our leaders should not be invoking hurtful stereotypes and caricatures of Jewish people to dismiss those who support Israel . In the Democratic Party - and in the United States of America - we celebrate the diversity of our people , and the Gods we pray to , as a strength . The congresswoman 's statements do not live up to that cherished ideal . ''
JEWISH GROUPS CONDEMN REP. RASHIDA TLAIB OVER TIES TO RADICAL PRO-HEZBOLLAH , ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVIST
House GOP conference chair Liz Cheney , R-Wyo. , slammed Omar 's remarks and called for House Democrat leaders to remove Omar from the Housed Foreign Affairs Committee .
Zudhi Jasser , a physician and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy , took Cheney ’ s call a step further , arguing that removing Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be a “ good first step , followed by a swift sanction against @ IlhanMN for bigotry unfit for the US Congress with removal from all committees . Ignoring this would bring the “ bigotry of low expectations ” to a new low for Muslims . ”
The Republican Jewish Coalition called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , to take action against Omar and asked rhetorically if other House Democrats would `` care to comment on the outrageous anti-Semitism being spewed by one of your fêted members ? ''
`` [ House Majority ] Leader [ Steny ] Hoyer [ D-Md . ] - you 've led many AIPAC trips to Israel , '' RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks tweeted . `` Will you speak out against this ? ? ''
McCarthy himself tweeted : `` Anti-Semitic tropes have no place in the halls of Congress . It is dangerous for Democrat leadership to stay silent on this reckless language . ''
Former U.S . Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who repeatedly accused the global body of anti-Israel bias during her tenure , tweeted that Omar 's statements `` CAN NOT be tolerated in our own Congress by anyone of either party . In a time of increased anti semitism , we all must be held to account . No excuses . ''
Chelsea Clinton tweeted : `` We should expect all elected officials , regardless of party , and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism . ''
Meghan McCain , daughter of late Arizona Senator John McCain , lauded Clinton for calling out anti-Semitism `` on all sides , in all spaces , no matter how uncomfortable . ''
Left-wing historian and Politico Magazine contributing editor Joshua Zeitz tweeted : `` I 'm one of those American Jews who opposes the occupation [ of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ] , laments Israel 's anti-democratic drift , and does n't regard the country as especially central to my Jewish identity . And I knew exactly what the congresswoman meant . She might as well call us hook-nosed . ''
Clinton later promised that she would `` reach out '' to Omar Monday after another user said she was `` disappointed '' that Clinton was `` piling on . ''
`` I would be happy to talk , '' Omar tweeted at Clinton in response . `` We must call out smears from the GOP and their allies . And I believe we can do that without criticizing people for their faith . I look forward to building an inclusive movement for justice with you . ''
Sunday marked the latest in a long line of statements by Omar that critics have slammed as anti-Semitic . In 2012 , she tweeted that `` Israel has hypnotized the world , may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel . # Gaza # Palestine # Israel. ” She did not apologize for posting the tweet until last month .
In January , Omar argued in a Yahoo ! News interview that Israel could not be considered a democracy and compared it to the Islamic theocracy in Iran .
`` When I see Israel institute laws that recognize it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it , and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East I almost chuckle because I know that if we see that any other society we would criticize it , call it out , '' she said . `` We do that to Iran , we do that to any other place that sort of upholds its religion . And I see that now happening with Saudi Arabia and so I am aggravated , truly , in those contradictions . ''
|
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., sparked backlash Sunday evening from members of both parties -- including former first daughter Chelsea Clinton -- after she accused a prominent lobbying group of paying members of Congress to support Israel.
Omar, who became the first Somali-American woman elected to Congress in November, responded to a Twitter post by journalist Glenn Greenwald criticizing House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., for threatening to take action against Omar and another freshman lawmaker, Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., over allegedly anti-Semitic remarks.
"There’s situations in our conference where a member does something that is wrong — I think you’ve seen from my own actions that I take action about it," McCarthy told reporters Friday, making an apparent reference to Republican congressman Steve King of Iowa. "I think when they stay silent, they are just as guilty ... I think this will not be the end of this, and if they do not take action then I think you will see action from myself. It’s unacceptable in this country, especially when you sit back and think about and listen to what this country went through in World War II."
MCCARTHY ASKS DEMS TO DENOUNCE ALLEGED ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS: 'THIS WILL NOT BE THE END OF THIS'
Greenwald accused McCarthy of targeting Omar and Tlaib for their numerous criticisms of Israel, to which Omar chimed in "It's all about the Benjamins, baby," quoting a 1997 rap song by Puff Daddy. She then doubled down when challenged by Batya Ungar-Sargon, the opinion editor of The Forward newspaper.
"Would love to know who @IlhanMN thinks is paying American politicians to be pro-Israel, though I think I can guess," Ungar-Sargon tweeted. "Bad form, Congresswoman. That's the second anti-Semitic trope you've tweeted."
In response, Omar tweeted "AIPAC!" referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which regularly has been accused by progressives of agitating for a conflict with Iran.
"We are proud that we are engaged in the democratic process to strengthen the US-Israel relationship," AIPAC tweeted Sunday evening. "Our bipartisan efforts are reflective of American values and interests. We will not be deterred in any way by ill-informed and illegitimate attacks on this important work."
Another freshman Democrat, Max Rose of New York, tweeted that Omar's statements "are deeply hurtful to Jews, including myself."
"When someone uses hateful and offensive tropes and words against people of my faith, I will not be silent," Rose said in a statement. "... At a time when anti-Semitic attacks are on the rise, our leaders should not be invoking hurtful stereotypes and caricatures of Jewish people to dismiss those who support Israel. In the Democratic Party - and in the United States of America - we celebrate the diversity of our people, and the Gods we pray to, as a strength. The congresswoman's statements do not live up to that cherished ideal."
JEWISH GROUPS CONDEMN REP. RASHIDA TLAIB OVER TIES TO RADICAL PRO-HEZBOLLAH, ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVIST
House GOP conference chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., slammed Omar's remarks and called for House Democrat leaders to remove Omar from the Housed Foreign Affairs Committee.
Zudhi Jasser, a physician and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, took Cheney’s call a step further, arguing that removing Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee would be a “good first step, followed by a swift sanction against @IlhanMN for bigotry unfit for the US Congress with removal from all committees. Ignoring this would bring the “bigotry of low expectations” to a new low for Muslims.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to take action against Omar and asked rhetorically if other House Democrats would "care to comment on the outrageous anti-Semitism being spewed by one of your fêted members?"
"[House Majority] Leader [Steny] Hoyer [D-Md.] - you've led many AIPAC trips to Israel," RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks tweeted. "Will you speak out against this??"
McCarthy himself tweeted: "Anti-Semitic tropes have no place in the halls of Congress. It is dangerous for Democrat leadership to stay silent on this reckless language."
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who repeatedly accused the global body of anti-Israel bias during her tenure, tweeted that Omar's statements "CANNOT be tolerated in our own Congress by anyone of either party. In a time of increased anti semitism, we all must be held to account. No excuses."
Chelsea Clinton tweeted: "We should expect all elected officials, regardless of party, and all public figures to not traffic in anti-Semitism."
Meghan McCain, daughter of late Arizona Senator John McCain, lauded Clinton for calling out anti-Semitism "on all sides, in all spaces, no matter how uncomfortable."
Left-wing historian and Politico Magazine contributing editor Joshua Zeitz tweeted: "I'm one of those American Jews who opposes the occupation [of the West Bank and Gaza Strip], laments Israel's anti-democratic drift, and doesn't regard the country as especially central to my Jewish identity. And I knew exactly what the congresswoman meant. She might as well call us hook-nosed."
Clinton later promised that she would "reach out" to Omar Monday after another user said she was "disappointed" that Clinton was "piling on."
"I would be happy to talk," Omar tweeted at Clinton in response. "We must call out smears from the GOP and their allies. And I believe we can do that without criticizing people for their faith. I look forward to building an inclusive movement for justice with you."
Sunday marked the latest in a long line of statements by Omar that critics have slammed as anti-Semitic. In 2012, she tweeted that "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine#Israel.” She did not apologize for posting the tweet until last month.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
In January, Omar argued in a Yahoo! News interview that Israel could not be considered a democracy and compared it to the Islamic theocracy in Iran.
"When I see Israel institute laws that recognize it as a Jewish state and does not recognize the other religions that are living in it, and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East I almost chuckle because I know that if we see that any other society we would criticize it, call it out," she said. "We do that to Iran, we do that to any other place that sort of upholds its religion. And I see that now happening with Saudi Arabia and so I am aggravated, truly, in those contradictions."
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
yAYBmBamWjyu7DzA
|
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-violence
|
America's gun problem is so much bigger than mass shootings
|
2016-06-21
|
Lois Beckett, Rich Harris, Nadja Popovich, Jan Diehm, Mona Chalabi
|
A disturbed man with an AR-15-style rifle walked through a popular historic site in 1996 , shooting up the cafe and gift shop . He left 35 people dead and 19 seriously injured .
The country ’ s conservative leader pushed through immediate , sweeping changes to gun laws . Chief among them was a ban and mandatory buyback of more than 600,000 semiautomatic rifles and other long guns , which were then melted down . In all , one researcher estimates , the government ultimately destroyed about a million weapons – roughly one-third of its total gun stock .
That was in Australia , a country that has not had another large-casualty mass shooting since . Officials repeatedly ask : why can ’ t America do the same ?
“ We know that other countries , in response to one mass shooting , have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings . Friends of ours , allies of ours – Great Britain , Australia , ” Barack Obama said last year after a mass shooting at a college in Oregon .
“ Certainly the Australia example is worth looking at , ” Hillary Clinton said that same month .
In an attack on America ’ s political inaction last week , comedian Samantha Bee asked why one city after another had to have its “ turn ” witnessing a mass shooting . In Australia , she said : “ Parliament passed strict gun laws and they haven ’ t had a mass shooting since then . ”
One reason America can ’ t emulate Australia is purely political : American gun rights advocates say this kind of confiscation would prompt “ a civil war ” .
“ It ’ s confiscation of private property and the threat of jail , and that ’ s not the American way , ” said Philip Alpers , a gun violence researcher at the University of Sydney .
But there are other reasons that Australia is not a good model for how the US can address gun violence . As part of a Guardian examination of what it might take to break the cycle of the American gun control debate , we looked first at how parents of children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school are trying to move the conversation forward – in part , by fighting for laws that would not have saved their children . Today , we ’ re looking more deeply at the reality behind America ’ s gun casualty numbers – and why allowing mass shootings to define the debate may get in the way of saving lives .
Can the US break its cycle of gun control failure ? Read more
America ’ s gun problem is dramatically larger in scale than Australia ’ s was
In the US , more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed in gun murders this year . Another 20,000 will likely be lost to gun suicide . The total number of gun deaths and violent injuries will be close to 100,000 .
Even before the “ big melt ” , as one Australian gun researcher put it , Australia ’ s per capita rate of gun homicide was much lower than America ’ s . Handguns were already strictly regulated .
In 1995 , before it implemented sweeping gun buybacks , Australia saw 67 gun murders , fewer than last year ’ s total murders in Oklahoma City . After Australia ’ s buyback of nearly a million guns , at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars , the nation ’ s gun murders dropped by nearly half , from 67 to about 30 gun murders per year . Researchers are still debating how much of that drop was attributable to the new gun control policies , since gun murders were already trending down .
The US also has a dramatically larger number of guns . For the US to collect and destroy the same proportion of firearms that Australia did it would require a buyback of 90m firearms , according to a leading Australian researcher , at a cost that might be in the billions if the US paid fair market value for the weapons .
The US doesn ’ t just have a mass shooting problem – it has an enormous , multifaceted gun violence problem
Mass shootings are a growing and alarming phenomenon in the US . By a purely numerical count , the United States has seen more than 1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days . By a stricter definition , the number is smaller but still sobering : 19 public mass shootings since the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in December 2012 .
But by any definition , they make up only a tiny percentage of the overall toll of gun deaths .
The US could end all mass shootings today and its rates of gun violence would still be many times higher than other rich countries .
Much of America ’ s day-to-day gun violence is concentrated in America ’ s poorest , most racially segregated neighborhoods – places with high rates of unemployment , struggling school systems , and high levels of mistrust between police officers and community members .
African Americans , who represent 13 % of the total population , make up more than half of overall gun murder victims . Roughly 15 of the 30 Americans murdered with guns each day are black men .
Gun violence in America , as criminologist Frank Zimring put it , is another regressive tax on the poor . Some black neighborhoods have experienced so much violence that their residents report symptoms of post-traumatic stress at rates comparable to veterans of war .
Because everyday gun violence is concentrated in racially segregated neighborhoods , it ’ s easy for millions of Americans to think they won ’ t be affected .
“ As soon as it ’ s anybody ’ s kindergartener that can be at risk , we ’ re a hell of a lot more terrified , because there is no social class or geographic address that makes one exempt , ” Zimring said .
America ’ s gun control debate continues to revolve around the exact circumstances of the shooting that is currently on the news . Is a new gun law worth it , or not ? That depends on whether it might have prevented this particular shooting . While this is an understandable , human response , it is a terrible way to go about saving lives .
The shock and horror that follows mass shootings has led to an obsessive focus on the dangers of military-style rifles – even though rifles of any kind were used in less than 3 % of gun murders in 2014 , according to FBI data .
A tunnel focus on mass shootings has also fueled the public perception that mental illness is driving gun violence . But experts caution that even miraculously curing all schizophrenia , bipolar disorder , and major depression in American might only lead to a 4 % reduction in overall violence .
A debate conducted in the aftermath of mass shootings has also prompted a huge public investment in guarding and fortifying public schools against shootings , even though the typical school can expect to see a student homicide only once every 6,000 years , according to safety expert Dewey Cornell .
Since the 1999 school shooting at Columbine high school in Colorado , the justice department has invested nearly $ 1bn to help put police officers in schools , though Cornell notes there is still little evidence that school security measures reduce crime .
The political focus on mass shootings sometimes even undermines policies that are aimed at addressing the big picture of violence . Opponents of universal background checks have sought to undermine Democrats ’ push for the reform by pointing out that mass shooters ’ murder weapons are often purchased legally . But that ’ s not the point . Expanding background checks on private sales of guns is a strategy designed to help crack down on the illicit market in guns used in everyday gun violence .
A gun debate driven by focus on the most high-profile killings also plays into the hand of the National Rifle Association , whose leaders argued this weekend that tough gun control laws in Europe did not prevent the terrorists in Paris from getting guns .
That may be true . But the United States ’ overall gun homicide rate is roughly 16 times higher than in France , according to statistics from the FBI and Gunpolicy.org .
To save the greatest number of lives , it ’ s the everyday violence – not just the mass shootings – that we need to prevent .
|
A disturbed man with an AR-15-style rifle walked through a popular historic site in 1996, shooting up the cafe and gift shop. He left 35 people dead and 19 seriously injured.
The country’s conservative leader pushed through immediate, sweeping changes to gun laws. Chief among them was a ban and mandatory buyback of more than 600,000 semiautomatic rifles and other long guns, which were then melted down. In all, one researcher estimates, the government ultimately destroyed about a million weapons – roughly one-third of its total gun stock.
That was in Australia, a country that has not had another large-casualty mass shooting since. Officials repeatedly ask: why can’t America do the same?
“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours – Great Britain, Australia,” Barack Obama said last year after a mass shooting at a college in Oregon.
“Certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Hillary Clinton said that same month.
In an attack on America’s political inaction last week, comedian Samantha Bee asked why one city after another had to have its “turn” witnessing a mass shooting. In Australia, she said: “Parliament passed strict gun laws and they haven’t had a mass shooting since then.”
One reason America can’t emulate Australia is purely political: American gun rights advocates say this kind of confiscation would prompt “a civil war”.
“It’s confiscation of private property and the threat of jail, and that’s not the American way,” said Philip Alpers, a gun violence researcher at the University of Sydney.
But there are other reasons that Australia is not a good model for how the US can address gun violence. As part of a Guardian examination of what it might take to break the cycle of the American gun control debate, we looked first at how parents of children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school are trying to move the conversation forward – in part, by fighting for laws that would not have saved their children. Today, we’re looking more deeply at the reality behind America’s gun casualty numbers – and why allowing mass shootings to define the debate may get in the way of saving lives.
Can the US break its cycle of gun control failure? Read more
America’s gun problem is dramatically larger in scale than Australia’s was
In the US, more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed in gun murders this year. Another 20,000 will likely be lost to gun suicide. The total number of gun deaths and violent injuries will be close to 100,000.
Even before the “big melt”, as one Australian gun researcher put it, Australia’s per capita rate of gun homicide was much lower than America’s. Handguns were already strictly regulated.
In 1995, before it implemented sweeping gun buybacks, Australia saw 67 gun murders, fewer than last year’s total murders in Oklahoma City. After Australia’s buyback of nearly a million guns, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the nation’s gun murders dropped by nearly half, from 67 to about 30 gun murders per year. Researchers are still debating how much of that drop was attributable to the new gun control policies, since gun murders were already trending down.
The US also has a dramatically larger number of guns. For the US to collect and destroy the same proportion of firearms that Australia did it would require a buyback of 90m firearms, according to a leading Australian researcher, at a cost that might be in the billions if the US paid fair market value for the weapons.
The US doesn’t just have a mass shooting problem – it has an enormous, multifaceted gun violence problem
Mass shootings are a growing and alarming phenomenon in the US. By a purely numerical count, the United States has seen more than 1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days. By a stricter definition, the number is smaller but still sobering: 19 public mass shootings since the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in December 2012.
But by any definition, they make up only a tiny percentage of the overall toll of gun deaths.
The US could end all mass shootings today and its rates of gun violence would still be many times higher than other rich countries.
There is a stark racial disparity in gun violence
Much of America’s day-to-day gun violence is concentrated in America’s poorest, most racially segregated neighborhoods – places with high rates of unemployment, struggling school systems, and high levels of mistrust between police officers and community members.
African Americans, who represent 13% of the total population, make up more than half of overall gun murder victims. Roughly 15 of the 30 Americans murdered with guns each day are black men.
Gun violence in America, as criminologist Frank Zimring put it, is another regressive tax on the poor. Some black neighborhoods have experienced so much violence that their residents report symptoms of post-traumatic stress at rates comparable to veterans of war.
Because everyday gun violence is concentrated in racially segregated neighborhoods, it’s easy for millions of Americans to think they won’t be affected.
“As soon as it’s anybody’s kindergartener that can be at risk, we’re a hell of a lot more terrified, because there is no social class or geographic address that makes one exempt,” Zimring said.
Too much emphasis on mass shootings has a cost
America’s gun control debate continues to revolve around the exact circumstances of the shooting that is currently on the news. Is a new gun law worth it, or not? That depends on whether it might have prevented this particular shooting. While this is an understandable, human response, it is a terrible way to go about saving lives.
The shock and horror that follows mass shootings has led to an obsessive focus on the dangers of military-style rifles – even though rifles of any kind were used in less than 3% of gun murders in 2014, according to FBI data.
A tunnel focus on mass shootings has also fueled the public perception that mental illness is driving gun violence. But experts caution that even miraculously curing all schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression in American might only lead to a 4% reduction in overall violence.
A debate conducted in the aftermath of mass shootings has also prompted a huge public investment in guarding and fortifying public schools against shootings, even though the typical school can expect to see a student homicide only once every 6,000 years, according to safety expert Dewey Cornell.
Since the 1999 school shooting at Columbine high school in Colorado, the justice department has invested nearly $1bn to help put police officers in schools, though Cornell notes there is still little evidence that school security measures reduce crime.
The political focus on mass shootings sometimes even undermines policies that are aimed at addressing the big picture of violence. Opponents of universal background checks have sought to undermine Democrats’ push for the reform by pointing out that mass shooters’ murder weapons are often purchased legally. But that’s not the point. Expanding background checks on private sales of guns is a strategy designed to help crack down on the illicit market in guns used in everyday gun violence.
A gun debate driven by focus on the most high-profile killings also plays into the hand of the National Rifle Association, whose leaders argued this weekend that tough gun control laws in Europe did not prevent the terrorists in Paris from getting guns.
That may be true. But the United States’ overall gun homicide rate is roughly 16 times higher than in France, according to statistics from the FBI and Gunpolicy.org.
To save the greatest number of lives, it’s the everyday violence – not just the mass shootings – that we need to prevent.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
oXSp8RWWnoZRSIDf
|
politics
|
Slate
| 00
|
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/mitt-romney-trump-washington-post-oped-tweet.html
|
Mitt Romney and President Trump Kick Off 2019 with Intra-Party Conflict
|
2019-01-02
|
Molly Olmstead
|
Mitt Romney , who is set to be sworn in to the Senate on Thursday , started his new year with a public condemnation of President Donald Trump , whom he criticized as lacking the character and principles the office requires in a Washington Post op-ed published Tuesday night .
“ When he won the election , I hoped he would rise to the occasion , ” Romney wrote . “ But , on balance , his conduct over the past two years , particularly his actions this month , is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office . ”
As could be expected , the president fired back Wednesday morning on Twitter . “ Here we go with Mitt Romney , but so fast ! ” he wrote . “ Question will be , is he a Flake ? I hope not . Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful . I won big , and he didn ’ t . He should be happy for all Republicans . Be a TEAM player & WIN ! ”
As Trump noted , some have speculated that Romney ’ s decision to speak out against the president ’ s style—while still praising many of his policies and his appointment of conservative judges and Cabinet members—may mean he is positioning himself as a replacement to Jeff Flake , the Republican who most often publicly criticized the president .
In 2016 , Romney spoke openly against Trump , calling the candidate a “ phony ” and “ fraud. ” Trump also criticized Romney , calling him a “ failed presidential candidate ” who “ choked like a dog. ” After Trump ’ s election , Romney changed his tune , and while he still said he thought the president was not “ a role model for my grandkids on the basis of his personal style , ” he praised some of the president ’ s policy decisions and expressed interest in joining his administration . Trump also publicly supported Romney in his bid for the Senate .
Want more Trump analysis ? Join us for a live discussion in Los Angeles . Tickets here .
|
Mitt Romney. George Frey/Getty Images
Mitt Romney, who is set to be sworn in to the Senate on Thursday, started his new year with a public condemnation of President Donald Trump, whom he criticized as lacking the character and principles the office requires in a Washington Post op-ed published Tuesday night.
“When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion,” Romney wrote. “But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions this month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.”
As could be expected, the president fired back Wednesday morning on Twitter. “Here we go with Mitt Romney, but so fast!” he wrote. “Question will be, is he a Flake? I hope not. Would much prefer that Mitt focus on Border Security and so many other things where he can be helpful. I won big, and he didn’t. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!”
As Trump noted, some have speculated that Romney’s decision to speak out against the president’s style—while still praising many of his policies and his appointment of conservative judges and Cabinet members—may mean he is positioning himself as a replacement to Jeff Flake, the Republican who most often publicly criticized the president.
In 2016, Romney spoke openly against Trump, calling the candidate a “phony” and “fraud.” Trump also criticized Romney, calling him a “failed presidential candidate” who “choked like a dog.” After Trump’s election, Romney changed his tune, and while he still said he thought the president was not “a role model for my grandkids on the basis of his personal style,” he praised some of the president’s policy decisions and expressed interest in joining his administration. Trump also publicly supported Romney in his bid for the Senate.
Want more Trump analysis? Join us for a live discussion in Los Angeles. Tickets here.
|
www.slate.com
| 0left
|
pjICObwdylmvlCVM
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/us/politics/trump-iowa-caucus.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
|
With Polls Up and Acquittal in Sight, Trump Revels in Democratic Dysfunction
|
2020-02-04
|
Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman, Annie Karni
|
Contrary to his past threats , Mr. Trump said he would participate in debates in the fall after all , even though he considers the Commission on Presidential Debates biased against him . He also predicted that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York would challenge Senator Chuck Schumer in a Democratic primary and “ kick his ass . ”
Looking ahead to his speech on Tuesday night , Mr. Trump said that Rush Limbaugh , the conservative radio host who announced on Monday that he has advanced lung cancer , may be in the audience , and the president added that he might award the broadcaster the Presidential Medal of Freedom .
He was not looking forward to having Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who orchestrated his impeachment , sitting behind him and next to Vice President Mike Pence during the speech . “ There ’ s one person behind me who ’ s going to be friendly and one who ’ s not going to be friendly , ” he said , according to the people in the room .
Mr. Trump complained at length about Mr. Bolton , whose unpublished book confirms a central allegation of the impeachment charges by reporting that the president conditioned security aid to Ukraine on its willingness to announce political investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats .
“ He turned on me , ” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Bolton .
The Iowa debacle played out even as Gallup reported that Mr. Trump ’ s approval rating had climbed to 49 percent , its highest in that survey since his presidency began . While polls have shown that most Americans want the Senate to call witnesses , his impeachment trial is set to end Wednesday with an assured acquittal — and it is even possible , though not certain , that one or more Democratic senators vote with him .
“ What other people would look at as a moment of completely political meltdown for this president , it all appears to accrue to his benefit , ” said Matt Schlapp , the chairman of the American Conservative Union . “ He actually looks like the adult in the room . ”
Moreover , Mr. Schlapp said , the delayed count in Iowa will sow discord and suspicion within Democratic ranks . “ The problem for the Democrats is it will make people think and assume the fix is in again because they don ’ t like who is leading , ” he said .
|
Contrary to his past threats, Mr. Trump said he would participate in debates in the fall after all, even though he considers the Commission on Presidential Debates biased against him. He also predicted that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York would challenge Senator Chuck Schumer in a Democratic primary and “kick his ass.”
Looking ahead to his speech on Tuesday night, Mr. Trump said that Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host who announced on Monday that he has advanced lung cancer, may be in the audience, and the president added that he might award the broadcaster the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
He was not looking forward to having Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who orchestrated his impeachment, sitting behind him and next to Vice President Mike Pence during the speech. “There’s one person behind me who’s going to be friendly and one who’s not going to be friendly,” he said, according to the people in the room.
Mr. Trump complained at length about Mr. Bolton, whose unpublished book confirms a central allegation of the impeachment charges by reporting that the president conditioned security aid to Ukraine on its willingness to announce political investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
“He turned on me,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Bolton.
The Iowa debacle played out even as Gallup reported that Mr. Trump’s approval rating had climbed to 49 percent, its highest in that survey since his presidency began. While polls have shown that most Americans want the Senate to call witnesses, his impeachment trial is set to end Wednesday with an assured acquittal — and it is even possible, though not certain, that one or more Democratic senators vote with him.
“What other people would look at as a moment of completely political meltdown for this president, it all appears to accrue to his benefit,” said Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union. “He actually looks like the adult in the room.”
Moreover, Mr. Schlapp said, the delayed count in Iowa will sow discord and suspicion within Democratic ranks. “The problem for the Democrats is it will make people think and assume the fix is in again because they don’t like who is leading,” he said.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
noDMGHRFvBd99uN3
|
foreign_policy
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/18/christie-calls-for-more-forceful-foreign-policy/
|
Christie calls for more forceful foreign policy
|
2014-05-18
|
( CNN ) – New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie painted a bleak picture of America 's standing in the world on Sunday , blaming the Obama administration for making the country appear weak by not defending the nation 's values in other parts of the globe .
`` No one understands any longer who America stands with or against , '' he argued . `` No one really understands exactly what we 'll stand for - and what we are willing to sacrifice to stand up for it . ''
Christie said it 's time for the country 's leaders to `` stop singing a happy tune '' about the country 's condition . `` It is time for us to tell the truth about that condition and then to begin taking the hard and firm actions that are necessary to fix it , '' he continued .
The Republican governor made his remarks at a gala hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach 's `` This World : Values Network '' in New York . Major Jewish figures , including Israel 's ambassador to the United States , as well as mega GOP donor Sheldon Adelson , attended the dinner .
If there was any doubt that Christie did n't line up with the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party , he firmly quashed those doubts Sunday night . Christie , who 's seriously considering a run for president , argued U.S. leaders needs to re-establish America 's reputation as a strong enforcer of freedom and promoter of prosperity , even if that requires `` sacrifice . ''
`` We need to stand once again loudly for these values , and sometimes that is going to mean standing in some very messy , difficult places and standing strong and hard for those things that we believe in , '' he said . `` And it will mean sacrifice from the people of our country . ''
Christie cited both domestic and foreign policy concerns as reasons for what he described as the country 's deteriorating status . At home , he blasted Washington for partisan gridlock on fiscal issues .
`` We are and have become a dysfunctional government that even our own people snicker , laugh at , ignore and are disgusted by , '' he said , adding there was a time when developing democracies wanted to emulate America 's government , but that is no longer the case .
On international affairs , the governor referenced issues in Syria , Russia and Iran as three foreign policy areas in which the Obama administration has failed to show strength and credibility .
He said America `` is no longer sending clear signals to the world - consistent signals . ''
`` Signals like the ones Ronald Reagan sent when he was president as to who our friends are and that we will stand with them without doubt , and to who our enemies are , who we will oppose regardless of the cost , '' he continued .
Christie 's remarks solidify his stance on national security issues as the Republican Party is knee-deep in an ideological fight over foreign policy . That debate has perhaps played out most visibly between Christie and another potential 2016 contender , Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , who 's trying to woo the broader Republican base with his libertarian-leaning , non-interventionist views .
Christie 's speech was widely anticipated in the Jewish community because the last time Christie appeared before a Jewish audience , he made a major blunder by referring to the `` occupied territories , '' a term Israel and its allies do n't use .
Many Israelis do n't consider the territories to be occupied , but rather say Israel has a legitimate claim to the land . Palestinians , along with the United Nations , consider the West Bank to be Palestinian but under military occupation by Israel .
In a private meeting later with Adelson , the GOP donor , Christie said he `` misspoke '' and that he did n't believe the West Bank is `` occupied '' by Israel . While Christie did n't mention Israel in his speech Sunday , he made it clear that the United States should more overtly align with its allies , and he singled out Iran as a `` terrorist state '' with nuclear capability .
|
5 years ago
(CNN) – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie painted a bleak picture of America's standing in the world on Sunday, blaming the Obama administration for making the country appear weak by not defending the nation's values in other parts of the globe.
"No one understands any longer who America stands with or against," he argued. "No one really understands exactly what we'll stand for - and what we are willing to sacrifice to stand up for it."
Follow @politicalticker Follow @KilloughCNN
Christie said it's time for the country's leaders to "stop singing a happy tune" about the country's condition. "It is time for us to tell the truth about that condition and then to begin taking the hard and firm actions that are necessary to fix it," he continued.
The Republican governor made his remarks at a gala hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's "This World: Values Network" in New York. Major Jewish figures, including Israel's ambassador to the United States, as well as mega GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, attended the dinner.
If there was any doubt that Christie didn't line up with the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party, he firmly quashed those doubts Sunday night. Christie, who's seriously considering a run for president, argued U.S. leaders needs to re-establish America's reputation as a strong enforcer of freedom and promoter of prosperity, even if that requires "sacrifice."
"We need to stand once again loudly for these values, and sometimes that is going to mean standing in some very messy, difficult places and standing strong and hard for those things that we believe in," he said. "And it will mean sacrifice from the people of our country."
Christie cited both domestic and foreign policy concerns as reasons for what he described as the country's deteriorating status. At home, he blasted Washington for partisan gridlock on fiscal issues.
"We are and have become a dysfunctional government that even our own people snicker, laugh at, ignore and are disgusted by," he said, adding there was a time when developing democracies wanted to emulate America's government, but that is no longer the case.
Related: Christie, Perry to share table at event
On international affairs, the governor referenced issues in Syria, Russia and Iran as three foreign policy areas in which the Obama administration has failed to show strength and credibility.
He said America "is no longer sending clear signals to the world - consistent signals."
"Signals like the ones Ronald Reagan sent when he was president as to who our friends are and that we will stand with them without doubt, and to who our enemies are, who we will oppose regardless of the cost," he continued.
Christie's remarks solidify his stance on national security issues as the Republican Party is knee-deep in an ideological fight over foreign policy. That debate has perhaps played out most visibly between Christie and another potential 2016 contender, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who's trying to woo the broader Republican base with his libertarian-leaning, non-interventionist views.
Christie's speech was widely anticipated in the Jewish community because the last time Christie appeared before a Jewish audience, he made a major blunder by referring to the "occupied territories," a term Israel and its allies don't use.
Many Israelis don't consider the territories to be occupied, but rather say Israel has a legitimate claim to the land. Palestinians, along with the United Nations, consider the West Bank to be Palestinian but under military occupation by Israel.
In a private meeting later with Adelson, the GOP donor, Christie said he "misspoke" and that he didn't believe the West Bank is "occupied" by Israel. While Christie didn't mention Israel in his speech Sunday, he made it clear that the United States should more overtly align with its allies, and he singled out Iran as a "terrorist state" with nuclear capability.
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
LVft5wV7u2Wq6kHF
|
|
us_house
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/31/new-democrat-controlled-house-what-not-to-investigate
|
Democrat-controlled House faces question: what not to investigate?
|
2018-12-31
|
Sabrina Siddiqui, Robert Reich
|
After two years of a compliant Congress , Trump can expect scrutiny into alleged collusion , obstruction and corruption
When Democrats formally assume the US House majority in January for the first time in eight years , they will contend with a president long dubbed by most members of their party as unfit and unqualified to serve .
But for the first time in the two years since Donald Trump ’ s inauguration , Democrats will no longer be watching or protesting from the sidelines .
Fresh off a major victory in the November 2018 midterm elections – which saw the party gain 40 seats in the House – Democrats are preparing to fully utilize the investigative authorities afforded to Congress as legal troubles continue to mount for the president and his inner circle .
And unlike their Republican counterparts , who were reticent to levy the powers of congressional oversight against Trump , nothing appears to be off limits .
The question before Democrats appears to be what not to investigate – and whether there ’ s any room for negotiation with a president who is anathema to the party ’ s base .
Nancy Pelosi , the House Democratic leader who is poised to retake the speaker ’ s gavel in January , declared on the night of the 7 November midterm elections that it was the responsibility of lawmakers in Washington to find common ground .
“ We will strive for bipartisanship , with fairness on all sides , ” Pelosi said in a victory speech after the House was called for Democrats .
“ A Democratic Congress will work for solutions that bring us together , because we have all had enough of division . The American people want peace . They want results . ”
But Pelosi , who in 2007 became the first woman to serve as House speaker , also issued a sharp warning to the White House , stating the election was “ about restoring the constitution ’ s checks and balances to the Trump administration ” .
Trump has largely avoided scrutiny under a Republican-controlled Congress , despite a litany of issues that have alarmed government and ethics watchdogs since he took office .
Among the avenues Democrats plan to pursue are potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice ; Trump ’ s refusal to release his tax returns ; hush money paid by the president ’ s former personal attorney Michael Cohen to women who alleged they had affairs with Trump ; and the misuse of taxpayer dollars by members of the Trump cabinet .
There are also the president ’ s business dealings and efforts by foreign countries to influence his administration , as well as the increasingly blurred lines between Trump ’ s family business and the public office he now holds .
Schiff will use subpoena powers if Trump quashes final Mueller report Read more
“ The American people have a right to know that their president is working on their behalf , not his family ’ s financial interests , ” Adam Schiff , the incoming chairman of the House intelligence committee , stated in a recent interview . “ Right now , I don ’ t think any of us can have the confidence that that ’ s the case . ”
Schiff , a Democrat from California , publicly sparred with his Republican counterpart , Devin Nunes , who continued to hold close ties to the White House while overseeing the House intelligence committee ’ s own investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Other incoming Democratic chairmen have similarly vowed to fulfill the oversight responsibilities of Congress .
Elijah Cummings , a congressman from Maryland who is expected to take over the House oversight committee , issued 64 subpoenas over the last two years . But because he was in the minority , they went nowhere absent Republican support .
Now , he will have considerably more power and has said his mandate is to simply follow “ what the constitution says I ’ m supposed to do ” .
Arguably the most grave responsibility could fall on the New York representative Jerrold Nadler , the incoming House judiciary committee chairman . If special counsel Robert Mueller recommends charges against Trump in the Russia investigation , any potential impeachment hearings would occur on Nadler ’ s watch .
Earlier this month , Nadler said court filings stating that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money – a violation of campaign finance law that amounts to a federal crime – “ would be impeachable offenses ” .
Nadler said the alleged crimes , if true , “ were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office ” .
Bracing himself for the onslaught of investigative peril , Trump has threatened to respond to Democrats with “ a warlike posture ” .
The already contentious climate has cast major doubts over whether there is any prospect of dealmaking .
Although Trump has touted a massive infrastructure bill and an immigration compromise , he has so far demonstrated antipathy toward the legislative process .
Donna Edwards , a former congresswoman from Maryland , said the most realistic strategy for Democrats would be to try to strike common ground with the Republican-led Senate and send legislation directly to the president ’ s desk .
“ I don ’ t think they have a choice but to try to work with the president , ” she said . “ But there ’ s a limit , and the president goes into all of these negotiations [ saying ] ‘ my way or the highway ’ .
Jim Manley , a longtime Democratic aide , said any semblance of cooperation “ would require a radical shift in the president ’ s tone and tenor ” .
“ He made it clear that if Democrats conduct oversight , he ’ s going to refuse to work with them , ” said Manley , who served as a top aide to the former Senate majority leader Harry Reid and the late Senator Ted Kennedy .
“ No Democrat was cowed by that threat then , and no Democrat is going to be cowed by that threat now . ”
|
After two years of a compliant Congress, Trump can expect scrutiny into alleged collusion, obstruction and corruption
When Democrats formally assume the US House majority in January for the first time in eight years, they will contend with a president long dubbed by most members of their party as unfit and unqualified to serve.
But for the first time in the two years since Donald Trump’s inauguration, Democrats will no longer be watching or protesting from the sidelines.
Fresh off a major victory in the November 2018 midterm elections – which saw the party gain 40 seats in the House – Democrats are preparing to fully utilize the investigative authorities afforded to Congress as legal troubles continue to mount for the president and his inner circle.
And unlike their Republican counterparts, who were reticent to levy the powers of congressional oversight against Trump, nothing appears to be off limits.
The question before Democrats appears to be what not to investigate – and whether there’s any room for negotiation with a president who is anathema to the party’s base.
Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader who is poised to retake the speaker’s gavel in January, declared on the night of the 7 November midterm elections that it was the responsibility of lawmakers in Washington to find common ground.
“We will strive for bipartisanship, with fairness on all sides,” Pelosi said in a victory speech after the House was called for Democrats.
“A Democratic Congress will work for solutions that bring us together, because we have all had enough of division. The American people want peace. They want results.”
But Pelosi, who in 2007 became the first woman to serve as House speaker, also issued a sharp warning to the White House, stating the election was “about restoring the constitution’s checks and balances to the Trump administration”.
Sign up for the new US morning briefing
Trump has largely avoided scrutiny under a Republican-controlled Congress, despite a litany of issues that have alarmed government and ethics watchdogs since he took office.
Among the avenues Democrats plan to pursue are potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice; Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns; hush money paid by the president’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen to women who alleged they had affairs with Trump; and the misuse of taxpayer dollars by members of the Trump cabinet.
There are also the president’s business dealings and efforts by foreign countries to influence his administration, as well as the increasingly blurred lines between Trump’s family business and the public office he now holds.
Schiff will use subpoena powers if Trump quashes final Mueller report Read more
“The American people have a right to know that their president is working on their behalf, not his family’s financial interests,” Adam Schiff, the incoming chairman of the House intelligence committee, stated in a recent interview. “Right now, I don’t think any of us can have the confidence that that’s the case.”
Schiff, a Democrat from California, publicly sparred with his Republican counterpart, Devin Nunes, who continued to hold close ties to the White House while overseeing the House intelligence committee’s own investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Other incoming Democratic chairmen have similarly vowed to fulfill the oversight responsibilities of Congress.
Elijah Cummings, a congressman from Maryland who is expected to take over the House oversight committee, issued 64 subpoenas over the last two years. But because he was in the minority, they went nowhere absent Republican support.
Now, he will have considerably more power and has said his mandate is to simply follow “what the constitution says I’m supposed to do”.
Arguably the most grave responsibility could fall on the New York representative Jerrold Nadler, the incoming House judiciary committee chairman. If special counsel Robert Mueller recommends charges against Trump in the Russia investigation, any potential impeachment hearings would occur on Nadler’s watch.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Adam Schiff, left, is likely to take a radically different approach to oversight from the outgoing House intelligence committee chair, Devin Nunes, right. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Earlier this month, Nadler said court filings stating that Trump directed Cohen to pay hush money – a violation of campaign finance law that amounts to a federal crime – “would be impeachable offenses”.
Nadler said the alleged crimes, if true, “were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office”.
Bracing himself for the onslaught of investigative peril, Trump has threatened to respond to Democrats with “a warlike posture”.
The already contentious climate has cast major doubts over whether there is any prospect of dealmaking.
Although Trump has touted a massive infrastructure bill and an immigration compromise, he has so far demonstrated antipathy toward the legislative process.
Donna Edwards, a former congresswoman from Maryland, said the most realistic strategy for Democrats would be to try to strike common ground with the Republican-led Senate and send legislation directly to the president’s desk.
“I don’t think they have a choice but to try to work with the president,” she said. “But there’s a limit, and the president goes into all of these negotiations [saying] ‘my way or the highway’.
“He clearly doesn’t understand what happens in legislation.”
Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic aide, said any semblance of cooperation “would require a radical shift in the president’s tone and tenor”.
“He made it clear that if Democrats conduct oversight, he’s going to refuse to work with them,” said Manley, who served as a top aide to the former Senate majority leader Harry Reid and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
“No Democrat was cowed by that threat then, and no Democrat is going to be cowed by that threat now.”
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
tA4SfTCjgslJjq2c
|
us_congress
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/04/271448328/lawmakers-look-to-prevent-more-target-sized-data-breaches
|
Lawmakers Look To Prevent More Target-Sized Data Breaches
|
2014-02-04
|
Elise Hu
|
The sheer size and frequency of the recent credit card data breaches at Target , Neiman Marcus and other companies are prompting lawmakers to consider legislative options to keep sophisticated cyberthefts from happening .
`` If anything , we 've learned from this major , major breach that we can no longer do nothing , '' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. `` We have to take action . ''
The bad guys who stole data from as many as 110 million Target customers are so good at what they do that even the most modern security programs could n't detect them . If security software ca n't keep up , hopes for regulation to stop fraud are slim .
`` This is kind of an ongoing war , and the types of threats are changing all the time , '' said Fran Rosch , a vice president at the security software company Symantec . He appeared Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary panel , which explored legislative options in data security .
`` Information 's everywhere , '' Rosch said . `` It 's in our data centers , it 's in the cloud . It 's in software that sits in the cloud and on our mobile devices . So the threats are exploding , but so are the attack surfaces . ''
Lawmakers are considering a few policy changes to better protect consumers , such as pushing for more secure credit and debit cards . American credit cards have already failed to keep up with European and Asian card technology , which feature encrypted chips . The chips prevent cyberthieves from reusing any data after they steal it .
`` What 's stopping our country when they 're doing this in Europe ? '' Klobuchar asked .
Part of the problem is the complexity of the American financial system , which has so many competing card issuers , banks , retailers and business owners . Adopting systemic change to the way purchases are made would cost retailers and banks hundreds of millions of dollars .
But the recent breaches were so costly that both banks and retailers are backing a changeover to chip technology together .
`` All of us have to move together simultaneously ; it 's a shared responsibility , '' said Target Chief Financial Officer John Mulligan . `` The financial industry , obviously they 're , in general , the issuers of the cards . So again , in partnership with them , we need to move together collectively so the whole system is employing chip and PIN technology . ''
Visa and Mastercard are aiming to have chips in the majority of U.S. cards by October 2015 , but it could be even longer before retail outlets change their card readers . Lawmakers are asking what they could do to speed up the change .
Another plan would be to tighten data theft disclosure and security standards , an option pushed by Sen. Al Franken , D-Minn .
`` Right now there 's no federal law setting out clear security standards that merchants and data brokers need to meet , and there 's no federal law requiring companies to tell their customers when their data has been stolen , '' Franken said .
Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy , D-Vt. , are co-sponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act , which includes those disclosure and security standards . Both retailers and security companies who appeared before senators Tuesday signaled support .
But the fast-changing tech terrain makes some lawmakers wary of any attempt at national standards .
`` I 'm always a little bit concerned about creating a new federal regulatory authority , '' said Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , `` in part because sometimes when you establish something like that it can quickly become ineffective , especially if it 's in an area like this one . ''
Outside a Washington , D.C. , Target store Tuesday , Joshua Sands said he 's still a loyal Target shopper — but he 's taking personal responsibility for his security .
`` It 's like being on the Internet , when they tell you you should always have an anti-virus on your computer , '' he said . `` You always assume somebody 's trying to get in . You have to be vigilant for yourself . You ca n't leave it up to someone else to handle your security . ''
Until more systemic changes are put in place , security experts say the attacks on our payment systems are expected to continue .
|
Lawmakers Look To Prevent More Target-Sized Data Breaches
Enlarge this image toggle caption Win McNamee/Getty Images Win McNamee/Getty Images
The sheer size and frequency of the recent credit card data breaches at Target, Neiman Marcus and other companies are prompting lawmakers to consider legislative options to keep sophisticated cyberthefts from happening.
"If anything, we've learned from this major, major breach that we can no longer do nothing," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. "We have to take action."
The bad guys who stole data from as many as 110 million Target customers are so good at what they do that even the most modern security programs couldn't detect them. If security software can't keep up, hopes for regulation to stop fraud are slim.
"This is kind of an ongoing war, and the types of threats are changing all the time," said Fran Rosch, a vice president at the security software company Symantec. He appeared Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary panel, which explored legislative options in data security.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Win McNamee/Getty Images Win McNamee/Getty Images
"Information's everywhere," Rosch said. "It's in our data centers, it's in the cloud. It's in software that sits in the cloud and on our mobile devices. So the threats are exploding, but so are the attack surfaces."
Lawmakers are considering a few policy changes to better protect consumers, such as pushing for more secure credit and debit cards. American credit cards have already failed to keep up with European and Asian card technology, which feature encrypted chips. The chips prevent cyberthieves from reusing any data after they steal it.
"What's stopping our country when they're doing this in Europe?" Klobuchar asked.
Part of the problem is the complexity of the American financial system, which has so many competing card issuers, banks, retailers and business owners. Adopting systemic change to the way purchases are made would cost retailers and banks hundreds of millions of dollars.
But the recent breaches were so costly that both banks and retailers are backing a changeover to chip technology together.
"All of us have to move together simultaneously; it's a shared responsibility," said Target Chief Financial Officer John Mulligan. "The financial industry, obviously they're, in general, the issuers of the cards. So again, in partnership with them, we need to move together collectively so the whole system is employing chip and PIN technology."
Visa and Mastercard are aiming to have chips in the majority of U.S. cards by October 2015, but it could be even longer before retail outlets change their card readers. Lawmakers are asking what they could do to speed up the change.
Another plan would be to tighten data theft disclosure and security standards, an option pushed by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn.
"Right now there's no federal law setting out clear security standards that merchants and data brokers need to meet, and there's no federal law requiring companies to tell their customers when their data has been stolen," Franken said.
Franken and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., are co-sponsoring the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, which includes those disclosure and security standards. Both retailers and security companies who appeared before senators Tuesday signaled support.
But the fast-changing tech terrain makes some lawmakers wary of any attempt at national standards.
"I'm always a little bit concerned about creating a new federal regulatory authority," said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, "in part because sometimes when you establish something like that it can quickly become ineffective, especially if it's in an area like this one."
Outside a Washington, D.C., Target store Tuesday, Joshua Sands said he's still a loyal Target shopper — but he's taking personal responsibility for his security.
"It's like being on the Internet, when they tell you you should always have an anti-virus on your computer," he said. "You always assume somebody's trying to get in. You have to be vigilant for yourself. You can't leave it up to someone else to handle your security."
Until more systemic changes are put in place, security experts say the attacks on our payment systems are expected to continue.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
xfvDr2OLhbpCwzpz
|
elections
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/4/17394424/dianne-feinstein-kevin-de-leon-california-senate
|
Why Senator Dianne Feinstein is being challenged from the left
|
2018-06-04
|
Ella Nilsen, Jen Kirby, Constance Grady, Alex Ward, Dylan Matthews, Zack Beauchamp, Nicole Narea
|
California ’ s Dianne Feinstein , first elected in 1992 , is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate . But she ’ s also one of the few with a credible primary challenger — who came within 6 points of securing the nomination at the California Democratic Party convention in February , where delegates handed Feinstein a startling rebuke by declining to endorse her .
The challenger , 51-year-old state Sen. Kevin de León , stands out in a very crowded field of relatively unknown candidates in the June 5 Democratic primary . Still , his attempt to beat Feinstein is a race with David and Goliath-like odds , California political science experts say .
Feinstein is an institution : She was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969 and became San Francisco mayor 10 years later . Now , she ’ s ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee , and at age 84 ( the oldest US senator ) , she ’ s seeking her sixth term .
But because of California ’ s “ top two ” primary system , as long as de Léon can slide into second place along Feinstein , he ’ ll be challenging her all the way until November — speaking for some California progressives who believe that a powerful senator from a deep-blue state should be a louder voice in opposition to Trump ’ s agenda .
California has been the epicenter of the Trump resistance movement , and Feinstein is a frequent target among progressive groups for not taking a hard enough line against the president .
Her comments that she believed Trump “ can be a good president ” if he was open to change caught plenty of flak , but progressives ’ disagreements with her go deeper . They run the gamut from her opposition to a single-payer health care bill to her support of the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) and her past vote in favor of the Iraq war .
And in some ways , Feinstein seems to be feeling the heat ; in recent months , she ’ s moved left on the death penalty , saying she now opposes capital punishment after supporting it for many years — and even running on the issue in early Senate campaigns .
Feinstein is saddled with “ the perception of being out of date , ” said David Mermin , a longtime political strategist in California .
“ People won ’ t say age , but she ’ s the oldest member of the Senate , ” he added . “ So when voters do think about people who have been in office for a long time , they don ’ t say they ’ re old ; they say they ’ re out of date . ”
The California Democratic Party convention showed at least some segment of state Democrats agreed .
“ A lot of Democrats gave us a lot of wind behind our sails , with the belief that it is time for a change , ” de León told me in his state Senate office in Sacramento recently . “ It ’ s time to have a voice that ’ s reflective of today ’ s California , not the California of a quarter-century ago . ”
De León is presenting himself as that alternative : more progressive policy-wise , and more willing to openly be a thorn in Trump ’ s side .
But on the whole , Feinstein will be hard to beat . She ’ s reasonably well-liked and has a war chest of more than $ 10 million to blanket California ’ s airwaves with . Plus , despite whatever California Democratic Party delegates might be feeling , national Democrats have no interest in a primary defeat against Feinstein . She ’ s a safe , reliable seat and an important person in the national party .
Plus , as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary , she ’ s an important part of protecting special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign .
“ He ’ s got a real campaign , but ... I haven ’ t seen a wholesale of Democrats overwhelmingly abandoning Feinstein , ” said Mermin .
De León grew up in San Diego as the son of a single immigrant mother . He worked in the state for years as a labor organizer before entering California state politics in 2006 .
In Sacramento , he started in the state assembly and then moved to the state Senate , becoming president pro tempore of the chamber in 2014 . Throughout the years , he helped advance a number of piece of legislation focused on combating climate change , cutting tax loopholes , and promoting gun control . De León also was instrumental in passing a single-payer bill in California , which ultimately was stopped by fellow Democratic lawmakers due to a lack of funding . ( He supports the current federal bills for single-payer as well . )
De León is term-limited and resigned to run for US Senate this year . He said he was motivated by President Donald Trump ’ s rise to do his part to attempt to bring the California resistance to DC .
“ It is true that I am termed out at the end of this year , but there wasn ’ t a lot of thinking into 2018 , ” he said . “ We need a strong voice on the front lines , not on the sidelines , to deal with someone like Donald Trump . ”
But the fact remains that in California , de León and his fellow state lawmakers have been able to enact a progressive agenda , something that liberal Democrats can only dream about doing in Republican-controlled , gridlocked Washington . And he doesn ’ t talk about DC — and the politicians and journalists that populate it — glowingly .
“ Washington , DC , gets caught up in itself . It ’ s a very insular town that is really into itself , ” he said . “ Victory or a sign of great achievement is a sign of how many times you ’ ve been on the news media as opposed to a work product . ”
So the question remains : Why does he want to go to Washington — where things move much more slowly and it is arguably a lot more difficult to pull off what he ’ s already been able to achieve in California ?
“ I ’ ve always believed it ’ s not about moving more to the left or more to the right , but it ’ s about moving forward with commonsense measures , policies that truly improve the human condition for all Americans , regardless of who you are , ” he said .
De León is running to the left of Feinstein , but he doesn ’ t want to be labeled a lefty
There ’ s no denying Feinstein is a centrist Democrat , and despite California ’ s super-liberal reputation , she ’ s been able to win elections year after year .
“ I think she ’ s viewed as someone who is very widely respected by people within a wide range of ideologies , ” said California Democratic political consultant Erica Walters . “ [ With ] voters , she ’ s viewed as someone that gets it done for California . ”
In addition to capturing Democrats , Feinstein is able to pick up a portion of the state ’ s independent voters . Those blocs have delivered her resounding victories in past years ; the last time she ran , in 2012 , she won nearly 7.3 million votes , clinching more than 62 percent of the vote .
While Feinstein has scooped up the endorsements of former President Barack Obama , fellow California Sen. Kamala Harris , and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , de León has the support of the climate action group 350.org , prominent Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer , and key labor groups . But gaining the support of the activist base does not a successful primary challenge make , according to Mermin .
He “ definitely has a lot of support among the activist base of the party , ” he said . “ But that activist base , I don ’ t think it ’ s the majority of the Democratic Party . ”
De León , meanwhile , says the media has stuck him with the progressive label , but he ’ s only too happy to highlight where he ’ d like to work with Republicans on issues including immigration and climate change . He admits he is a progressive but insists these are issues he ’ s been fighting for his whole life — and ones that apply to all people living in the US , no matter what political party they belong to .
“ When we talk about health care and Medicare for all , it ’ s not about a Democratic or Republican issue ; health care is health care . And having access to quality health care benefits all individuals , ” he said . “ I think what people try to do , especially political pundits , is trivialize and marginalize Democratic activists . ”
“ In short of being successful or in short of coming up with majorities in the legislative branch in Congress , work toward negotiating with Republican colleagues in saying this is a win-win situation , ” he argues .
He knows that he ’ s facing an incredibly tough fight to get there . De León doesn ’ t have a lot of money or name recognition , but right now he ’ s focused on taking small steps to November .
“ Our immediate goal is to go from 32 candidates to two candidates , ” de León said . “ If we ’ re successful in achieving that , then we have a different ballgame . ... First things first , I don ’ t want to get ahead of myself . ”
|
California’s Dianne Feinstein, first elected in 1992, is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate. But she’s also one of the few with a credible primary challenger — who came within 6 points of securing the nomination at the California Democratic Party convention in February, where delegates handed Feinstein a startling rebuke by declining to endorse her.
The challenger, 51-year-old state Sen. Kevin de León, stands out in a very crowded field of relatively unknown candidates in the June 5 Democratic primary. Still, his attempt to beat Feinstein is a race with David and Goliath-like odds, California political science experts say.
Feinstein is an institution: She was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1969 and became San Francisco mayor 10 years later. Now, she’s ranking member of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, and at age 84 (the oldest US senator), she’s seeking her sixth term.
But because of California’s “top two” primary system, as long as de Léon can slide into second place along Feinstein, he’ll be challenging her all the way until November — speaking for some California progressives who believe that a powerful senator from a deep-blue state should be a louder voice in opposition to Trump’s agenda.
Why Feinstein is facing a rare primary challenge
California has been the epicenter of the Trump resistance movement, and Feinstein is a frequent target among progressive groups for not taking a hard enough line against the president.
Her comments that she believed Trump “can be a good president” if he was open to change caught plenty of flak, but progressives’ disagreements with her go deeper. They run the gamut from her opposition to a single-payer health care bill to her support of the controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and her past vote in favor of the Iraq war.
And in some ways, Feinstein seems to be feeling the heat; in recent months, she’s moved left on the death penalty, saying she now opposes capital punishment after supporting it for many years — and even running on the issue in early Senate campaigns.
Feinstein is saddled with “the perception of being out of date,” said David Mermin, a longtime political strategist in California.
“People won’t say age, but she’s the oldest member of the Senate,” he added. “So when voters do think about people who have been in office for a long time, they don’t say they’re old; they say they’re out of date.”
The California Democratic Party convention showed at least some segment of state Democrats agreed.
“A lot of Democrats gave us a lot of wind behind our sails, with the belief that it is time for a change,” de León told me in his state Senate office in Sacramento recently. “It’s time to have a voice that’s reflective of today’s California, not the California of a quarter-century ago.”
De León is presenting himself as that alternative: more progressive policy-wise, and more willing to openly be a thorn in Trump’s side.
But on the whole, Feinstein will be hard to beat. She’s reasonably well-liked and has a war chest of more than $10 million to blanket California’s airwaves with. Plus, despite whatever California Democratic Party delegates might be feeling, national Democrats have no interest in a primary defeat against Feinstein. She’s a safe, reliable seat and an important person in the national party.
Plus, as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary, she’s an important part of protecting special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.
“He’s got a real campaign, but ... I haven’t seen a wholesale of Democrats overwhelmingly abandoning Feinstein,” said Mermin.
Who is Kevin de León?
De León grew up in San Diego as the son of a single immigrant mother. He worked in the state for years as a labor organizer before entering California state politics in 2006.
In Sacramento, he started in the state assembly and then moved to the state Senate, becoming president pro tempore of the chamber in 2014. Throughout the years, he helped advance a number of piece of legislation focused on combating climate change, cutting tax loopholes, and promoting gun control. De León also was instrumental in passing a single-payer bill in California, which ultimately was stopped by fellow Democratic lawmakers due to a lack of funding. (He supports the current federal bills for single-payer as well.)
De León is term-limited and resigned to run for US Senate this year. He said he was motivated by President Donald Trump’s rise to do his part to attempt to bring the California resistance to DC.
“It is true that I am termed out at the end of this year, but there wasn’t a lot of thinking into 2018,” he said. “We need a strong voice on the front lines, not on the sidelines, to deal with someone like Donald Trump.”
But the fact remains that in California, de León and his fellow state lawmakers have been able to enact a progressive agenda, something that liberal Democrats can only dream about doing in Republican-controlled, gridlocked Washington. And he doesn’t talk about DC — and the politicians and journalists that populate it — glowingly.
“Washington, DC, gets caught up in itself. It’s a very insular town that is really into itself,” he said. “Victory or a sign of great achievement is a sign of how many times you’ve been on the news media as opposed to a work product.”
So the question remains: Why does he want to go to Washington — where things move much more slowly and it is arguably a lot more difficult to pull off what he’s already been able to achieve in California?
“I’ve always believed it’s not about moving more to the left or more to the right, but it’s about moving forward with commonsense measures, policies that truly improve the human condition for all Americans, regardless of who you are,” he said.
De León is running to the left of Feinstein, but he doesn’t want to be labeled a lefty
There’s no denying Feinstein is a centrist Democrat, and despite California’s super-liberal reputation, she’s been able to win elections year after year.
“I think she’s viewed as someone who is very widely respected by people within a wide range of ideologies,” said California Democratic political consultant Erica Walters. “[With] voters, she’s viewed as someone that gets it done for California.”
In addition to capturing Democrats, Feinstein is able to pick up a portion of the state’s independent voters. Those blocs have delivered her resounding victories in past years; the last time she ran, in 2012, she won nearly 7.3 million votes, clinching more than 62 percent of the vote.
While Feinstein has scooped up the endorsements of former President Barack Obama, fellow California Sen. Kamala Harris, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, de León has the support of the climate action group 350.org, prominent Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, and key labor groups. But gaining the support of the activist base does not a successful primary challenge make, according to Mermin.
He “definitely has a lot of support among the activist base of the party,” he said. “But that activist base, I don’t think it’s the majority of the Democratic Party.”
De León, meanwhile, says the media has stuck him with the progressive label, but he’s only too happy to highlight where he’d like to work with Republicans on issues including immigration and climate change. He admits he is a progressive but insists these are issues he’s been fighting for his whole life — and ones that apply to all people living in the US, no matter what political party they belong to.
“When we talk about health care and Medicare for all, it’s not about a Democratic or Republican issue; health care is health care. And having access to quality health care benefits all individuals,” he said. “I think what people try to do, especially political pundits, is trivialize and marginalize Democratic activists.”
“In short of being successful or in short of coming up with majorities in the legislative branch in Congress, work toward negotiating with Republican colleagues in saying this is a win-win situation,” he argues.
He knows that he’s facing an incredibly tough fight to get there. De León doesn’t have a lot of money or name recognition, but right now he’s focused on taking small steps to November.
“Our immediate goal is to go from 32 candidates to two candidates,” de León said. “If we’re successful in achieving that, then we have a different ballgame. ... First things first, I don’t want to get ahead of myself.”
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
X7Hx7uuaCK72WmFx
|
supreme_court
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/9/colorado-baker-hit-hostile-reviews-protesters-afte/
|
Colorado baker slammed with hostile reviews, protests after Supreme Court victory
|
2018-06-09
|
Valerie Richardson
|
Colorado baker Jack Phillips received a standing ovation Saturday at the Western Conservative Summit , which came as a change of pace after a week of protests and negative reviews following his Supreme Court victory .
Since the high court ruled Monday in his favor , the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood has been faced with protesters and a deluge of one-star reviews on Yelp , but he ’ s not complaining .
Far from it . “ It ’ s been quite a week , but God is so good , ” Mr. Phillips told the friendly crowd at the Colorado Convention Center .
He thanked those at the annual “ rally on the right ” hosted by the Centennial Institute who supported him during the six-year court fight over his refusal to create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony .
“ I ’ ve heard my faith described as despicable and my efforts to defend my religious freedom have been compared to Nazis , ” Mr. Phillips said . “ And I ’ m profoundly grateful that the court saw the injustice that our state government inflicted on me . This decision is great for my family , for our shop , and for people of all faiths who should not have to fear government hostility or unjust punishment . ”
The legal battle ended Monday with the high court ’ s 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against Mr. Phillips on the basis of his religious beliefs when it ruled against him .
Greg with Jack Philips owner of Masterpiece Bakery at Western Conservative Summit , congratulating him for fighting for religious liberty # WCS2018 # COpolitics pic.twitter.com/QJn9QDbFtK — Greg Lopez ( @ Lopez4Governor ) June 9 , 2018
Conservatives hailed the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights , while critics held a protest hours after the decision ’ s release featuring Democratic Gov . John Hickenlooper at the state capital in Denver .
Meanwhile , the Masterpiece Cakeshop ’ s page on Yelp has been slammed with hundreds of politically motivated one-star reviews accusing Mr. Phillips of “ bigotry , ” some with photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies .
“ Giving a one-star review because the menu doesn ’ t include ‘ hatred and bigotry ’ as options , ” said one commenter .
Said another : “ Food made with hate does not taste good . This establishment is homophobic . ”
The traffic prompted Yelp to post an “ active cleanup alert , ” saying that “ we will ultimately remove reviews that that appear to be motivated more by the news coverage itself rather than by the reviewer ’ s own customer experience with the business . ”
A band of activists turned up at the cakeshop Friday for a protest called “ Gay Party at Bigot Bakery , ” backed by groups including the People for Bernie Sanders and Millennials for Revolution , but they were met by dozens of counter-protesters in support of Mr. Phillips .
Those in the pro-Phillips group waved signs with messages like “ Justice for Jack , ” “ Love Free Speech ” and “ Stand up for Religious Freedom , ” as shown on footage by Fox31 in Denver .
Mr. Phillips responded by speaking to the opposing parties — and handing out cookies .
“ The court ’ s decision makes clear that tolerance is a two-way street , ” said Mr. Phillips at the summit . “ If we want to have freedom for ourselves , we have to extend it to others with whom we disagree . Even about important issues like the meaning of marriage . ”
He ’ s accustomed by now to the criticism . His shop lost 40 percent of its business after he stopped making wedding cakes following the commission ’ s ruling .
“ The government ’ s hostility directly impacted my shop , our ability to make a living , ” he said . “ We also faced death threats and harassment , all for choosing not to design a cake that celebrates one particular event . ”
|
Colorado baker Jack Phillips received a standing ovation Saturday at the Western Conservative Summit, which came as a change of pace after a week of protests and negative reviews following his Supreme Court victory.
Since the high court ruled Monday in his favor, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood has been faced with protesters and a deluge of one-star reviews on Yelp, but he’s not complaining.
Far from it. “It’s been quite a week, but God is so good,” Mr. Phillips told the friendly crowd at the Colorado Convention Center.
He thanked those at the annual “rally on the right” hosted by the Centennial Institute who supported him during the six-year court fight over his refusal to create a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony.
“I’ve heard my faith described as despicable and my efforts to defend my religious freedom have been compared to Nazis,” Mr. Phillips said. “And I’m profoundly grateful that the court saw the injustice that our state government inflicted on me. This decision is great for my family, for our shop, and for people of all faiths who should not have to fear government hostility or unjust punishment.”
The legal battle ended Monday with the high court’s 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against Mr. Phillips on the basis of his religious beliefs when it ruled against him.
Greg with Jack Philips owner of Masterpiece Bakery at Western Conservative Summit, congratulating him for fighting for religious liberty #WCS2018 #COpolitics pic.twitter.com/QJn9QDbFtK — Greg Lopez (@Lopez4Governor) June 9, 2018
Conservatives hailed the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights, while critics held a protest hours after the decision’s release featuring Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper at the state capital in Denver.
Meanwhile, the Masterpiece Cakeshop’s page on Yelp has been slammed with hundreds of politically motivated one-star reviews accusing Mr. Phillips of “bigotry,” some with photos of same-sex marriage ceremonies.
“Giving a one-star review because the menu doesn’t include ‘hatred and bigotry’ as options,” said one commenter.
Said another: “Food made with hate does not taste good. This establishment is homophobic.”
The traffic prompted Yelp to post an “active cleanup alert,” saying that “we will ultimately remove reviews that that appear to be motivated more by the news coverage itself rather than by the reviewer’s own customer experience with the business.”
A band of activists turned up at the cakeshop Friday for a protest called “Gay Party at Bigot Bakery,” backed by groups including the People for Bernie Sanders and Millennials for Revolution, but they were met by dozens of counter-protesters in support of Mr. Phillips.
Those in the pro-Phillips group waved signs with messages like “Justice for Jack,” “Love Free Speech” and “Stand up for Religious Freedom,” as shown on footage by Fox31 in Denver.
Mr. Phillips responded by speaking to the opposing parties — and handing out cookies.
“The court’s decision makes clear that tolerance is a two-way street,” said Mr. Phillips at the summit. “If we want to have freedom for ourselves, we have to extend it to others with whom we disagree. Even about important issues like the meaning of marriage.”
He’s accustomed by now to the criticism. His shop lost 40 percent of its business after he stopped making wedding cakes following the commission’s ruling.
“The government’s hostility directly impacted my shop, our ability to make a living,” he said. “We also faced death threats and harassment, all for choosing not to design a cake that celebrates one particular event.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
PSNzIR1gxvmiH17v
|
polarization
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-idUSKCN1AU0TW
|
Merck CEO pulls out of Trump panel, demands rejection of bigotry
|
2017-08-15
|
Scott Malone
|
CHARLOTTESVILLE , Va./WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump denounced neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan as criminals and thugs on Monday , bowing to mounting political pressure to condemn such groups explicitly after a white-nationalist rally turned deadly in Virginia .
Trump had been assailed from across the political spectrum for failing to respond more forcefully to Saturday ’ s violence in Charlottesville . The head Merck & Co Inc ( MRK.N ) , one of the world ’ s biggest pharmaceutical companies , quit a presidential business panel as a result , saying he was taking a stand against intolerance and extremism .
The chief executives of two other prominent companies - sportswear manufacturer Under Armour ( UAA.N ) and semiconductor chip maker Intel Corp ( INTC.O ) - followed suit hours later .
Critics denounced Trump for waiting too long to address the bloodshed , and for initially faulting hatred and violence “ on many sides , ” rather than singling out the white supremacists widely seen as instigating the melee .
Democrats said Trump ’ s reaction belied a reluctance to alienate white nationalists and “ alt-right ” political activists who occupy a loyal segment of Trump ’ s political base . Several senators from his own Republican Party had harsh words for him .
Some 48 hours into the biggest domestic challenge of his young presidency , Trump tried to correct course .
“ Racism is evil , and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs , including the KKK , neo-Nazis , white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans , ” the president said in a statement to reporters at the White House on Monday .
“ We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred , bigotry and violence , ” he said .
A 20-year-old man said to have harbored Nazi sympathies was arrested on charges of plowing his car into protesters opposing the white nationalists , killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer and injuring 19 people . The accused , James Fields , was denied bail at a court hearing on Monday .
Several others were arrested in connection with street brawls during the day that left another 15 people injured . And two airborne state troopers involved in crowd control were killed when their helicopter crashed .
Related Coverage Scaramucci says Trump must own his initial failure to condemn neo-Nazis
Saturday ’ s disturbances erupted after white nationalists converged in Charlottesville , home of the University of Virginia ’ s flagship campus , to protest plans for removing a statue of General Robert E. Lee , commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army of the U.S. Civil War .
Trump ’ s belated denunciation of white supremacists by name was welcomed by Heyer ’ s mother , Susan Bro , who thanked the president for what she called “ those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred . ”
“ I wish that he would have said those same words on Saturday , ” responded Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia on MSNBC . “ I ’ m disappointed it took him a couple of days . ”
A group of community leaders meeting in Charlottesville likewise said they were unimpressed by Trump ’ s latest message .
“ Why did it take criticism from his Republican buddies to move him ... to adjust the moral compass that he does not possess ? ” said Don Gathers , who serves as chairman for the city ’ s commission on monuments and memorials .
Trump lashed out at his critics late on Monday on Twitter : “ Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the # Fake News Media will never be satisfied ... truly bad people ! ”
Trump ’ s revised statement on Charlottesville , following a day of silence despite a rising chorus of outrage over the violence , came after the chief executive of Merck & Co Inc ( MRK.N ) delivered one of the more noteworthy rebukes of the president .
Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier , who is black , resigned from Trump ’ s American Manufacturing Council , saying expressions of hatred and bigotry must be rejected .
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement on the deadly protests in Charlottesville , at the White House in Washington , U.S. August 14 , 2017 . ███/Jonathan Ernst
Trump quickly hit back on Twitter , but made no reference to Frazier ’ s reasons for quitting the panel , instead revisiting a longstanding gripe about expensive medicines . Frazier would have more time to focus on lowering “ ripoff ” drug prices , Trump tweeted .
Frazier ’ s resignation was followed hours later by two other members of the business panel quitting in protest , Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank and Intel chief Brian Krzanich .
“ I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues , including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing , ” Krzanich wrote in a blog post .
The AFL-CIO organized labor federation that represents 12.5 million workers said it , too , was considering pulling its representative from the committee .
The jarring images of violence from Charlottesville and the heated public debate over racism resonated around the world , particularly in Europe where leaders are contending with a wave of xenophobia .
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told broadcaster Phoenix on Monday that clear and forceful action must be taken to counter right-wing extremism , and that “ we have quite a lot to do at home ourselves . ”
About 130 people demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in London , some with placards reading “ Fascism is not to be debated , it is to be smashed , ” and “ I am an ashamed American . ”
The United Nations said there must be no place in today ’ s societies for the violent racism , anti-Semitism , xenophobia and discrimination on display in Charlottesville .
About 500 protesters assembled in front of the White House for a “ Reject White Supremacy ” rally , then marched to Trump ’ s hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue nearby . In Manhattan , thousands of demonstrators stood outside Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue shouting “ No Trump , no KKK , no fascist USA . ”
In Durham , North Carolina , a crowd of demonstrators stormed the site of a Confederate monument outside a court and toppled the bronze statue from its base . Television news footage showed protesters taking turns stomping and kicking the fallen statue as dozens cheered .
Hundreds of miles to the north , a Holocaust memorial in Boston was vandalized , but police said they quickly arrested a 17-year-old boy who was grabbed by onlookers who saw him shatter one of the monument ’ s glass panels with a rock .
Asked on Monday whether one side was more responsible for the violence than another in Charlottesville , Police Chief Al Thomas said : “ This was an alt-right rally ” - using the term that has become a banner for various far-right ideologies that includes neo-Nazis , white supremacists and anti-Semites .
Fields appeared in a Charlottesville court on Monday by video link from the jail where he was being held on a second-degree murder charge , three counts of malicious wounding and a single count of leaving the scene of a fatal accident . His next court date was set for Aug. 25 .
Several students who attended high school with Fields in Kentucky described him as an angry young man who passionately espoused white supremacist ideology .
The U.S. Justice Department was pressing its own federal investigation of the incident as a hate crime .
|
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump denounced neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan as criminals and thugs on Monday, bowing to mounting political pressure to condemn such groups explicitly after a white-nationalist rally turned deadly in Virginia.
Trump had been assailed from across the political spectrum for failing to respond more forcefully to Saturday’s violence in Charlottesville. The head Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N), one of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies, quit a presidential business panel as a result, saying he was taking a stand against intolerance and extremism.
The chief executives of two other prominent companies - sportswear manufacturer Under Armour (UAA.N) and semiconductor chip maker Intel Corp (INTC.O) - followed suit hours later.
Critics denounced Trump for waiting too long to address the bloodshed, and for initially faulting hatred and violence “on many sides,” rather than singling out the white supremacists widely seen as instigating the melee.
Democrats said Trump’s reaction belied a reluctance to alienate white nationalists and “alt-right” political activists who occupy a loyal segment of Trump’s political base. Several senators from his own Republican Party had harsh words for him.
Some 48 hours into the biggest domestic challenge of his young presidency, Trump tried to correct course.
“Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” the president said in a statement to reporters at the White House on Monday.
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence,” he said.
A 20-year-old man said to have harbored Nazi sympathies was arrested on charges of plowing his car into protesters opposing the white nationalists, killing 32-year-old paralegal Heather Heyer and injuring 19 people. The accused, James Fields, was denied bail at a court hearing on Monday.
Several others were arrested in connection with street brawls during the day that left another 15 people injured. And two airborne state troopers involved in crowd control were killed when their helicopter crashed.
Related Coverage Scaramucci says Trump must own his initial failure to condemn neo-Nazis
Saturday’s disturbances erupted after white nationalists converged in Charlottesville, home of the University of Virginia’s flagship campus, to protest plans for removing a statue of General Robert E. Lee, commander of the pro-slavery Confederate army of the U.S. Civil War.
Trump’s belated denunciation of white supremacists by name was welcomed by Heyer’s mother, Susan Bro, who thanked the president for what she called “those words of comfort and for denouncing those who promote violence and hatred.”
But not everyone was mollified.
“I wish that he would have said those same words on Saturday,” responded Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia on MSNBC. “I’m disappointed it took him a couple of days.”
A group of community leaders meeting in Charlottesville likewise said they were unimpressed by Trump’s latest message.
“Why did it take criticism from his Republican buddies to move him ... to adjust the moral compass that he does not possess?” said Don Gathers, who serves as chairman for the city’s commission on monuments and memorials.
Trump lashed out at his critics late on Monday on Twitter: “Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied...truly bad people!”
REBUKES FROM BUSINESS
Trump’s revised statement on Charlottesville, following a day of silence despite a rising chorus of outrage over the violence, came after the chief executive of Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N) delivered one of the more noteworthy rebukes of the president.
Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier, who is black, resigned from Trump’s American Manufacturing Council, saying expressions of hatred and bigotry must be rejected.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement on the deadly protests in Charlottesville, at the White House in Washington, U.S. August 14, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Trump quickly hit back on Twitter, but made no reference to Frazier’s reasons for quitting the panel, instead revisiting a longstanding gripe about expensive medicines. Frazier would have more time to focus on lowering “ripoff” drug prices, Trump tweeted.
Frazier’s resignation was followed hours later by two other members of the business panel quitting in protest, Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank and Intel chief Brian Krzanich.
“I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing,” Krzanich wrote in a blog post.
The AFL-CIO organized labor federation that represents 12.5 million workers said it, too, was considering pulling its representative from the committee.
The jarring images of violence from Charlottesville and the heated public debate over racism resonated around the world, particularly in Europe where leaders are contending with a wave of xenophobia.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told broadcaster Phoenix on Monday that clear and forceful action must be taken to counter right-wing extremism, and that “we have quite a lot to do at home ourselves.”
About 130 people demonstrated outside the U.S. Embassy in London, some with placards reading “Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be smashed,” and “I am an ashamed American.”
The United Nations said there must be no place in today’s societies for the violent racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and discrimination on display in Charlottesville.
About 500 protesters assembled in front of the White House for a “Reject White Supremacy” rally, then marched to Trump’s hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue nearby. In Manhattan, thousands of demonstrators stood outside Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue shouting “No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA.”
In Durham, North Carolina, a crowd of demonstrators stormed the site of a Confederate monument outside a court and toppled the bronze statue from its base. Television news footage showed protesters taking turns stomping and kicking the fallen statue as dozens cheered.
Hundreds of miles to the north, a Holocaust memorial in Boston was vandalized, but police said they quickly arrested a 17-year-old boy who was grabbed by onlookers who saw him shatter one of the monument’s glass panels with a rock.
Slideshow (21 Images)
Asked on Monday whether one side was more responsible for the violence than another in Charlottesville, Police Chief Al Thomas said: “This was an alt-right rally” - using the term that has become a banner for various far-right ideologies that includes neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semites.
Fields appeared in a Charlottesville court on Monday by video link from the jail where he was being held on a second-degree murder charge, three counts of malicious wounding and a single count of leaving the scene of a fatal accident. His next court date was set for Aug. 25.
Several students who attended high school with Fields in Kentucky described him as an angry young man who passionately espoused white supremacist ideology.
The U.S. Justice Department was pressing its own federal investigation of the incident as a hate crime.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
JP8wBFz0hdaHpH5Z
|
economy_and_jobs
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/23/news/economy/white-working-class-economy/index.html
|
The economy stinks, but I'm doing OK, say working class whites
|
2016-09-23
|
Tami Luhby
|
Social Security is running out of money . America gives too much aid to other countries . Nothing is made in the U.S.A. anymore .
Those are some of the reasons why working class whites feel the economy is headed in the wrong direction . Some 53 % of these folks said they are very dissatisfied with the country 's economic situation , well above the share among whites with college degrees or working class blacks and Hispanics . Another 25 % said they are somewhat dissatisfied , according to a new CNN/Kaiser Family Foundation survey .
What 's more , they think their children will suffer as a result . Half feel their kids ' standard of living will be worse when they hit the same age .
This gloomy view , however , does n't extend to their own financial circumstances .
Nearly two-thirds of working class whites say they are satisfied with their own personal financial situation . More than three-quarters are optimistic about how things are going in their own lives . A similar share of those who are working feel their jobs are secure .
Take Pete McGuire of Mansfield Center , Connecticut . McGuire , who runs a landscaping company with his wife , was frustrated recently when he could n't find work boots made in the United States at Cabela 's , an outdoor recreation retailer .
`` We 're not making anything , '' McGuire said , noting that the few American products he does find are often more expensive . `` I 'd be willing to pay a little more to buy something made in the U.S.A. to keep somebody working here . ''
The 61-year-old ticked off why he thinks the nation is in trouble : The national debt is growing . The federal government is doing more to help other countries than struggling Americans . Veterans are being ignored .
Related : Working class whites blame Washington , but still want more government help
His four daughters will have to deal with all of this . And most of them `` are making ends meet by the skin of their teeth . '' Two are stay-at-home moms and one is a teacher 's assistant in an elementary school . The one who is doing the best financially became an accountant after graduating from the University of Connecticut .
As for his own financial security ? `` We 're comfortable . We are paying our bills , '' said McGuire , who recently applied for disability because of back problems that have forced him to cut back at the landscaping firm .
McGuire feels he was able to build a more secure life because the economy was better during most of his working years . After he graduated high school , he was always employed -- in textile factories , for the state , in a construction company and finally at his own small business , often holding second jobs on the side pumping gas or mowing lawns . His wife , who has a bachelor 's degree , works for the city of Norwich , providing job coaching for mentally handicapped kids . He has a small pension and retiree health care , thanks to his tenure with the state Department of Transportation .
Nowadays , he feels , it 's harder for blue-collar workers to make a decent living .
`` When was the last time a factory worker got a pay raise of more than a dime or a quarter ? '' he said .
Working class whites were less likely to get a boost in pay than their college educated peers . The poll found some 42 % of working age people in this group said they or someone in their household had received a raise in the last year , compared to 54 % of whites with college diplomas .
It 's not surprising that many working class whites have a negative view of the nation 's economic direction , said Gary Burtless , a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution . Americans are often more dour if their political party is not in power . And since many working class whites lean Republican , they feel the Obama administration has made things worse . ( Some 53 % of working class white Americans CNN/KFF surveyed said they were Republicans or leaned that way , while 33 % said they were Democrats or Democratic-leaners and 11 % independents . )
Related : The anatomy of a white working class Trump voter
Plus , Republican nominee Donald Trump and his onetime rivals spent the past year decrying how troubled the nation is , he said .
`` People are more likely to the take the party line about the state of the economy than their own private economic circumstances , '' Burtless said . `` If we had a President McCain or a President Romney , they 'd say the economy is n't so bad . ''
`` Everything Obama and his administration does is wrong , '' said Gibson , 82 , who just retired as the owner of a real estate escrow business . `` I 'm not sure Obama knows what he 's doing and he does n't listen to people . ''
The president 's actions have n't directly hurt Gibson 's finances , however . He worked well beyond the typical retirement age because he liked it and now plans to live off savings and investments . His daughter and grown grandson are also employed and doing fine .
But among his circle of friends , there 's a lot of concern over the economy , national security and America 's standing in the world .
`` It 's a feeling that everyone is on pins and needles , '' he said , noting that the economy is only growing at a 1 % rate and many people have dropped out of the labor market because they ca n't find jobs . `` You do n't know what 's going to happen . We 're a ship without a captain right now . ''
Others , like Nicole King , feel the nation 's problems have been building for a while and blames both parties for not coming together to address the issues .
King , who watches both CNN and Fox and listens to NPR to get a variety of views , said she is concerned about the shaky state of Social Security and the mounting national debt . She also fears the next generation is not as hard working , which will further damage the economy .
`` All those things together do n't paint a very positive picture , '' said King , 40 , who feels her job in a bank 's IT department is secure . `` The U.S. as a brand is not as strong as it once was . ''
The Charlotte , N.C. , resident and her husband are on a very strict budget so they can save money for retirement and their children 's college education . They buy used cars and gave their older daughter , who is 3 , a piggy bank so she will learn the value of money at an early age . And they worry that their daughters will not be as comfortable as they are because the economy is so troubled .
Part of working class whites ' frustration with the nation 's direction stems from their feeling marginalized in society , said Arlie Hochschild , a professor emerita in sociology at the University of California , Berkeley , and author of the new book , Strangers In Their Own Land : Anger and Mourning on the American Right .
They think the nation views them as uneducated and racist , Hochschild said . Their pro-life views are demonized , while they feel under attack from the rise of secularism . And the tipping point is that their path upwards on the economic ladder is blocked by the decline of the middle class .
Yet , at the same time , they draw happiness from living in their own isolated enclaves with family , neighbors and fellow churchgoers nearby .
`` People are more optimistic personally than they are about the country as a whole , '' Hochschild said .
White , Working Class & Worried is a CNN partnership with the Kaiser Family Foundation - an extensive survey of white , working class Americans and voters who form a backbone of the support for Donald Trump . See more tonight on Anderson Cooper 360 and see full coverage at CNN.com/WhiteWorkingClassAndWorried .
About the survey : CNN partnered with The Kaiser Family Foundation to conduct an in-depth survey of the white working class in America , their politics , their perceptions of America 's changing demographics , the economy , immigration , their personal finances , their faith , among others . This group has become increasingly important to the 2016 presidential race since they have been a key support to Donald Trump 's bid for the White House . Here are the full results of the survey .
|
Social Security is running out of money. America gives too much aid to other countries. Nothing is made in the U.S.A. anymore.
Those are some of the reasons why working class whites feel the economy is headed in the wrong direction. Some 53% of these folks said they are very dissatisfied with the country's economic situation, well above the share among whites with college degrees or working class blacks and Hispanics. Another 25% said they are somewhat dissatisfied, according to a new CNN/Kaiser Family Foundation survey.
What's more, they think their children will suffer as a result. Half feel their kids' standard of living will be worse when they hit the same age.
This gloomy view, however, doesn't extend to their own financial circumstances.
Nearly two-thirds of working class whites say they are satisfied with their own personal financial situation. More than three-quarters are optimistic about how things are going in their own lives. A similar share of those who are working feel their jobs are secure.
Take Pete McGuire of Mansfield Center, Connecticut. McGuire, who runs a landscaping company with his wife, was frustrated recently when he couldn't find work boots made in the United States at Cabela's, an outdoor recreation retailer.
"We're not making anything," McGuire said, noting that the few American products he does find are often more expensive. "I'd be willing to pay a little more to buy something made in the U.S.A. to keep somebody working here."
The 61-year-old ticked off why he thinks the nation is in trouble: The national debt is growing. The federal government is doing more to help other countries than struggling Americans. Veterans are being ignored.
Related: Working class whites blame Washington, but still want more government help
His four daughters will have to deal with all of this. And most of them "are making ends meet by the skin of their teeth." Two are stay-at-home moms and one is a teacher's assistant in an elementary school. The one who is doing the best financially became an accountant after graduating from the University of Connecticut.
As for his own financial security? "We're comfortable. We are paying our bills," said McGuire, who recently applied for disability because of back problems that have forced him to cut back at the landscaping firm.
McGuire feels he was able to build a more secure life because the economy was better during most of his working years. After he graduated high school, he was always employed -- in textile factories, for the state, in a construction company and finally at his own small business, often holding second jobs on the side pumping gas or mowing lawns. His wife, who has a bachelor's degree, works for the city of Norwich, providing job coaching for mentally handicapped kids. He has a small pension and retiree health care, thanks to his tenure with the state Department of Transportation.
Nowadays, he feels, it's harder for blue-collar workers to make a decent living.
"When was the last time a factory worker got a pay raise of more than a dime or a quarter?" he said.
Working class whites were less likely to get a boost in pay than their college educated peers. The poll found some 42% of working age people in this group said they or someone in their household had received a raise in the last year, compared to 54% of whites with college diplomas.
It's not surprising that many working class whites have a negative view of the nation's economic direction, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Americans are often more dour if their political party is not in power. And since many working class whites lean Republican, they feel the Obama administration has made things worse. (Some 53% of working class white Americans CNN/KFF surveyed said they were Republicans or leaned that way, while 33% said they were Democrats or Democratic-leaners and 11% independents.)
Related: The anatomy of a white working class Trump voter
Plus, Republican nominee Donald Trump and his onetime rivals spent the past year decrying how troubled the nation is, he said.
"People are more likely to the take the party line about the state of the economy than their own private economic circumstances," Burtless said. "If we had a President McCain or a President Romney, they'd say the economy isn't so bad."
Los Angeles resident David Gibson typifies this view.
"Everything Obama and his administration does is wrong," said Gibson, 82, who just retired as the owner of a real estate escrow business. "I'm not sure Obama knows what he's doing and he doesn't listen to people."
The president's actions haven't directly hurt Gibson's finances, however. He worked well beyond the typical retirement age because he liked it and now plans to live off savings and investments. His daughter and grown grandson are also employed and doing fine.
But among his circle of friends, there's a lot of concern over the economy, national security and America's standing in the world.
Related: The economy needs a Cheerleader-in-Chief
"It's a feeling that everyone is on pins and needles," he said, noting that the economy is only growing at a 1% rate and many people have dropped out of the labor market because they can't find jobs. "You don't know what's going to happen. We're a ship without a captain right now."
Others, like Nicole King, feel the nation's problems have been building for a while and blames both parties for not coming together to address the issues.
King, who watches both CNN and Fox and listens to NPR to get a variety of views, said she is concerned about the shaky state of Social Security and the mounting national debt. She also fears the next generation is not as hard working, which will further damage the economy.
"All those things together don't paint a very positive picture," said King, 40, who feels her job in a bank's IT department is secure. "The U.S. as a brand is not as strong as it once was."
Related: White Working Class & Worried
The Charlotte, N.C., resident and her husband are on a very strict budget so they can save money for retirement and their children's college education. They buy used cars and gave their older daughter, who is 3, a piggy bank so she will learn the value of money at an early age. And they worry that their daughters will not be as comfortable as they are because the economy is so troubled.
Part of working class whites' frustration with the nation's direction stems from their feeling marginalized in society, said Arlie Hochschild, a professor emerita in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of the new book, Strangers In Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.
They think the nation views them as uneducated and racist, Hochschild said. Their pro-life views are demonized, while they feel under attack from the rise of secularism. And the tipping point is that their path upwards on the economic ladder is blocked by the decline of the middle class.
Related: The 'forgotten tribe' in West Virginia
Yet, at the same time, they draw happiness from living in their own isolated enclaves with family, neighbors and fellow churchgoers nearby.
"People are more optimistic personally than they are about the country as a whole," Hochschild said.
White, Working Class & Worried is a CNN partnership with the Kaiser Family Foundation - an extensive survey of white, working class Americans and voters who form a backbone of the support for Donald Trump. See more tonight on Anderson Cooper 360 and see full coverage at CNN.com/WhiteWorkingClassAndWorried.
About the survey: CNN partnered with The Kaiser Family Foundation to conduct an in-depth survey of the white working class in America, their politics, their perceptions of America's changing demographics, the economy, immigration, their personal finances, their faith, among others. This group has become increasingly important to the 2016 presidential race since they have been a key support to Donald Trump's bid for the White House. Here are the full results of the survey.
|
www.money.cnn.com
| 0left
|
AXIP3TAYbISWbBn0
|
violence_in_america
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/05/opinions/reyes-shooter-doesnt-represent-immigrants/index.html
|
OPINION: Don't blame all immigrants for San Francisco shooting
|
2015-07-05
|
Raul A. Reyes
|
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors . Follow him on Twitter @ RaulAReyes . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author .
( CNN ) As the nation was preparing for the July Fourth weekend , there was grim news from San Francisco . On Wednesday night , Kate Steinle , 31 , was fatally shot , apparently randomly , while walking with her father on a busy pier . A Mexican immigrant , who CNN reported was in the country without documentation , was arrested in her death .
Illegally re-entering the country after being deported , as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is said to have done , is a federal felony . He has also been accused of a horrific , violent crime . And according to immigration authorities , he has seven other felony convictions , including four for drug offenses .
But that does n't make him a symbol of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States . Nor is he the poster boy for out-of-control illegal immigration across our southern border ( illegal immigration from Mexico is at a 40-year low ) . He does not represent the overwhelming majority of immigrants in this country -- legal or otherwise -- who are productive members of society .
Lopez-Sanchez is simply a dangerous individual who should not have been free and among us .
It is a myth that increased illegal immigration leads to more crime . Research from the Immigration Policy Center shows that crime rates fell in the United States as the size of our immigrant population , including undocumented immigrants , grew from 1990 to 2010 .
JUST WATCHED Undocumented immigrants want to enlist Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Undocumented immigrants want to enlist 02:30
The Washington Post just analyzed Donald Trump 's recent comments about Mexican immigrants being drug dealers and `` rapists '' and found that he was wrong about immigrants and crime . Remember , being in the country without authorization is not a crime -- it is a civil infraction .
Most undocumented immigrants come to the United States to work and provide a better life for themselves and their families .
Consider that several mass shootings , from Aurora to Newtown to Charleston , were committed by young white men . Does that mean that all young white men are potential mass murderers ? Of course not .
The same news outlets that are now trumpeting Wednesday 's murder as proof that undocumented immigrants are criminals often overlook or ignore other stories of undocumented immigrants who are genuine heroes . In 2013 , an undocumented immigrant rescued a mother and her child on Staten Island , New York , amidst the storm surge of Superstorm Sandy .
JUST WATCHED DREAMer fights her family 's deportation Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH DREAMer fights her family 's deportation 02:50
One takeaway from this episode is that deporting as many undocumented immigrants as possible is not the answer to our immigration problems . Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times , and yet he was still here in the country without authorization .
Back in 2011 , the deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement told an immigration subcommittee of Congress that it costs $ 12,500 to deport a person . Multiply this by five and that is how much taxpayer money was wasted on a criminal who remained at large to randomly take the life of an innocent young woman .
Another lesson here is our country does not need more immigration enforcement ; our country needs smarter and better immigration enforcement . Up to now , immigration authorities have wasted time , manpower and money chasing after people working productively in their communities as , say , gardeners and maids , while felons like Lopez-Sanchez slipped through the cracks .
That 's why it was good news last week that the Department of Homeland Security announced it is rethinking its deportation priorities to focus on recent arrivals and serious criminals .
This move is a step in the right direction , because it is time to start seriously targeting those immigrants who are a real threat to public safety . The government will be focusing its enforcement efforts on three categories of people : convicted criminals , recent border crossers and terrorism threats .
JUST WATCHED Johnson : WH will appeal TX immigration ruling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Johnson : WH will appeal TX immigration ruling 01:24
True , Lopez-Sanchez should not have been in the country , or he should have at least been behind bars . But Immigration and Customs Enforcement erred in not seeking a warrant or court order for his arrest and he was released in accordance with city law in March .
What 's more , President Barack Obama 's proposed executive action on immigration , currently tied up in a legal battle , might also have made a difference because it would have freed up resources to go after people like Lopez-Sanchez .
The executive action would have given deportation relief to parents of DREAMers , while allowing DHS to zero in on criminals . Instead , despite the fact that our country spends more on immigration enforcement than all other law enforcement agencies combined , our system failed Kate Steinle .
Although Steinle 's death was a tragedy , it was the alleged action of one man . All undocumented immigrants do not deserve to be vilified by false association .
|
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and member of the USA Today board of contributors. Follow him on Twitter @RaulAReyes . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
(CNN) As the nation was preparing for the July Fourth weekend, there was grim news from San Francisco. On Wednesday night, Kate Steinle , 31, was fatally shot, apparently randomly, while walking with her father on a busy pier. A Mexican immigrant, who CNN reported was in the country without documentation, was arrested in her death.
Illegally re-entering the country after being deported, as Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is said to have done, is a federal felony . He has also been accused of a horrific, violent crime. And according to immigration authorities, he has seven other felony convictions, including four for drug offenses.
But that doesn't make him a symbol of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. Nor is he the poster boy for out-of-control illegal immigration across our southern border (illegal immigration from Mexico is at a 40-year low). He does not represent the overwhelming majority of immigrants in this country -- legal or otherwise -- who are productive members of society.
Lopez-Sanchez is simply a dangerous individual who should not have been free and among us.
It is a myth that increased illegal immigration leads to more crime. Research from the Immigration Policy Center shows that crime rates fell in the United States as the size of our immigrant population, including undocumented immigrants, grew from 1990 to 2010.
JUST WATCHED Undocumented immigrants want to enlist Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Undocumented immigrants want to enlist 02:30
The Washington Post just analyzed Donald Trump's recent comments about Mexican immigrants being drug dealers and "rapists" and found that he was wrong about immigrants and crime. Remember, being in the country without authorization is not a crime -- it is a civil infraction.
Most undocumented immigrants come to the United States to work and provide a better life for themselves and their families.
Consider that several mass shootings, from Aurora to Newtown to Charleston, were committed by young white men. Does that mean that all young white men are potential mass murderers? Of course not.
The same news outlets that are now trumpeting Wednesday's murder as proof that undocumented immigrants are criminals often overlook or ignore other stories of undocumented immigrants who are genuine heroes. In 2013, an undocumented immigrant rescued a mother and her child on Staten Island, New York, amidst the storm surge of Superstorm Sandy.
JUST WATCHED DREAMer fights her family's deportation Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH DREAMer fights her family's deportation 02:50
One takeaway from this episode is that deporting as many undocumented immigrants as possible is not the answer to our immigration problems. Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times, and yet he was still here in the country without authorization.
Back in 2011, the deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement told an immigration subcommittee of Congress that it costs $12,500 to deport a person. Multiply this by five and that is how much taxpayer money was wasted on a criminal who remained at large to randomly take the life of an innocent young woman.
Another lesson here is our country does not need more immigration enforcement; our country needs smarter and better immigration enforcement. Up to now, immigration authorities have wasted time, manpower and money chasing after people working productively in their communities as, say, gardeners and maids, while felons like Lopez-Sanchez slipped through the cracks.
That's why it was good news last week that the Department of Homeland Security announced it is rethinking its deportation priorities to focus on recent arrivals and serious criminals.
This move is a step in the right direction, because it is time to start seriously targeting those immigrants who are a real threat to public safety. The government will be focusing its enforcement efforts on three categories of people: convicted criminals, recent border crossers and terrorism threats.
JUST WATCHED Johnson: WH will appeal TX immigration ruling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Johnson: WH will appeal TX immigration ruling 01:24
True, Lopez-Sanchez should not have been in the country, or he should have at least been behind bars. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement erred in not seeking a warrant or court order for his arrest and he was released in accordance with city law in March.
What's more, President Barack Obama's proposed executive action on immigration, currently tied up in a legal battle, might also have made a difference because it would have freed up resources to go after people like Lopez-Sanchez.
The executive action would have given deportation relief to parents of DREAMers, while allowing DHS to zero in on criminals. Instead, despite the fact that our country spends more on immigration enforcement than all other law enforcement agencies combined, our system failed Kate Steinle.
Although Steinle's death was a tragedy, it was the alleged action of one man. All undocumented immigrants do not deserve to be vilified by false association.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
HlFOxDx3Un20S2f4
|
us_military
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/08/white-house-frustration-with-turkish-inaction-against-isis-reportedly-growing/
|
US prods Turkey over inaction against ISIS
|
2014-10-08
|
A Pentagon official signaled Wednesday that the U.S. is pressing the Turkish government to intervene in support of Kurdish forces desperately battling to keep the Syrian border town of Kobani from falling into Islamic State hands .
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told Fox News that U.S. officials are talking with the Turks about `` what they can or will or may do here . ''
He added : `` This is a decision the Turkish government has to make . We ca n't make it for them . ''
At a press briefing later in the day , Kirby clarified that the United States is not `` making demands of the Turks , '' but hopes they will `` contribute what they can . ''
The situation in the town of Kobani has intensified , and with it concerns over whether partners on the ground are doing enough .
The New York Times reported earlier that the White House is growing frustrated with Turkish inaction as the situation next door in Kobani gets worse .
Kirby also stressed the `` limits of airpower '' and said the U.S. needs more help on the ground .
`` There 's just so much you can do from the air , '' he told Fox News . `` You 've got to have willing partners on the ground . You 've got to have ground forces . ''
The New York Times quoted a senior administration official who slammed the Ankara government for `` dragging its feet to act to prevent a massacre less than a mile from its border . ''
`` After all the fulminating about Syria 's humanitarian catastrophe , they 're inventing reasons not to act to avoid another catastrophe , '' the official continued . `` This is n't how a NATO ally acts while hell is unfolding a stone 's throw from their border . ''
The Times reported that Secretary of State John Kerry had spoken with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu multiple times over the prior 72 hours in an effort to resolve tensions between the two sides .
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the U.S.-led coalition 's air campaign launched last month would not be enough to halt the Islamic State group 's advance . Turkish troops have been massed near the border since the assault on Kobani began , but have so far not taken an offensive posture .
`` Kobani is about to fall , '' Erdogan told Syrian refugees in the Turkish border town of Gaziantep , according to The Associated Press . The Turkish president called for greater cooperation with the Syrian opposition , which is fighting both the extremists and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad .
`` We asked for three things : one , for a no-fly zone to be created ; two , for a secure zone parallel to the region to be declared ; and for the moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq to be trained and equipped . ''
The Times reported that President Obama prefers that Erdogan not tether the fight against Islamic State , commonly known as ISIS , to the effort to overthrow Assad . U.S. officials also tell the paper that Erdogan 's demand for a no-fly zone against the Syrian Air Force is meaningless on the grounds that the airstrikes have created a no-fly zone in all but name .
The call for a buffer zone inside Syria was , meanwhile , prompting confusion . Top diplomats from the U.S. and Britain said Wednesday they would consider supporting one to help protect Turkey 's borders , but a Pentagon spokesman said that is not an option that is currently on the table . Asked about a buffer zone after an hour-long meeting in Washington , Kerry and visiting British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond both stopped short of embracing one .
On Wednesday , Fox News reported that machine gun and small arms fire could be heard and seen near Kobani , indicating street fighting at close quarters . Artillery fire could also be heard at the center of town . The minaret of the town 's mosque was destroyed by ISIS fire .
U.S. Central Command said Tuesday that five airstrikes on ISIS positions had been carried out near Kobani . A Fox News crew witnessed at least two airstrikes . One strike hit an ISIS tank on a hillside overlooking the town , while another two tanks appeared to be hit to the town 's southwest .
While it is thought that supply lines for ISIS might have been disrupted by the stepped up attacks , enough ISIS fighters have entered the town with heavy arms back-up to wage a serious fight .
On Tuesday , the United Nations envoy for Syria issued a call for `` concrete action '' to prevent `` humanitarian tragedies . ''
`` The world has seen with its own eyes the images of what happens when a city in Syria or in Iraq is overtaken by the terrorist group called ISIS or Da'esh : massacres , humanitarian tragedies , rapes , horrific violence , '' Staffan De Mistura said . `` The international community can not sustain another city falling under ISIS .
`` The world , all of us , will regret deeply if ISIS is able to take over a city which has defended itself with courage but is close to not being able to do so , '' De Mistura added . `` We need to act now . ''
|
A Pentagon official signaled Wednesday that the U.S. is pressing the Turkish government to intervene in support of Kurdish forces desperately battling to keep the Syrian border town of Kobani from falling into Islamic State hands.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told Fox News that U.S. officials are talking with the Turks about "what they can or will or may do here."
He added: "This is a decision the Turkish government has to make. We can't make it for them."
At a press briefing later in the day, Kirby clarified that the United States is not "making demands of the Turks," but hopes they will "contribute what they can."
The situation in the town of Kobani has intensified, and with it concerns over whether partners on the ground are doing enough.
More On This...
The New York Times reported earlier that the White House is growing frustrated with Turkish inaction as the situation next door in Kobani gets worse.
Kirby also stressed the "limits of airpower" and said the U.S. needs more help on the ground.
"There's just so much you can do from the air," he told Fox News. "You've got to have willing partners on the ground. You've got to have ground forces."
The New York Times quoted a senior administration official who slammed the Ankara government for "dragging its feet to act to prevent a massacre less than a mile from its border."
"After all the fulminating about Syria's humanitarian catastrophe, they're inventing reasons not to act to avoid another catastrophe," the official continued. "This isn't how a NATO ally acts while hell is unfolding a stone's throw from their border."
The Times reported that Secretary of State John Kerry had spoken with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu multiple times over the prior 72 hours in an effort to resolve tensions between the two sides.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the U.S.-led coalition's air campaign launched last month would not be enough to halt the Islamic State group's advance. Turkish troops have been massed near the border since the assault on Kobani began, but have so far not taken an offensive posture.
"Kobani is about to fall," Erdogan told Syrian refugees in the Turkish border town of Gaziantep, according to The Associated Press. The Turkish president called for greater cooperation with the Syrian opposition, which is fighting both the extremists and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad.
"We asked for three things: one, for a no-fly zone to be created; two, for a secure zone parallel to the region to be declared; and for the moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq to be trained and equipped."
The Times reported that President Obama prefers that Erdogan not tether the fight against Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, to the effort to overthrow Assad. U.S. officials also tell the paper that Erdogan's demand for a no-fly zone against the Syrian Air Force is meaningless on the grounds that the airstrikes have created a no-fly zone in all but name.
The call for a buffer zone inside Syria was, meanwhile, prompting confusion. Top diplomats from the U.S. and Britain said Wednesday they would consider supporting one to help protect Turkey's borders, but a Pentagon spokesman said that is not an option that is currently on the table. Asked about a buffer zone after an hour-long meeting in Washington, Kerry and visiting British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond both stopped short of embracing one.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that machine gun and small arms fire could be heard and seen near Kobani, indicating street fighting at close quarters. Artillery fire could also be heard at the center of town. The minaret of the town's mosque was destroyed by ISIS fire.
U.S. Central Command said Tuesday that five airstrikes on ISIS positions had been carried out near Kobani. A Fox News crew witnessed at least two airstrikes. One strike hit an ISIS tank on a hillside overlooking the town, while another two tanks appeared to be hit to the town's southwest.
While it is thought that supply lines for ISIS might have been disrupted by the stepped up attacks, enough ISIS fighters have entered the town with heavy arms back-up to wage a serious fight.
On Tuesday, the United Nations envoy for Syria issued a call for "concrete action" to prevent "humanitarian tragedies."
"The world has seen with its own eyes the images of what happens when a city in Syria or in Iraq is overtaken by the terrorist group called ISIS or Da'esh: massacres, humanitarian tragedies, rapes, horrific violence," Staffan De Mistura said. "The international community cannot sustain another city falling under ISIS.
"The world, all of us, will regret deeply if ISIS is able to take over a city which has defended itself with courage but is close to not being able to do so," De Mistura added. "We need to act now."
Fox News' Greg Palkot and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click for more from The New York Times.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
f5m6TgERNgc2zPCy
|
|
environment
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/04/168590135/budget-deal-provides-tax-brakes-for-green-energy
|
Budget Deal Provides Tax Breaks For Green Energy
|
2013-01-04
|
Elizabeth Shogren
|
Whether you 're a homeowner who bought an energy-saving refrigerator last year or a company hoping to build a wind farm , the tax package Congress just approved may give you a reason to cheer .
`` It 's got something in there , a Christmas gift if you will , for almost everyone — American homeowners , workers who commute via transit , and manufacturers of efficient equipment like clothes washers , dryers , refrigerators , '' says Kateri Callahan , president of the Alliance to Save Energy .
Homeowners can save up to $ 500 on taxes for 2012 or 2013 for installing more insulation or an energy-efficient furnace , for example .
The tax package is especially meaningful to clean-energy businesses that rely on tax benefits to stay profitable .
Jennifer Case , CEO of New Leaf Biofuel , and her colleagues had been betting on Congress coming through for them , so they are breathing a huge sigh of relief . The San Diego company turns used cooking oil into diesel .
`` Everybody was thrilled , and now it 's back to work today to sell the fuel that we now can afford to make , '' Case says .
Last year was a difficult year for New Leaf because Congress let a $ 1-a-gallon tax break for biodiesel expire . Even so , Case 's company decided to triple the capacity of its plant . Case was hoping Congress would reinstate the benefit , and it did .
`` I think coming to work every day is a gamble , but so far it 's been a good gamble , '' she says .
Daniel Kunz runs U.S. Geothermal , a company that creates electricity from sources of superhot water that occur naturally underground . When it looked like Congress might not renew tax credits for renewable energy , his company shelved plans to expand one of its plants .
But then Congress not only extended the tax credit for renewable energy projects , it also changed the rules . Now , instead of needing to complete a project by the end of 2013 to be eligible , a company has to only start construction by the end of the year .
`` In fact , this is going to help us make a decision , an economic decision , to go forward on a project that otherwise might not , '' Kunz says .
The tax benefits for green energy that Congress extended were originally created over the past decade . At the time , it seemed that energy sources , especially homegrown ones , were scarce . The country also seemed to be on the verge of setting limits on emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide .
`` There was a sensible reason to want to subsidize a transformation , '' says energy analyst Kevin Book . It 's harder to make a case for renewable energy now , given the booms in natural gas and oil , he says .
`` All of these things are different now : Demand is declining , supply is increasing , the decarbonization mandate has weakened if not disappeared , and energy security is n't the risk that it used to be , '' he says .
Book predicts that the New Year 's tax package may be the last big payday for green energy .
But Kunz , of U.S. Geothermal , says the United States should keep investing in renewable energy .
`` It will never be the cure-all energy source , but it is a gift to our children when we build these things to have clean energy sources , '' he says .
These projects will produce less pollution , including greenhouse gases . They also can save money over the long haul because , unlike , say , a natural gas power plant , they do n't need to keep buying fuel .
|
Budget Deal Provides Tax Breaks For Green Energy
Enlarge this image toggle caption Joe Raedle/Getty Images Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Whether you're a homeowner who bought an energy-saving refrigerator last year or a company hoping to build a wind farm, the tax package Congress just approved may give you a reason to cheer.
"It's got something in there, a Christmas gift if you will, for almost everyone — American homeowners, workers who commute via transit, and manufacturers of efficient equipment like clothes washers, dryers, refrigerators," says Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
Homeowners can save up to $500 on taxes for 2012 or 2013 for installing more insulation or an energy-efficient furnace, for example.
The tax package is especially meaningful to clean-energy businesses that rely on tax benefits to stay profitable.
Jennifer Case, CEO of New Leaf Biofuel, and her colleagues had been betting on Congress coming through for them, so they are breathing a huge sigh of relief. The San Diego company turns used cooking oil into diesel.
"Everybody was thrilled, and now it's back to work today to sell the fuel that we now can afford to make," Case says.
Last year was a difficult year for New Leaf because Congress let a $1-a-gallon tax break for biodiesel expire. Even so, Case's company decided to triple the capacity of its plant. Case was hoping Congress would reinstate the benefit, and it did.
"I think coming to work every day is a gamble, but so far it's been a good gamble," she says.
Daniel Kunz runs U.S. Geothermal, a company that creates electricity from sources of superhot water that occur naturally underground. When it looked like Congress might not renew tax credits for renewable energy, his company shelved plans to expand one of its plants.
But then Congress not only extended the tax credit for renewable energy projects, it also changed the rules. Now, instead of needing to complete a project by the end of 2013 to be eligible, a company has to only start construction by the end of the year.
"In fact, this is going to help us make a decision, an economic decision, to go forward on a project that otherwise might not," Kunz says.
The tax benefits for green energy that Congress extended were originally created over the past decade. At the time, it seemed that energy sources, especially homegrown ones, were scarce. The country also seemed to be on the verge of setting limits on emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
"There was a sensible reason to want to subsidize a transformation," says energy analyst Kevin Book. It's harder to make a case for renewable energy now, given the booms in natural gas and oil, he says.
"All of these things are different now: Demand is declining, supply is increasing, the decarbonization mandate has weakened if not disappeared, and energy security isn't the risk that it used to be," he says.
Book predicts that the New Year's tax package may be the last big payday for green energy.
But Kunz, of U.S. Geothermal, says the United States should keep investing in renewable energy.
"It will never be the cure-all energy source, but it is a gift to our children when we build these things to have clean energy sources," he says.
These projects will produce less pollution, including greenhouse gases. They also can save money over the long haul because, unlike, say, a natural gas power plant, they don't need to keep buying fuel.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
JmPKoc7HpGJqPQyg
|
elections
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/454816-democrats-seize-on-mueller-hearings-in-election-security-push
|
Democrats seize on Mueller hearings in election security push
|
2019-07-26
|
Democrats calling for action on election security legislation got a boost from Robert Mueller Robert ( Bob ) Swan MuellerFox News legal analyst says Trump call with Ukraine leader could be 'more serious ' than what Mueller 'dragged up ' Lewandowski says Mueller report was 'very clear ' in proving 'there was no obstruction , ' despite having 'never ' read it Fox 's Cavuto roasts Trump over criticism of network MORE this week after the former special counsel issued a dire warning to lawmakers about Russia ’ s intentions for 2020 .
Mueller emphasized during Wednesday ’ s hearings that in addition to interfering in the 2016 presidential election , the Kremlin is laying the groundwork “ as we sit here ” for a repeat performance next year .
Interference in the last presidential election did not consist of a “ single attempt , ” but instead entailed a large social media disinformation campaign and hacking operations , the former FBI director said .
“ Over the course of my career , I 've seen a number of challenges to our democracy . The Russian government 's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious . ”
Mueller ’ s 448-page report , released in April , detailed how Russian actors hacked into the Democratic National Committee , engineered a social media disinformation campaign that favored President Trump and conducted “ computer intrusion operations ” against those working on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s Democratic presidential campaign .
Those findings were bolstered Thursday when the Senate Intelligence Committee released the first volume of its lengthy investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election . The panel found that “ the Russian government directed extensive activity , beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017 , against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level . ”
Senate Democrats made quick use of Mueller 's remarks by pushing for passage of long-stalled election security bills .
On Wednesday night , just a few hours after the Mueller hearings , Democratic Sens . Mark Warner Mark Robert WarnerHillicon Valley : Clapper praises whistleblower complaint | Senators urge social media giants to take action against 'deepfakes ' | Tim Cook asks Supreme Court to protect DACA | Harris pushes Twitter to suspend Trump Senators urge social media companies to take action against 'deepfake ' videos Overnight Defense : State approves M weapons sale to Ukraine | Pompeo rejects Dem demands for officials ' testimony | Dems worry about whistleblower 's safety | US , North Korea to hold talks MORE ( Va. ) , Richard Blumenthal ( Conn. ) and Ron Wyden Ronald ( Ron ) Lee WydenVoting machines pose a greater threat to our elections than foreign agents Senate Democrats request IRS investigation of NRA Senate Democrats say top NRA officials knew about Kremlin ties MORE ( Ore. ) went to the Senate floor to seek unanimous consent to pass various election security measures .
The measures would require political campaigns to report foreign contacts to federal authorities and allow the Senate sergeant at arms to offer cyber assistance to senators and staff for personal devices and accounts .
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith ( R-Miss . ) blocked the bills from consideration and accused Democrats of playing politics .
“ Senate Democrats try to push partisan election bills without going through regular order right after the House hearings w/Mueller . Coincidence ? Nope . Just more political theater instead of working together to secure US elections , ” she tweeted .
Democrats made another attempt on Thursday , when Blumenthal and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things ' parody video criticizing impeachment 2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum O'Rourke hits Buttigieg over not supporting mandatory gun buybacks : 'It 's time to lead ' MORE ( D-N.Y. ) took to the floor to ask for unanimous consent to consider the Securing America ’ s Federal Elections ( SAFE ) Act and the Duty to Report Act .
The SAFE Act , passed by the House along party lines last month , would authorize $ 600 million for the Election Assistance Commission to allocate to states to enhance their security ahead of 2020 . The measure also includes language that would ban voting machines from being connected to the internet or being manufactured in foreign countries .
The Duty to Report Act , sponsored by Blumenthal , would require federal campaign officials to notify law enforcement if a campaign is offered assistance by a foreign government .
Both bills were blocked Thursday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnell2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum Pro-impeachment group targets GOP senators with .1 million ad buy House Democrat pushes back against concerns that impeachment inquiry could spark political backlash MORE ( R-Ky. ) , who cited the need for “ bipartisan ” legislation to address election security issues .
Schumer argued it was “ a disgrace ” that the Senate wasn ’ t doing anything to counter potential threats from Russia and other countries .
“ This is an issue of patriotism , of national security , of protecting the very integrity of American democracy , something so many of our forebearers died for , and what do we hear from the Republican side ? Nothing , ” Schumer said . “ Leader McConnell and the Republican majority refuse to do anything . ”
McConnell has steadfastly refused to allow votes on a multitude of election security bills this year , though the Senate has passed related legislation . One measure would make it a federal crime to hack into voting systems , while another would deny visas to those who meddle or are suspected of trying to interfere in U.S. elections .
The House and Senate this month both received election security briefings by senior administration officials on the status of efforts to secure voting systems in the lead-up to 2020 .
Democrats also lashed out at Trump for not prioritizing the issue , arguing he is concerned that such legislation would “ delegitimize ” the results of the 2016 election .
Warner tweeted on Thursday that Trump ’ s “ aides wouldn ’ t let the Secretary of Homeland Security brief the President on election security because they were afraid it would bruise his ego . ”
The senator ’ s remarks were in reference to a New York Times story that said former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Kirstjen Michele NielsenTrump suggested shooting migrants in the legs : NYT Kirstjen Nielsen drops out of Atlantic Media event after liberal backlash Pence taps former DHS spokeswoman as his new press secretary MORE was told by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney John ( Mick ) Michael MulvaneyEx-senior Trump administration official joins lobbying shop Trump suggested shooting migrants in the legs : NYT Five things to know as Ukraine fallout widens for Trump MORE to stop briefing Trump on election security measures and to keep it “ below his level . ”
At least one GOP senator appeared to agree with the need to move forward on election security measures .
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham ( R-S.C. ) told reporters Thursday that he believed there was “ some bipartisan space ” on election security , citing his committee ’ s approval of two pertinent bills earlier this year .
“ Maybe this is where you want to go into the old chamber and see if we can regain that sense of the Senate that ’ s been lost and find a way forward , ” Graham said .
On the House side , Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Adam Bennett SchiffHouse Republicans voice concerns about White House 's impeachment messaging New York Times reporter fact-checks McCarthy on whistleblower claims Republicans seize on reports of whistleblower consulting with Intel Committee MORE ( D-Calif. ) told reporters Thursday that he “ hoped ” Mueller ’ s testimony would pave the way for action on election security .
“ If the former special counsel expresses such deep concern about Russian plans and intentions and our own readiness , or whether it ’ s become the new normal to act in concert with a foreign adversary , and that ’ s not enough to spark people out of their lethargy around this building in terms of preparing for the next election , then I ’ m not sure what will , ” Schiff said .
|
Democrats calling for action on election security legislation got a boost from Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) Swan MuellerFox News legal analyst says Trump call with Ukraine leader could be 'more serious' than what Mueller 'dragged up' Lewandowski says Mueller report was 'very clear' in proving 'there was no obstruction,' despite having 'never' read it Fox's Cavuto roasts Trump over criticism of network MORE this week after the former special counsel issued a dire warning to lawmakers about Russia’s intentions for 2020.
Mueller emphasized during Wednesday’s hearings that in addition to interfering in the 2016 presidential election, the Kremlin is laying the groundwork “as we sit here” for a repeat performance next year.
ADVERTISEMENT
Interference in the last presidential election did not consist of a “single attempt,” but instead entailed a large social media disinformation campaign and hacking operations, the former FBI director said.
“Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”
Mueller’s 448-page report, released in April, detailed how Russian actors hacked into the Democratic National Committee, engineered a social media disinformation campaign that favored President Trump and conducted “computer intrusion operations” against those working on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign.
Those findings were bolstered Thursday when the Senate Intelligence Committee released the first volume of its lengthy investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The panel found that “the Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure at the state and local level.”
Senate Democrats made quick use of Mueller's remarks by pushing for passage of long-stalled election security bills.
ADVERTISEMENT
On Wednesday night, just a few hours after the Mueller hearings, Democratic Sens. Mark Warner Mark Robert WarnerHillicon Valley: Clapper praises whistleblower complaint | Senators urge social media giants to take action against 'deepfakes' | Tim Cook asks Supreme Court to protect DACA | Harris pushes Twitter to suspend Trump Senators urge social media companies to take action against 'deepfake' videos Overnight Defense: State approves M weapons sale to Ukraine | Pompeo rejects Dem demands for officials' testimony | Dems worry about whistleblower's safety | US, North Korea to hold talks MORE (Va.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and Ron Wyden Ronald (Ron) Lee WydenVoting machines pose a greater threat to our elections than foreign agents Senate Democrats request IRS investigation of NRA Senate Democrats say top NRA officials knew about Kremlin ties MORE (Ore.) went to the Senate floor to seek unanimous consent to pass various election security measures.
The measures would require political campaigns to report foreign contacts to federal authorities and allow the Senate sergeant at arms to offer cyber assistance to senators and staff for personal devices and accounts.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) blocked the bills from consideration and accused Democrats of playing politics.
“Senate Democrats try to push partisan election bills without going through regular order right after the House hearings w/Mueller. Coincidence? Nope. Just more political theater instead of working together to secure US elections,” she tweeted.
Democrats made another attempt on Thursday, when Blumenthal and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerMcCarthy shares 'Stranger Things' parody video criticizing impeachment 2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum O'Rourke hits Buttigieg over not supporting mandatory gun buybacks: 'It's time to lead' MORE (D-N.Y.) took to the floor to ask for unanimous consent to consider the Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act and the Duty to Report Act.
The SAFE Act, passed by the House along party lines last month, would authorize $600 million for the Election Assistance Commission to allocate to states to enhance their security ahead of 2020. The measure also includes language that would ban voting machines from being connected to the internet or being manufactured in foreign countries.
The Duty to Report Act, sponsored by Blumenthal, would require federal campaign officials to notify law enforcement if a campaign is offered assistance by a foreign government.
Both bills were blocked Thursday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnell2020 Democrats push for gun control action at forum Pro-impeachment group targets GOP senators with .1 million ad buy House Democrat pushes back against concerns that impeachment inquiry could spark political backlash MORE (R-Ky.), who cited the need for “bipartisan” legislation to address election security issues.
Schumer argued it was “a disgrace” that the Senate wasn’t doing anything to counter potential threats from Russia and other countries.
“This is an issue of patriotism, of national security, of protecting the very integrity of American democracy, something so many of our forebearers died for, and what do we hear from the Republican side? Nothing,” Schumer said. “Leader McConnell and the Republican majority refuse to do anything.”
McConnell has steadfastly refused to allow votes on a multitude of election security bills this year, though the Senate has passed related legislation. One measure would make it a federal crime to hack into voting systems, while another would deny visas to those who meddle or are suspected of trying to interfere in U.S. elections.
The House and Senate this month both received election security briefings by senior administration officials on the status of efforts to secure voting systems in the lead-up to 2020.
Democrats also lashed out at Trump for not prioritizing the issue, arguing he is concerned that such legislation would “delegitimize” the results of the 2016 election.
Warner tweeted on Thursday that Trump’s “aides wouldn’t let the Secretary of Homeland Security brief the President on election security because they were afraid it would bruise his ego.”
The senator’s remarks were in reference to a New York Times story that said former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Kirstjen Michele NielsenTrump suggested shooting migrants in the legs: NYT Kirstjen Nielsen drops out of Atlantic Media event after liberal backlash Pence taps former DHS spokeswoman as his new press secretary MORE was told by acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney John (Mick) Michael MulvaneyEx-senior Trump administration official joins lobbying shop Trump suggested shooting migrants in the legs: NYT Five things to know as Ukraine fallout widens for Trump MORE to stop briefing Trump on election security measures and to keep it “below his level.”
At least one GOP senator appeared to agree with the need to move forward on election security measures.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters Thursday that he believed there was “some bipartisan space” on election security, citing his committee’s approval of two pertinent bills earlier this year.
“Maybe this is where you want to go into the old chamber and see if we can regain that sense of the Senate that’s been lost and find a way forward,” Graham said.
On the House side, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff Adam Bennett SchiffHouse Republicans voice concerns about White House's impeachment messaging New York Times reporter fact-checks McCarthy on whistleblower claims Republicans seize on reports of whistleblower consulting with Intel Committee MORE (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday that he “hoped” Mueller’s testimony would pave the way for action on election security.
“If the former special counsel expresses such deep concern about Russian plans and intentions and our own readiness, or whether it’s become the new normal to act in concert with a foreign adversary, and that’s not enough to spark people out of their lethargy around this building in terms of preparing for the next election, then I’m not sure what will,” Schiff said.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
Nbihifd4d8MsgYWb
|
|
us_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jul/26/jim-jordan-wants-to-replace-paul-ryan-as-house-spe/
|
Rep. Jim Jordan wants to replace Paul Ryan as House speaker
|
2018-07-26
|
Gabriella Muñoz, David Sherfinski
|
Rep. Jim Jordan announced Thursday that he will try next year to become leader of the House Republican caucus , accelerating what ’ s likely to be a deeply divisive fight over the direction of the GOP .
The Ohio Republican is challenging Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California , the current majority leader and front-runner to succeed outgoing Speaker Paul D. Ryan , who is retiring at the end of this year .
Mr. Jordan said he will seek the post if Republicans manage to keep their majority in this year ’ s elections , vowing to be a firmer supporter of President Trump ’ s agenda .
“ President Trump has taken bold action on behalf of the American people . Congress has not held up its end of the deal , but we can change that . It ’ s time to do what we said , ” he wrote in a letter to colleagues .
Long a conservative lightning rod , Mr. Jordan quickly drew support from outside right-wing groups , while conservative lawmakers inside the Capitol were divided .
Some of his closest allies said they ’ ll back him , but other conservative lawmakers said they want to focus on making sure the GOP still has a majority — and thus the speakership — next year .
Mr. Jordan has built a reputation as a right-wing brawler , willing to battle Democrats and GOP leaders alike .
He helped orchestrate the 17-day government shutdown over Obamacare funding in 2013 , though he later admitted that was perhaps too aggressive a stance . And he ’ s pushed for stiffer action on illegal immigration , deeper spending cuts and broader civil liberties protections from government snooping than party leaders have embraced .
He also attempted to impeach then-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in 2016 .
Mr. Jordan is a former chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus , and has taken in recent months to chiding GOP leaders for failing to live up to the promises they and Mr. Trump made to voters .
“ Jim Jordan is a courageous conservative who has always kept his promises , ” said Rep. Andy Biggs , Arizona Republican . “ I believe that Jim Jordan would return to regular order and lead the House to execute our conservative objectives . ”
Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina , chairman of the Freedom Caucus , said he would “ fully ” support Mr. Jordan for speaker .
“ I applaud all of those who are willing to put themselves out there . Certainly , Jim ’ s one of my better friends in Congress and I support his efforts and his leadership to do that , ” Mr. Meadows said .
Mr. Meadows also waved aside talk that Mr. Jordan launched the long-shot bid to be a “ spoiler ” for another candidate or to build himself up as a GOP kingmaker .
“ The fact is that he was a two-time national champion , ” Mr. Meadows said of Mr. Jordan , a former college wrestler . “ I never knew him to get on the mat and try to lose , and I don ’ t expect this to be any different . If he ’ s going to get in , he ’ s going to be in it to win . ”
Groups from the free-market Club for Growth to the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund said they would rally to Mr. Jordan ’ s side as well .
FreedomWorks , another group , said it will spend at least $ 500,000 to assist Mr. Jordan ’ s speakership bid .
However , elections analysts are putting increasingly long odds on the GOP ’ s hopes of retaining the majority . Should Democrats win , they ’ ll pick the speaker and the GOP contest would be for minority leader .
Mr. Jordan ’ s letter to colleagues didn ’ t say what he would do in that case .
The outgoing speaker , Mr. Ryan , said he didn ’ t talk to Mr. Jordan before his announcement , but said he ’ s still backing Mr. McCarthy .
Asked Thursday about Mr. Jordan ’ s bid , Mr. McCarthy told NBC : “ I ’ m spending the time keeping the majority . ”
Rep. Mark Walker , who chairs the Republican Study Committee , said the GOP needs to keep the majority first if they have designs on choosing the next speaker .
“ That ’ s yet to be determined , ” he said . “ First and foremost , we got to keep the majority . ”
Mr. Jordan built a national profile using his seats on the House Judiciary and Oversight committees to fire tough questions first at Obama administration officials , and more recently at Trump Justice Department and FBI officials .
This week he joined with Mr. Meadows to introduce articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , arguing he ’ s the point man of a Justice Department effort to hide documents from Congress .
While he won cheers from conservatives from those efforts , some moderate GOP members have started to lose patience with the Freedom Caucus and say those sorts of tactics are counterproductive .
Rep. Elise Stefanik , a New York Republican who is backing Mr. McCarthy , said that “ under no circumstances ” will she support Mr. Jordan for speaker .
“ I would urge him instead to support his colleagues this November instead of focusing on his own personal leadership aspirations , ” Ms. Stefanik tweeted .
|
Rep. Jim Jordan announced Thursday that he will try next year to become leader of the House Republican caucus, accelerating what’s likely to be a deeply divisive fight over the direction of the GOP.
The Ohio Republican is challenging Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the current majority leader and front-runner to succeed outgoing Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who is retiring at the end of this year.
Mr. Jordan said he will seek the post if Republicans manage to keep their majority in this year’s elections, vowing to be a firmer supporter of President Trump’s agenda.
“President Trump has taken bold action on behalf of the American people. Congress has not held up its end of the deal, but we can change that. It’s time to do what we said,” he wrote in a letter to colleagues.
Long a conservative lightning rod, Mr. Jordan quickly drew support from outside right-wing groups, while conservative lawmakers inside the Capitol were divided.
Some of his closest allies said they’ll back him, but other conservative lawmakers said they want to focus on making sure the GOP still has a majority — and thus the speakership — next year.
Mr. Jordan has built a reputation as a right-wing brawler, willing to battle Democrats and GOP leaders alike.
He helped orchestrate the 17-day government shutdown over Obamacare funding in 2013, though he later admitted that was perhaps too aggressive a stance. And he’s pushed for stiffer action on illegal immigration, deeper spending cuts and broader civil liberties protections from government snooping than party leaders have embraced.
He also attempted to impeach then-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in 2016.
Mr. Jordan is a former chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, and has taken in recent months to chiding GOP leaders for failing to live up to the promises they and Mr. Trump made to voters.
“Jim Jordan is a courageous conservative who has always kept his promises,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, Arizona Republican. “I believe that Jim Jordan would return to regular order and lead the House to execute our conservative objectives.”
Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, said he would “fully” support Mr. Jordan for speaker.
“I applaud all of those who are willing to put themselves out there. Certainly, Jim’s one of my better friends in Congress and I support his efforts and his leadership to do that,” Mr. Meadows said.
Mr. Meadows also waved aside talk that Mr. Jordan launched the long-shot bid to be a “spoiler” for another candidate or to build himself up as a GOP kingmaker.
“The fact is that he was a two-time national champion,” Mr. Meadows said of Mr. Jordan, a former college wrestler. “I never knew him to get on the mat and try to lose, and I don’t expect this to be any different. If he’s going to get in, he’s going to be in it to win.”
Groups from the free-market Club for Growth to the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund said they would rally to Mr. Jordan’s side as well.
FreedomWorks, another group, said it will spend at least $500,000 to assist Mr. Jordan’s speakership bid.
However, elections analysts are putting increasingly long odds on the GOP’s hopes of retaining the majority. Should Democrats win, they’ll pick the speaker and the GOP contest would be for minority leader.
Mr. Jordan’s letter to colleagues didn’t say what he would do in that case.
The outgoing speaker, Mr. Ryan, said he didn’t talk to Mr. Jordan before his announcement, but said he’s still backing Mr. McCarthy.
Asked Thursday about Mr. Jordan’s bid, Mr. McCarthy told NBC: “I’m spending the time keeping the majority.”
Rep. Mark Walker, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, said the GOP needs to keep the majority first if they have designs on choosing the next speaker.
“That’s yet to be determined,” he said. “First and foremost, we got to keep the majority.”
Mr. Jordan built a national profile using his seats on the House Judiciary and Oversight committees to fire tough questions first at Obama administration officials, and more recently at Trump Justice Department and FBI officials.
This week he joined with Mr. Meadows to introduce articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, arguing he’s the point man of a Justice Department effort to hide documents from Congress.
While he won cheers from conservatives from those efforts, some moderate GOP members have started to lose patience with the Freedom Caucus and say those sorts of tactics are counterproductive.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican who is backing Mr. McCarthy, said that “under no circumstances” will she support Mr. Jordan for speaker.
“I would urge him instead to support his colleagues this November instead of focusing on his own personal leadership aspirations,” Ms. Stefanik tweeted.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
bN0Wyk89sCSDkgwY
|
elections
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/hillary_clinton_must_really_hate_iowa_the_biggest_lessons_from_last_nights_iowa_caucuses/
|
Hillary Clinton must really hate Iowa: The biggest lessons from last night?s Iowa caucuses
|
2016-02-02
|
Jack Mirkinson
|
Hillary Clinton must really hate Iowa : The biggest lessons from last night 's Iowa caucuses For the second time in 8 years , the Democratic frontrunner underperformed . The ground is shifting beneath her feet
When Hillary Clinton stepped up to the microphone in the waning hours of Monday night , she called it an `` incredible honor '' to have campaigned in the state . But one suspects that if she had the option of wiping one place off the map it would be Iowa—the place where her presidential aspirations keep getting dragged down by voters unwilling to endorse her as much as she needs .
The Iowa caucuses are , by and large , a ridiculous affair , more about hazy notions of momentum and expectations than any real statement of what the broad American electorate thinks . That is how third-place Marco Rubio could be hailed as a triumphant winner on the GOP side—or how actual winner Ted Cruz could be given a huge political boost off the back of just 51,000 votes , which is roughly the equivalent of two New York City blocks .
Nevertheless , Iowa is the reality we all live with , and it has once more been cruel to Clinton . In 2008 , she came in third , a harbinger of what was to come . On Monday , she watched as Bernie Sanders—a man who was virtually unknown to most of the country a year ago , a man who she was leading by 25 percent in state polls last September—fought her to a standstill and permanently erased what traces of inevitability she was still carrying around . As she rallied her troops , you could almost feel her wanting to shout , `` again with this ? ! ''
For Sanders , the results in Iowa cap a remarkable year . Whatever happens now , he has just performed a gravity-defying feat of political dexterity . He has enlisted a groundswell of grassroots support , and thoroughly defined the contours of the primary race , much more than Clinton has . That was evident in her speech , in which she declared , in Bernie-esque fashion , that `` the status quo is not good enough . '' The speech was also entirely focused on the domestic issues that Sanders has embraced ; there was no mention of ISIS here . For his part , Sanders was almost giddy as he bellowed out his stump speech to a rapturous crowd on the greatest night of his political life .
What happens next ? Who knows . Sanders has a commanding lead in New Hampshire , which it 's hard to see him giving up . After that , the campaign heads to Nevada and South Carolina , where the demographic profile of the electorate vastly shifts . Clinton is way up in both places , but polls change . It seems more likely than not that Sanders will ultimately be overwhelmed by Clinton ; what is clear , though , is that the race is going to take much longer than just about anyone imagined .
There are going to be a million thinkpieces about why , exactly , Hillary Clinton has found herself in such a sticky spot . ( How long she stays there is another matter . ) I think that to really get what is going on , we have to look beyond the somewhat narrow confines of party politics . For all of his skill in outmaneuvering Clinton , in driving his message through , in sparking people 's passions , Sanders is the beneficiary of forces beyond his , or Clinton 's , control . Why has the Democratic Party been shifting left ? It 's not because of Bernie Sanders . It 's because of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter , women 's rights activists and climate change activists and immigrants rights activists and LGBT activists . As ever , it is the power of movements—of people pushing the boundaries , people going into the streets , people forcing the scope of discourse to open up and to move—that has trickled down into the political process . There were people waiting for Bernie Sanders . The best idea he ever had was to show up .
|
Hillary Clinton must really hate Iowa: The biggest lessons from last night's Iowa caucuses For the second time in 8 years, the Democratic frontrunner underperformed. The ground is shifting beneath her feet
When Hillary Clinton stepped up to the microphone in the waning hours of Monday night, she called it an "incredible honor" to have campaigned in the state. But one suspects that if she had the option of wiping one place off the map it would be Iowa—the place where her presidential aspirations keep getting dragged down by voters unwilling to endorse her as much as she needs.
The Iowa caucuses are, by and large, a ridiculous affair, more about hazy notions of momentum and expectations than any real statement of what the broad American electorate thinks. That is how third-place Marco Rubio could be hailed as a triumphant winner on the GOP side—or how actual winner Ted Cruz could be given a huge political boost off the back of just 51,000 votes, which is roughly the equivalent of two New York City blocks.
Advertisement:
Nevertheless, Iowa is the reality we all live with, and it has once more been cruel to Clinton. In 2008, she came in third, a harbinger of what was to come. On Monday, she watched as Bernie Sanders—a man who was virtually unknown to most of the country a year ago, a man who she was leading by 25 percent in state polls last September—fought her to a standstill and permanently erased what traces of inevitability she was still carrying around. As she rallied her troops, you could almost feel her wanting to shout, "again with this?!"
For Sanders, the results in Iowa cap a remarkable year. Whatever happens now, he has just performed a gravity-defying feat of political dexterity. He has enlisted a groundswell of grassroots support, and thoroughly defined the contours of the primary race, much more than Clinton has. That was evident in her speech, in which she declared, in Bernie-esque fashion, that "the status quo is not good enough." The speech was also entirely focused on the domestic issues that Sanders has embraced; there was no mention of ISIS here. For his part, Sanders was almost giddy as he bellowed out his stump speech to a rapturous crowd on the greatest night of his political life.
What happens next? Who knows. Sanders has a commanding lead in New Hampshire, which it's hard to see him giving up. After that, the campaign heads to Nevada and South Carolina, where the demographic profile of the electorate vastly shifts. Clinton is way up in both places, but polls change. It seems more likely than not that Sanders will ultimately be overwhelmed by Clinton; what is clear, though, is that the race is going to take much longer than just about anyone imagined.
There are going to be a million thinkpieces about why, exactly, Hillary Clinton has found herself in such a sticky spot. (How long she stays there is another matter.) I think that to really get what is going on, we have to look beyond the somewhat narrow confines of party politics. For all of his skill in outmaneuvering Clinton, in driving his message through, in sparking people's passions, Sanders is the beneficiary of forces beyond his, or Clinton's, control. Why has the Democratic Party been shifting left? It's not because of Bernie Sanders. It's because of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, women's rights activists and climate change activists and immigrants rights activists and LGBT activists. As ever, it is the power of movements—of people pushing the boundaries, people going into the streets, people forcing the scope of discourse to open up and to move—that has trickled down into the political process. There were people waiting for Bernie Sanders. The best idea he ever had was to show up.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
g81r5qEOdWzK8Tra
|
immigration
|
Vox
| 00
|
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11424614/supreme-court-immigration-dapa-daca
|
United States v. Texas, the biggest immigration case in a century, explained
|
2016-04-15
|
Dara Lind, Matthew Yglesias, Sean Collins, German Lopez, Alex Abad-Santos, Alex Ward, Aaron Rupar
|
When it takes up the question of whether President Obama 's 2014 immigration executive actions were constitutional , the Supreme Court will throw out its typical playbook .
United States v. Texas is one of the most — if not the most — important cases before the highest court this term . It 's certainly the most important immigration case the Supreme Court has taken up in a generation ( or , arguably , a century ) . And the Court is treating it accordingly .
On Monday , instead of splitting up 60 minutes of oral arguments between the two sides of the case , as usually happens , the Court will convene for 90 minutes — and bring in more parties to argue their case .
Texas and the 25 other states suing will get 30 minutes . The federal government will get 35 . But the Supreme Court has also given 10 minutes to a lawyer representing a group of immigrant women who 'd benefit from Obama 's executive actions . And that 's not all — 15 minutes will go to the US House of Representatives ( thanks to the Republican House majority ) , which has jumped in to support the states .
The unusually complicated oral argument process reflects just how messy this case is . It 's a case covering surprisingly narrow-sounding legal questions , but its outcome carries broad implications for the relationship between Congress and the president , and the relationship between the federal government and the states . Oh , yeah — and it 's a presidential election year , and both immigration and the Court itself have become election issues .
All this makes it something of a nightmare scenario for Chief Justice John Roberts , who tends to be more anxious than the typical Supreme Court justice to present the Court 's opinions as drawn purely from law rather than politics .
As the justices hear oral arguments and consider the case before issuing an opinion ( which they 're expected to do in late June , at the end of the term ) , Roberts and the other justices will have to work through legal questions that are both less contentious and more abstract than the broader immigration debate makes them seem .
Then they 'll have to figure out if there 's any way they can cobble together a five-vote majority for a lasting opinion — or if the eight-person Court will deadlock , putting the most important case of the Court 's term in limbo and creating the opportunity for chaos .
In November 2014 , President Obama issued a series of memos declaring executive actions on immigration . Two of those are at issue in this case .
One memo expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , or DACA , which since 2012 had allowed immigrants who 'd come to the US as children to apply for temporary protection from deportation and work permits .
The other one added a new deferred action program — the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program — which would have allowed millions of unauthorized immigrants who have US citizen or permanent resident children to apply for deportation protection and work permits as well .
The two 2014 actions are usually referred to as DAPA/DACA+ . Since the states won in the lower courts , both of them have been put on hold since the first ruling was issued in February 2015 . The original DACA program from 2012 , however , is still in place and is n't being challenged in this suit . ( To prevent confusion , I 'll just refer to DAPA instead of DAPA/DACA+ when talking about the 2014 actions . )
2 ) Why did President Obama create this program in the first place ?
Federal immigration enforcement has totally transformed over the past 20 years . More people are eligible for deportation than ever before . The growth of the unauthorized population pre–Great Recession meant there were more people to deport . After 9/11 , the government got vastly more money and resources for deportation . And deportations escalated accordingly — from 183,000 in 1999 to a high of 400,000 during the first several years of the Obama administration .
President Obama has spent most of his time in office trying to impose some sort of control on all of this — to make sure the government is choosing who 's most important to deport , rather than arbitrarily deporting anyone Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents get their hands on . His first attempts — setting high and low `` priorities '' for deportation and telling immigration agents to follow them — were something both sides in the current court case agree he could do but that rank-and-file immigration agents frequently ignored in favor of their own judgment .
So in 2012 , President Obama created the first deferred action program , DACA — allowing people to proactively apply for protection from deportation , rather than simply hoping that ICE followed the memo not to deport them . It 's been solidly effective . After comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress in 2013 , pressure grew on Obama to use the tool that had worked — deferred action — to protect other groups of low-priority immigrants , and he did just that with DAPA and expanded DACA in 2014 .
DAPA was supposed to be the program that ensured Obama 's legacy on immigration , turning him from the `` deporter in chief '' of his first term to a man who brought immigrants out of the shadows . If the Supreme Court lets the program go forward , that legacy is assured . If it strikes DAPA down , Obama 's legacy — and immigrants ' attitude toward the Democratic Party — will be an ambivalent and disappointing one .
3 ) How did United States v. Texas get to the Supreme Court ?
United States v. Texas is political in its origins . That does n't at all mean that the states that sued the Obama administration are wrong on the merits — it 's just an acknowledgment of the circumstances around the case 's genesis shortly after Obama announced the executive actions .
There was n't a serious legal challenge to the original DACA program in 2012 , even though many of the criticisms of DAPA in this case would have applied to DACA as well . But in June 2012 the country was in the middle of a general election campaign , and the Republican nominee was trying to run toward the center and appeal to Latinos . In November 2014 , on the other hand , the relatively unpopular President Obama was responding to an electoral defeat in the midterm elections — including the loss of the Senate — with executive actions on an issue that mobilized the GOP base .
The states on each side of the case have lined up along partisan lines . The Texas suit involves 23 states — all but three of them under unified Republican control — as well as four Republican governors ( three of whom have Democratic attorneys general who would n't let the state officially join the case ) and one Republican attorney general . The states that have filed briefs supporting the Obama administration , meanwhile , represent about two-thirds of the states with Democratic attorneys general .
Texas is leading the coalition of states bringing the lawsuit for two reasons . One , it 's offered the most persuasive case for how DAPA could actually hurt the state ( more on that later ) . Two , it houses the Southern District of Texas , which was the court the states chose to file their case in , presumably because they knew they 'd have a good chance there . ( The administration and its allies have implied that this is unfair , but it happens all the time . )
They chose wisely . In February 2015 — just a few days before the government was scheduled to start accepting applications for expanded DACA — Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction , preventing the government from moving ahead with the program on the logic that the states were `` likely '' to prevail on some of their claims . The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction . And in January , the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case .
As the case has made its way through the courts , it 's gotten much broader . Initially , the injunction was based on a narrow claim that the Obama administration had n't used the right procedure in instituting DAPA . The Fifth Circuit ruled that DAPA was also ( or at least , was likely to be ) illegal on the merits . And now the Supreme Court has added a constitutional question : whether DAPA violates the `` take care '' clause of the Constitution .
While this is theoretically still a ruling on the injunction , the Supreme Court is dealing with the merits of the case — ensuring that if a majority of the Court 's eight justices side with the Obama administration , or with the states , the case is finished ( and DAPA is alive , or dead ) for the duration of Obama 's time in office .
The stakes have risen accordingly . The House of Representatives asked , and was granted , the chance to argue that DAPA violates laws that Congress has passed — something that is n't totally unheard of at the Supreme Court level but certainly raises the political temperature of the case .
And on the federal government 's side , the argument on behalf of the `` Jane Doe '' immigrant women — not to mention the likely presence of many potential DAPA beneficiaries in the Supreme Court during the oral arguments — will inevitably remind the justices that this is a question of the balance and separation of powers , and about immigrants themselves .
4 ) What is the Supreme Court actually ruling on in this case ?
Because immigration is such a divisive culture war issue — and because phrases like `` enforce the law '' get tossed around frequently as talking points — it sure seems like this case should be a massive legal dispute over what should happen to unauthorized immigrants in the US . But it 's not . There are four questions at play in the case , and all of them are , given the importance of the case , relatively narrow .
1 ) Is it even legal for Texas to sue the federal government to stop the DAPA program ?
The states ' case , in one sentence : It costs the state government money to give subsidized driver 's licenses to DAPA recipients who now qualify for them .
The federal government 's case , in one sentence : If that were all it took for a state to sue the federal government over a policy it did n't like , the courts would be clogged forever .
The first question the Court has to address whether Texas and the other states had `` standing '' — whether they are legally able to bring the lawsuit at all . In order to show standing , Texas has to show that implementing DAPA causes some direct harm to the state .
Even if the substance of Texas 's legal argument against DAPA is correct , if it ca n't show that it had standing the whole suit gets dismissed — allowing DAPA to go into effect after all . ( This route would give the Supreme Court some appealing options , as we 'll get to in a bit . )
The Republican governors and state attorneys general on Texas 's side of the case clearly think that allowing unauthorized immigrants to remain in their states is harmful for all sorts of reasons . But as is often the case with Supreme Court cases — and is definitely the case with this one — the actual argument being put forward in the courtroom is a lot narrower than the argument over whether unauthorized immigrants are good or bad for America that 's happening around the case .
So far , courts have found that the states have standing for a single reason : Texas driver 's license costs . Under Texas law , people who get deferred action are eligible for driver 's licenses — and because fees only partially cover the cost of producing a license , the state government covers the rest of the cost . DAPA would make hundreds of thousands of Texans eligible to apply for driver 's licenses for the first time , which would cost the state money .
The Supreme Court now has to decide whether that 's enough of a reason to allow Texas ( and the other states ) to sue the federal government over the entire policy .
The federal government argues it 's not President Obama 's fault that Texas law would allow DAPA recipients to get driver 's licenses . Furthermore , supporters of the federal government 's side in this case argue there 's a slippery slope : Allow the states to sue the government over a policy they do n't like , as long as they can show that it costs the state something ( even if that cost is recouped ) , and the courts will be clogged with lawsuits left and right .
They 're hoping that possibility will scare Chief Justice Roberts ( who dissented in a previous case about states suing the federal government , Massachusetts v. EPA ) into protecting the Supreme Court 's legacy by remaining above the dispute .
2 ) Is DAPA a substantive new regulation — which the Obama administration did n't follow the proper procedure for ?
The federal government 's argument , in one sentence : Nope , it 's just a general `` statement of policy , '' and we do those all the time .
The states ' argument , in one sentence : It sets pretty hard-and-fast standards for who qualifies for deferred action and work authorization ; that seems pretty rule-like .
This question also seems pretty narrow — it 's a challenge about whether the Obama administration did DAPA the right way , instead of whether it was the right thing to do . So it might not get a lot of the Supreme Court 's attention . But this was actually the basis for the original ruling freezing DAPA , issued in February 2015 by Judge Hanen of the Fifth Circuit .
Under the Administrative Procedures Act , the government ca n't just issue new regulatory `` rules '' ; it has to propose them and then allow a certain period for public response . ( Hence the term `` notice and comment , '' which comes up a bunch when people are discussing this aspect of the Supreme Court case . )
The Obama administration did n't do this with DAPA . It argues it did n't have to , because it was n't a real rule , just a general guideline . The states disagree .
At root , this is a disagreement about how the deferred action programs actually work : whether immigration agents actually have the leeway to reject applications for any reason ( policy-like ) or whether the Obama administration has dictated that anyone who meets the standards should get protection ( rule-like ) .
And because DAPA has n't gone into effect yet , this is really an argument about how the original DACA program is working — even though the existing deferred action program is n't being challenged in this case .
3 ) Is DAPA within the president 's authority , or does it encroach on parts of immigration law where Congress has already set down the rules ?
The federal government 's argument , in one sentence : DAPA is just a way to tell immigrants they 're not being deported — something that both sides agree is legal .
The states ' argument , in one sentence : DAPA goes beyond that , by bestowing `` lawful presence '' and work permits on immigrants Congress did n't want to grant either one to .
Legally , this is the biggest question about DAPA : Does it violate US law by going beyond what the president is allowed to do on immigration ? But again , the disagreement between the two sides in the actual court case is a lot narrower than you 'd think ( given the general heatedness of the immigration debate ) .
US immigration law gives the president a lot of latitude to make policy decisions — more than he gets in a lot of other areas . So the states in this case agree that President Obama ( and the rest of the executive branch ) have the latitude to choose whom to deport and whom not to deport . The states even say it would be okay if the Obama administration issued cards to people who were `` low priorities '' for deportation indicating that they were low priorities .
But they say DAPA goes beyond what the president is allowed to do , and crosses into areas where Congress has set firm rules on immigration , in two ways . It allows deferred action recipients to apply for work permits , which the states argue violates Congress 's intent not to allow unauthorized immigrants to work legally in the US . And , they say , DAPA deems people to be `` lawfully present '' in the US even though Congress has said it 's illegal for them to be here .
The phrase `` lawful presence '' is probably going to be thrown around a lot at Monday 's oral arguments — it 's become increasingly central to the states ' argument . The federal government argues that the states are simply getting confused . `` Lawful presence '' is n't the same thing as `` lawful status '' in immigration law — it does n't grant anyone the right to be in the US . ( The federal government has started arguing that it 's really more like `` tolerated presence . '' )
3 ) Is Obama abandoning his constitutional obligation to `` take care '' to enforce Congress 's laws by implementing DAPA ?
This question was n't even considered in the lower courts — the Supreme Court added it to the case on its own . It centers on the Constitution 's `` take care '' clause : `` He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . ''
There is n't a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence on what this phrase actually charges the president to do , so it 's interesting that the Court felt it was particularly appropriate here — though it 's entirely possible that the justice interested in this was Antonin Scalia and the surviving justices do n't have any interest .
The answer to the `` take care '' question depends on whether DAPA violates US law to begin with . If the federal government is right , and DAPA is within the president 's legal authority , then he 's not abandoning his duty to execute the laws by implementing it . If the states are right , and DAPA is illegal , then Obama might be violating the `` take care '' clause in implementing it — but the program would be struck down in any event .
For people who believe that President Obama is legally obligated to deport unauthorized immigrants under all circumstances , the idea that he 's violating the constitution by not `` taking care '' to enforce immigration laws has some appeal . But again , neither side is actually arguing that in court .
5 ) How is the Supreme Court likely to rule ? And how does Justice Scalia 's death affect this ?
There are dozens of hypothetical possible answers the Court could reach to any of the four questions above . But in terms of the case 's practical outcome , there are essentially four options .
If `` swing vote '' Justice Anthony Kennedy ( or Chief Justice Roberts ) joins the liberal wing of the Court , the Obama administration will get an outright five-vote majority . The lower court rulings will be overturned , and DAPA and DACA+ will start accepting applications .
If the conservative wing of the Court gets a five-vote majority , with a liberal justice joining the conservative wing , the lower court ruling siding with the states will be upheld for good , and DAPA and DACA+ will be permanently dead . ( This is unlikely , but it 's certainly not impossible . )
If Kennedy joins the conservative side , but the Court 's four liberal justices stick together , nobody will get a majority . Justice Scalia 's absence will create a 4-4 tie . That would leave the existing injunction in place — forcing the Obama administration to keep DAPA on ice — but it would force the lower courts to go back and issue final rulings on the case , which they still have n't done .
Furthermore — and this is where things get really messy — the absence of a Supreme Court opinion could allow another circuit court to hear a case on DAPA and rule that it could go forward . How such a lawsuit would proceed is unclear ; maybe some of the states that sided with the Obama administration could find standing . But it would create a situation in which DAPA was legal in some parts of the country and illegal in others .
It 's entirely possible that the Supreme Court would go out of its way to avoid that level of chaos . That 's why some analysts think the most likely outcome is this :
Chief Justice Roberts joins with the Court 's liberals to throw out the case based on standing — siding with the federal government on the first question and ruling that Texas did n't have the right to bring the suit at all .
6 ) What does the case mean for people in the real world ?
If the Court sides with the states , nothing changes — programs that currently are n't in effect wo n't go into effect . But if the Court sides with the administration , an estimated 4.5 million immigrants who are currently vulnerable to deportation will get three years of protection and the ability to work in the US legally .
The effects this could have on the lives of those immigrants ( and their families ) could be huge .
The evidence from DACA , which has protected about 700,000 immigrants for the past three and a half years , is promising . Three-quarters of DACA recipients had been able to get better-paying jobs , 30 percent had gone back to school , and 59 percent said they could help support their families . There 's evidence that DACA helps keep immigrants integrated into American life — instead of losing interest in school or career because they feel their immigration status holds them back .
If the Supreme Court reinstates DAPA at the end of June , the Obama administration will only have seven months left in office to process applications — and many of the community groups that would have been able to help people get those applications will be busy mobilizing for the election .
Furthermore , the election might discourage some immigrants from wanting to sign up to begin with — if they 're worried that Donald Trump will be president come 2017 , they 'll be much less inclined to turn over their personal information to the government .
7 ) What happens when a new president gets elected in November ?
DAPA is an Obama administration initiative . There 's nothing stopping the next president from ending the program and rescinding its protections , even if the Supreme Court upholds it this year . Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have already promised to do just that in their first few days in office .
That does n't mean that the immigrants who have gotten deferred action so far would necessarily get deported . In fact , that 's the bigger decision that President Cruz or Trump would have to make : what to do with a database of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are unauthorized but who by definition are well-educated , speak English , or at least have kids who are US citizens .
A President Trump might start his mass deportation campaign by targeting the immigrants he can most easily locate : former deferred action recipients .
Some pundits have argued that this means the real immigration fight is what happens in November , rather than what happens in the courts this spring . Insofar as the next president will choose whether to end deferred action , that 's true . But the Supreme Court decision could definitely shape what options a president has to expand it , as both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have promised to do .
Sanders has explicitly said that he 'd protect some 8 or 9 million people using deferred action ; Clinton has said she would n't deport immigrants who had n't committed crimes , but has n't explained how she 'd protect them .
If the Supreme Court strikes down DAPA — or upholds it , but articulates a limiting principle that clarifies that this is the most a president can do — both of those plans will be a lot harder to implement , but a Democratic president would be under even more pressure to find a way to protect immigrants . That could create trouble .
8 ) What kind of precedent is set if the Court sides with the Obama administration ?
Conservatives siding with the states in United States v. Texas argue that if Obama wins this case , there 's no limit to who could be protected from deportation . They make a persuasive case .
The Obama administration argues that while DAPA was legal , it would n't have been legal to give deferred action to even more immigrants — say , parents of DACA recipients . But their reasoning on this point is fairly weak ( and it does n't help that both candidates for their own party 's presidential nomination are promising to do just that ) .
This lack of `` limiting principle '' gives conservatives a lot of pause . A president could do whatever he likes on a whole host of issues — say , refuse to enforce any environmental regulations , or even declare a tax cut by executive fiat . ( ███ 's Andrew Prokop lays out some of the options . )
Hypotheticals like these raise some valid concerns about the use of prosecutorial discretion generally . But these are issues with existing law , and it 's not clear that a ruling for the feds in this case would make them any worse .
Many legal scholars believe that immigration law simply gives the president more discretion than other areas of law . So a ruling for Obama in this case would n't necessarily create a precedent for other issues .
9 ) What kind of precedent does it set if the Court sides with the states ?
If the president has historically had a lot of leeway to set immigration policy , though , a ruling for the states would effectively constrain that power .
The states in this case are n't asking the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling . But that does n't stop the Court from doing so if it wants . And if the Court finds that it 's illegal for the president to allow a large group of immigrants to apply for work permits , that definitely calls the original DACA program into question — and raises questions for other uses of executive power on immigrations as well . ( An extremely broad ruling against the president could even dictate that the executive branch ca n't declare immigrants `` low priorities '' for deportation , though that 's extremely unlikely . )
But even a relatively narrow ruling for the states would have implications for other issues where the president did n't have as much leeway to begin with .
It 's possible to imagine a Supreme Court ruling against Obama whose argument implicitly called into question other things he 's done , from delaying the employer mandate to modifying key provisions of No Child Left Behind ( not to mention the original DACA program ) . It would n't automatically strike down any of these , but it could open the door to future court challenges .
What legal scholars who side with the administration are particularly concerned about , though , is what will happen if Texas and the other states are granted standing at all — even if the Court ultimately sides with Obama . They argue that this would essentially invite states to sue the federal government over any policy they do n't like , and then hunt down some way the policy harms them . ( In an amicus brief , for example , law professor Walter Dellinger argues that states could start suing the IRS over which organizations are exempt from federal taxes . )
To a certain extent , this is what the states are doing anyway — no state has ever sued the federal government for doing something the state likes . But the Supreme Court has long tried to avoid becoming a way for states to challenge federal policy willy-nilly . That 's the sort of politics it tends to want to stay out of .
Then again , the lesson of United States v. Texas may very well be that even if politics stop at the Supreme Court door , the cases that come in — and what happens to decisions that come out — are political from start to finish .
|
When it takes up the question of whether President Obama's 2014 immigration executive actions were constitutional, the Supreme Court will throw out its typical playbook.
United States v. Texas is one of the most — if not the most — important cases before the highest court this term. It's certainly the most important immigration case the Supreme Court has taken up in a generation (or, arguably, a century). And the Court is treating it accordingly.
On Monday, instead of splitting up 60 minutes of oral arguments between the two sides of the case, as usually happens, the Court will convene for 90 minutes — and bring in more parties to argue their case.
Texas and the 25 other states suing will get 30 minutes. The federal government will get 35. But the Supreme Court has also given 10 minutes to a lawyer representing a group of immigrant women who'd benefit from Obama's executive actions. And that's not all — 15 minutes will go to the US House of Representatives (thanks to the Republican House majority), which has jumped in to support the states.
The unusually complicated oral argument process reflects just how messy this case is. It's a case covering surprisingly narrow-sounding legal questions, but its outcome carries broad implications for the relationship between Congress and the president, and the relationship between the federal government and the states. Oh, yeah — and it's a presidential election year, and both immigration and the Court itself have become election issues.
All this makes it something of a nightmare scenario for Chief Justice John Roberts, who tends to be more anxious than the typical Supreme Court justice to present the Court's opinions as drawn purely from law rather than politics.
As the justices hear oral arguments and consider the case before issuing an opinion (which they're expected to do in late June, at the end of the term), Roberts and the other justices will have to work through legal questions that are both less contentious and more abstract than the broader immigration debate makes them seem.
Then they'll have to figure out if there's any way they can cobble together a five-vote majority for a lasting opinion — or if the eight-person Court will deadlock, putting the most important case of the Court's term in limbo and creating the opportunity for chaos.
1) What's this case about?
In November 2014, President Obama issued a series of memos declaring executive actions on immigration. Two of those are at issue in this case.
One memo expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which since 2012 had allowed immigrants who'd come to the US as children to apply for temporary protection from deportation and work permits.
The other one added a new deferred action program — the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program — which would have allowed millions of unauthorized immigrants who have US citizen or permanent resident children to apply for deportation protection and work permits as well.
The two 2014 actions are usually referred to as DAPA/DACA+. Since the states won in the lower courts, both of them have been put on hold since the first ruling was issued in February 2015. The original DACA program from 2012, however, is still in place and isn't being challenged in this suit. (To prevent confusion, I'll just refer to DAPA instead of DAPA/DACA+ when talking about the 2014 actions.)
2) Why did President Obama create this program in the first place?
Federal immigration enforcement has totally transformed over the past 20 years. More people are eligible for deportation than ever before. The growth of the unauthorized population pre–Great Recession meant there were more people to deport. After 9/11, the government got vastly more money and resources for deportation. And deportations escalated accordingly — from 183,000 in 1999 to a high of 400,000 during the first several years of the Obama administration.
President Obama has spent most of his time in office trying to impose some sort of control on all of this — to make sure the government is choosing who's most important to deport, rather than arbitrarily deporting anyone Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents get their hands on. His first attempts — setting high and low "priorities" for deportation and telling immigration agents to follow them — were something both sides in the current court case agree he could do but that rank-and-file immigration agents frequently ignored in favor of their own judgment.
So in 2012, President Obama created the first deferred action program, DACA — allowing people to proactively apply for protection from deportation, rather than simply hoping that ICE followed the memo not to deport them. It's been solidly effective. After comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress in 2013, pressure grew on Obama to use the tool that had worked — deferred action — to protect other groups of low-priority immigrants, and he did just that with DAPA and expanded DACA in 2014.
DAPA was supposed to be the program that ensured Obama's legacy on immigration, turning him from the "deporter in chief" of his first term to a man who brought immigrants out of the shadows. If the Supreme Court lets the program go forward, that legacy is assured. If it strikes DAPA down, Obama's legacy — and immigrants' attitude toward the Democratic Party — will be an ambivalent and disappointing one.
3) How did United States v. Texas get to the Supreme Court?
United States v. Texas is political in its origins. That doesn't at all mean that the states that sued the Obama administration are wrong on the merits — it's just an acknowledgment of the circumstances around the case's genesis shortly after Obama announced the executive actions.
There wasn't a serious legal challenge to the original DACA program in 2012, even though many of the criticisms of DAPA in this case would have applied to DACA as well. But in June 2012 the country was in the middle of a general election campaign, and the Republican nominee was trying to run toward the center and appeal to Latinos. In November 2014, on the other hand, the relatively unpopular President Obama was responding to an electoral defeat in the midterm elections — including the loss of the Senate — with executive actions on an issue that mobilized the GOP base.
The states on each side of the case have lined up along partisan lines. The Texas suit involves 23 states — all but three of them under unified Republican control — as well as four Republican governors (three of whom have Democratic attorneys general who wouldn't let the state officially join the case) and one Republican attorney general. The states that have filed briefs supporting the Obama administration, meanwhile, represent about two-thirds of the states with Democratic attorneys general.
Texas is leading the coalition of states bringing the lawsuit for two reasons. One, it's offered the most persuasive case for how DAPA could actually hurt the state (more on that later). Two, it houses the Southern District of Texas, which was the court the states chose to file their case in, presumably because they knew they'd have a good chance there. (The administration and its allies have implied that this is unfair, but it happens all the time.)
They chose wisely. In February 2015 — just a few days before the government was scheduled to start accepting applications for expanded DACA — Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction, preventing the government from moving ahead with the program on the logic that the states were "likely" to prevail on some of their claims. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. And in January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
As the case has made its way through the courts, it's gotten much broader. Initially, the injunction was based on a narrow claim that the Obama administration hadn't used the right procedure in instituting DAPA. The Fifth Circuit ruled that DAPA was also (or at least, was likely to be) illegal on the merits. And now the Supreme Court has added a constitutional question: whether DAPA violates the "take care" clause of the Constitution.
While this is theoretically still a ruling on the injunction, the Supreme Court is dealing with the merits of the case — ensuring that if a majority of the Court's eight justices side with the Obama administration, or with the states, the case is finished (and DAPA is alive, or dead) for the duration of Obama's time in office.
The stakes have risen accordingly. The House of Representatives asked, and was granted, the chance to argue that DAPA violates laws that Congress has passed — something that isn't totally unheard of at the Supreme Court level but certainly raises the political temperature of the case.
And on the federal government's side, the argument on behalf of the "Jane Doe" immigrant women — not to mention the likely presence of many potential DAPA beneficiaries in the Supreme Court during the oral arguments — will inevitably remind the justices that this is a question of the balance and separation of powers, and about immigrants themselves.
4) What is the Supreme Court actually ruling on in this case?
Because immigration is such a divisive culture war issue — and because phrases like "enforce the law" get tossed around frequently as talking points — it sure seems like this case should be a massive legal dispute over what should happen to unauthorized immigrants in the US. But it's not. There are four questions at play in the case, and all of them are, given the importance of the case, relatively narrow.
1) Is it even legal for Texas to sue the federal government to stop the DAPA program?
The states' case, in one sentence: It costs the state government money to give subsidized driver's licenses to DAPA recipients who now qualify for them.
The federal government's case, in one sentence: If that were all it took for a state to sue the federal government over a policy it didn't like, the courts would be clogged forever.
The first question the Court has to address whether Texas and the other states had "standing" — whether they are legally able to bring the lawsuit at all. In order to show standing, Texas has to show that implementing DAPA causes some direct harm to the state.
Even if the substance of Texas's legal argument against DAPA is correct, if it can't show that it had standing the whole suit gets dismissed — allowing DAPA to go into effect after all. (This route would give the Supreme Court some appealing options, as we'll get to in a bit.)
The Republican governors and state attorneys general on Texas's side of the case clearly think that allowing unauthorized immigrants to remain in their states is harmful for all sorts of reasons. But as is often the case with Supreme Court cases — and is definitely the case with this one — the actual argument being put forward in the courtroom is a lot narrower than the argument over whether unauthorized immigrants are good or bad for America that's happening around the case.
So far, courts have found that the states have standing for a single reason: Texas driver's license costs. Under Texas law, people who get deferred action are eligible for driver's licenses — and because fees only partially cover the cost of producing a license, the state government covers the rest of the cost. DAPA would make hundreds of thousands of Texans eligible to apply for driver's licenses for the first time, which would cost the state money.
The Supreme Court now has to decide whether that's enough of a reason to allow Texas (and the other states) to sue the federal government over the entire policy.
The federal government argues it's not President Obama's fault that Texas law would allow DAPA recipients to get driver's licenses. Furthermore, supporters of the federal government's side in this case argue there's a slippery slope: Allow the states to sue the government over a policy they don't like, as long as they can show that it costs the state something (even if that cost is recouped), and the courts will be clogged with lawsuits left and right.
They're hoping that possibility will scare Chief Justice Roberts (who dissented in a previous case about states suing the federal government, Massachusetts v. EPA) into protecting the Supreme Court's legacy by remaining above the dispute.
2) Is DAPA a substantive new regulation — which the Obama administration didn't follow the proper procedure for?
The federal government's argument, in one sentence: Nope, it's just a general "statement of policy," and we do those all the time.
The states' argument, in one sentence: It sets pretty hard-and-fast standards for who qualifies for deferred action and work authorization; that seems pretty rule-like.
This question also seems pretty narrow — it's a challenge about whether the Obama administration did DAPA the right way, instead of whether it was the right thing to do. So it might not get a lot of the Supreme Court's attention. But this was actually the basis for the original ruling freezing DAPA, issued in February 2015 by Judge Hanen of the Fifth Circuit.
Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the government can't just issue new regulatory "rules"; it has to propose them and then allow a certain period for public response. (Hence the term "notice and comment," which comes up a bunch when people are discussing this aspect of the Supreme Court case.)
The Obama administration didn't do this with DAPA. It argues it didn't have to, because it wasn't a real rule, just a general guideline. The states disagree.
At root, this is a disagreement about how the deferred action programs actually work: whether immigration agents actually have the leeway to reject applications for any reason (policy-like) or whether the Obama administration has dictated that anyone who meets the standards should get protection (rule-like).
And because DAPA hasn't gone into effect yet, this is really an argument about how the original DACA program is working — even though the existing deferred action program isn't being challenged in this case.
3) Is DAPA within the president's authority, or does it encroach on parts of immigration law where Congress has already set down the rules?
The federal government's argument, in one sentence: DAPA is just a way to tell immigrants they're not being deported — something that both sides agree is legal.
The states' argument, in one sentence: DAPA goes beyond that, by bestowing "lawful presence" and work permits on immigrants Congress didn't want to grant either one to.
Legally, this is the biggest question about DAPA: Does it violate US law by going beyond what the president is allowed to do on immigration? But again, the disagreement between the two sides in the actual court case is a lot narrower than you'd think (given the general heatedness of the immigration debate).
US immigration law gives the president a lot of latitude to make policy decisions — more than he gets in a lot of other areas. So the states in this case agree that President Obama (and the rest of the executive branch) have the latitude to choose whom to deport and whom not to deport. The states even say it would be okay if the Obama administration issued cards to people who were "low priorities" for deportation indicating that they were low priorities.
But they say DAPA goes beyond what the president is allowed to do, and crosses into areas where Congress has set firm rules on immigration, in two ways. It allows deferred action recipients to apply for work permits, which the states argue violates Congress's intent not to allow unauthorized immigrants to work legally in the US. And, they say, DAPA deems people to be "lawfully present" in the US even though Congress has said it's illegal for them to be here.
The phrase "lawful presence" is probably going to be thrown around a lot at Monday's oral arguments — it's become increasingly central to the states' argument. The federal government argues that the states are simply getting confused. "Lawful presence" isn't the same thing as "lawful status" in immigration law — it doesn't grant anyone the right to be in the US. (The federal government has started arguing that it's really more like "tolerated presence.")
3) Is Obama abandoning his constitutional obligation to "take care" to enforce Congress's laws by implementing DAPA?
The federal government's argument, in one sentence: Nope.
The states' argument, in one sentence: Yep.
This question wasn't even considered in the lower courts — the Supreme Court added it to the case on its own. It centers on the Constitution's "take care" clause: "He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
There isn't a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence on what this phrase actually charges the president to do, so it's interesting that the Court felt it was particularly appropriate here — though it's entirely possible that the justice interested in this was Antonin Scalia and the surviving justices don't have any interest.
The answer to the "take care" question depends on whether DAPA violates US law to begin with. If the federal government is right, and DAPA is within the president's legal authority, then he's not abandoning his duty to execute the laws by implementing it. If the states are right, and DAPA is illegal, then Obama might be violating the "take care" clause in implementing it — but the program would be struck down in any event.
For people who believe that President Obama is legally obligated to deport unauthorized immigrants under all circumstances, the idea that he's violating the constitution by not "taking care" to enforce immigration laws has some appeal. But again, neither side is actually arguing that in court.
5) How is the Supreme Court likely to rule? And how does Justice Scalia's death affect this?
There are dozens of hypothetical possible answers the Court could reach to any of the four questions above. But in terms of the case's practical outcome, there are essentially four options.
If "swing vote" Justice Anthony Kennedy (or Chief Justice Roberts) joins the liberal wing of the Court, the Obama administration will get an outright five-vote majority. The lower court rulings will be overturned, and DAPA and DACA+ will start accepting applications.
If the conservative wing of the Court gets a five-vote majority, with a liberal justice joining the conservative wing, the lower court ruling siding with the states will be upheld for good, and DAPA and DACA+ will be permanently dead. (This is unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible.)
If Kennedy joins the conservative side, but the Court's four liberal justices stick together, nobody will get a majority. Justice Scalia's absence will create a 4-4 tie. That would leave the existing injunction in place — forcing the Obama administration to keep DAPA on ice — but it would force the lower courts to go back and issue final rulings on the case, which they still haven't done.
Furthermore — and this is where things get really messy — the absence of a Supreme Court opinion could allow another circuit court to hear a case on DAPA and rule that it could go forward. How such a lawsuit would proceed is unclear; maybe some of the states that sided with the Obama administration could find standing. But it would create a situation in which DAPA was legal in some parts of the country and illegal in others.
It's entirely possible that the Supreme Court would go out of its way to avoid that level of chaos. That's why some analysts think the most likely outcome is this:
Chief Justice Roberts joins with the Court's liberals to throw out the case based on standing — siding with the federal government on the first question and ruling that Texas didn't have the right to bring the suit at all.
6) What does the case mean for people in the real world?
If the Court sides with the states, nothing changes — programs that currently aren't in effect won't go into effect. But if the Court sides with the administration, an estimated 4.5 million immigrants who are currently vulnerable to deportation will get three years of protection and the ability to work in the US legally.
The effects this could have on the lives of those immigrants (and their families) could be huge.
The evidence from DACA, which has protected about 700,000 immigrants for the past three and a half years, is promising. Three-quarters of DACA recipients had been able to get better-paying jobs, 30 percent had gone back to school, and 59 percent said they could help support their families. There's evidence that DACA helps keep immigrants integrated into American life — instead of losing interest in school or career because they feel their immigration status holds them back.
If the Supreme Court reinstates DAPA at the end of June, the Obama administration will only have seven months left in office to process applications — and many of the community groups that would have been able to help people get those applications will be busy mobilizing for the election.
Furthermore, the election might discourage some immigrants from wanting to sign up to begin with — if they're worried that Donald Trump will be president come 2017, they'll be much less inclined to turn over their personal information to the government.
7) What happens when a new president gets elected in November?
DAPA is an Obama administration initiative. There's nothing stopping the next president from ending the program and rescinding its protections, even if the Supreme Court upholds it this year. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have already promised to do just that in their first few days in office.
That doesn't mean that the immigrants who have gotten deferred action so far would necessarily get deported. In fact, that's the bigger decision that President Cruz or Trump would have to make: what to do with a database of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are unauthorized but who by definition are well-educated, speak English, or at least have kids who are US citizens.
A President Trump might start his mass deportation campaign by targeting the immigrants he can most easily locate: former deferred action recipients.
Some pundits have argued that this means the real immigration fight is what happens in November, rather than what happens in the courts this spring. Insofar as the next president will choose whether to end deferred action, that's true. But the Supreme Court decision could definitely shape what options a president has to expand it, as both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have promised to do.
Sanders has explicitly said that he'd protect some 8 or 9 million people using deferred action; Clinton has said she wouldn't deport immigrants who hadn't committed crimes, but hasn't explained how she'd protect them.
If the Supreme Court strikes down DAPA — or upholds it, but articulates a limiting principle that clarifies that this is the most a president can do — both of those plans will be a lot harder to implement, but a Democratic president would be under even more pressure to find a way to protect immigrants. That could create trouble.
8) What kind of precedent is set if the Court sides with the Obama administration?
Conservatives siding with the states in United States v. Texas argue that if Obama wins this case, there's no limit to who could be protected from deportation. They make a persuasive case.
The Obama administration argues that while DAPA was legal, it wouldn't have been legal to give deferred action to even more immigrants — say, parents of DACA recipients. But their reasoning on this point is fairly weak (and it doesn't help that both candidates for their own party's presidential nomination are promising to do just that).
This lack of "limiting principle" gives conservatives a lot of pause. A president could do whatever he likes on a whole host of issues — say, refuse to enforce any environmental regulations, or even declare a tax cut by executive fiat. (Vox's Andrew Prokop lays out some of the options.)
Hypotheticals like these raise some valid concerns about the use of prosecutorial discretion generally. But these are issues with existing law, and it's not clear that a ruling for the feds in this case would make them any worse.
Many legal scholars believe that immigration law simply gives the president more discretion than other areas of law. So a ruling for Obama in this case wouldn't necessarily create a precedent for other issues.
9) What kind of precedent does it set if the Court sides with the states?
If the president has historically had a lot of leeway to set immigration policy, though, a ruling for the states would effectively constrain that power.
The states in this case aren't asking the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling. But that doesn't stop the Court from doing so if it wants. And if the Court finds that it's illegal for the president to allow a large group of immigrants to apply for work permits, that definitely calls the original DACA program into question — and raises questions for other uses of executive power on immigrations as well. (An extremely broad ruling against the president could even dictate that the executive branch can't declare immigrants "low priorities" for deportation, though that's extremely unlikely.)
But even a relatively narrow ruling for the states would have implications for other issues where the president didn't have as much leeway to begin with.
It's possible to imagine a Supreme Court ruling against Obama whose argument implicitly called into question other things he's done, from delaying the employer mandate to modifying key provisions of No Child Left Behind (not to mention the original DACA program). It wouldn't automatically strike down any of these, but it could open the door to future court challenges.
What legal scholars who side with the administration are particularly concerned about, though, is what will happen if Texas and the other states are granted standing at all — even if the Court ultimately sides with Obama. They argue that this would essentially invite states to sue the federal government over any policy they don't like, and then hunt down some way the policy harms them. (In an amicus brief, for example, law professor Walter Dellinger argues that states could start suing the IRS over which organizations are exempt from federal taxes.)
To a certain extent, this is what the states are doing anyway — no state has ever sued the federal government for doing something the state likes. But the Supreme Court has long tried to avoid becoming a way for states to challenge federal policy willy-nilly. That's the sort of politics it tends to want to stay out of.
Then again, the lesson of United States v. Texas may very well be that even if politics stop at the Supreme Court door, the cases that come in — and what happens to decisions that come out — are political from start to finish.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
GD4OThjnJckcQCGH
|
foreign_policy
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/08/21/trump-debuts-afghanistan-strategy-we-are-not-nation-building-again-we-are-killing-terrorists/
|
Trump Debuts Afghanistan Strategy: ‘We Are Not Nation-Building Again, We Are Killing Terrorists’
|
2017-08-21
|
Kristina Wong
|
President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening , announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach .
He announced five “ core pillars ” to the approach : getting rid of any timelines for how long U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan ; using all elements of power , including diplomatic and economic ; getting tougher on Pakistan ; getting India to help more with economic development ; and expanding authorities for U.S. forces to fight terrorists .
What the president did not announce was how many more U.S. troops would head to Afghanistan , which he decided earlier this year to leave up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to determine .
He did , however , say the U.S. would no longer talk about troop levels or drawdown dates , making it unclear whether troop increases would be announced . There are currently about 8,400 U.S. forces in Afghanistan , and the president has reportedly approved of a plan to send about 4,000 more .
“ We will not announce our plans for further military activities . Conditions on the ground , not arbitrary timetables , will guide our strategy from now on . America ’ s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out . I will not say when we are going to attack , but attack we will , ” he said .
He floated the idea of a “ political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan , but added , “ nobody knows if or when that will ever happen . ”
He said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to “ take ownership of their future ” and to “ achieve an everlasting peace , ” but did not say how that would happen .
“ We are not nation-building again , we are killing terrorists , ” he asserted .
Trump did not talk about how much more the new strategy would cost , but said the U.S. would ask its NATO and other allies to do more . The U.S. spends about $ 45 billion per year in Afghanistan . While he did not announce a withdrawal date , he said “ our support is not a blank check … The American people expect to see real reforms , real progress , and real results . Our patience is not unlimited . ”
The speech was a disappointment to many who had supported his calls during the campaign to end expensive foreign intervention and nation-building . He acknowledged the frustration that Americans felt after 16 years of war without an end in sight .
“ The American people are weary of war without victory . Nowhere is this more evident than Afghanistan the longest war in American history , 17 years . I share the American people ’ s frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time , energy , money and most importantly , lives , ” he said .
However , he said despite his “ original instinct ” to pull out , “ decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office , in other words when you are president of the United States . ”
After studying the Afghanistan in “ great detail and from every conceivable angle , ” he said he did not want to repeat the mistake of the previous administration in Iraq and pull out too early , leaving a vacuum for terrorists to fill .
“ We can not repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq , ” he said . “ We must address reality . ”
The president said that today , 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan , and cited last week ’ s terrorist attack in Spain as evidence terrorists must be defeated .
“ We will defeat them and defeat them handily , ” he said . “ In Afghanistan and Pakistan , America ’ s interests are clear . We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that allow terrorists to threaten America . ”
Trump announced the new strategy at Army Post Fort Meyer in Arlington , Virginia , surrounded by soldiers , and spoke of the unity among forces trying to achieve one mission and called for the same unity among Americans .
“ All service members are brothers and sisters , they ’ re all part of the same family . It ’ s called the American family , ” he said . “ Let us find the courage to heal our divisions within . ”
|
President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening, announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach.
He announced five “core pillars” to the approach: getting rid of any timelines for how long U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan; using all elements of power, including diplomatic and economic; getting tougher on Pakistan; getting India to help more with economic development; and expanding authorities for U.S. forces to fight terrorists.
What the president did not announce was how many more U.S. troops would head to Afghanistan, which he decided earlier this year to leave up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to determine.
He did, however, say the U.S. would no longer talk about troop levels or drawdown dates, making it unclear whether troop increases would be announced. There are currently about 8,400 U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the president has reportedly approved of a plan to send about 4,000 more.
“We will not announce our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will,” he said.
He floated the idea of a “political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan, but added, “nobody knows if or when that will ever happen.”
He said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to “take ownership of their future” and to “achieve an everlasting peace,” but did not say how that would happen.
“We are not nation-building again, we are killing terrorists,” he asserted.
Trump did not talk about how much more the new strategy would cost, but said the U.S. would ask its NATO and other allies to do more. The U.S. spends about $45 billion per year in Afghanistan. While he did not announce a withdrawal date, he said “our support is not a blank check … The American people expect to see real reforms, real progress, and real results. Our patience is not unlimited.”
The speech was a disappointment to many who had supported his calls during the campaign to end expensive foreign intervention and nation-building. He acknowledged the frustration that Americans felt after 16 years of war without an end in sight.
“The American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is this more evident than Afghanistan the longest war in American history, 17 years. I share the American people’s frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money and most importantly, lives,” he said.
However, he said despite his “original instinct” to pull out, “decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, in other words when you are president of the United States.”
After studying the Afghanistan in “great detail and from every conceivable angle,” he said he did not want to repeat the mistake of the previous administration in Iraq and pull out too early, leaving a vacuum for terrorists to fill.
“We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq,” he said. “We must address reality.”
The president said that today, 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and cited last week’s terrorist attack in Spain as evidence terrorists must be defeated.
“We will defeat them and defeat them handily,” he said. “In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s interests are clear. We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that allow terrorists to threaten America.”
Trump announced the new strategy at Army Post Fort Meyer in Arlington, Virginia, surrounded by soldiers, and spoke of the unity among forces trying to achieve one mission and called for the same unity among Americans.
“All service members are brothers and sisters, they’re all part of the same family. It’s called the American family,” he said. “Let us find the courage to heal our divisions within.”
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
aRJ4mgHgGHomgGe1
|
veterans_affairs
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/2/vfw-blasts-obama-over-comments-against-donald-trum/
|
VFW blasts Obama for asserting members are confused by right-wing media
|
2016-06-02
|
Dave Boyer
|
In attacking Donald Trump , President Obama has managed to anger one of the nation ’ s largest and oldest veterans ’ groups .
The Veterans of Foreign Wars took offense at Mr. Obama ’ s assertion that its members are confused by right-wing media pundits .
“ I don ’ t know how many VFW posts the president has ever visited , ” VFW National Commander John A. Biedrzycki Jr. said Thursday , “ but our near 1.7 million members are a direct reflection of America , which means we represent every generation , race , religion , gender and political and ideological viewpoint . ”
He added , “ We don ’ t have confused politics , we don ’ t need left- or right-wing media filters telling us how to think or vote , and we don ’ t need any president of the United States lecturing us about how we are individually effected by the economy . ”
During a speech Wednesday in Elkhart , Indiana Mr. Obama said , “ I ’ m concerned when I watch the direction of our politics . I mean , we have been hearing this story for decades — tales about welfare queens , talking about takers , talking about the 47 percent . It ’ s the story that ’ s broadcast every day on some cable news stations , on right-wing radio . It ’ s pumped into cars and bars and VFW halls all across America , and right here in Elkhart . ”
The president went on , “ If you ’ re hearing that story all the time , you start believing it . It ’ s no wonder people think big government is the problem . No wonder public support for unions is so low . No wonder that people think the deficit has gone up under my presidency when it ’ s actually gone down . ”
“ Our nation was created and continues to exist solely because of the men and women who wear the uniform , ” he said . “ Let ’ s not denigrate their service , their sacrifice or their intelligence . ”
|
In attacking Donald Trump, President Obama has managed to anger one of the nation’s largest and oldest veterans’ groups.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars took offense at Mr. Obama’s assertion that its members are confused by right-wing media pundits.
“I don’t know how many VFW posts the president has ever visited,” VFW National Commander John A. Biedrzycki Jr. said Thursday, “but our near 1.7 million members are a direct reflection of America, which means we represent every generation, race, religion, gender and political and ideological viewpoint.”
He added, “We don’t have confused politics, we don’t need left- or right-wing media filters telling us how to think or vote, and we don’t need any president of the United States lecturing us about how we are individually effected by the economy.”
During a speech Wednesday in Elkhart, Indiana Mr. Obama said, “I’m concerned when I watch the direction of our politics. I mean, we have been hearing this story for decades — tales about welfare queens, talking about takers, talking about the 47 percent. It’s the story that’s broadcast every day on some cable news stations, on right-wing radio. It’s pumped into cars and bars and VFW halls all across America, and right here in Elkhart.”
The president went on, “If you’re hearing that story all the time, you start believing it. It’s no wonder people think big government is the problem. No wonder public support for unions is so low. No wonder that people think the deficit has gone up under my presidency when it’s actually gone down.”
Mr. Biedrzycki said the president’s comments were insulting.
“Our nation was created and continues to exist solely because of the men and women who wear the uniform,” he said. “Let’s not denigrate their service, their sacrifice or their intelligence.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
A3xaD60wgM1AMtkK
|
supreme_court
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/15/antonin-scalia-supreme-court-recess-appointment-nomination-politics-obama-column/80379796/
|
OPINION: Obama should act with restraint on court: Column
|
2016-02-15
|
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has served to highlight the divisions that characterize so much in Washington . First , and foremost , the Supreme Court itself has long been as divided as the country itself . Split 4-4 with a conservative-leaning swing voter — Justice Anthony Kennedy — as a frequent tiebreaker , in Scalia 's absence the court is left in a dead heat in areas ranging from affirmative action to union dues to abortion .
Scalia was a critical part of the 5-4 conservative majority in a litany of major cases . However , it is the division in the Senate that could produce the next constitutional crisis . Faced with a refusal of the Republican senators to move forward with a nominee for the court in the last year of the Obama Administration , President Obama could use the nuclear option : a recess appointment to the Supreme Court .
Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution a president is allowed to temporarily fill vacancies that “ may happen during the Recess of the Senate. ” I have long been a critic of recess appointments to the judiciary . While far less common than appointments to the Executive Branch , such appointments have occurred historically ( including 12 to the Supreme Court ) .Yet judicial recess appointments undermine the integrity of the courts by using the equivalent of a judicial temp for a position that was meant to be held by a jurist with lifetime tenure .
The framers wanted a president and the Senate to come to an accord on such appointments , including the need to compromise to achieve such goals . Obama , however , made it clear years ago that he was willing to go it alone when Congress failed to give him legislation or confirmations that he demanded . His unilateral actions have already produced a constitutional crisis over the fundamental guarantees of the separation of powers . This includes a unanimous 2014 decision of the Supreme Court that Obama violated the recess appointments clause in his circumvention of the Senate .
For a president who has shown a tendency to “ go it alone ” when denied action by Congress , a recess appointment may prove an irresistible temptation for Obama . The Republican leadership has already signaled that it has no intention of moving forward with such a nomination , objecting that ( in 80 years ) no president has moved such a nomination within his final year in office . While there is ample time to vote on a nominee , the president could make an appointment if his nominee is denied or if his nominee is left to languish in the Senate Judiciary Committee .
The Republicans may have unnecessarily tripped the wire by saying that they would not move forward on a nomination as opposed to slow walking and rejecting a nomination . The failure to even consider the nominee could give the president the rationale for a recess appointment . Ironically , the justice who tended to favor executive assertions of power and limit the ability of Congress to challenge such assertions was Antonin Scalia .
The president could claim that his power is in full effect with the current recess of the Senate . He could also claim such authority with the end of the annual session . Generally , the authority to make a recess appointment has been recognized with a recess of greater than three days . The Senate can avoid that trigger by remaining in technical session with little or no business being transacted . That could push the target recess to the end of the session where Obama would make the appointment before the next Congress assembles in January — an appointment made in literally the waning days of his term .
I happen to think Obama is well within his rights to make the nomination . As hockey great Wayne Gretzky said , you miss every shot that you never take . And this is a shot most presidents would take . If blocked , however , Obama should recognize that a new president will enter office in a matter of months ( or weeks with an end-of-session appointment ) with a national mandate . Such a decision would undermine the integrity of the court with a display of raw muscle by a departing president . It would cement Obama ’ s troubling legacy as a president who waged an unrelenting campaign against the separation of powers that is the foundation of our constitutional system . The difference between a statesman and a politician is often the exercise of restraint . It is not enough to say that you can do something , but whether you should do something . This is something Obama should not do .
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of ███ 's board of contributors . He has written and testified before Congress on the role and limits of recess appointments .
In addition to its own editorials , ███ publishes diverse opinions from outside writers , including our Board of Contributors . To read more columns like this , go to the Opinion front page .
|
Jonathan Turley
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has served to highlight the divisions that characterize so much in Washington. First, and foremost, the Supreme Court itself has long been as divided as the country itself. Split 4-4 with a conservative-leaning swing voter — Justice Anthony Kennedy — as a frequent tiebreaker, in Scalia's absence the court is left in a dead heat in areas ranging from affirmative action to union dues to abortion.
Scalia was a critical part of the 5-4 conservative majority in a litany of major cases. However, it is the division in the Senate that could produce the next constitutional crisis. Faced with a refusal of the Republican senators to move forward with a nominee for the court in the last year of the Obama Administration, President Obama could use the nuclear option: a recess appointment to the Supreme Court.
Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution a president is allowed to temporarily fill vacancies that “may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” I have long been a critic of recess appointments to the judiciary. While far less common than appointments to the Executive Branch, such appointments have occurred historically (including 12 to the Supreme Court).Yet judicial recess appointments undermine the integrity of the courts by using the equivalent of a judicial temp for a position that was meant to be held by a jurist with lifetime tenure.
The framers wanted a president and the Senate to come to an accord on such appointments, including the need to compromise to achieve such goals. Obama, however, made it clear years ago that he was willing to go it alone when Congress failed to give him legislation or confirmations that he demanded. His unilateral actions have already produced a constitutional crisis over the fundamental guarantees of the separation of powers. This includes a unanimous 2014 decision of the Supreme Court that Obama violated the recess appointments clause in his circumvention of the Senate.
For a president who has shown a tendency to “go it alone” when denied action by Congress, a recess appointment may prove an irresistible temptation for Obama. The Republican leadership has already signaled that it has no intention of moving forward with such a nomination, objecting that (in 80 years) no president has moved such a nomination within his final year in office. While there is ample time to vote on a nominee, the president could make an appointment if his nominee is denied or if his nominee is left to languish in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Republicans may have unnecessarily tripped the wire by saying that they would not move forward on a nomination as opposed to slow walking and rejecting a nomination. The failure to even consider the nominee could give the president the rationale for a recess appointment. Ironically, the justice who tended to favor executive assertions of power and limit the ability of Congress to challenge such assertions was Antonin Scalia.
The president could claim that his power is in full effect with the current recess of the Senate. He could also claim such authority with the end of the annual session. Generally, the authority to make a recess appointment has been recognized with a recess of greater than three days. The Senate can avoid that trigger by remaining in technical session with little or no business being transacted. That could push the target recess to the end of the session where Obama would make the appointment before the next Congress assembles in January — an appointment made in literally the waning days of his term.
Scalia towered over John Marshall: Steven Calabresi
Gonzales: A GOP president would nominate a justice
I happen to think Obama is well within his rights to make the nomination. As hockey great Wayne Gretzky said, you miss every shot that you never take. And this is a shot most presidents would take. If blocked, however, Obama should recognize that a new president will enter office in a matter of months (or weeks with an end-of-session appointment) with a national mandate. Such a decision would undermine the integrity of the court with a display of raw muscle by a departing president. It would cement Obama’s troubling legacy as a president who waged an unrelenting campaign against the separation of powers that is the foundation of our constitutional system. The difference between a statesman and a politician is often the exercise of restraint. It is not enough to say that you can do something, but whether you should do something. This is something Obama should not do.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors. He has written and testified before Congress on the role and limits of recess appointments.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
KDJFhX9GbCn6KwTZ
|
|
elections
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://spectator.org/why-gillibrand-is-the-most-vapid-clown-in-the-car/
|
OPINION: Why Gillibrand Is the Most Vapid Clown in the Car
|
Dov Fischer, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Geoff Shepard, Greg Jones, Daniel J. Flynn, Elad Vaida
|
She is so excruciatingly , insufferably , painfully stupid , shallow , pandering , desperate , and without ethics .
Kirsten Gillibrand . United States Senator from New York . Candidate for 2020 Democrat Presidential nomination .
She was not initially on my radar . I follow the news like a hawk , but she always was so politically lightweight — make that bantamweight — that she did not register . Here in California , “ register ” is a term we often use for earthquakes . The Northridge shaker registered at 6.7 . A solid 3.5 , give or take , will wake you up . Gillibrand registers at 0.0 , give or take a zero .
It is not that I live amid a high bar for United States Senate excellence . Here in Orange County , the epicenter of The Resistance within the People ’ s Republic of California , reports reach us that we are represented by Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris . One slept her way from the bottom to the top . Everyone here knows that . She cavorted publicly with one Willie Brown , then California Democrat Kingmaker , even prompting Willie ’ s wife to castigate her in the same brazen open way that the affair itself was conducted . In a quote published by the famous San Francisco columnist Herb Caen in his book , Basic Brown , Mrs. ( Blanche ) Brown said on the eve of Willie being sworn in as Mayor of San Francisco :
“ Listen , she may have him at the moment , but come inauguration day and he ’ s up there on the platform being sworn in , I ’ ll be the b * * * h holding the Bible . ”
As for our other U.S. Senate star , she spent nearly twenty years being chauffeured around by a spy for the Chinese government . Are you worried about collusion and leaks to foreign governments ? How about having a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence talking privately on her phone for two decades with no one else listening in — except for a spy planted there by China ? Many Americans outside the Golden Homeless State had the opportunity to witness for your own eyes and ears these two gems on full national display during Christine Blasey Perjury day . Dromedary and Bactrian . One hump and two humps . Dianne and Kamala .
So my exposure to Senate excellence does not set a high bar for Kirsten Gillibrand to transcend or even to ascend . And yet , as she endeavors to ascend , that is exactly the end on which she lands . Here is why :
For several years , The Dolt was in the House , representing a somewhat moderate , even conservative , Upstate New York theretofore Republican district . She won election in 2006 and retained office in 2008 by advocating conservative views . She supported the National Rifle Association . She even received a 100 % rating from the NRA . She opposed amnesty for Illegals . She even opposed issuing drivers ’ licenses to Illegals . She voted to withhold federal funds from Sanctuary Cities . She won the Republican district because news broke days before the election that her opponent , the incumbent GOP Congressman , was abusive to his wife and even “ knocked her around the house. ” The wife had phoned in a plea to 9-1-1 , and the tape ended up in the news just in time .
That is how democracy works . That is how our leaders emerge to lead us over the cliffs .
Gillibrand was a Clinton neophyte and sycophant . She traveled with them , campaigned for them , and they for her . They raised money for her . Despite everyone knowing about Bill Clinton ’ s history with Paula Jones , Kathleen Willey , Juanita Broaddrick , and Monica Lewinsky — among others — Gillibrand was only too eager to associate closely with Bill . And it paid off . When Hillary was named by Obama as Secretary of State , she had to give up her Senate seat . Gillibrand , an Utter Unknown in a field of possibilities that included Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy , nevertheless was named by New York Governor David Paterson to that vacated Clinton seat .
Gillibrand immediately ditched all her “ values ” and moved rapidly to the Left . As the Democrats moved even farther yet to the Left , she kept endeavoring to outpace them . When # MeToo erupted after Harvey Weinstein , Gillibrand played a leading role in demanding that Al “ Probing Fingers ” Franken resign from the Senate . To get more national attention as she ramped up her Presidential aspirations , she then turned on her Clinton patrons and excoriated Bill , saying that he should have resigned from the Presidency in light of all the times he abused women , culminating with Lewinsky . Yet such concerns never before had stopped Gillibrand from endorsing Clintons and bragging of their endorsements and of their fundraising for her during all the prior years , even though all of Clinton ’ s storied abuses of women had been world famous by then .
In other words , not only no deeply held personal values , but also no loyalties , just the brazen single-minded pursuit of fame and power .
When she ran in New York for reelection to the Senate in 2018 , she was challenged whether she had eyes on the White House . She famously and publicly promised to serve a full six-year term in the Senate if elected . Yet only two months after her November reelection , she announced her Presidential exploratory committee and joined the Democrat Clown Car . Unlike Georgia Governor-Not-Elect Stacey Abrams , she was able to fit in .
During the past many months , Gillibrand repeatedly has demonstrated two defining characteristics :
2 . In the face of polling for months in the general vicinity of Zero-point-Zero , she will say absolutely anything , no matter how absurd ( assuming she is smart and realizes what she is saying , but is saying The Outrageous for news-making effect ) or outright just-plain-stupid ( assuming she actually means what she is saying ) .
Gillibrand is a strong supporter of the most vile bigot in America , Linda Sarsour , and likewise praises Sarsour ’ s close second in hate , Tamika Mallory . Gillibrand endorses them , seeks to be photographed with them , and wants the Democrat Left to associate the name of Kirsten Gillibrand with Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory . When Time magazine named those two Jew-hating racist bigots among America ’ s most influential people , Sen. Gillibrand amazingly personally authored the article . Sarsour openly thanks Gillibrand for “ work [ ing ] for us on the inside. ” Yet the same Gillibrand will throw around the insult “ Racist ! ” when describing others who are not politically correct . She even sees “ racism ” in being pro-life . But she endorses Sarsour and Mallory , whose catalogues of prejudice , bigotry , and hate against Jews , White people , and even White women are an open book .
Although Gillibrand postures as a # MeToo activist , she has openly tolerated remarkable anti-female abuse in her own office , where she disregarded several women ’ s complaints and pleas to deal with one of Gillibrand ’ s closest long-time staffers , who repeatedly told “ rape jokes ” in the office , intimidated women sexually , and created a profoundly hostile workplace environment for women . Only after a woman staffer resigned over the severe and persistent abuse , and the story then broke in Politico , did Gillibrand act to contain the political fallout .
2 . She Will Say Absolutely Anything to Register a Decimal
Gillibrand was a relative unknown when named United States Senator . As a Democrat United States Senator in New York , she can not lose reelection if she tries . But her Aught Nothingness is more manifest on the national stage . From the early weeks of her candidacy for the Democrat Presidential nomination , she has been unable to register . To get attention — any attention at all — she now will say anything that comes to her unscripted mind , no matter how absurd , no matter how really not smart . That is , no matter how objectively stupid . You be the judge : Absurd or Stupid ?
Thus , she has announced that , if elected , she will federally recognize a legal third-gender option , creating an “ X ” field on identification documents for people who don ’ t identify as male or female . Likewise , she will roll out new birth certificates , replacing “ mother ” and “ father ” with gender-neutral language “ to ensure that both members of a same-sex couple can secure their parental rights from the day their child is born. ” Absurd or Stupid ?
She tweeted : “ Our future is : / Female / Intersectional /… And we ’ re just getting started. ” For that , she got slammed all over Twitter . Remember : She is White . Rich . Non-Muslim . For years a friend of the tobacco lobby . And although she yet may change her gender to get another vote somewhere , meanwhile she is one of the two genders recognized in the Bible . She is not yet Muslim , though she works on the inside for Linda Sarsour . Tough to see how Instersectionalism raises her Presidential fortunes above Cory ( Black ) , Kamala ( female , Jamaican , Indian , weed smoker , sexually promiscuous when needed ) , Pete ( Gay ) , Julian Castro ( Hispanic ) , Andrew Yang ( Asian ) , Gov.-Non-Elect Stacey ( female , Black , non-stereotypically full-figured , not elected ) , and those of such ilk . Absurd or Stupid ?
Shecomparespro-life judges to racists and Jew-haters ( like , uh , Linda Sarsour ? Tamika Mallory ? ) . Absurd or Stupid ?
Still hovering at Zero-point-Zero , she pledges to legislate giving $ 600 to every person to donate to a candidate . Absurd or Stupid ?
So she goes to a Gay Bar , wearing a rainbow-colored “ Love Is Brave ” T-shirt ( get it ? ) , and gets herself filmed sipping a drink at the bar , as though she does this all the time . A long weary day on the trail , so need to relax just a bit at Happy Hour at the Ol ’ Gay Bar . And then she waves at one of her many fans in the bar , assuming anyone there even recognized her and did not think instead that she was signaling a desire to be “ picked up ” or to “ pick up , ” and she yells : “ Gay Rights ! ”
Think about that last one . Really , pause a moment . Can you imagine someone entering a kosher deli , wearing a T-shirt that says “ I Love Lukshin Kugel , ” eating a piece of gefilte fish with a sour pickle and rye bread , waving at people she does not know and yelling out down the room “ Jew Rights ! ” ? Seriously .
I have been at a gay bar only once — at an awkward moment fifteen summers ago , when my wife and ten-year-old son were driving down to a world-famous Laguna Arts Fair , and we needed most assuredly to stop at a restroom . None of us ever before had been in any bar at all ( except a bar mitzvah… ) , and it was during the years before a Starbucks bathroom was available on every block . We did not want to enter a non-kosher restaurant for the pit stop because it might seem we would be entering to eat there , so we figured let ’ s just go in-and-out of the bar . As we entered , I made a bee-line for the men ’ s room . The first thing that seemed strange was that there was no door to the room — you could see in and out of the room . And then I saw something else in there that educated me rapidly beyond my yeshiva education . ’ Nuff said . I realized rapidly that I had entered a twilight zone that even Rod Serling never had imagined , and — although I had tried avoiding the non-kosher burger place down the block — I essentially just had brought my wife and young boy into a place that might as well have had that burger store ’ s sign : “ In-and-Out . ”
So there is Kirsten , Intersectionalist , tight “ Love Is Brave ” T-shirt . Music blaring so loud that no one can hear a thing . Sipping a drink at a bar , fake dancing in a kind of Elaine Benes way . Big inviting smile . And she waves her hand at someone and yells something inviting that no one can hear at the bar , except for the microphone her campaign has attached near her for her choreographed tweet . So tell me : What does a person there think , if not that she is looking for a “ date ” ? Invest five seconds of your life and watch this tweeted snippet . Absurd or Stupid ?
Kirsten Gillibrand will say absolutely anything to register a decimal . Even at a gay bar . To get a one-dollar donation , she will film how many tries at beer pong ? For every Robert O ’ Rourke video showing him getting a full-mouth cavity inspection or having his ear hairs cut , she can take Twitter and YouTube a notch even lower . In the year of the 23-and-Counting , Kirsten Gillibrand is the most vapid clown in the car .
|
She is so excruciatingly, insufferably, painfully stupid, shallow, pandering, desperate, and without ethics.
Kirsten Gillibrand. United States Senator from New York. Candidate for 2020 Democrat Presidential nomination.
Dolt.
She was not initially on my radar. I follow the news like a hawk, but she always was so politically lightweight — make that bantamweight — that she did not register. Here in California, “register” is a term we often use for earthquakes. The Northridge shaker registered at 6.7. A solid 3.5, give or take, will wake you up. Gillibrand registers at 0.0, give or take a zero.
It is not that I live amid a high bar for United States Senate excellence. Here in Orange County, the epicenter of The Resistance within the People’s Republic of California, reports reach us that we are represented by Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. One slept her way from the bottom to the top. Everyone here knows that. She cavorted publicly with one Willie Brown, then California Democrat Kingmaker, even prompting Willie’s wife to castigate her in the same brazen open way that the affair itself was conducted. In a quote published by the famous San Francisco columnist Herb Caen in his book, Basic Brown, Mrs. (Blanche) Brown said on the eve of Willie being sworn in as Mayor of San Francisco:
“Listen, she may have him at the moment, but come inauguration day and he’s up there on the platform being sworn in, I’ll be the b***h holding the Bible.”
As for our other U.S. Senate star, she spent nearly twenty years being chauffeured around by a spy for the Chinese government. Are you worried about collusion and leaks to foreign governments? How about having a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence talking privately on her phone for two decades with no one else listening in — except for a spy planted there by China? Many Americans outside the Golden Homeless State had the opportunity to witness for your own eyes and ears these two gems on full national display during Christine Blasey Perjury day. Dromedary and Bactrian. One hump and two humps. Dianne and Kamala.
So my exposure to Senate excellence does not set a high bar for Kirsten Gillibrand to transcend or even to ascend. And yet, as she endeavors to ascend, that is exactly the end on which she lands. Here is why:
For several years, The Dolt was in the House, representing a somewhat moderate, even conservative, Upstate New York theretofore Republican district. She won election in 2006 and retained office in 2008 by advocating conservative views. She supported the National Rifle Association. She even received a 100% rating from the NRA. She opposed amnesty for Illegals. She even opposed issuing drivers’ licenses to Illegals. She voted to withhold federal funds from Sanctuary Cities. She won the Republican district because news broke days before the election that her opponent, the incumbent GOP Congressman, was abusive to his wife and even “knocked her around the house.” The wife had phoned in a plea to 9-1-1, and the tape ended up in the news just in time.
That is how democracy works. That is how our leaders emerge to lead us over the cliffs.
Gillibrand was a Clinton neophyte and sycophant. She traveled with them, campaigned for them, and they for her. They raised money for her. Despite everyone knowing about Bill Clinton’s history with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Monica Lewinsky — among others — Gillibrand was only too eager to associate closely with Bill. And it paid off. When Hillary was named by Obama as Secretary of State, she had to give up her Senate seat. Gillibrand, an Utter Unknown in a field of possibilities that included Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy, nevertheless was named by New York Governor David Paterson to that vacated Clinton seat.
She has been running for President ever since.
Gillibrand immediately ditched all her “values” and moved rapidly to the Left. As the Democrats moved even farther yet to the Left, she kept endeavoring to outpace them. When #MeToo erupted after Harvey Weinstein, Gillibrand played a leading role in demanding that Al “Probing Fingers” Franken resign from the Senate. To get more national attention as she ramped up her Presidential aspirations, she then turned on her Clinton patrons and excoriated Bill, saying that he should have resigned from the Presidency in light of all the times he abused women, culminating with Lewinsky. Yet such concerns never before had stopped Gillibrand from endorsing Clintons and bragging of their endorsements and of their fundraising for her during all the prior years, even though all of Clinton’s storied abuses of women had been world famous by then.
In other words, not only no deeply held personal values, but also no loyalties, just the brazen single-minded pursuit of fame and power.
When she ran in New York for reelection to the Senate in 2018, she was challenged whether she had eyes on the White House. She famously and publicly promised to serve a full six-year term in the Senate if elected. Yet only two months after her November reelection, she announced her Presidential exploratory committee and joined the Democrat Clown Car. Unlike Georgia Governor-Not-Elect Stacey Abrams, she was able to fit in.
During the past many months, Gillibrand repeatedly has demonstrated two defining characteristics:
1. She is the most phony of fakers.
2. In the face of polling for months in the general vicinity of Zero-point-Zero, she will say absolutely anything, no matter how absurd (assuming she is smart and realizes what she is saying, but is saying The Outrageous for news-making effect) or outright just-plain-stupid (assuming she actually means what she is saying).
1. The Most Phony of Fakers
Gillibrand is a strong supporter of the most vile bigot in America, Linda Sarsour, and likewise praises Sarsour’s close second in hate, Tamika Mallory. Gillibrand endorses them, seeks to be photographed with them, and wants the Democrat Left to associate the name of Kirsten Gillibrand with Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory. When Time magazine named those two Jew-hating racist bigots among America’s most influential people, Sen. Gillibrand amazingly personally authored the article. Sarsour openly thanks Gillibrand for “work[ing] for us on the inside.” Yet the same Gillibrand will throw around the insult “Racist!” when describing others who are not politically correct. She even sees “racism” in being pro-life. But she endorses Sarsour and Mallory, whose catalogues of prejudice, bigotry, and hate against Jews, White people, and even White women are an open book.
Although Gillibrand postures as a #MeToo activist, she has openly tolerated remarkable anti-female abuse in her own office, where she disregarded several women’s complaints and pleas to deal with one of Gillibrand’s closest long-time staffers, who repeatedly told “rape jokes” in the office, intimidated women sexually, and created a profoundly hostile workplace environment for women. Only after a woman staffer resigned over the severe and persistent abuse, and the story then broke in Politico, did Gillibrand act to contain the political fallout.
2. She Will Say Absolutely Anything to Register a Decimal
Gillibrand was a relative unknown when named United States Senator. As a Democrat United States Senator in New York, she cannot lose reelection if she tries. But her Aught Nothingness is more manifest on the national stage. From the early weeks of her candidacy for the Democrat Presidential nomination, she has been unable to register. To get attention — any attention at all — she now will say anything that comes to her unscripted mind, no matter how absurd, no matter how really not smart. That is, no matter how objectively stupid. You be the judge: Absurd or Stupid?
Thus, she has announced that, if elected, she will federally recognize a legal third-gender option, creating an “X” field on identification documents for people who don’t identify as male or female. Likewise, she will roll out new birth certificates, replacing “mother” and “father” with gender-neutral language “to ensure that both members of a same-sex couple can secure their parental rights from the day their child is born.” Absurd or Stupid?
She tweeted: “Our future is: / Female / Intersectional /… And we’re just getting started.” For that, she got slammed all over Twitter. Remember: She is White. Rich. Non-Muslim. For years a friend of the tobacco lobby. And although she yet may change her gender to get another vote somewhere, meanwhile she is one of the two genders recognized in the Bible. She is not yet Muslim, though she works on the inside for Linda Sarsour. Tough to see how Instersectionalism raises her Presidential fortunes above Cory (Black), Kamala (female, Jamaican, Indian, weed smoker, sexually promiscuous when needed), Pete (Gay), Julian Castro (Hispanic), Andrew Yang (Asian), Gov.-Non-Elect Stacey (female, Black, non-stereotypically full-figured, not elected), and those of such ilk. Absurd or Stupid?
Shecomparespro-life judges to racists and Jew-haters (like, uh, Linda Sarsour? Tamika Mallory?). Absurd or Stupid?
Still hovering at Zero-point-Zero, she pledges to legislate giving $600 to every person to donate to a candidate. Absurd or Stupid?
Not enough? Still not registering in the polls?
So she goes to a Gay Bar, wearing a rainbow-colored “Love Is Brave” T-shirt (get it?), and gets herself filmed sipping a drink at the bar, as though she does this all the time. A long weary day on the trail, so need to relax just a bit at Happy Hour at the Ol’ Gay Bar. And then she waves at one of her many fans in the bar, assuming anyone there even recognized her and did not think instead that she was signaling a desire to be “picked up” or to “pick up,” and she yells: “Gay Rights!”
Think about that last one. Really, pause a moment. Can you imagine someone entering a kosher deli, wearing a T-shirt that says “I Love Lukshin Kugel,” eating a piece of gefilte fish with a sour pickle and rye bread, waving at people she does not know and yelling out down the room “Jew Rights!”? Seriously.
I have been at a gay bar only once — at an awkward moment fifteen summers ago, when my wife and ten-year-old son were driving down to a world-famous Laguna Arts Fair, and we needed most assuredly to stop at a restroom. None of us ever before had been in any bar at all (except a bar mitzvah…), and it was during the years before a Starbucks bathroom was available on every block. We did not want to enter a non-kosher restaurant for the pit stop because it might seem we would be entering to eat there, so we figured let’s just go in-and-out of the bar. As we entered, I made a bee-line for the men’s room. The first thing that seemed strange was that there was no door to the room — you could see in and out of the room. And then I saw something else in there that educated me rapidly beyond my yeshiva education. ’Nuff said. I realized rapidly that I had entered a twilight zone that even Rod Serling never had imagined, and — although I had tried avoiding the non-kosher burger place down the block — I essentially just had brought my wife and young boy into a place that might as well have had that burger store’s sign: “In-and-Out.”
So there is Kirsten, Intersectionalist, tight “Love Is Brave” T-shirt. Music blaring so loud that no one can hear a thing. Sipping a drink at a bar, fake dancing in a kind of Elaine Benes way. Big inviting smile. And she waves her hand at someone and yells something inviting that no one can hear at the bar, except for the microphone her campaign has attached near her for her choreographed tweet. So tell me: What does a person there think, if not that she is looking for a “date”? Invest five seconds of your life and watch this tweeted snippet. Absurd or Stupid?
Kirsten Gillibrand will say absolutely anything to register a decimal. Even at a gay bar. To get a one-dollar donation, she will film how many tries at beer pong? For every Robert O’Rourke video showing him getting a full-mouth cavity inspection or having his ear hairs cut, she can take Twitter and YouTube a notch even lower. In the year of the 23-and-Counting, Kirsten Gillibrand is the most vapid clown in the car.
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
0t5ZkDWYikm1TT7c
|
|
defense
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/7/john-brennan-defends-fatal-drone-strikes/
|
Defiant John Brennan: "No recourse except drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists"
|
2013-02-07
|
Shaun Waterman
|
John O. Brennan , President Obama ’ s pick to lead the CIA , defended the administration ’ s drone execution program before Congress on Thursday , saying that in war the commander in chief has the right to order a targeted killing — but agreeing that Congress should be more involved in knowing what is happening .
Mr. Brennan , who is Mr. Obama ’ s homeland security adviser and is considered one of the key architects of the war on terrorism in recent years , also said he is not sure whether interrogation techniques such as waterboarding produced any valuable information from suspected terrorist detainees .
In a hearing interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters , Mr. Brennan denied he had leaked classified information to reporters and told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he will try to work with Capitol Hill so that lawmakers are aware of the administration ’ s operations in the war on terrorism .
Senators homed in on targeted killings by armed unmanned aerial vehicles , begun under President George W. Bush and dramatically expanded by Mr. Obama . The drone program has come under scrutiny after the Obama administration used it to kill an American citizen living in Yemen .
“ I understand you can ’ t have co-commanders in chief , but having the executive being the prosecutor , the judge , the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country , ” said Sen. Angus S. King Jr. , Maine independent .
Mr. Brennan replied that this was not a judicial proceeding .
“ The actions that we take on the counterterrorism front , again , are to take actions against individuals where we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of the threat is so grave and serious , as well as imminent , that we have no recourse except to take this action that may involve a lethal strike , ” he said .
With some senators threatening to delay Mr. Brennan ’ s nomination to be CIA director until more information is disclosed , the White House late Wednesday said it would provide to the committee legal memos detailing advice about the drone program .
NBC News this week obtained and released a 16-page Justice Department memo laying out the legal justification for the program .
Three Americans are known to have been killed by the program — all of them in Yemen and all by missile strikes from drones .
The three are radical Islamic preacher Anwar al-Awlaki , a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ( AQAP ) ; his 16-year-old son , Abdulrahman al-Awlaki ; and AQAP propagandist Samir Khan .
U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki was targeted directly only because he had an “ operational role ” in recruiting and training suicide terrorists including the Nigerian would-be “ underwear bomber ” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab . The other two were killed in strikes targeting other AQAP leaders .
Several Republicans closely questioned Mr. Brennan about leaks to the news media regarding Obama administration national security successes . Mr. Brennan denied that he was the source of any of them .
“ I never provided classified information to reporters , ” Mr. Brennan said . He added that his contacts with the news media were arranged by the White House press office and aimed at explaining administration policy .
Sen. Ron Wyden , Oregon Democrat , told the hearing that Congress , and eventually the American public , needed to see the documents outlining the legal basis for the targeted-killing program .
“ We ’ ve got to see any and all opinions before the vote ” on the nomination , Mr. Wyden said .
He also called for the legal opinions to be made public so that Americans could judge for themselves the exact extent of the authority President Obama asserts to kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial if they are senior al Qaeda leaders who can not be captured .
“ What it really goes to is the issue of checks and balances , ” he said .
Mr. King asked Mr. Brennan to allow the judicial branch to oversee targeted killings of U.S. citizens , as it authorized intelligence surveillance against Americans , through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) court — a secret tribunal that grants warrants for the electronic and physical surveillance of Americans suspected of espionage or terrorism .
“ I would like to suggest to you that you consider a FISA court-type process , where an American citizen is going to be targeted for a lethal strike , ” Mr. King told Mr. Brennan .
“ At least that would be some check , ” Mr. King said . “ I have great confidence in you . I have great confidence in President Obama . But all the lessons of history are , it shouldn ’ t matter who ’ s in charge , because we should have procedures and processes in place that will protect us . ”
Some Republicans asked Mr. Brennan whether the administration ’ s expanded use of the lethal strikes by remotely piloted drone aircraft grew from its decision to abjure the capture , detention and harsh interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration .
“ Is your testimony today that the huge increase in the number of lethal strikes has no connection to the change in the Obama administration ’ s detention policy ? ” said Sen. Susan M. Collins , Maine Republican . “ Because obviously , if we ’ re capturing a terrorist , we have the opportunity to interrogate that individual and perhaps learn of ongoing plots . But if the strike is done , that opportunity is lost . ”
“ There ’ s never been occasion that I ’ m aware of where we had the opportunity to capture a terrorist and we didn ’ t and we decided to take a lethal strike , ” replied Mr. Brennan . “ So certainly there is no correlation there . ”
He added that the expanding use of drones was in part a result of “ the maturation of capabilities and insights into [ al Qaeda ] plots as a result of the investment that was made in the previous administration . ”
Other Republicans focused on questioning Mr. Brennan about administration leaks to the media .
“ I engaged in discussions with reporters about classified issues that they might have had access to because of unfortunate leaks of classified information , and I frequently work with reporters , if not editors of newspapers , to keep out of the public domain some of this country ’ s most important secrets , ” Mr. Brennan said .
“ Whenever I deal with reporters , I do so at the request of the White House press office and they set the ground rules , ” he said .
He said that he voluntary cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation into the leak of information about a double agent inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula ( AQAP ) who helped U.S. and allied agencies foil an underwear bomb plot .
Mr. Brennan said he had “ been interviewed on it ” and his office turned over “ all relevant materials , ” including any notes of the conference call .
He denied that a statement he made in a conference call with former officials last year about the plot had compromised intelligence sources and methods .
The call had been arranged because the former officials were all going on news programs to discuss the foiling of the plot , which targeted U.S. aviation .
Mr. Brennan said , in a statement later repeated publicly by several of the former officials , that the United States had “ inside control ” of the plot and that the underwear bomb was never a threat to American aviation .
Later that day , news agencies broke the story that an a U.S. allied agency had an agent inside the AQAP cell planning the bombing .
Mr. Brennan said he needed to explain that the U.S. had “ inside control , ” because during the time of the plot — around the first anniversary of the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden ’ s compound in Pakistan — he and other officials had reassured that there was no specific actionable intelligence about threats or plots .
“ We had said publicly that there was no active plot at the time of the bin Laden anniversary , ” he said .
Mr. Brennan is a 25-year career intelligence officer who served in the Bush administration as the first head of the National Counterterrorism Center . In 2008 , he was a close adviser to Mr. Obama in the Senate .
|
John O. Brennan, President Obama’s pick to lead the CIA, defended the administration’s drone execution program before Congress on Thursday, saying that in war the commander in chief has the right to order a targeted killing — but agreeing that Congress should be more involved in knowing what is happening.
Mr. Brennan, who is Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser and is considered one of the key architects of the war on terrorism in recent years, also said he is not sure whether interrogation techniques such as waterboarding produced any valuable information from suspected terrorist detainees.
In a hearing interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters, Mr. Brennan denied he had leaked classified information to reporters and told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he will try to work with Capitol Hill so that lawmakers are aware of the administration’s operations in the war on terrorism.
Senators homed in on targeted killings by armed unmanned aerial vehicles, begun under President George W. Bush and dramatically expanded by Mr. Obama. The drone program has come under scrutiny after the Obama administration used it to kill an American citizen living in Yemen.
“I understand you can’t have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the traditions and the laws of this country,” said Sen. Angus S. King Jr., Maine independent.
Mr. Brennan replied that this was not a judicial proceeding.
“The actions that we take on the counterterrorism front, again, are to take actions against individuals where we believe that the intelligence base is so strong and the nature of the threat is so grave and serious, as well as imminent, that we have no recourse except to take this action that may involve a lethal strike,” he said.
With some senators threatening to delay Mr. Brennan’s nomination to be CIA director until more information is disclosed, the White House late Wednesday said it would provide to the committee legal memos detailing advice about the drone program.
NBC News this week obtained and released a 16-page Justice Department memo laying out the legal justification for the program.
Three Americans are known to have been killed by the program — all of them in Yemen and all by missile strikes from drones.
The three are radical Islamic preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP); his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki; and AQAP propagandist Samir Khan.
U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki was targeted directly only because he had an “operational role” in recruiting and training suicide terrorists including the Nigerian would-be “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The other two were killed in strikes targeting other AQAP leaders.
Several Republicans closely questioned Mr. Brennan about leaks to the news media regarding Obama administration national security successes. Mr. Brennan denied that he was the source of any of them.
“I never provided classified information to reporters,” Mr. Brennan said. He added that his contacts with the news media were arranged by the White House press office and aimed at explaining administration policy.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, told the hearing that Congress, and eventually the American public, needed to see the documents outlining the legal basis for the targeted-killing program.
“We’ve got to see any and all opinions before the vote” on the nomination, Mr. Wyden said.
He also called for the legal opinions to be made public so that Americans could judge for themselves the exact extent of the authority President Obama asserts to kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial if they are senior al Qaeda leaders who cannot be captured.
“What it really goes to is the issue of checks and balances,” he said.
Mr. King asked Mr. Brennan to allow the judicial branch to oversee targeted killings of U.S. citizens, as it authorized intelligence surveillance against Americans, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court — a secret tribunal that grants warrants for the electronic and physical surveillance of Americans suspected of espionage or terrorism.
“I would like to suggest to you that you consider a FISA court-type process, where an American citizen is going to be targeted for a lethal strike,” Mr. King told Mr. Brennan.
“At least that would be some check,” Mr. King said. “I have great confidence in you. I have great confidence in President Obama. But all the lessons of history are, it shouldn’t matter who’s in charge, because we should have procedures and processes in place that will protect us.”
Some Republicans asked Mr. Brennan whether the administration’s expanded use of the lethal strikes by remotely piloted drone aircraft grew from its decision to abjure the capture, detention and harsh interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration.
“Is your testimony today that the huge increase in the number of lethal strikes has no connection to the change in the Obama administration’s detention policy?” said Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican. “Because obviously, if we’re capturing a terrorist, we have the opportunity to interrogate that individual and perhaps learn of ongoing plots. But if the strike is done, that opportunity is lost.”
“There’s never been occasion that I’m aware of where we had the opportunity to capture a terrorist and we didn’t and we decided to take a lethal strike,” replied Mr. Brennan. “So certainly there is no correlation there.”
He added that the expanding use of drones was in part a result of “the maturation of capabilities and insights into [al Qaeda] plots as a result of the investment that was made in the previous administration.”
Other Republicans focused on questioning Mr. Brennan about administration leaks to the media.
“I engaged in discussions with reporters about classified issues that they might have had access to because of unfortunate leaks of classified information, and I frequently work with reporters, if not editors of newspapers, to keep out of the public domain some of this country’s most important secrets,” Mr. Brennan said.
“Whenever I deal with reporters, I do so at the request of the White House press office and they set the ground rules,” he said.
He said that he voluntary cooperated with the Department of Justice investigation into the leak of information about a double agent inside al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) who helped U.S. and allied agencies foil an underwear bomb plot.
Mr. Brennan said he had “been interviewed on it” and his office turned over “all relevant materials,” including any notes of the conference call.
He denied that a statement he made in a conference call with former officials last year about the plot had compromised intelligence sources and methods.
The call had been arranged because the former officials were all going on news programs to discuss the foiling of the plot, which targeted U.S. aviation.
Mr. Brennan said, in a statement later repeated publicly by several of the former officials, that the United States had “inside control” of the plot and that the underwear bomb was never a threat to American aviation.
Later that day, news agencies broke the story that an a U.S. allied agency had an agent inside the AQAP cell planning the bombing.
Mr. Brennan said he needed to explain that the U.S. had “inside control,” because during the time of the plot — around the first anniversary of the Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan — he and other officials had reassured that there was no specific actionable intelligence about threats or plots.
“We had said publicly that there was no active plot at the time of the bin Laden anniversary,” he said.
Mr. Brennan is a 25-year career intelligence officer who served in the Bush administration as the first head of the National Counterterrorism Center. In 2008, he was a close adviser to Mr. Obama in the Senate.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
h482kll6PsQTAmS2
|
elections
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/01/cory-booker-announces-run-for-presidency-in-2020
|
Cory Booker announces run for presidency in 2020
|
2019-02-01
|
Sabrina Siddiqui, Joanna Walters
|
Cory Booker on Friday morning jumped into the already busy field of Democratic candidates running for the White House in 2020 in a bid to oust Donald Trump .
Who will run in 2020 ? The full list of Democrats vying to take on Trump Read more
The New Jersey senator , long considered one of the Democratic party ’ s rising stars , launched his campaign in an email to supporters that promised to “ channel our common pain back into our common purpose . Together , America , we will rise . ”
Booker , who first rose to prominence as the mayor of Newark , also released an accompanying video recounting the racial discrimination weathered by his family , while speaking to the power of civil rights movements .
“ The history of our nation is defined by collective action ; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists ; of those born here and those who chose America as home ; of those who took up arms to defend our country , and those who linked arms to challenge and change it . ”
Booker , 49 , was elected to the Senate in 2013 following a special election in New Jersey , becoming the state ’ s first black senator . He made his announcement on the first day of February , which is designated Black History Month , a time on the calendar for commemorations and educational programs about significant people and events in the history of the African diaspora .
Cory Booker ( @ CoryBooker ) I ’ m running for president . Join me on this journey . https : //t.co/fEDqOVIfwh pic.twitter.com/h1FTPUYRzo
On Martin Luther King Day in the US last month , Booker spoke in South Carolina , as did a potential Democratic rival for the nomination , Bernie Sanders .
Following Harris ’ s announcement about her run on MLK Day , Booker is the second black candidate in the race . Rather than opening an exploratory committee to test the waters , Booker took the direct step to open a campaign straight to the public , seeking the Democratic nomination .
Booker plans to travel to the first caucus state of Iowa the weekend of February 9 , then to early battlegrounds South Carolina and New Hampshire over the following week , according to his campaign .
Like some of the other Democratic contenders , Booker has said he will not accept campaign donations from corporate political action committees and lobbyists . He also opposes Super Pacs supporting any candidacy .
Booker previously served on the city council of Newark , the state ’ s largest city , and then as its mayor , cultivating a profile as a hands-on politician whose feats included racing into a burning building to save a woman from a fire and rescuing a freezing dog . He personally shoveled the snow of residents and earned a widespread following on social media .
Since his arrival in the Senate , Booker had been widely viewed as a potential contender for president and was a finalist for Hillary Clinton ’ s vice presidential nominee in 2016 .
Branding himself as a progressive , Booker has embraced a ‘ Green New Deal ’ — a sweeping proposal that aims to combat climate change by zeroing out greenhouse gas emissions in a decade and reducing poverty with clean-energy jobs backed by federal spending .
As with his Senate colleagues Warren , Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand , he is a supporter of Medicare-for-All health insurance provisions , and has called for comprehensive immigration reform . Booker also played a key role in championing criminal justice reform efforts in the Senate , co-sponsoring bills that would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders .
He has , however , been criticized by leftwingers for strong ties to Wall Street firms and the pharmaceutical industry .
A member of the Senate judiciary committee , Booker is known for his fiery questioning of nominees and administration officials in the age of Trump .
The senator memorably lashed out at homeland security secretary Kristjen Nielsen over reports that the president questioned the need to accept immigrants from “ shithole countries ” in reference to Haiti , El Salvador and certain African countries . A visibly emotional Booker said he cried “ tears of rage ” upon learning of Trump ’ s comments .
On Friday morning , Booker , who is fluent in Spanish , took part in call-in interviews with radio shows that are especially popular with African American and Latinx listeners . Later in the morning he will go on television to be interviewed on the popular daytime chat show The View , which has a majority female viewership . His mother will be sitting in the studio audience .
|
This article is more than 7 months old
This article is more than 7 months old
Cory Booker on Friday morning jumped into the already busy field of Democratic candidates running for the White House in 2020 in a bid to oust Donald Trump.
Who will run in 2020? The full list of Democrats vying to take on Trump Read more
The New Jersey senator, long considered one of the Democratic party’s rising stars, launched his campaign in an email to supporters that promised to “channel our common pain back into our common purpose. Together, America, we will rise.”
Booker, who first rose to prominence as the mayor of Newark, also released an accompanying video recounting the racial discrimination weathered by his family, while speaking to the power of civil rights movements.
“The history of our nation is defined by collective action; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists; of those born here and those who chose America as home; of those who took up arms to defend our country, and those who linked arms to challenge and change it.”
Booker, 49, was elected to the Senate in 2013 following a special election in New Jersey, becoming the state’s first black senator. He made his announcement on the first day of February, which is designated Black History Month, a time on the calendar for commemorations and educational programs about significant people and events in the history of the African diaspora.
Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) I’m running for president. Join me on this journey. https://t.co/fEDqOVIfwh pic.twitter.com/h1FTPUYRzo
On Martin Luther King Day in the US last month, Booker spoke in South Carolina, as did a potential Democratic rival for the nomination, Bernie Sanders.
Following Harris’s announcement about her run on MLK Day, Booker is the second black candidate in the race. Rather than opening an exploratory committee to test the waters, Booker took the direct step to open a campaign straight to the public, seeking the Democratic nomination.
Booker plans to travel to the first caucus state of Iowa the weekend of February 9, then to early battlegrounds South Carolina and New Hampshire over the following week, according to his campaign.
Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Booker has said he will not accept campaign donations from corporate political action committees and lobbyists. He also opposes Super Pacs supporting any candidacy.
Booker previously served on the city council of Newark, the state’s largest city, and then as its mayor, cultivating a profile as a hands-on politician whose feats included racing into a burning building to save a woman from a fire and rescuing a freezing dog. He personally shoveled the snow of residents and earned a widespread following on social media.
Since his arrival in the Senate, Booker had been widely viewed as a potential contender for president and was a finalist for Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential nominee in 2016.
Branding himself as a progressive, Booker has embraced a ‘Green New Deal’ — a sweeping proposal that aims to combat climate change by zeroing out greenhouse gas emissions in a decade and reducing poverty with clean-energy jobs backed by federal spending.
As with his Senate colleagues Warren, Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand, he is a supporter of Medicare-for-All health insurance provisions, and has called for comprehensive immigration reform. Booker also played a key role in championing criminal justice reform efforts in the Senate, co-sponsoring bills that would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
He has, however, been criticized by leftwingers for strong ties to Wall Street firms and the pharmaceutical industry.
A member of the Senate judiciary committee, Booker is known for his fiery questioning of nominees and administration officials in the age of Trump.
The senator memorably lashed out at homeland security secretary Kristjen Nielsen over reports that the president questioned the need to accept immigrants from “shithole countries” in reference to Haiti, El Salvador and certain African countries. A visibly emotional Booker said he cried “tears of rage” upon learning of Trump’s comments.
On Friday morning, Booker, who is fluent in Spanish, took part in call-in interviews with radio shows that are especially popular with African American and Latinx listeners. Later in the morning he will go on television to be interviewed on the popular daytime chat show The View, which has a majority female viewership. His mother will be sitting in the studio audience.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
MvbOZMEUvdd2LRcn
|
abortion
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/17/court-sides-faith-based-groups-obamacare-mandate/
|
Court sides with faith-based groups on Obamacare birth control mandate
|
2015-09-17
|
Tom Howell Jr.
|
A federal appeals court Thursday ruled in favor of faith-based nonprofits who fought Obamacare ’ s birth control rules , dealing an elusive victory to religious employers who now have a stronger hand in urging the Supreme Court to shield them from the administration ’ s “ contraception mandate . ”
In a pair of opinions , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with religious universities and ministries that object to insuring contraceptives they equate with abortion and feel that opt-out routes provided by the Department of Health and Human Services keep them complicit in sin .
The rulings upheld a lower court ’ s finding and marked a significant break from other circuit rulings that said HHS ’ s efforts to accommodate the groups were sufficient .
Under HHS rules , religious employers who object to covering birth control must notify an insurer , plan administrator or the government in writing so that a third party can manage and pay for the coverage .
“ If one equates the self-certification process with , say , that of obtaining a parade permit , then indeed the burden might well be considered light . But if one sincerely believes that completing [ the opt-out form ] or HHS Notice will result in conscience-violating consequences , what some might consider an otherwise neutral act is a burden too heavy to bear , ” wrote Judge Roger L. Wollman , an appointee of President Ronald Reagan , joined by judges William D. Benton and Steven M. Colloton , both appointees of President George W. Bush .
The contraception mandate is an outgrowth of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that requires employers to cover 20 types of FDA-approved drugs and services as part of their health plans or else pay hefty fines . Pitched as a boon for women ’ s health , the rules quickly spawned controversy , with dozens of religious nonprofits and devout business owners filing suit .
Many Catholic employers object to all forms of contraception , while evangelical groups and others say they ’ re only opposed to morning-after pills they equate with abortion .
Family owned for-profits were victorious before the Supreme Court last year , forcing HHS to draft an accommodation for them . The same rules that HHS drafted for religious nonprofits now apply to the closely held companies , although they must meet certain standards .
Plaintiffs on the nonprofit side are not satisfied though . They want the same blanket exemption from the mandate that houses of worship enjoy .
Several faith-based nonprofits have asked the justices to take up their case in the coming term .
With a circuit split in hand , they ’ ve got a much better shot at grabbing the court ’ s attention .
“ The government keeps telling the Supreme Court ‘ Move along , nothing important here ’ in hopes that the court will ignore this crucial issue . But with today ’ s decisions , the court will have great reason to decide this issue in the next term , ” said Lori Windham , senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty .
The Eighth Circuit cited the justices ’ holding in the for-profit case , known as “ Hobby Lobby , ” that enforcing the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — a bipartisan 1993 law that says the government had to have a compelling interest in carrying out a law that substantially burdens a person ’ s religious beliefs , and must do so in the least restrictive way possible .
Unlike other circuits , Thursday ’ s panel said the HHS accommodation presented a substantial burden on faith-based nonprofits .
Citing the 2014 decision , the panel said “ it is not our role to second-guess [ the plaintiffs ’ ] honest assessment of a ‘ difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy , namely , the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another . ’ ”
Brigitte Amiri , a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union ’ s Reproductive Freedom Project , said she disagreed with the decision but acknowledged that it increases the likelihood that the justices will take up one of the faith group ’ s cases .
“ Although we all have the right to our religious beliefs , those beliefs can not be used to harm or discriminate against others , ” she said . “ Today ’ s decision is also an outlier — all of the other seven courts of appeals to consider the issue have found that the accommodation available for nonprofit organizations does not substantially burden the employers ’ religious beliefs . ”
Thursday ’ s ruling addressed lawsuits from Dordt College in Iowa , Heartland Christian College in Missouri and CNS International Ministries , Inc. ( CNS ) , a Missouri nonprofit that helps people with substance abuse and behavioral problems .
The groups said intrauterine devices ( IUDs ) and emergency contraceptives covered by the mandate are the same as “ abortion on demand . ”
|
A federal appeals court Thursday ruled in favor of faith-based nonprofits who fought Obamacare’s birth control rules, dealing an elusive victory to religious employers who now have a stronger hand in urging the Supreme Court to shield them from the administration’s “contraception mandate.”
In a pair of opinions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with religious universities and ministries that object to insuring contraceptives they equate with abortion and feel that opt-out routes provided by the Department of Health and Human Services keep them complicit in sin.
The rulings upheld a lower court’s finding and marked a significant break from other circuit rulings that said HHS’s efforts to accommodate the groups were sufficient.
Under HHS rules, religious employers who object to covering birth control must notify an insurer, plan administrator or the government in writing so that a third party can manage and pay for the coverage.
“If one equates the self-certification process with, say, that of obtaining a parade permit, then indeed the burden might well be considered light. But if one sincerely believes that completing [the opt-out form] or HHS Notice will result in conscience-violating consequences, what some might consider an otherwise neutral act is a burden too heavy to bear,” wrote Judge Roger L. Wollman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, joined by judges William D. Benton and Steven M. Colloton, both appointees of President George W. Bush.
The contraception mandate is an outgrowth of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that requires employers to cover 20 types of FDA-approved drugs and services as part of their health plans or else pay hefty fines. Pitched as a boon for women’s health, the rules quickly spawned controversy, with dozens of religious nonprofits and devout business owners filing suit.
Many Catholic employers object to all forms of contraception, while evangelical groups and others say they’re only opposed to morning-after pills they equate with abortion.
Family owned for-profits were victorious before the Supreme Court last year, forcing HHS to draft an accommodation for them. The same rules that HHS drafted for religious nonprofits now apply to the closely held companies, although they must meet certain standards.
Plaintiffs on the nonprofit side are not satisfied though. They want the same blanket exemption from the mandate that houses of worship enjoy.
Several faith-based nonprofits have asked the justices to take up their case in the coming term.
With a circuit split in hand, they’ve got a much better shot at grabbing the court’s attention.
“The government keeps telling the Supreme Court ‘Move along, nothing important here’ in hopes that the court will ignore this crucial issue. But with today’s decisions, the court will have great reason to decide this issue in the next term,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The Eighth Circuit cited the justices’ holding in the for-profit case, known as “Hobby Lobby,” that enforcing the mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — a bipartisan 1993 law that says the government had to have a compelling interest in carrying out a law that substantially burdens a person’s religious beliefs, and must do so in the least restrictive way possible.
Unlike other circuits, Thursday’s panel said the HHS accommodation presented a substantial burden on faith-based nonprofits.
Citing the 2014 decision, the panel said “it is not our role to second-guess [the plaintiffs’] honest assessment of a ‘difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is wrong for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another.’”
Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, said she disagreed with the decision but acknowledged that it increases the likelihood that the justices will take up one of the faith group’s cases.
“Although we all have the right to our religious beliefs, those beliefs cannot be used to harm or discriminate against others,” she said. “Today’s decision is also an outlier — all of the other seven courts of appeals to consider the issue have found that the accommodation available for nonprofit organizations does not substantially burden the employers’ religious beliefs.”
Thursday’s ruling addressed lawsuits from Dordt College in Iowa, Heartland Christian College in Missouri and CNS International Ministries, Inc. (CNS), a Missouri nonprofit that helps people with substance abuse and behavioral problems.
The groups said intrauterine devices (IUDs) and emergency contraceptives covered by the mandate are the same as “abortion on demand.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
S4bC5c4ZCHLn62t6
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/10/592659508/trump-in-pennsylvania-i-need-rick-saccone-to-help-keep-america-great
|
Trump In Pennsylvania: I Need Rick Saccone To Help 'Keep America Great!'
|
2018-03-10
|
Martina Stewart
|
Trump In Pennsylvania : I Need Rick Saccone To Help 'Keep America Great ! '
President Trump gave an early look Saturday at how he intends to help Republicans maintain control of Congress in 2018 . Trump delivered his midterms message during a campaign rally near Pittsburgh , Penn . — a rally that he held to help a Republican struggling to hold onto a House district Trump won by double digits in 2016 .
Republican Rick Saccone , a state lawmaker , is in a tight race against Democrat Conor Lamb in a closely-watched special election in western Pennsylvania . Should Lamb win , it would be another indication of a difficult road ahead for the GOP in this year 's midterms .
The president made the argument that his supporters — in what both he and political observers are calling `` Trump Country '' — should vote for Republicans this year in order to prevent the top Democrat in the House , Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , from regaining the speaker 's gavel and possibly seeking to impeach him .
And to drive home the point about impeachment should Democrats take control of the House , Trump also targeted Rep. Maxine Waters , D-Calif. , a frequent and outspoken critic who has been calling for the president 's ouster from office for months .
`` Our new slogan ... is going to be ... Keep America Great , exclamation point , '' Trump said to cheers , `` Keep America Great . ''
Trump continued : `` But we can only do that if we elect people who are going to back our agenda and fight for our values . And that is why we have to defeat Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters , a very low-I.Q . individual . ''
`` He 's trying to act like a Republican , '' the president also said of Lamb , `` He wo n't give me one vote . ''
`` Here 's the thing : We 're dealing with people that want to obstruct , '' Trump said of Democrats . `` They want to stop us from doing things . ''
`` Here 's the problem : As soon as he gets in , he 's not going to vote for us , '' Trump also said of Lamb . `` He 's going to vote the party line . ''
In a TV ad , Lamb has made a point of highlighting the fact that he does n't support Pelosi , part of his strategy to separate himself from most national Democrats . And Lamb has also publicly backed the idea of tariffs on steel and aluminum , a policy change Trump formalized Thursday .
The president 's 2018 message came about 30 minutes into a nearly 75-minute stump speech that ranged through multiple topics but touched on several themes familiar since Trump launched his upstart presidential bid in 2015 .
`` Do me a favor . Get out on Tuesday and vote for Rick Saccone . And we can leave right now , '' Trump said near the start of his remarks .
The president went on to tout his recently enacted tariffs . `` Steel is back and aluminum is back , '' Trump said .
On North Korea , Trump used his familiar refrain of , `` Let 's see what happens , '' just days after it was announced that he intends to meet directly with Kim Jong Un in the hopes of achieving the permanent denuclearization of the rogue regime .
`` This should 've been handled , by the way , over the last 30 years . Not now , '' Trump also said of North Korea . `` But that 's OK , '' he added , `` because that 's what we do . We handle things . ''
Trump faulted his predecessors in the Oval Office beginning with President Obama and going back to Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton for failing to rid North Korea of its nuclear capabilities .
Trump talked up the economy since his election . He mentioned the latest monthly jobs report , overall job gains since Election Day in 2016 , milestones in black and Hispanic unemployment achieved since he took office , stock market gains and the GOP tax cuts enacted late last year .
He rehashed his frequent criticism of so-called sanctuary cities and called on Congress to deny federal funding to localities that do not provide the level of cooperation sought by the Justice Department and agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
The president mentioned crime and the gang MS-13 — just as he had in his recent State of the Union address . He also repeated his call to end what he calls `` chain migration '' in the U.S. immigration system and to end the diversity visa lottery program .
Citing conversations he said he 'd had with China 's president , Trump suggested that American drug dealers should be subject to the death penalty for their role in the current opioid epidemic and crime more generally . This proposal echoed recent remarks he made during a White House opioid summit .
The president mentioned his threat to start an all-out trade war with the European Union over his steel and aluminum tariffs , saying again that he intended to tax European cars if the EU sought to retaliate for his new tariffs . `` We 're gon na tax Mercedes Benz . We 're gon na tax BMW , '' Trump told the crowd .
Trump talked about trade with Mexico and Canada and the ongoing NAFTA negotiations . And on the topic of international trade , Trump faulted his predecessors all the way back to President Ronald Reagan , who held office for most of the 1980s , for what he sees as the current unfairness in the country 's trade relations with much of the rest of the world .
In one of the rally 's more surreal moments , the president actually provided the crowd with an extended , nearly two-minute impression of being presidential that mocked the more straight-laced style of previous presidents and suggested that Trump 's looser style is more entertaining .
Trump also made his trademark attacks on the media . In a rhetorical sleight of hand , the president told the crowd at the beginning of the rally that Washington , D.C. , had `` a lot of evil , a lot of bad people , a lot of fake media . '' Trump once again singled out CNN , MSNBC and NBC for what he views as their biased coverage of him and their poor ratings .
He specifically mentioned media mogul Oprah Winfrey and suggested he could n't wait for her to run for president so he could beat her . And he called Meet The Press anchor Chuck Todd `` sleepy eyes '' and referred to Todd as `` sleeping '' before piling on a vulgar insult to refer to the seasoned D.C. journalist .
Trump 's speech Saturday drew a quick response from the Congressional Black Caucus , a group of African-American lawmakers that is increasingly becoming an outspoken antagonist of the president and his administration . On Twitter , the group came to the defense of one of its own , Rep . Waters , and demanded an apology from Trump for his `` low-I.Q . '' remark .
And David Axelrod , a onetime top aide to President Obama , had a broader critique that suggested Trump 's recent policy moves had been all about politics during what is looking like a tough midterm year for Republicans . Trump 's recently announced tariffs `` were calculated , and certainly timed , so he could make this protectionist pitch from this platform in steel country on the eve of a politically-important House race , '' Axelrod wrote on Twitter .
Lamb 's response to the 75-minute event was muted . `` Let 's win this , '' the Democrat said on Twitter just as the Trump-Saccone rally wrapped up .
Saccone spoke briefly as the rally ended after Trump introduced him — saying that Saccone is `` a really good person '' who needs to come to Washington to prevent Democrats from rolling back the GOP tax cuts , limiting Second Amendment rights and thwarting Trump 's push for increased military spending . `` I came tonight because this guy is special , '' the president also said of Saccone .
`` Rick is going to vote for us all the time , '' Trump also said ahead of Tuesday 's election , emphasizing again that a Democrat like Lamb could not be trusted to back Trump 's agenda fully .
But the more important message of the night might be the one Trump delivered earlier in his remarks — a message as much about himself and seeking re-election in 2020 as about the 2018 midterms :
`` The task for everyone here tonight is to make sure that this great American comeback continues . Full speed ahead . ''
|
Trump In Pennsylvania: I Need Rick Saccone To Help 'Keep America Great!'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jeff Swensen/Getty Images Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
President Trump gave an early look Saturday at how he intends to help Republicans maintain control of Congress in 2018. Trump delivered his midterms message during a campaign rally near Pittsburgh, Penn. — a rally that he held to help a Republican struggling to hold onto a House district Trump won by double digits in 2016.
Republican Rick Saccone, a state lawmaker, is in a tight race against Democrat Conor Lamb in a closely-watched special election in western Pennsylvania. Should Lamb win, it would be another indication of a difficult road ahead for the GOP in this year's midterms.
The president made the argument that his supporters — in what both he and political observers are calling "Trump Country" — should vote for Republicans this year in order to prevent the top Democrat in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from regaining the speaker's gavel and possibly seeking to impeach him.
And to drive home the point about impeachment should Democrats take control of the House, Trump also targeted Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a frequent and outspoken critic who has been calling for the president's ouster from office for months.
"Our new slogan ... is going to be ... Keep America Great, exclamation point," Trump said to cheers, "Keep America Great."
Trump continued: "But we can only do that if we elect people who are going to back our agenda and fight for our values. And that is why we have to defeat Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters, a very low-I.Q. individual."
Trump referred to Lamb as "Lamb the sham."
"He's trying to act like a Republican," the president also said of Lamb, "He won't give me one vote."
"Here's the thing: We're dealing with people that want to obstruct," Trump said of Democrats. "They want to stop us from doing things."
"Here's the problem: As soon as he gets in, he's not going to vote for us," Trump also said of Lamb. "He's going to vote the party line."
In a TV ad, Lamb has made a point of highlighting the fact that he doesn't support Pelosi, part of his strategy to separate himself from most national Democrats. And Lamb has also publicly backed the idea of tariffs on steel and aluminum, a policy change Trump formalized Thursday.
The president's 2018 message came about 30 minutes into a nearly 75-minute stump speech that ranged through multiple topics but touched on several themes familiar since Trump launched his upstart presidential bid in 2015.
"Do me a favor. Get out on Tuesday and vote for Rick Saccone. And we can leave right now," Trump said near the start of his remarks.
The president went on to tout his recently enacted tariffs. "Steel is back and aluminum is back," Trump said.
On North Korea, Trump used his familiar refrain of, "Let's see what happens," just days after it was announced that he intends to meet directly with Kim Jong Un in the hopes of achieving the permanent denuclearization of the rogue regime.
"This should've been handled, by the way, over the last 30 years. Not now," Trump also said of North Korea. "But that's OK," he added, "because that's what we do. We handle things."
Trump faulted his predecessors in the Oval Office beginning with President Obama and going back to Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton for failing to rid North Korea of its nuclear capabilities.
Trump talked up the economy since his election. He mentioned the latest monthly jobs report, overall job gains since Election Day in 2016, milestones in black and Hispanic unemployment achieved since he took office, stock market gains and the GOP tax cuts enacted late last year.
He rehashed his frequent criticism of so-called sanctuary cities and called on Congress to deny federal funding to localities that do not provide the level of cooperation sought by the Justice Department and agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The president mentioned crime and the gang MS-13 — just as he had in his recent State of the Union address. He also repeated his call to end what he calls "chain migration" in the U.S. immigration system and to end the diversity visa lottery program.
Citing conversations he said he'd had with China's president, Trump suggested that American drug dealers should be subject to the death penalty for their role in the current opioid epidemic and crime more generally. This proposal echoed recent remarks he made during a White House opioid summit.
The president mentioned his threat to start an all-out trade war with the European Union over his steel and aluminum tariffs, saying again that he intended to tax European cars if the EU sought to retaliate for his new tariffs. "We're gonna tax Mercedes Benz. We're gonna tax BMW," Trump told the crowd.
Trump talked about trade with Mexico and Canada and the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. And on the topic of international trade, Trump faulted his predecessors all the way back to President Ronald Reagan, who held office for most of the 1980s, for what he sees as the current unfairness in the country's trade relations with much of the rest of the world.
In one of the rally's more surreal moments, the president actually provided the crowd with an extended, nearly two-minute impression of being presidential that mocked the more straight-laced style of previous presidents and suggested that Trump's looser style is more entertaining.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jeff Swensen/Getty Images Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
Trump also made his trademark attacks on the media. In a rhetorical sleight of hand, the president told the crowd at the beginning of the rally that Washington, D.C., had "a lot of evil, a lot of bad people, a lot of fake media." Trump once again singled out CNN, MSNBC and NBC for what he views as their biased coverage of him and their poor ratings.
He specifically mentioned media mogul Oprah Winfrey and suggested he couldn't wait for her to run for president so he could beat her. And he called Meet The Press anchor Chuck Todd "sleepy eyes" and referred to Todd as "sleeping" before piling on a vulgar insult to refer to the seasoned D.C. journalist.
Trump's speech Saturday drew a quick response from the Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African-American lawmakers that is increasingly becoming an outspoken antagonist of the president and his administration. On Twitter, the group came to the defense of one of its own, Rep. Waters, and demanded an apology from Trump for his "low-I.Q." remark.
And David Axelrod, a onetime top aide to President Obama, had a broader critique that suggested Trump's recent policy moves had been all about politics during what is looking like a tough midterm year for Republicans. Trump's recently announced tariffs "were calculated, and certainly timed, so he could make this protectionist pitch from this platform in steel country on the eve of a politically-important House race," Axelrod wrote on Twitter.
Lamb's response to the 75-minute event was muted. "Let's win this," the Democrat said on Twitter just as the Trump-Saccone rally wrapped up.
Saccone spoke briefly as the rally ended after Trump introduced him — saying that Saccone is "a really good person" who needs to come to Washington to prevent Democrats from rolling back the GOP tax cuts, limiting Second Amendment rights and thwarting Trump's push for increased military spending. "I came tonight because this guy is special," the president also said of Saccone.
"Rick is going to vote for us all the time," Trump also said ahead of Tuesday's election, emphasizing again that a Democrat like Lamb could not be trusted to back Trump's agenda fully.
But the more important message of the night might be the one Trump delivered earlier in his remarks — a message as much about himself and seeking re-election in 2020 as about the 2018 midterms:
"The task for everyone here tonight is to make sure that this great American comeback continues. Full speed ahead."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
QdcR63U0HuF4skck
|
elections
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/1012/Democratic-debate-Can-anyone-disrupt-the-Hillary-vs.-Bernie-show
|
Democratic debate: Can anyone disrupt the Hillary vs. Bernie show?
|
2015-10-12
|
Linda Feldmann
|
Hillary Clinton ’ s biggest opponent Tuesday night in the Democrats ’ first presidential debate of the season may well be … Hillary Clinton .
Former Secretary Clinton ’ s challenge isn ’ t her declining lead against her top adversaries for the Democratic nomination – namely , Bernie Sanders and the as-yet unannounced Joe Biden . She ’ s still the odds-on favorite to win her party ’ s nomination , more so if Vice President Biden doesn ’ t run .
Clinton ’ s challenge is voters ’ views of her character . And Tuesday ’ s televised debate in Las Vegas ( 9 p.m. Eastern time on CNN ) is her best opportunity yet to show millions of Americans why they should be inspired by her and give her their trust .
“ There has been a strange disconnect between Clinton and Democratic voters and a sense of resignation , rather than excitement , about her candidacy , ” writes David Axelrod , former top political adviser to President Obama .
“ Whatever else you think about him , [ Vermont Senator ] Sanders is utterly authentic . And right now , that is Clinton 's challenge , ” adds Mr. Axelrod , now director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago . “ It has been exacerbated by her clumsy , ever-evolving approach to the email issue – something certain to come up again in the debate – and her rapid-fire race to the left to co-opt Sanders ' positions on trade , climate change and other issues that fire up the Democratic base . ”
Axelrod ’ s analysis suggests that it may be too late for Clinton to change voters ’ views of her . She can ’ t undo the decision to use a private e-mail server as secretary of State , and her bungled response to questions about that practice . She ’ s also highly unlikely ( at least while a candidate ) to rethink her newfound opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the major Pacific Rim trade deal that she supported while it was in the works .
In particular , it may be difficult for Clinton to boost her poor rating among voters on honesty and trustworthiness . Only 35 percent of voters ( of all political stripes ) see her positively on those qualities , according to the latest CBS News poll . And unlike most other candidates in the race , Clinton is widely known to the American public , thus making it hard to change impressions .
But she does have some aces in her hand . A majority ( 53 percent ) of all voters see her as a strong leader , and 51 percent see her as having the right experience to be a good president , according to CBS . Biden beats her on both counts – 55 percent on leadership and 60 percent on experience . And he beats all candidates of both parties on honesty and trustworthiness , at 61 percent .
So while Biden will not be on stage Tuesday night , his potential candidacy will loom large . Of course , a candidate never looks better than before they announce ( and after they drop out ) , so if he were to get in , his record would get a thorough look in the media , which would likely bring his numbers down .
If Biden opts out , that leaves Clinton vs. Sanders as the main Democratic show . On Tuesday night , their rivalry will be center stage – the insider vs. the outsider , the pragmatist vs. the populist . Both are seen as strong debaters , though this will be Sanders ’ s first in a national presidential forum . By this time eight years ago , Clinton already had taken part in 13 Democratic presidential debates .
For Sanders , a political independent and self-described social democrat , Tuesday ’ s debate is an opportunity to introduce himself to the wider American electorate . His main challenge may be to convince Democrats that he ’ s electable .
But independent pollster John Zogby doesn ’ t see any reason for Sanders to change his approach .
“ He ’ s offering clarity for the left of the party , and has gone a lot further than anyone thought he might , ” says Mr. Zogby . “ He should just continue to be himself . ”
Clinton and Sanders aren ’ t expected to attack each other directly , in keeping with their practice so far . Sanders prides himself in presenting his own positive vision . Clinton clearly hopes to harness the energy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters , in anticipation of winning the nomination .
But they won ’ t be the only two candidates on stage . Unlike the Republican field , which is so large the debates have been split into two – main stage and “ undercard ” – the Democratic undercard gets into the Las Vegas ring with the top two competitors .
And thus , even if Sanders backs off , the others are sure to go after Clinton ’ s policy positions , including her recent left turn on Keystone and trade .
Perhaps the most frustrated candidate in the Democratic field is former two-term Gov . Martin O ’ Malley of Maryland , who on paper should be a strong competitor . He represents the next generation of Democratic leadership , in contrast to the senior citizens who lead the field . But his effort to come in to the left of Clinton has been eclipsed by Sanders , and with no debates until now , he has had little opportunity to break out of the pack .
The late start to debate season , and the limited number of debates ( six ) , has frustrated Mr. O ’ Malley no end , but his protests brought no relief . Now , finally , he will have his moment in the spotlight . Tuesday could be a do or die moment for him . O ’ Malley is languishing in the polls with an average of 0.6 percent of the Democratic vote .
Also taking part are former one-term Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia , a conservative Democrat who served as secretary of the Navy under President Reagan , and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island , the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democratic former governor and senator . They , too , are polling under 1 percent .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Perhaps the Democratic “ undercard ” can gain inspiration from the example of Carly Fiorina , the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard , whose strong debate performances have moved her from obscurity to the GOP ’ s top tier .
Given Clinton ’ s big money and organization , the passion of Sanders supporters , and the Biden wild card , it would seem a stretch for anyone else to break into contention for the Democrats . But in this unpredictable year , one can ’ t blame the others for dreaming .
|
Hillary Clinton’s biggest opponent Tuesday night in the Democrats’ first presidential debate of the season may well be … Hillary Clinton.
Former Secretary Clinton’s challenge isn’t her declining lead against her top adversaries for the Democratic nomination – namely, Bernie Sanders and the as-yet unannounced Joe Biden. She’s still the odds-on favorite to win her party’s nomination, more so if Vice President Biden doesn’t run.
Clinton’s challenge is voters’ views of her character. And Tuesday’s televised debate in Las Vegas (9 p.m. Eastern time on CNN) is her best opportunity yet to show millions of Americans why they should be inspired by her and give her their trust.
“There has been a strange disconnect between Clinton and Democratic voters and a sense of resignation, rather than excitement, about her candidacy,” writes David Axelrod, former top political adviser to President Obama.
“Whatever else you think about him, [Vermont Senator] Sanders is utterly authentic. And right now, that is Clinton's challenge,” adds Mr. Axelrod, now director of the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. “It has been exacerbated by her clumsy, ever-evolving approach to the email issue – something certain to come up again in the debate – and her rapid-fire race to the left to co-opt Sanders' positions on trade, climate change and other issues that fire up the Democratic base.”
Axelrod’s analysis suggests that it may be too late for Clinton to change voters’ views of her. She can’t undo the decision to use a private e-mail server as secretary of State, and her bungled response to questions about that practice. She’s also highly unlikely (at least while a candidate) to rethink her newfound opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and the major Pacific Rim trade deal that she supported while it was in the works.
In particular, it may be difficult for Clinton to boost her poor rating among voters on honesty and trustworthiness. Only 35 percent of voters (of all political stripes) see her positively on those qualities, according to the latest CBS News poll. And unlike most other candidates in the race, Clinton is widely known to the American public, thus making it hard to change impressions.
But she does have some aces in her hand. A majority (53 percent) of all voters see her as a strong leader, and 51 percent see her as having the right experience to be a good president, according to CBS. Biden beats her on both counts – 55 percent on leadership and 60 percent on experience. And he beats all candidates of both parties on honesty and trustworthiness, at 61 percent.
So while Biden will not be on stage Tuesday night, his potential candidacy will loom large. Of course, a candidate never looks better than before they announce (and after they drop out), so if he were to get in, his record would get a thorough look in the media, which would likely bring his numbers down.
If Biden opts out, that leaves Clinton vs. Sanders as the main Democratic show. On Tuesday night, their rivalry will be center stage – the insider vs. the outsider, the pragmatist vs. the populist. Both are seen as strong debaters, though this will be Sanders’s first in a national presidential forum. By this time eight years ago, Clinton already had taken part in 13 Democratic presidential debates.
For Sanders, a political independent and self-described social democrat, Tuesday’s debate is an opportunity to introduce himself to the wider American electorate. His main challenge may be to convince Democrats that he’s electable.
But independent pollster John Zogby doesn’t see any reason for Sanders to change his approach.
“He’s offering clarity for the left of the party, and has gone a lot further than anyone thought he might,” says Mr. Zogby. “He should just continue to be himself.”
Clinton and Sanders aren’t expected to attack each other directly, in keeping with their practice so far. Sanders prides himself in presenting his own positive vision. Clinton clearly hopes to harness the energy and enthusiasm of Sanders supporters, in anticipation of winning the nomination.
But they won’t be the only two candidates on stage. Unlike the Republican field, which is so large the debates have been split into two – main stage and “undercard” – the Democratic undercard gets into the Las Vegas ring with the top two competitors.
And thus, even if Sanders backs off, the others are sure to go after Clinton’s policy positions, including her recent left turn on Keystone and trade.
Perhaps the most frustrated candidate in the Democratic field is former two-term Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who on paper should be a strong competitor. He represents the next generation of Democratic leadership, in contrast to the senior citizens who lead the field. But his effort to come in to the left of Clinton has been eclipsed by Sanders, and with no debates until now, he has had little opportunity to break out of the pack.
The late start to debate season, and the limited number of debates (six), has frustrated Mr. O’Malley no end, but his protests brought no relief. Now, finally, he will have his moment in the spotlight. Tuesday could be a do or die moment for him. O’Malley is languishing in the polls with an average of 0.6 percent of the Democratic vote.
Also taking part are former one-term Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a conservative Democrat who served as secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democratic former governor and senator. They, too, are polling under 1 percent.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Perhaps the Democratic “undercard” can gain inspiration from the example of Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, whose strong debate performances have moved her from obscurity to the GOP’s top tier.
Given Clinton’s big money and organization, the passion of Sanders supporters, and the Biden wild card, it would seem a stretch for anyone else to break into contention for the Democrats. But in this unpredictable year, one can’t blame the others for dreaming.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
X4bRYdQzm719kfPT
|
white_house
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-ofa-reagan-clinton-87097.html
|
Obama's OFA has Reagan, Clinton echoes
|
2013-02-03
|
Josh Gerstein
|
Obama may face some of the same hurdles Reagan and Clinton encountered . | AP Photos Obama 's OFA has Reagan echoes
President Barack Obama ’ s decision to transform his campaign into the freestanding lobbying group “ Organizing for Action ” is groundbreaking in many ways — but the idea of creating an outside organization to put pressure on Capitol Hill dates back at least to Ronald Reagan .
President Bill Clinton even tried to create one 20 years ago . In 1993 , seeking to to marshal grassroots support for his health-care reform effort , his team ’ s first impulse was to set up a standalone entity that could anonymously raise and spend large sums of money on polling , petition drives , phone banks and TV commercials .
Obama ’ s got big plans for OFA , and the group ’ s leaders are heavy on ambition for what they ’ ll be able to do to make the president ’ s agenda on issues like gun control and immigration a reality . But while campaign finance laws have changed over the years , some of the same problems — in both the law and public perception — that hounded previous White House-connected outside influence efforts could lay ahead for Obama . And , so far , neither the White House nor OFA is saying much about how they plan to avoid them .
By June 1993 , “ The National Health Care Campaign ” to support Clinton ’ s health plan was up and running with 27 staffers in a downtown Washington office , funded by $ 100,000 in seed money from the Democratic National Committee , according to a Washington Post article at the time . The group ’ s goal : raise up to $ 37 million in large chunks from corporations , unions and wealthy individuals .
But the group came under attack over ethical questions about how an entity so closely connected to the White House would seek large sums of money from business interests that could be dramatically affected by health reform .
As with Obama ’ s new OFA , the Clinton effort immediately raised questions about what control White House officials would have over the new group ’ s activities and fundraising . Lawyers in the Clinton White House advised that officials could “ pass paper ” to the new organization , but could not coordinate with them , the Post reported .
“ This is the smelliest ethical thing they ’ ve done so far , ” Glen Bolger , a Republican pollster told Newhouse News at the time . “ If you are a pharmaceutical company and you get a call to contribute , it ’ s kind of hard to say no . ”
Critics also disputed the Clinton-era group ’ s claim to be independent of the DNC .
“ We started out as a separate entity and that , itself , became an issue , ” recalled Heather Booth , a top organizer for the National Health Care Campaign . “ Those who didn ’ t want health care reform came after us . … It was such an issue that it was decided that it was easier to move it back into the DNC than to waste energy defending it . ”
On the same day as the Post ’ s front-page article , the DNC announced it was reversing course , pulling the plug on the freestanding 501c4 lobbying group , and bringing its work back in house . The effort continued on at the DNC but was ultimately swamped by the insurance industry ’ s “ Harry and Louise ” ad campaign , which eventually spent $ 60 million to defeat Clinton ’ s plan .
“ We didn ’ t have the money we really needed to do that sort of thing , ” Clinton adviser Harold Ickes told ███ last week . “ I ’ m not sure [ we ] moved one vote . ”
“ We tried to figure out different ways , figure out some external apparatus or support for health reform , ” recalled Chris Jennings , one of Clinton ’ s top health care policy advisers . “ It was very tough , as I recall . I don ’ t know if it was political or policy or legal or some combination . ”
|
Obama may face some of the same hurdles Reagan and Clinton encountered. | AP Photos Obama's OFA has Reagan echoes
President Barack Obama’s decision to transform his campaign into the freestanding lobbying group “Organizing for Action” is groundbreaking in many ways — but the idea of creating an outside organization to put pressure on Capitol Hill dates back at least to Ronald Reagan.
President Bill Clinton even tried to create one 20 years ago. In 1993, seeking to to marshal grassroots support for his health-care reform effort, his team’s first impulse was to set up a standalone entity that could anonymously raise and spend large sums of money on polling, petition drives, phone banks and TV commercials.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: Obama’s first term in cartoons)
Obama’s got big plans for OFA, and the group’s leaders are heavy on ambition for what they’ll be able to do to make the president’s agenda on issues like gun control and immigration a reality. But while campaign finance laws have changed over the years, some of the same problems — in both the law and public perception — that hounded previous White House-connected outside influence efforts could lay ahead for Obama. And, so far, neither the White House nor OFA is saying much about how they plan to avoid them.
By June 1993, “The National Health Care Campaign” to support Clinton’s health plan was up and running with 27 staffers in a downtown Washington office, funded by $100,000 in seed money from the Democratic National Committee, according to a Washington Post article at the time. The group’s goal: raise up to $37 million in large chunks from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.
( PHOTOS: 18 defining Obama moments)
But the group came under attack over ethical questions about how an entity so closely connected to the White House would seek large sums of money from business interests that could be dramatically affected by health reform.
As with Obama’s new OFA, the Clinton effort immediately raised questions about what control White House officials would have over the new group’s activities and fundraising. Lawyers in the Clinton White House advised that officials could “pass paper” to the new organization, but could not coordinate with them, the Post reported.
However, the precautions didn’t squelch the critics.
“This is the smelliest ethical thing they’ve done so far,” Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster told Newhouse News at the time. “If you are a pharmaceutical company and you get a call to contribute, it’s kind of hard to say no.”
Critics also disputed the Clinton-era group’s claim to be independent of the DNC.
“We started out as a separate entity and that, itself, became an issue,” recalled Heather Booth, a top organizer for the National Health Care Campaign. “Those who didn’t want health care reform came after us. … It was such an issue that it was decided that it was easier to move it back into the DNC than to waste energy defending it.”
( PHOTOS: The Obama-Clinton relationship)
On the same day as the Post’s front-page article, the DNC announced it was reversing course, pulling the plug on the freestanding 501c4 lobbying group, and bringing its work back in house. The effort continued on at the DNC but was ultimately swamped by the insurance industry’s “Harry and Louise” ad campaign, which eventually spent $60 million to defeat Clinton’s plan.
“We didn’t have the money we really needed to do that sort of thing,” Clinton adviser Harold Ickes told POLITICO last week. “I’m not sure [we] moved one vote.”
“We tried to figure out different ways, figure out some external apparatus or support for health reform,” recalled Chris Jennings, one of Clinton’s top health care policy advisers. “It was very tough, as I recall. I don’t know if it was political or policy or legal or some combination.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
GiMSxlLWFG1T7d9P
|
opioid_crisis
|
New York Times - Opinion
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/06/opinion/working-class-death-rate.html
|
How Working-Class Life Is Killing Americans, in Charts
|
2020-03-06
|
David Leonhardt, Stuart A. Thompson
|
When the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton first published their research on “ deaths of despair ” five years ago , they focused on middle-aged whites . So many white working-class Americans in their 40s and 50s were dying of suicide , alcoholism and drug abuse that the overall mortality rate for the age group was no longer falling – a rare and shocking pattern in a modern society .
But as Case and Deaton continued digging into the data , it became clear that the grim trends didn ’ t apply only to middle-aged whites . Up and down the age spectrum , deaths of despair have been surging for people without a four-year college degree :
Deaths from alcohol , drugs and suicide 5 per 100K 147 per 100K
In the early 1990s , the number of white adults without a college education who were dying from a drug overdose , alcoholism or suicide was fairly low — and the death rates for younger adults were lower than for older adults . But over the past three decades , deaths of despair among whites without a college degree — especially those under age 50 — have soared . The death rate for whites with a college degree , by contrast , has risen only modestly across all age groups and remains lower for the young than the old .
Case and Deaton — a married couple who are both economists at Princeton — try to explain the causes in a new book , “ Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. ” Their basic answer is that working-class life in the United States is more difficult than it is in any other high-income country . “ European countries have faced the same kind of technological change we have , and they ’ re not seeing the people killing themselves with guns or drugs or alcohol , ” Case says . “ There is something unique about the way the U.S. is handling this . ”
More people are dying Number of “ deaths of despair ” per 100,000 non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 ‘ 96 ‘ 00 ‘ 04 ‘ 08 ‘ 12 ‘ 16
Inequality has risen more in the United States — and middle-class incomes have stagnated more severely — than in France , Germany , Japan or elsewhere . Large corporations have increased their market share , and labor unions have shriveled , leaving workers with little bargaining power . Outsourcing has become the norm , which means that executives often see low-wage workers not as colleagues but as expenses .
And the United States suffers from by far the world ’ s most expensive health-care system . It acts as a tax on workers and drains resources that could otherwise be spent on schools , day care , roads , public transit and more . Despite its unparalleled spending , the American medical system also fails to keep many people healthy .
[ Make sense of the news with David ’ s commentary and reading suggestions every weekday morning . Sign up for his newsletter . ]
The two economists initially focused on non-Hispanic whites because the mortality trends were worst for them . Deaths rates from suicide , alcoholism and drug abuse among whites surpassed the rates for blacks shortly after 2000 , for example . But the black working class is hardly thriving -- and deaths of despair have surged among them in the last few years . Overall life expectancy remains significantly higher for whites than blacks . So , of course , do incomes and wealth .
Many of the problems afflicting the working class span racial groups , and Case and Deaton emphasize that these problems aren ’ t merely financial . Life for many middle- and low-income Americans can lack structure , status and meaning . People don ’ t always know what days or hours they will be working the following week . They often don ’ t officially work for the company where they spend their days , which robs them of the pride that comes from being part of a shared enterprise .
“ Many people used to associate the meaning of their life with what their corporation or institution was doing , ” says Deaton , a Nobel laureate in economics . Miners and factory workers identified themselves as such . Warehouse workers , especially those whose paycheck is signed by a staffing company , rarely feel the same connection .
The result of these trends has been a “ coming apart , ” as Case and Deaton put it , of day-to-day life for whites without a college degree versus those with a college degree :
Marriage rates have diverged Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 currently married 80 % College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 80 % College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 ‘ 90 ‘ 00 ‘ 10
People without college degrees are also less likely to attend church Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 attending church weekly 30 % College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 30 % College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 ‘ 85 ‘ 95 ‘ 05 ‘ 15
Surveys show that a growing number of working-class Americans find it difficult to do basic things , like climb a flight of stairs or socialize , partly because of chronic problems with their mental or physical health :
Chronic pain is more widespread Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 experiencing neck , back or joint pain 60 % Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 60 % Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
Many people are also drinking more Average number of drinks ( on days when drinking ) among non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 ‘ 98 ‘ 02 ‘ 06 ‘ 10 ‘ 14
And they are unhappier Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 who say they are “ not too happy these days ” Non- college 15 % 10 College grads 5 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Non- college 15 % 10 College grads 5 0 1975 ‘ 85 ‘ 95 ‘ 05 ‘ 15
Given all of these alarming social indicators , it ’ s not surprising that some other causes of death — in addition to suicide , alcoholism and drug overdose — have also started rising for Americans without a college degree . Heart disease is the most significant , exacerbated by obesity , drinking and drug use .
The combined result is a divergence in the life expectancy of white college graduates and non-graduates . Overall mortality for whites between the ages of 45 and 54 has held roughly steady in the last 25 years . But that average hides a big increase in death rates for non-graduates and a big decline for graduates .
What can be done about all of this ? Many of the solutions are obvious , if difficult to accomplish . The medical system should be overhauled to put a higher priority on health than on wealth for people who work in the industry , Case and Deaton argue . ( And that doesn ’ t necessarily mean a mandatory version of Medicare , they add . )
The federal government should do a better job of keeping big business from maximizing profits at the expense of their workers , by enforcing antitrust laws and encouraging new kinds of labor unions . Governments at all levels should help more people earn college degrees , both four-year degrees ( like B.A. ’ s ) and meaningful vocational degrees .
Other economic research has found that a college degree isn ’ t simply a marker . Students who attend and graduate from college do better in life than otherwise similar students who didn ’ t get the same opportunities . Graduates are more likely to be employed , earn more , marry and stay married , be satisfied with their lives , be healthy and live longer . These findings suggest that college itself — both the classroom learning and the experience of successfully navigating college — brings long-term benefits .
The focus of Case and Deaton ’ s book isn ’ t education , but it lingers as the backdrop to all of their findings . “ This B.A./non-B.A . divide , ” Deaton says , “ just comes up again and again and again . ”
|
When the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton first published their research on “deaths of despair” five years ago, they focused on middle-aged whites. So many white working-class Americans in their 40s and 50s were dying of suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse that the overall mortality rate for the age group was no longer falling – a rare and shocking pattern in a modern society.
But as Case and Deaton continued digging into the data, it became clear that the grim trends didn’t apply only to middle-aged whites. Up and down the age spectrum, deaths of despair have been surging for people without a four-year college degree:
Deaths from alcohol, drugs and suicide 5 per 100K 147 per 100K
In the early 1990s, the number of white adults without a college education who were dying from a drug overdose, alcoholism or suicide was fairly low — and the death rates for younger adults were lower than for older adults. But over the past three decades, deaths of despair among whites without a college degree — especially those under age 50 — have soared. The death rate for whites with a college degree, by contrast, has risen only modestly across all age groups and remains lower for the young than the old.
Case and Deaton — a married couple who are both economists at Princeton — try to explain the causes in a new book, “Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism.” Their basic answer is that working-class life in the United States is more difficult than it is in any other high-income country. “European countries have faced the same kind of technological change we have, and they’re not seeing the people killing themselves with guns or drugs or alcohol,” Case says. “There is something unique about the way the U.S. is handling this.”
More people are dying Number of “deaths of despair” per 100,000 non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Non- college 100 50 College grads 0 1992 ‘96 ‘00 ‘04 ‘08 ‘12 ‘16
Inequality has risen more in the United States — and middle-class incomes have stagnated more severely — than in France, Germany, Japan or elsewhere. Large corporations have increased their market share, and labor unions have shriveled, leaving workers with little bargaining power. Outsourcing has become the norm, which means that executives often see low-wage workers not as colleagues but as expenses.
And the United States suffers from by far the world’s most expensive health-care system. It acts as a tax on workers and drains resources that could otherwise be spent on schools, day care, roads, public transit and more. Despite its unparalleled spending, the American medical system also fails to keep many people healthy.
[Make sense of the news with David’s commentary and reading suggestions every weekday morning. Sign up for his newsletter.]
The two economists initially focused on non-Hispanic whites because the mortality trends were worst for them. Deaths rates from suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse among whites surpassed the rates for blacks shortly after 2000, for example. But the black working class is hardly thriving -- and deaths of despair have surged among them in the last few years. Overall life expectancy remains significantly higher for whites than blacks. So, of course, do incomes and wealth.
Many of the problems afflicting the working class span racial groups, and Case and Deaton emphasize that these problems aren’t merely financial. Life for many middle- and low-income Americans can lack structure, status and meaning. People don’t always know what days or hours they will be working the following week. They often don’t officially work for the company where they spend their days, which robs them of the pride that comes from being part of a shared enterprise.
“Many people used to associate the meaning of their life with what their corporation or institution was doing,” says Deaton, a Nobel laureate in economics. Miners and factory workers identified themselves as such. Warehouse workers, especially those whose paycheck is signed by a staffing company, rarely feel the same connection.
The result of these trends has been a “coming apart,” as Case and Deaton put it, of day-to-day life for whites without a college degree versus those with a college degree:
Marriage rates have diverged Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 currently married 80% College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 80% College grads 70 Non- college 60 50 1980 ‘90 ‘00 ‘10
People without college degrees are also less likely to attend church Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 attending church weekly 30% College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 30% College grads 25 Non- college 20 15 1975 ‘85 ‘95 ‘05 ‘15
Surveys show that a growing number of working-class Americans find it difficult to do basic things, like climb a flight of stairs or socialize, partly because of chronic problems with their mental or physical health:
Chronic pain is more widespread Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 experiencing neck, back or joint pain 60% Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 60% Non- college 50 College grads 40 30 20 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
Many people are also drinking more Average number of drinks (on days when drinking) among non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Non- college 2.5 2.0 College grads 1.5 1.0 1994 ‘98 ‘02 ‘06 ‘10 ‘14
And they are unhappier Share of non-Hispanic whites aged 45-54 who say they are “not too happy these days” Non- college 15% 10 College grads 5 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Non- college 15% 10 College grads 5 0 1975 ‘85 ‘95 ‘05 ‘15
Given all of these alarming social indicators, it’s not surprising that some other causes of death — in addition to suicide, alcoholism and drug overdose — have also started rising for Americans without a college degree. Heart disease is the most significant, exacerbated by obesity, drinking and drug use.
The combined result is a divergence in the life expectancy of white college graduates and non-graduates. Overall mortality for whites between the ages of 45 and 54 has held roughly steady in the last 25 years. But that average hides a big increase in death rates for non-graduates and a big decline for graduates.
What can be done about all of this? Many of the solutions are obvious, if difficult to accomplish. The medical system should be overhauled to put a higher priority on health than on wealth for people who work in the industry, Case and Deaton argue. (And that doesn’t necessarily mean a mandatory version of Medicare, they add.)
The federal government should do a better job of keeping big business from maximizing profits at the expense of their workers, by enforcing antitrust laws and encouraging new kinds of labor unions. Governments at all levels should help more people earn college degrees, both four-year degrees (like B.A.’s) and meaningful vocational degrees.
Other economic research has found that a college degree isn’t simply a marker. Students who attend and graduate from college do better in life than otherwise similar students who didn’t get the same opportunities. Graduates are more likely to be employed, earn more, marry and stay married, be satisfied with their lives, be healthy and live longer. These findings suggest that college itself — both the classroom learning and the experience of successfully navigating college — brings long-term benefits.
The focus of Case and Deaton’s book isn’t education, but it lingers as the backdrop to all of their findings. “This B.A./non-B.A. divide,” Deaton says, “just comes up again and again and again.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
AhWWbSIDihEELMw6
|
healthcare
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/21/senate-ref-flags-key-parts-gop-health-bill-plan/
|
Senate ref flags key parts of GOP health bill plan
|
2017-07-21
|
Tom Howell Jr.
|
Key parts of the Republican health care bill , including defunding Planned Parenthood and barring the use of tax credits for abortion coverage , are not eligible for the fast-track process Republicans are using to prevent a Democratic filibuster , says the Senate ’ s referee , throwing yet another roadblock in front of President Trump ’ s attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare this week .
Already , Republican leaders are struggling to gather enough support from the party ’ s rank and file for their replacement bill or a straightforward repeal of the 2010 law , even though they are leveraging “ budget reconciliation ” rules to carve Democrats out of the process .
In new guidance , the Senate parliamentarian made their task tougher by saying key parts of the plan should require 60 votes to pass , according to Senate Democrats on the Budget Committee .
“ The parliamentarian ’ s decision today proves once again that the process Republicans have undertaken to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 22 million Americans off of health insurance is a disaster , ” Sen. Bernard Sanders , Vermont independent , said after detailing Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ’ s findings on Friday .
Conservatives and advocates have insisted on pro-life language in whatever plan emerges , yet Democrats will not help them get the votes they would need to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding for a year or endorse certain policy changes , such as a continuous coverage provision to replace Obamacare ’ s “ individual mandate . ”
Some conservatives argue that Vice President Mike Pence , as president of the Senate , can overrule the parliamentarian while presiding over the chamber , though many Republicans are leery of making such a bold move .
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , Kentucky Republican , said the parliamentarian ’ s guidance is not a ruling and there is time to tweak the language , though the roadblock further clouds plans to vote Tuesday to take up a House-passed bill , work through amendments and reach for final passage .
A push to debate the latest version of Mr. McConnell ’ s replacement bill ran into opposition from four senators last week , and then three moderate Republicans balked at reviving a 2015 bill that would gut Obamacare but delay its full effect for two years , buying Congress time to come up with an overhaul .
It ’ s unclear whether enough senators will take leadership ’ s advice and vote to act on the bill this week or risk pushing members of the Republican base to link arms with Democrats to block debate .
With Sen. John McCain of Arizona absent because of his sudden cancer diagnosis , Republican leaders can not afford more than one defection and still proceed with the bill or pass a plan .
“ We are going to vote this week , and I think until the vote is actually on the floor of the Senate , some people may not tell you what they ’ re actually going to do , ” Sen. John Barrasso , Wyoming Republican , told CBS ’ “ Face the Nation . “ We all got elected to legislate , and that ’ s why we ’ re here . ”
The White House is imploring senators to start debate so they can throw Obamacare into the dustbin , saying they are just a few votes shy of fulfilling their seven-year promise .
“ ObamaCare is dead and the Democrats are obstructionists , no ideas or votes , only obstruction . It is solely up to the 52 Republican Senators ! ” Mr. Trump said on Twitter .
Some moderate Republicans are calling for a do-over , saying it ’ s best to rope in Democrats as they struggle to pass the replacement bill , which leaders wrote behind closed doors .
Sen. Susan M. Collins , Maine Republican , said senators don ’ t even know which path will take precedent if they take up the bill to repeal Obamacare and begin a marathon round of amendments .
“ We don ’ t know whether we ’ re going to be voting on the House bill , the first version of the Senate bill , the second version of the Senate bill , a new version of the Senate bill or a 2015 bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act now and then said that somehow we ’ ll figure out a replacement over the next two years , ” she told CBS . “ I don ’ t think that ’ s a good approach to facing legislation that affects millions of people and one-sixth of our economy . ”
From the sidelines , senior Democrats warned Republican leaders not to try to buy off wavering moderates after the parliamentarian raised the vote threshold for the “ Buffalo bailout ” — a part of the House bill that limited New York state ’ s ability to force counties to contribute to the Medicaid program . The measure pulled in votes from moderate House Republicans in upstate New York .
“ This will greatly tie the majority leader ’ s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions . We will challenge every one of them , ” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , New York Democrat .
The biggest political victims of the scrubbing process , or “ Byrd bath , ” were defunding Planned Parenthood and the prohibition on using tax credits to buy plans that cover abortion . Stripping out the pro-life language would be a major sticking point and could imperil passage , particularly when the House revisits the plan .
Ms. MacDonough also flagged a provision that would lock consumers out of the market for six months if they experience a significant lapse in coverage and want to buy health insurance again , Mr. Sanders said .
Republicans included the provision to replace Obamacare ’ s individual mandate , which requires Americans to have coverage or pay a tax and serves as the main prod to get healthy people into the marketplace .
Ms. MacDonough said other aspects of the Republican plan , including work requirements for Medicaid recipients and the repeal of “ cost sharing ” reimbursements in 2020 , could pass on a majority-line vote .
Other provisions in the Republican plan , such as one that would allow states to waive certain Obamacare regulations for insurers , remain under review .
The parliamentarian did not vet a plan by Sen. Ted Cruz , Texas Republican , that would let insurers offer plans that do not comply with Obamacare ’ s coverage requirements as long as they also sell plans that do , presumably because the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the plan .
Mr. Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee , Utah Republican , argue that including a version of the “ freedom ” amendment would drive down premiums for healthier consumers , though analysts say the idea would segment the marketplace , driving up costs for sicker consumers .
|
Key parts of the Republican health care bill, including defunding Planned Parenthood and barring the use of tax credits for abortion coverage, are not eligible for the fast-track process Republicans are using to prevent a Democratic filibuster, says the Senate’s referee, throwing yet another roadblock in front of President Trump’s attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare this week.
Already, Republican leaders are struggling to gather enough support from the party’s rank and file for their replacement bill or a straightforward repeal of the 2010 law, even though they are leveraging “budget reconciliation” rules to carve Democrats out of the process.
In new guidance, the Senate parliamentarian made their task tougher by saying key parts of the plan should require 60 votes to pass, according to Senate Democrats on the Budget Committee.
“The parliamentarian’s decision today proves once again that the process Republicans have undertaken to repeal the Affordable Care Act and throw 22 million Americans off of health insurance is a disaster,” Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, said after detailing Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s findings on Friday.
Conservatives and advocates have insisted on pro-life language in whatever plan emerges, yet Democrats will not help them get the votes they would need to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding for a year or endorse certain policy changes, such as a continuous coverage provision to replace Obamacare’s “individual mandate.”
Some conservatives argue that Vice President Mike Pence, as president of the Senate, can overrule the parliamentarian while presiding over the chamber, though many Republicans are leery of making such a bold move.
The office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said the parliamentarian’s guidance is not a ruling and there is time to tweak the language, though the roadblock further clouds plans to vote Tuesday to take up a House-passed bill, work through amendments and reach for final passage.
A push to debate the latest version of Mr. McConnell’s replacement bill ran into opposition from four senators last week, and then three moderate Republicans balked at reviving a 2015 bill that would gut Obamacare but delay its full effect for two years, buying Congress time to come up with an overhaul.
It’s unclear whether enough senators will take leadership’s advice and vote to act on the bill this week or risk pushing members of the Republican base to link arms with Democrats to block debate.
With Sen. John McCain of Arizona absent because of his sudden cancer diagnosis, Republican leaders cannot afford more than one defection and still proceed with the bill or pass a plan.
“We are going to vote this week, and I think until the vote is actually on the floor of the Senate, some people may not tell you what they’re actually going to do,” Sen. John Barrasso, Wyoming Republican, told CBS’ “Face the Nation. “We all got elected to legislate, and that’s why we’re here.”
The White House is imploring senators to start debate so they can throw Obamacare into the dustbin, saying they are just a few votes shy of fulfilling their seven-year promise.
“ObamaCare is dead and the Democrats are obstructionists, no ideas or votes, only obstruction. It is solely up to the 52 Republican Senators!” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.
Some moderate Republicans are calling for a do-over, saying it’s best to rope in Democrats as they struggle to pass the replacement bill, which leaders wrote behind closed doors.
Sen. Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, said senators don’t even know which path will take precedent if they take up the bill to repeal Obamacare and begin a marathon round of amendments.
“We don’t know whether we’re going to be voting on the House bill, the first version of the Senate bill, the second version of the Senate bill, a new version of the Senate bill or a 2015 bill that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act now and then said that somehow we’ll figure out a replacement over the next two years,” she told CBS. “I don’t think that’s a good approach to facing legislation that affects millions of people and one-sixth of our economy.”
From the sidelines, senior Democrats warned Republican leaders not to try to buy off wavering moderates after the parliamentarian raised the vote threshold for the “Buffalo bailout” — a part of the House bill that limited New York state’s ability to force counties to contribute to the Medicaid program. The measure pulled in votes from moderate House Republicans in upstate New York.
“This will greatly tie the majority leader’s hands as he tries to win over reluctant Republicans with state-specific provisions. We will challenge every one of them,” said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.
The biggest political victims of the scrubbing process, or “Byrd bath,” were defunding Planned Parenthood and the prohibition on using tax credits to buy plans that cover abortion. Stripping out the pro-life language would be a major sticking point and could imperil passage, particularly when the House revisits the plan.
Ms. MacDonough also flagged a provision that would lock consumers out of the market for six months if they experience a significant lapse in coverage and want to buy health insurance again, Mr. Sanders said.
Republicans included the provision to replace Obamacare’s individual mandate, which requires Americans to have coverage or pay a tax and serves as the main prod to get healthy people into the marketplace.
Ms. MacDonough said other aspects of the Republican plan, including work requirements for Medicaid recipients and the repeal of “cost sharing” reimbursements in 2020, could pass on a majority-line vote.
Other provisions in the Republican plan, such as one that would allow states to waive certain Obamacare regulations for insurers, remain under review.
The parliamentarian did not vet a plan by Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, that would let insurers offer plans that do not comply with Obamacare’s coverage requirements as long as they also sell plans that do, presumably because the Congressional Budget Office has not yet scored the plan.
Mr. Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican, argue that including a version of the “freedom” amendment would drive down premiums for healthier consumers, though analysts say the idea would segment the marketplace, driving up costs for sicker consumers.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
rj8oJuwcitOyfmdF
|
politics
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trumps-war-on-megyn-kelly-121171.html?hp=t1_r
|
Donald Trump's war on Megyn Kelly
|
2015-08-07
|
Ben Schreckinger, "Michael DAntonio"
|
Donald Trump is once again pushing the limit , bringing Megyn Kelly ’ s anatomy into a feud that had already opened him to charges of sexism — and the risk of losing support among the Fox News anchor ’ s rabid following .
After a day of escalating hostility , Trump took his attacks on Kelly to the next level on Friday night , apparently insinuating that the moderator had been menstruating when she questioned him during Thursday ’ s first Republican debate .
“ You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes , blood coming out of her — wherever , ” he told anchor Don Lemon during an appearance on CNN .
The crudeness of the comment sparked an immediate flurry of rebukes , including from RedState.com ’ s Erick Erickson , who revoked an invitation for Trump to speak at his Saturday conference on the grounds that it showed he wasn ’ t a “ legitimate ” candidate .
On Saturday morning , Trump appeared to tweet a clarification of his previous remark : “ Re Megyn Kelly quote : ‘ you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes , blood coming out of her wherever ’ ( NOSE ) . Just got on w/thought . ”
He also released a statement lashing Erickson and the decision to exclude him . “ … not only is Erick a total loser , he has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns so it is an honor to be uninvited from his event . Mr. Trump is an outsider and does not fit his agenda . ”
Nevertheless , Trump was a hot topic of conversation at the RedState event . Speaking there , Republican 2016 candidate Mike Huckabee said , “ The Republican Party is not engaged in a war on women , the Republican Party is not engaged in saying things about Megyn Kelly , ” he said . “ One individual is . ”
Carly Fiorina , the only female Republican presidential candidate in the race , took to Twitter to condemn Trump .
“ Mr . Trump . There . Is . No . Excuse , ” she wrote . “ I stand with @ megynkelly . ”
In a tweet sent Saturday , Gov . Scott Walker also repeated the “ stand with @ megynkelly ” line , adding , “ There ’ s no excuse for Trump ’ s comments . ”
Gov . John Kasich tweeted a statement , saying , “ Everyone deserves respect and dignity , whether they agree with you or not . You don ’ t tear people down just because they disagree with you or stand up to you or question you . ”
In a statement , Sen. Lindsey Graham said , “ I applaud Erik [ sic ] Erickson for doing the right thing when he disinvited Donald Trump from a gathering of Republican activists . As a party , we are better to risk losing without Donald Trump than trying to win with him . Enough already with Mr. Trump . ”
Also in a statement , Sen. Rand Paul called Trump ’ s statements “ inappropriate and offensive . ”
And then there was the nature of the target itself . Unlike undocumented immigrants , John McCain or Rosie O ’ Donnell , the Fox News anchor enjoys a huge following among the network ’ s viewers , who happen to make up the core of the Republican primary electorate . So picking a fight with Kelly — as Trump did when he chided her during a tough debate question about insults he ’ s lobbed at women , dissed her in the spin room , and tweeted his complaints about her — carries risks that Trump ’ s other feuds do not .
So does making such a gendered attack on a journalist at a time when his party is battling the perception that it ’ s waging a “ war on women . ”
But if Trump world is worried about taking on the only person who might be more popular with the Republican base than their boss is right now , they ’ re not showing it .
Trump ’ s campaign manager , Corey Lewandowski , maintained that the mogul ’ s willingness to take on Kelly makes him the kind of equal-opportunity brawler Republicans will need next fall .
“ If the Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton , then you would want a strong person to stand up to make America great again , ” he said earlier on Friday , before the “ blood ” comment .
Trump political adviser Roger Stone sounded a slightly more cautious note . “ Certainly Fox reaches a disproportionate number of Republican primary voters , ” he said , adding that as of Friday afternoon he hadn ’ t yet sorted out his thoughts about the matter .
Stone said Trump was satisfied with his debate performance when the two conferred last night . And Stone offered a positive assessment , if not a ringing endorsement , of his boss ’ s performance . “ He held his own . He was fine . He made all his key points . ”
But Trump and his associates clearly had a bone to pick after a debate in which Fox ’ s moderators , especially Kelly , trained some of their toughest questions on the controversial front-runner . Trump ’ s annoyance showed during the debate when he told her , “ I ’ ve been very nice to you , although I could probably maybe not be , based on the way you have treated me ” in response to a question about his name-calling of women ( which he joked he ’ d only ever done to his longtime Twitter nemesis O ’ Donnell ) . After the debate , Trump said Kelly “ behaved very nasty to me . ”
In the early morning hours on Friday , his Twitter account tweeted that Kelly was “ not very good or professional ” and retweeted anti-Kelly tweets from supporters , including one calling her a “ bimbo . ”
Trump ’ s deputy and surrogate , Michael Cohen , retweeted a tweet from a Trump fan ( @ hawaiiluvstrump ) after the debate that included the hashtag “ boycottmegynkelly ” and the message “ we can gut her . ”
Cohen told ███ that he does not believe the tweet implied any sort of physical violence but did not back down from his beef with Kelly . “ It is interesting to note that the only attacks against Mr. Trump last night came from the moderators , ” Cohen said in a statement . “ It appeared to all viewers that it was a coordinated effort . Megyn Kelly clearly tried the hardest and failed as Mr. Trump has been deemed the winner of last night ’ s debate by multiple polls and media outlets . ”
Because he works for Trump Enterprises , rather than the campaign , Cohen said that his being in conflict with Kelly shouldn ’ t affect Trump ’ s political fortunes . “ It doesn ’ t matter if I am or I ’ m not , ” he said .
Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray told ███ after Thursday ’ s debate that Trump ’ s back-and-forth with Kelly , in which he dismissed her question about insults lobbed at women as “ political correctness , ” could end up hurting him with female Republican primary voters , a group he is currently winning , though by a smaller margin than he ’ s winning men .
And despite the negative reaction of a focus group convened for Fox News by Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz to Trump ’ s interactions with Kelly , as well as his refusal to pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee , there were indications that his trademark Trump bluster continued to play well with important Republican constituencies .
( Trump tweeted that Luntz “ is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest . Now he picks anti-Trump panels ! ” In a statement , Luntz told ███ , “ I really enjoy him . I respect him , I respect his success as a businessman , and I respect his ability to tap into the genuine frustrations of the American people . His performance last night was Trump being Trump — and so are his attacks today. ” An aide to Luntz said the messaging guru did not believe Trump himself was responsible for the “ bimbo ” retweet about Kelly : “ We talked about that and agreed that one of his staffers had to have tweeted that she ’ s a bimbo . Even he wouldn ’ t use that word about her . ” )
Attendees who gathered to watch the debate from the RedState summit of conservative activists in Atlanta cheered Trump ’ s performance and a highly unscientific reader poll on the Drudge Report , the news aggregation site beloved by conservatives , gave Trump an overwhelming victory in the debate , with 45 percent of respondents — more than 250,000 people as of Friday afternoon — saying he won , compared with 14 percent for the second-place Ted Cruz .
|
Donald Trump is once again pushing the limit, bringing Megyn Kelly’s anatomy into a feud that had already opened him to charges of sexism — and the risk of losing support among the Fox News anchor’s rabid following.
After a day of escalating hostility, Trump took his attacks on Kelly to the next level on Friday night, apparently insinuating that the moderator had been menstruating when she questioned him during Thursday’s first Republican debate.
Story Continued Below
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever,” he told anchor Don Lemon during an appearance on CNN.
The crudeness of the comment sparked an immediate flurry of rebukes, including from RedState.com’s Erick Erickson, who revoked an invitation for Trump to speak at his Saturday conference on the grounds that it showed he wasn’t a “legitimate” candidate.
On Saturday morning, Trump appeared to tweet a clarification of his previous remark: “Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE). Just got on w/thought.”
He also released a statement lashing Erickson and the decision to exclude him. “… not only is Erick a total loser, he has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns so it is an honor to be uninvited from his event. Mr. Trump is an outsider and does not fit his agenda.”
Nevertheless, Trump was a hot topic of conversation at the RedState event. Speaking there, Republican 2016 candidate Mike Huckabee said, “The Republican Party is not engaged in a war on women, the Republican Party is not engaged in saying things about Megyn Kelly,” he said. “One individual is.”
Carly Fiorina, the only female Republican presidential candidate in the race, took to Twitter to condemn Trump.
“Mr. Trump. There. Is. No. Excuse,” she wrote. “I stand with @megynkelly.”
In a tweet sent Saturday, Gov. Scott Walker also repeated the “stand with @megynkelly” line, adding, “There’s no excuse for Trump’s comments.”
Gov. John Kasich tweeted a statement, saying, “Everyone deserves respect and dignity, whether they agree with you or not. You don’t tear people down just because they disagree with you or stand up to you or question you.”
In a statement, Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “I applaud Erik [sic] Erickson for doing the right thing when he disinvited Donald Trump from a gathering of Republican activists. As a party, we are better to risk losing without Donald Trump than trying to win with him. Enough already with Mr. Trump.”
Also in a statement, Sen. Rand Paul called Trump’s statements “inappropriate and offensive.”
And then there was the nature of the target itself. Unlike undocumented immigrants, John McCain or Rosie O’Donnell, the Fox News anchor enjoys a huge following among the network’s viewers, who happen to make up the core of the Republican primary electorate. So picking a fight with Kelly — as Trump did when he chided her during a tough debate question about insults he’s lobbed at women, dissed her in the spin room, and tweeted his complaints about her — carries risks that Trump’s other feuds do not.
So does making such a gendered attack on a journalist at a time when his party is battling the perception that it’s waging a “war on women.”
But if Trump world is worried about taking on the only person who might be more popular with the Republican base than their boss is right now, they’re not showing it.
Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, maintained that the mogul’s willingness to take on Kelly makes him the kind of equal-opportunity brawler Republicans will need next fall.
“If the Democratic nominee is going to be Hillary Clinton, then you would want a strong person to stand up to make America great again,” he said earlier on Friday, before the “blood” comment.
Trump political adviser Roger Stone sounded a slightly more cautious note. “Certainly Fox reaches a disproportionate number of Republican primary voters,” he said, adding that as of Friday afternoon he hadn’t yet sorted out his thoughts about the matter.
Stone said Trump was satisfied with his debate performance when the two conferred last night. And Stone offered a positive assessment, if not a ringing endorsement, of his boss’s performance. “He held his own. He was fine. He made all his key points.”
But Trump and his associates clearly had a bone to pick after a debate in which Fox’s moderators, especially Kelly, trained some of their toughest questions on the controversial front-runner. Trump’s annoyance showed during the debate when he told her, “I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me” in response to a question about his name-calling of women (which he joked he’d only ever done to his longtime Twitter nemesis O’Donnell). After the debate, Trump said Kelly “behaved very nasty to me.”
It only devolved from there.
In the early morning hours on Friday, his Twitter account tweeted that Kelly was “not very good or professional”and retweeted anti-Kelly tweets from supporters, including one calling her a “bimbo.”
Trump’s deputy and surrogate, Michael Cohen, retweeted a tweet from a Trump fan (@hawaiiluvstrump) after the debate that included the hashtag “boycottmegynkelly” and the message “we can gut her.”
Cohen told POLITICO that he does not believe the tweet implied any sort of physical violence but did not back down from his beef with Kelly. “It is interesting to note that the only attacks against Mr. Trump last night came from the moderators,” Cohen said in a statement. “It appeared to all viewers that it was a coordinated effort. Megyn Kelly clearly tried the hardest and failed as Mr. Trump has been deemed the winner of last night’s debate by multiple polls and media outlets.”
Because he works for Trump Enterprises, rather than the campaign, Cohen said that his being in conflict with Kelly shouldn’t affect Trump’s political fortunes. “It doesn’t matter if I am or I’m not,” he said.
Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray told POLITICO after Thursday’s debate that Trump’s back-and-forth with Kelly, in which he dismissed her question about insults lobbed at women as “political correctness,” could end up hurting him with female Republican primary voters, a group he is currently winning, though by a smaller margin than he’s winning men.
And despite the negative reaction of a focus group convened for Fox News by Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz to Trump’s interactions with Kelly, as well as his refusal to pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, there were indications that his trademark Trump bluster continued to play well with important Republican constituencies.
(Trump tweeted that Luntz “is a low class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels!” In a statement, Luntz told POLITICO, “I really enjoy him. I respect him, I respect his success as a businessman, and I respect his ability to tap into the genuine frustrations of the American people. His performance last night was Trump being Trump — and so are his attacks today.” An aide to Luntz said the messaging guru did not believe Trump himself was responsible for the “bimbo” retweet about Kelly: “We talked about that and agreed that one of his staffers had to have tweeted that she’s a bimbo. Even he wouldn’t use that word about her.”)
Attendees who gathered to watch the debate from the RedState summit of conservative activists in Atlanta cheered Trump’s performance and a highly unscientific reader poll on the Drudge Report, the news aggregation site beloved by conservatives, gave Trump an overwhelming victory in the debate, with 45 percent of respondents — more than 250,000 people as of Friday afternoon — saying he won, compared with 14 percent for the second-place Ted Cruz.
Katie Glueck contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
e4wjw90GiRzIxRBt
|
national_security
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43295989
|
Trump-Russia: Former aide Nunberg wavers over defying Mueller inquiry
|
A US lawmaker investigating alleged Russian election meddling says an ex-Trump aide should testify on wild claims he has made about the president .
Mr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware of a 2016 meeting between his aides and a Russian lawyer , and may have `` done something '' during the campaign .
Democrat Adam Schiff responded by saying his congressional panel `` needs to explore '' Mr Nunberg 's allegation .
Mr Nunberg is the latest figure to become embroiled in the Russia inquiry .
`` Certainly if Mr Nunberg has light to shed about what the president knew about the Trump Tower meeting , we would like to find out , '' Mr Schiff said , referring to his House Intelligence Committee 's investigation on Monday night .
US President Donald Trump has denied any knowledge of that meeting , which has become a central focus of a separate inquiry by special counsel Robert Mueller into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin .
Congressman Mike Conway , who serves as leading chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , dismissed the idea of calling Mr Nunberg to testify , saying of the Trump Tower meeting : `` I think we 've pretty much explored that to death . ''
Mr Nunberg told the New York Daily News on Tuesday he is contemplating seeking treatment for alcohol abuse , a day after his extraordinary series of interviews on live television .
He complained to US media on Monday about being asked to share his email conversations with a long list of ex-campaign aides in response to a subpoena from Mr Mueller 's team .
The political operative , who helped launch Donald Trump 's presidential campaign before losing his job in 2015 , said in a round of media interviews at first he would not comply with Mr Mueller 's demand to testify before a grand jury .
But he later told the Associated Press he would probably end up complying .
`` I think it would be really , really funny if they wanted to arrest me because I do n't want to spend 80 hours going over emails , '' he told MSNBC .
While he thought investigators believed they had something on Mr Trump , he argued that the subpoena was unfair and added he would like Robert Mueller 's team to narrow its scope of inquiry .
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders would not be drawn on Mr Nunberg 's remarks , saying : `` I 'm not going to weigh in on somebody that does n't work at the White House . ''
Sam Nunberg worked on the Trump campaign in 2015 until he was fired in August that year over racially charged Facebook posts .
He was later sued by Mr Trump for $ 10m ( £7.2m ) for breach of confidentiality .
The lawsuit was `` amicably settled '' out of court , a lawyer for the Trump Organization said at the time .
Mr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware at the time of a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower when a group of Russians offered his campaign staff damaging information about Hillary Clinton .
`` You know he knew about it , '' Mr Nunberg told CNN . `` He was talking about it a week before . I do n't know why he went around trying to hide it . ''
The White House has repeatedly denied Mr Trump knew anything about that meeting .
During Monday 's interviews with US media , Mr Nunberg said he had met Mr Mueller 's team for five-and-a-half hours over the weekend .
He said he would not appear before a grand jury to testify on Friday .
`` I 'm not co-operating . Arrest me , '' Mr Nunberg said on live television . `` You want to arrest me ? Arrest me . ''
At times during the interviews , Mr Nunberg appeared to contradict himself .
He said : `` Trump may very well have done something during the election with the Russians . If he did that , I do n't know . ''
But Mr Nunberg also told CNN 's Jake Tapper : `` It 's the biggest joke to ever think Donald Trump colluded with the Russians . ''
|
Image copyright EPA Image caption Sam Nunberg worked on the Trump campaign in 2015 until he was fired in August that year
A US lawmaker investigating alleged Russian election meddling says an ex-Trump aide should testify on wild claims he has made about the president.
Mr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware of a 2016 meeting between his aides and a Russian lawyer, and may have "done something" during the campaign.
Democrat Adam Schiff responded by saying his congressional panel "needs to explore" Mr Nunberg's allegation.
Mr Nunberg is the latest figure to become embroiled in the Russia inquiry.
"Certainly if Mr Nunberg has light to shed about what the president knew about the Trump Tower meeting, we would like to find out," Mr Schiff said, referring to his House Intelligence Committee's investigation on Monday night.
US President Donald Trump has denied any knowledge of that meeting, which has become a central focus of a separate inquiry by special counsel Robert Mueller into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.
Congressman Mike Conway, who serves as leading chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, dismissed the idea of calling Mr Nunberg to testify, saying of the Trump Tower meeting: "I think we've pretty much explored that to death."
Mr Nunberg told the New York Daily News on Tuesday he is contemplating seeking treatment for alcohol abuse, a day after his extraordinary series of interviews on live television.
He complained to US media on Monday about being asked to share his email conversations with a long list of ex-campaign aides in response to a subpoena from Mr Mueller's team.
The political operative, who helped launch Donald Trump's presidential campaign before losing his job in 2015, said in a round of media interviews at first he would not comply with Mr Mueller's demand to testify before a grand jury.
But he later told the Associated Press he would probably end up complying.
"I think it would be really, really funny if they wanted to arrest me because I don't want to spend 80 hours going over emails," he told MSNBC.
While he thought investigators believed they had something on Mr Trump, he argued that the subpoena was unfair and added he would like Robert Mueller's team to narrow its scope of inquiry.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Special Counsel Robert Mueller is leading the investigation that hangs over the Trump presidency
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders would not be drawn on Mr Nunberg's remarks, saying: "I'm not going to weigh in on somebody that doesn't work at the White House."
Who is Nunberg?
Sam Nunberg worked on the Trump campaign in 2015 until he was fired in August that year over racially charged Facebook posts.
He was later sued by Mr Trump for $10m (£7.2m) for breach of confidentiality.
The lawsuit was "amicably settled" out of court, a lawyer for the Trump Organization said at the time.
'He knew' about Trump Tower meeting
Mr Nunberg said Mr Trump was aware at the time of a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower when a group of Russians offered his campaign staff damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
"You know he knew about it," Mr Nunberg told CNN. "He was talking about it a week before. I don't know why he went around trying to hide it."
The White House has repeatedly denied Mr Trump knew anything about that meeting.
'Arrest me'
During Monday's interviews with US media, Mr Nunberg said he had met Mr Mueller's team for five-and-a-half hours over the weekend.
He said he would not appear before a grand jury to testify on Friday.
"I'm not co-operating. Arrest me," Mr Nunberg said on live television. "You want to arrest me? Arrest me."
'They suspect something'
At times during the interviews, Mr Nunberg appeared to contradict himself.
He said: "Trump may very well have done something during the election with the Russians. If he did that, I don't know."
But Mr Nunberg also told CNN's Jake Tapper: "It's the biggest joke to ever think Donald Trump colluded with the Russians."
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
LbpAchzNhVEaV83A
|
||
bridging_divides
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/1/4/17989224/intellectual-humility-explained-psychology-replication
|
Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
|
1/4/19
|
Brian Resnick, Illustrations Javier Zarracina
|
Share All sharing options for : Intellectual humility : the importance of knowing you might be wrong
Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists . A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly , willingly admit it when they are wrong .
To do this , she , along with some colleagues , started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project . It ’ s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings . The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence . And it ’ s accepting submissions until January 31 .
“ I do think it ’ s a cultural issue that people are not willing to admit mistakes , ” Rohrer says . “ Our broader goal is to gently nudge the whole scientific system and psychology toward a different culture , ” where it ’ s okay , normalized , and expected for researchers to admit past mistakes and not get penalized for it .
The project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven , or become more doubtful , in recent years . One high-profile effort to retest 100 psychological experiments found only 40 percent replicated with more rigorous methods . It ’ s been a painful period for social scientists , who ’ ve had to deal with failed replications of classic studies and realize their research practices are often weak .
“ Not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition ”
It ’ s been fascinating to watch scientists struggle to make their institutions more humble . And I believe there ’ s an important and underappreciated virtue embedded in this process .
For the past few months , I ’ ve been talking to many scholars about intellectual humility , the characteristic that allows for admission of wrongness .
I ’ ve come to appreciate what a crucial tool it is for learning , especially in an increasingly interconnected and complicated world . As technology makes it easier to lie and spread false information incredibly quickly , we need intellectually humble , curious people .
I ’ ve also realized how difficult it is to foster intellectual humility . In my reporting on this , I ’ ve learned there are three main challenges on the path to humility :
In order for us to acquire more intellectual humility , we all , even the smartest among us , need to better appreciate our cognitive blind spots . Our minds are more imperfect and imprecise than we ’ d often like to admit . Our ignorance can be invisible . Even when we overcome that immense challenge and figure out our errors , we need to remember we won ’ t necessarily be punished for saying , “ I was wrong. ” And we need to be braver about saying it . We need a culture that celebrates those words . We ’ ll never achieve perfect intellectual humility . So we need to choose our convictions thoughtfully .
This is all to say : Intellectual humility isn ’ t easy . But damn , it ’ s a virtue worth striving for , and failing for , in this new year .
Intellectual humility is simply “ the recognition that the things you believe in might in fact be wrong , ” as Mark Leary , a social and personality psychologist at Duke University , tells me .
But don ’ t confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness . It ’ s not about being a pushover ; it ’ s not about lacking confidence , or self-esteem . The intellectually humble don ’ t cave every time their thoughts are challenged .
Instead , it ’ s a method of thinking . It ’ s about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others . Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots . One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method , where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis , attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion . It ’ s about asking : What am I missing here ?
It doesn ’ t require a high IQ or a particular skill set . It does , however , require making a habit of thinking about your limits , which can be painful . “ It ’ s a process of monitoring your own confidence , ” Leary says .
When I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance , I can ’ t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling
This idea is older than social psychology . Philosophers from the earliest days have grappled with the limits of human knowledge . Michel de Montaigne , the 16th-century French philosopher credited with inventing the essay , wrote that “ the plague of man is boasting of his knowledge . ”
Social psychologists have learned that humility is associated with other valuable character traits : People who score higher on intellectual humility questionnaires are more open to hearing opposing views . They more readily seek out information that conflicts with their worldview . They pay more attention to evidence and have a stronger self-awareness when they answer a question incorrectly .
When you ask the intellectually arrogant if they ’ ve heard of bogus historical events like “ Hamrick ’ s Rebellion , ” they ’ ll say , “ Sure. ” The intellectually humble are less likely to do so . Studies have found that cognitive reflection — i.e. , analytic thinking — is correlated with being better able to discern fake news stories from real ones . These studies haven ’ t looked at intellectual humility per se , but it ’ s plausible there ’ s an overlap .
Most important of all , the intellectually humble are more likely to admit it when they are wrong . When we admit we ’ re wrong , we can grow closer to the truth .
One reason I ’ ve been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president , Donald Trump , is one of the least humble people on the planet .
It was Trump who said on the night of his nomination , “ I alone can fix it , ” with the “ it ” being our entire political system . It was Trump who once said , “ I have one of the great memories of all time. ” More recently , Trump told the Associated Press , “ I have a natural instinct for science , ” in dodging a question on climate change .
A frustration I feel about Trump and the era of history he represents is that his pride and his success — he is among the most powerful people on earth — seem to be related . He exemplifies how our society rewards confidence and bluster , not truthfulness .
Yet we ’ ve also seen some very high-profile examples lately of how overconfident leadership can be ruinous for companies . Look at what happened to Theranos , a company that promised to change the way blood samples are drawn . It was all hype , all bluster , and it collapsed . Or consider Enron ’ s overconfident executives , who were often hailed for their intellectual brilliance — they ran the company into the ground with risky , suspect financial decisions .
The problem with arrogance is that the truth always catches up . Trump may be president and confident in his denials of climate change , but the changes to our environment will still ruin so many things in the future .
Why it ’ s so hard to see our blind spots : “ Our ignorance is invisible to us ”
As I ’ ve been reading the psychological research on intellectual humility and the character traits it correlates with , I can ’ t help but fume : Why can ’ t more people be like this ?
We need more intellectual humility for two reasons . One is that our culture promotes and rewards overconfidence and arrogance ( think Trump and Theranos , or the advice your career counselor gave you when going into job interviews ) . At the same time , when we are wrong — out of ignorance or error — and realize it , our culture doesn ’ t make it easy to admit it . Humbling moments too easily can turn into moments of humiliation .
So how can we promote intellectual humility for both of these conditions ?
In asking that question of researchers and scholars , I ’ ve learned to appreciate how hard a challenge it is to foster intellectual humility .
First off , I think it ’ s helpful to remember how flawed the human brain can be and how prone we all are to intellectual blind spots . When you learn about how the brain actually works , how it actually perceives the world , it ’ s hard not to be a bit horrified , and a bit humbled .
We often can ’ t see — or even sense — what we don ’ t know . It helps to realize that it ’ s normal and human to be wrong .
It ’ s rare that a viral meme also provides a surprisingly deep lesson on the imperfect nature of the human mind . But believe it or not , the great “ Yanny or Laurel ” debate of 2018 fits the bill .
For the very few of you who didn ’ t catch it — I hope you ’ re recovering nicely from that coma — here ’ s what happened .
An audio clip ( you can hear it below ) says the name “ Laurel ” in a robotic voice . Or does it ? Some people hear the clip and immediately hear “ Yanny. ” And both sets of people — Team Yanny and Team Laurel — are indeed hearing the same thing .
What do you hear ? ! Yanny or Laurel pic.twitter.com/jvHhCbMc8I — Cloe Feldman ( @ CloeCouture ) May 15 , 2018
Hearing , the perception of sound , ought to be a simple thing for our brains to do . That so many people can listen to the same clip and hear such different things should give us humbling pause . Hearing “ Yanny ” or “ Laurel ” in any given moment ultimately depends on a whole host of factors : the quality of the speakers you ’ re using , whether you have hearing loss , your expectations .
Here ’ s the deep lesson to draw from all of this : Much as we might tell ourselves our experience of the world is the truth , our reality will always be an interpretation . Light enters our eyes , sound waves enter our ears , chemicals waft into our noses , and it ’ s up to our brains to make a guess about what it all is .
“ The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don ’ t know you ’ re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club ”
Perceptual tricks like this ( “ the dress ” is another one ) reveal that our perceptions are not the absolute truth , that the physical phenomena of the universe are indifferent to whether our feeble sensory organs can perceive them correctly . We ’ re just guessing . Yet these phenomena leave us indignant : How could it be that our perception of the world isn ’ t the only one ?
That sense of indignation is called naive realism : the feeling that our perception of the world is the truth . “ I think we sometimes confuse effortlessness with accuracy , ” Chris Chabris , a psychological researcher who co-authored a book on the challenges of human perception , tells me . When something is so immediate and effortless to us — hearing the sound of “ Yanny ” — it just feels true . ( Similarly , psychologists find when a lie is repeated , it ’ s more likely to be misremembered as being true , and for a similar reason : When you ’ re hearing something for the second or third time , your brain becomes faster to respond to it . And that fluency is confused with truth . )
Our interpretations of reality are often arbitrary , but we ’ re still stubborn about them . Nonetheless , the same observations can lead to wildly different conclusions .
Different scientific models can have equivalent observational consequences . In # statistics , this is known as statistical equivalence ; in the philosophy of science , underdetermination of theory by # data . This GIF is a really good ( and beautiful ) # dataviz.https : //t.co/7P8wjdAjgO pic.twitter.com/eLTREWzh7F — Talia Bronshtein ( @ ininteraction ) December 7 , 2018
For every sense and every component of human judgment , there are illusions and ambiguities we interpret arbitrarily .
Some are gravely serious . White people often perceive black men to be bigger , taller , and more muscular ( and therefore more threatening ) than they really are . That ’ s racial bias — but it ’ s also a socially constructed illusion . When we ’ re taught or learn to fear other people , our brains distort their potential threat . They seem more menacing , and we want to build walls around them . When we learn or are taught that other people are less than human , we ’ re less likely to look upon them kindly and more likely to be okay when violence is committed against them .
Not only are our interpretations of the world often arbitrary , but we ’ re often overconfident in them . “ Our ignorance is invisible to us , ” David Dunning , an expert on human blind spots , says .
You might recognize his name as half of the psychological phenomenon that bears his name : the Dunning-Kruger effect . That ’ s where people of low ability — let ’ s say , those who fail to understand logic puzzles — tend to unduly overestimate their abilities . Inexperience masquerades as expertise .
An irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that so many people misinterpret it , are overconfident in their understanding of it , and get it wrong .
When people talk or write about the Dunning-Kruger effect , it ’ s almost always in reference to other people . “ The fact is this is a phenomenon that visits all of us sooner or later , ” Dunning says . We ’ re all overconfident in our ignorance from time to time . ( Perhaps related : Some 65 percent of Americans believe they ’ re more intelligent than average , which is wishful thinking . )
Similarly , we ’ re overconfident in our ability to remember . Human memory is extremely malleable , prone to small changes . When we remember , we don ’ t wind back our minds to a certain time and relive that exact moment , yet many of us think our memories work like a videotape .
Dunning hopes his work helps people understand that “ not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition , ” he says . “ But the problem with it is we see it in other people , and we don ’ t see it in ourselves . The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don ’ t know you ’ re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club . ”
People are unlikely to judge you harshly for admitting you ’ re wrong
In 2012 , psychologist Will Gervais scored an honor any PhD science student would covet : a co-authored paper in the journal Science , one of the top interdisciplinary scientific journals in the world . Publishing in Science doesn ’ t just help a researcher rise up in academic circles ; it often gets them a lot of media attention too .
One of the experiments in the paper tried to see if getting people to think more rationally would make them less willing to report religious beliefs . They had people look at a picture of Rodin ’ s The Thinker or another statue . They thought The Thinker would nudge people to think harder , more analytically . In this more rational frame of mind , then , the participants would be less likely to endorse believing in something as faith-based and invisible as religion , and that ’ s what the study found . It was catnip for science journalists : one small trick to change the way we think .
“ How would I know if I was wrong ? ” is actually a really , really hard question to answer
But it was a tiny , small-sample study , the exact type that is prone to yielding false positives . Several years later , another lab attempted to replicate the findings with a much larger sample size , and failed to find any evidence for the effect .
And while Gervais knew that the original study wasn ’ t rigorous , he couldn ’ t help but feel a twinge of discomfort .
“ Intellectually , I could say the original data weren ’ t strong , ” he says . “ That ’ s very different from the human , personal reaction to it . Which is like , ‘ Oh , shit , there ’ s going to be a published failure to replicate my most cited finding that ’ s gotten the most media attention. ’ You start worrying about stuff like , ‘ Are there going to be career repercussions ? Are people going to think less of my other work and stuff I ’ ve done ? ’ ”
Gervais ’ s story is familiar : Many of us fear we ’ ll be seen as less competent , less trustworthy , if we admit wrongness . Even when we can see our own errors — which , as outlined above , is not easy to do — we ’ re hesitant to admit it .
But turns out this assumption is false . As Adam Fetterman , a social psychologist at the University of Texas El Paso , has found in a few studies , wrongness admission isn ’ t usually judged harshly . “ When we do see someone admit that they are wrong , the wrongness admitter is seen as more communal , more friendly , ” he says . It ’ s almost never the case , in his studies , “ that when you admit you ’ re wrong , people think you are less competent . ”
Sure , there might be some people who will troll you for your mistakes . There might be a mob on Twitter that converges in order to shame you . Some moments of humility could be humiliating . But this fear must be vanquished if we are to become less intellectually arrogant and more intellectually humble .
Humility can ’ t just come from within — we need environments where it can thrive
But even if you ’ re motivated to be more intellectually humble , our culture doesn ’ t always reward it .
The field of psychology , overall , has been reckoning with a “ replication crisis ” where many classic findings in the science don ’ t hold up under rigorous scrutiny . Incredibly influential textbook findings in psychology — like the “ ego depletion ” theory of willpower or the “ marshmallow test ” — have been bending or breaking .
I ’ ve found it fascinating to watch the field of psychology deal with this . For some researchers , the reckoning has been personally unsettling . “ I ’ m in a dark place , ” Michael Inzlicht , a University of Toronto psychologist , wrote in a 2016 blog post after seeing the theory of ego depletion crumble before his eyes . “ Have I been chasing puffs of smoke for all these years ? ”
“ It ’ s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik ’ s cube : a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk ”
What I ’ ve learned from reporting on the “ replication crisis ” is that intellectual humility requires support from peers and institutions . And that environment is hard to build .
“ What we teach undergrads is that scientists want to prove themselves wrong , ” says Simine Vazire , a psychologist and journal editor who often writes and speaks about replication issues . “ But , ‘ How would I know if I was wrong ? ’ is actually a really , really hard question to answer . It involves things like having critics yell at you and telling you that you did things wrong and reanalyze your data . ”
And that ’ s not fun . Again : Even among scientists — people who ought to question everything — intellectual humility is hard . In some cases , researchers have refused to concede their original conclusions despite the unveiling of new evidence . ( One famous psychologist under fire recently told me angrily , “ I will stand by that conclusion for the rest of my life , no matter what anyone says . ” )
Psychologists are human . When they reach a conclusion , it becomes hard to see things another way . Plus , the incentives for a successful career in science push researchers to publish as many positive findings as possible .
There are two solutions — among many — to make psychological science more humble , and I think we can learn from them .
One is that humility needs to be built into the standard practices of the science . And that happens through transparency . It ’ s becoming more commonplace for scientists to preregister — i.e. , commit to — a study design before even embarking on an experiment . That way , it ’ s harder for them to deviate from the plan and cherry-pick results . It also makes sure all data is open and accessible to anyone who wants to conduct a reanalysis .
That “ sort of builds humility into the structure of the scientific enterprise , ” Chabris says . “ We ’ re not all-knowing and all-seeing and perfect at our jobs , so we put [ the data ] out there for other people to check out , to improve upon it , come up with new ideas from and so on. ” To be more intellectually humble , we need to be more transparent about our knowledge . We need to show others what we know and what we don ’ t .
And two , there needs to be more celebration of failure , and a culture that accepts it . That includes building safe places for people to admit they were wrong , like the Loss of Confidence Project .
“ In the end , ” Rohrer says , after getting a lot of positive feedback on the project , “ we ended up with just a handful of statements . ”
There ’ s a personal cost to an intellectually humble outlook . For me , at least , it ’ s anxiety .
When I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance , I can ’ t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling . I have just one small mind , a tiny , leaky boat upon which to go exploring knowledge in a vast and knotty sea of which I carry no clear map .
Why is it that some people never seem to wrestle with those waters ? That they stand on the shore , squint their eyes , and transform that sea into a puddle in their minds and then get awarded for their false certainty ? “ I don ’ t know if I can tell you that humility will get you farther than arrogance , ” says Tenelle Porter , a University of California Davis psychologist who has studied intellectual humility .
Of course , following humility to an extreme end isn ’ t enough . You don ’ t need to be humble about your belief that the world is round . I just think more humility , sprinkled here and there , would be quite nice .
“ It ’ s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik ’ s cube : a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk , ” says Michael Lynch , a University of Connecticut philosophy professor . Instead , it ’ s a problem “ you can make progress at a moment in time , and make things better . And that we can do — that we can definitely do . ”
For a democracy to flourish , Lynch argues , we need a balance between convictions — our firmly held beliefs — and humility . We need convictions , because “ an apathetic electorate is no electorate at all , ” he says . And we need humility because we need to listen to one another . Those two things will always be in tension .
The Trump presidency suggests there ’ s too much conviction and not enough humility in our current culture .
“ The personal question , the existential question that faces you and I and every thinking human being , is , ‘ How do you maintain an open mind toward others and yet , at the same time , keep your strong moral convictions ? ’ ” Lynch says . “ That ’ s an issue for all of us . ”
To be intellectually humble doesn ’ t mean giving up on the ideas we love and believe in . It just means we need to be thoughtful in choosing our convictions , be open to adjusting them , seek out their flaws , and never stop being curious about why we believe what we believe . Again , that ’ s not easy .
You might be thinking : “ All the social science cited here about how intellectual humility is correlated with open-minded thinking — what if that ’ s all bunk ? ” To that , I ’ d say the research isn ’ t perfect . Those studies are based on self-reports , where it can be hard to trust that people really do know themselves or that they ’ re being totally honest . And we know that social science findings are often upended .
But I ’ m going to take it as a point of conviction that intellectual humility is a virtue . I ’ ll draw that line for myself . It ’ s my conviction .
Could I be wrong ? Maybe . Just try to convince me otherwise .
|
Share All sharing options for: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong
Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong.
To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It’s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence. And it’s accepting submissions until January 31.
“I do think it’s a cultural issue that people are not willing to admit mistakes,” Rohrer says. “Our broader goal is to gently nudge the whole scientific system and psychology toward a different culture,” where it’s okay, normalized, and expected for researchers to admit past mistakes and not get penalized for it.
The project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven, or become more doubtful, in recent years. One high-profile effort to retest 100 psychological experiments found only 40 percent replicated with more rigorous methods. It’s been a painful period for social scientists, who’ve had to deal with failed replications of classic studies and realize their research practices are often weak.
“Not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition”
It’s been fascinating to watch scientists struggle to make their institutions more humble. And I believe there’s an important and underappreciated virtue embedded in this process.
For the past few months, I’ve been talking to many scholars about intellectual humility, the characteristic that allows for admission of wrongness.
I’ve come to appreciate what a crucial tool it is for learning, especially in an increasingly interconnected and complicated world. As technology makes it easier to lie and spread false information incredibly quickly, we need intellectually humble, curious people.
I’ve also realized how difficult it is to foster intellectual humility. In my reporting on this, I’ve learned there are three main challenges on the path to humility:
In order for us to acquire more intellectual humility, we all, even the smartest among us, need to better appreciate our cognitive blind spots. Our minds are more imperfect and imprecise than we’d often like to admit. Our ignorance can be invisible. Even when we overcome that immense challenge and figure out our errors, we need to remember we won’t necessarily be punished for saying, “I was wrong.” And we need to be braver about saying it. We need a culture that celebrates those words. We’ll never achieve perfect intellectual humility. So we need to choose our convictions thoughtfully.
This is all to say: Intellectual humility isn’t easy. But damn, it’s a virtue worth striving for, and failing for, in this new year.
Intellectual humility, explained
Intellectual humility is simply “the recognition that the things you believe in might in fact be wrong,” as Mark Leary, a social and personality psychologist at Duke University, tells me.
But don’t confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness. It’s not about being a pushover; it’s not about lacking confidence, or self-esteem. The intellectually humble don’t cave every time their thoughts are challenged.
Instead, it’s a method of thinking. It’s about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others. Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots. One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method, where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis, attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion. It’s about asking: What am I missing here?
It doesn’t require a high IQ or a particular skill set. It does, however, require making a habit of thinking about your limits, which can be painful. “It’s a process of monitoring your own confidence,” Leary says.
When I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance, I can’t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling
This idea is older than social psychology. Philosophers from the earliest days have grappled with the limits of human knowledge. Michel de Montaigne, the 16th-century French philosopher credited with inventing the essay, wrote that “the plague of man is boasting of his knowledge.”
Social psychologists have learned that humility is associated with other valuable character traits: People who score higher on intellectual humility questionnaires are more open to hearing opposing views. They more readily seek out information that conflicts with their worldview. They pay more attention to evidence and have a stronger self-awareness when they answer a question incorrectly.
When you ask the intellectually arrogant if they’ve heard of bogus historical events like “Hamrick’s Rebellion,” they’ll say, “Sure.” The intellectually humble are less likely to do so. Studies have found that cognitive reflection — i.e., analytic thinking — is correlated with being better able to discern fake news stories from real ones. These studies haven’t looked at intellectual humility per se, but it’s plausible there’s an overlap.
Most important of all, the intellectually humble are more likely to admit it when they are wrong. When we admit we’re wrong, we can grow closer to the truth.
One reason I’ve been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president, Donald Trump, is one of the least humble people on the planet.
It was Trump who said on the night of his nomination, “I alone can fix it,” with the “it” being our entire political system. It was Trump who once said, “I have one of the great memories of all time.” More recently, Trump told the Associated Press, “I have a natural instinct for science,” in dodging a question on climate change.
A frustration I feel about Trump and the era of history he represents is that his pride and his success — he is among the most powerful people on earth — seem to be related. He exemplifies how our society rewards confidence and bluster, not truthfulness.
Yet we’ve also seen some very high-profile examples lately of how overconfident leadership can be ruinous for companies. Look at what happened to Theranos, a company that promised to change the way blood samples are drawn. It was all hype, all bluster, and it collapsed. Or consider Enron’s overconfident executives, who were often hailed for their intellectual brilliance — they ran the company into the ground with risky, suspect financial decisions.
The problem with arrogance is that the truth always catches up. Trump may be president and confident in his denials of climate change, but the changes to our environment will still ruin so many things in the future.
Why it’s so hard to see our blind spots: “Our ignorance is invisible to us”
As I’ve been reading the psychological research on intellectual humility and the character traits it correlates with, I can’t help but fume: Why can’t more people be like this?
We need more intellectual humility for two reasons. One is that our culture promotes and rewards overconfidence and arrogance (think Trump and Theranos, or the advice your career counselor gave you when going into job interviews). At the same time, when we are wrong — out of ignorance or error — and realize it, our culture doesn’t make it easy to admit it. Humbling moments too easily can turn into moments of humiliation.
So how can we promote intellectual humility for both of these conditions?
In asking that question of researchers and scholars, I’ve learned to appreciate how hard a challenge it is to foster intellectual humility.
First off, I think it’s helpful to remember how flawed the human brain can be and how prone we all are to intellectual blind spots. When you learn about how the brain actually works, how it actually perceives the world, it’s hard not to be a bit horrified, and a bit humbled.
We often can’t see — or even sense — what we don’t know. It helps to realize that it’s normal and human to be wrong.
It’s rare that a viral meme also provides a surprisingly deep lesson on the imperfect nature of the human mind. But believe it or not, the great “Yanny or Laurel” debate of 2018 fits the bill.
For the very few of you who didn’t catch it — I hope you’re recovering nicely from that coma — here’s what happened.
An audio clip (you can hear it below) says the name “Laurel” in a robotic voice. Or does it? Some people hear the clip and immediately hear “Yanny.” And both sets of people — Team Yanny and Team Laurel — are indeed hearing the same thing.
What do you hear?! Yanny or Laurel pic.twitter.com/jvHhCbMc8I — Cloe Feldman (@CloeCouture) May 15, 2018
Hearing, the perception of sound, ought to be a simple thing for our brains to do. That so many people can listen to the same clip and hear such different things should give us humbling pause. Hearing “Yanny” or “Laurel” in any given moment ultimately depends on a whole host of factors: the quality of the speakers you’re using, whether you have hearing loss, your expectations.
Here’s the deep lesson to draw from all of this: Much as we might tell ourselves our experience of the world is the truth, our reality will always be an interpretation. Light enters our eyes, sound waves enter our ears, chemicals waft into our noses, and it’s up to our brains to make a guess about what it all is.
“The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club”
Perceptual tricks like this (“the dress” is another one) reveal that our perceptions are not the absolute truth, that the physical phenomena of the universe are indifferent to whether our feeble sensory organs can perceive them correctly. We’re just guessing. Yet these phenomena leave us indignant: How could it be that our perception of the world isn’t the only one?
That sense of indignation is called naive realism: the feeling that our perception of the world is the truth. “I think we sometimes confuse effortlessness with accuracy,” Chris Chabris, a psychological researcher who co-authored a book on the challenges of human perception, tells me. When something is so immediate and effortless to us — hearing the sound of “Yanny” — it just feels true. (Similarly, psychologists find when a lie is repeated, it’s more likely to be misremembered as being true, and for a similar reason: When you’re hearing something for the second or third time, your brain becomes faster to respond to it. And that fluency is confused with truth.)
Our interpretations of reality are often arbitrary, but we’re still stubborn about them. Nonetheless, the same observations can lead to wildly different conclusions.
(Here’s that same sentence in GIF form.)
Different scientific models can have equivalent observational consequences. In #statistics, this is known as statistical equivalence; in the philosophy of science, underdetermination of theory by #data. This GIF is a really good (and beautiful) #dataviz.https://t.co/7P8wjdAjgO pic.twitter.com/eLTREWzh7F — Talia Bronshtein (@ininteraction) December 7, 2018
For every sense and every component of human judgment, there are illusions and ambiguities we interpret arbitrarily.
Some are gravely serious. White people often perceive black men to be bigger, taller, and more muscular (and therefore more threatening) than they really are. That’s racial bias — but it’s also a socially constructed illusion. When we’re taught or learn to fear other people, our brains distort their potential threat. They seem more menacing, and we want to build walls around them. When we learn or are taught that other people are less than human, we’re less likely to look upon them kindly and more likely to be okay when violence is committed against them.
Not only are our interpretations of the world often arbitrary, but we’re often overconfident in them. “Our ignorance is invisible to us,” David Dunning, an expert on human blind spots, says.
You might recognize his name as half of the psychological phenomenon that bears his name: the Dunning-Kruger effect. That’s where people of low ability — let’s say, those who fail to understand logic puzzles — tend to unduly overestimate their abilities. Inexperience masquerades as expertise.
An irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that so many people misinterpret it, are overconfident in their understanding of it, and get it wrong.
When people talk or write about the Dunning-Kruger effect, it’s almost always in reference to other people. “The fact is this is a phenomenon that visits all of us sooner or later,” Dunning says. We’re all overconfident in our ignorance from time to time. (Perhaps related: Some 65 percent of Americans believe they’re more intelligent than average, which is wishful thinking.)
Similarly, we’re overconfident in our ability to remember. Human memory is extremely malleable, prone to small changes. When we remember, we don’t wind back our minds to a certain time and relive that exact moment, yet many of us think our memories work like a videotape.
Dunning hopes his work helps people understand that “not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition,” he says. “But the problem with it is we see it in other people, and we don’t see it in ourselves. The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club.”
People are unlikely to judge you harshly for admitting you’re wrong
In 2012, psychologist Will Gervais scored an honor any PhD science student would covet: a co-authored paper in the journal Science, one of the top interdisciplinary scientific journals in the world. Publishing in Science doesn’t just help a researcher rise up in academic circles; it often gets them a lot of media attention too.
One of the experiments in the paper tried to see if getting people to think more rationally would make them less willing to report religious beliefs. They had people look at a picture of Rodin’s The Thinker or another statue. They thought The Thinker would nudge people to think harder, more analytically. In this more rational frame of mind, then, the participants would be less likely to endorse believing in something as faith-based and invisible as religion, and that’s what the study found. It was catnip for science journalists: one small trick to change the way we think.
“How would I know if I was wrong?” is actually a really, really hard question to answer
But it was a tiny, small-sample study, the exact type that is prone to yielding false positives. Several years later, another lab attempted to replicate the findings with a much larger sample size, and failed to find any evidence for the effect.
And while Gervais knew that the original study wasn’t rigorous, he couldn’t help but feel a twinge of discomfort.
“Intellectually, I could say the original data weren’t strong,” he says. “That’s very different from the human, personal reaction to it. Which is like, ‘Oh, shit, there’s going to be a published failure to replicate my most cited finding that’s gotten the most media attention.’ You start worrying about stuff like, ‘Are there going to be career repercussions? Are people going to think less of my other work and stuff I’ve done?’”
Gervais’s story is familiar: Many of us fear we’ll be seen as less competent, less trustworthy, if we admit wrongness. Even when we can see our own errors — which, as outlined above, is not easy to do — we’re hesitant to admit it.
But turns out this assumption is false. As Adam Fetterman, a social psychologist at the University of Texas El Paso, has found in a few studies, wrongness admission isn’t usually judged harshly. “When we do see someone admit that they are wrong, the wrongness admitter is seen as more communal, more friendly,” he says. It’s almost never the case, in his studies, “that when you admit you’re wrong, people think you are less competent.”
Sure, there might be some people who will troll you for your mistakes. There might be a mob on Twitter that converges in order to shame you. Some moments of humility could be humiliating. But this fear must be vanquished if we are to become less intellectually arrogant and more intellectually humble.
Humility can’t just come from within — we need environments where it can thrive
But even if you’re motivated to be more intellectually humble, our culture doesn’t always reward it.
The field of psychology, overall, has been reckoning with a “replication crisis” where many classic findings in the science don’t hold up under rigorous scrutiny. Incredibly influential textbook findings in psychology — like the “ego depletion” theory of willpower or the “marshmallow test” — have been bending or breaking.
I’ve found it fascinating to watch the field of psychology deal with this. For some researchers, the reckoning has been personally unsettling. “I’m in a dark place,” Michael Inzlicht, a University of Toronto psychologist, wrote in a 2016 blog post after seeing the theory of ego depletion crumble before his eyes. “Have I been chasing puffs of smoke for all these years?”
“It’s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik’s cube: a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk”
What I’ve learned from reporting on the “replication crisis” is that intellectual humility requires support from peers and institutions. And that environment is hard to build.
“What we teach undergrads is that scientists want to prove themselves wrong,” says Simine Vazire, a psychologist and journal editor who often writes and speaks about replication issues. “But, ‘How would I know if I was wrong?’ is actually a really, really hard question to answer. It involves things like having critics yell at you and telling you that you did things wrong and reanalyze your data.”
And that’s not fun. Again: Even among scientists — people who ought to question everything — intellectual humility is hard. In some cases, researchers have refused to concede their original conclusions despite the unveiling of new evidence. (One famous psychologist under fire recently told me angrily, “I will stand by that conclusion for the rest of my life, no matter what anyone says.”)
Psychologists are human. When they reach a conclusion, it becomes hard to see things another way. Plus, the incentives for a successful career in science push researchers to publish as many positive findings as possible.
There are two solutions — among many — to make psychological science more humble, and I think we can learn from them.
One is that humility needs to be built into the standard practices of the science. And that happens through transparency. It’s becoming more commonplace for scientists to preregister — i.e., commit to — a study design before even embarking on an experiment. That way, it’s harder for them to deviate from the plan and cherry-pick results. It also makes sure all data is open and accessible to anyone who wants to conduct a reanalysis.
That “sort of builds humility into the structure of the scientific enterprise,” Chabris says. “We’re not all-knowing and all-seeing and perfect at our jobs, so we put [the data] out there for other people to check out, to improve upon it, come up with new ideas from and so on.” To be more intellectually humble, we need to be more transparent about our knowledge. We need to show others what we know and what we don’t.
And two, there needs to be more celebration of failure, and a culture that accepts it. That includes building safe places for people to admit they were wrong, like the Loss of Confidence Project.
But it’s clear this cultural change won’t come easily.
“In the end,” Rohrer says, after getting a lot of positive feedback on the project, “we ended up with just a handful of statements.”
We need a balance between convictions and humility
There’s a personal cost to an intellectually humble outlook. For me, at least, it’s anxiety.
When I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance, I can’t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling. I have just one small mind, a tiny, leaky boat upon which to go exploring knowledge in a vast and knotty sea of which I carry no clear map.
Why is it that some people never seem to wrestle with those waters? That they stand on the shore, squint their eyes, and transform that sea into a puddle in their minds and then get awarded for their false certainty? “I don’t know if I can tell you that humility will get you farther than arrogance,” says Tenelle Porter, a University of California Davis psychologist who has studied intellectual humility.
Of course, following humility to an extreme end isn’t enough. You don’t need to be humble about your belief that the world is round. I just think more humility, sprinkled here and there, would be quite nice.
“It’s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik’s cube: a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk,” says Michael Lynch, a University of Connecticut philosophy professor. Instead, it’s a problem “you can make progress at a moment in time, and make things better. And that we can do — that we can definitely do.”
For a democracy to flourish, Lynch argues, we need a balance between convictions — our firmly held beliefs — and humility. We need convictions, because “an apathetic electorate is no electorate at all,” he says. And we need humility because we need to listen to one another. Those two things will always be in tension.
The Trump presidency suggests there’s too much conviction and not enough humility in our current culture.
“The personal question, the existential question that faces you and I and every thinking human being, is, ‘How do you maintain an open mind toward others and yet, at the same time, keep your strong moral convictions?’” Lynch says. “That’s an issue for all of us.”
To be intellectually humble doesn’t mean giving up on the ideas we love and believe in. It just means we need to be thoughtful in choosing our convictions, be open to adjusting them, seek out their flaws, and never stop being curious about why we believe what we believe. Again, that’s not easy.
You might be thinking: “All the social science cited here about how intellectual humility is correlated with open-minded thinking — what if that’s all bunk?” To that, I’d say the research isn’t perfect. Those studies are based on self-reports, where it can be hard to trust that people really do know themselves or that they’re being totally honest. And we know that social science findings are often upended.
But I’m going to take it as a point of conviction that intellectual humility is a virtue. I’ll draw that line for myself. It’s my conviction.
Could I be wrong? Maybe. Just try to convince me otherwise.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
aaOlTblWEpacjAN9
|
supreme_court
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/406938-allegations-throw-kavanaugh-confirmation-into-turmoil
|
Allegations throw Kavanaugh confirmation into turmoil
|
2018-09-16
|
Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court nomination was plunged into chaos after a woman accusing him of sexual assault spoke publicly for the first time about the allegation on Sunday .
The fallout from the decades-old allegation is putting a spotlight on Senate Republicans , who must decide if they want to rush forward with Kavanaugh ’ s nomination with questions lingering over the Senate ’ s debate and vote .
Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October , when the court starts its next term . But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh ’ s accuser , Christine Blasey Ford , told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s , Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her .
Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh `` groped her over her clothes , grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it . ''
Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans quickly defended Kavanaugh , noting he had undergone multiple FBI background checks , and questioned the timing of the allegations .
Taylor Foy , a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley Charles ( Chuck ) Ernest GrassleySpeaker Pelosi , it 's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Barr : Inspector general 's report on alleged FISA abuses 'imminent ' Pelosi aide hopeful White House will support drug-pricing bill despite criticism MORE ( R-Iowa ) , released a lengthy statement after the Post published its interview with Ford saying it was “ disturbing ” that the “ uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago , during high school , would surface on the eve of the committee vote . ”
“ It raises a lot of questions about Democrats ’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee ’ s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way . Senator Feinstein should publicly release the letter she received back in July so that everyone can know what she ’ s known for weeks , ” he added .
Sen. 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 ( R-S.C. ) — who could become Judiciary Committee chairman next year — said that he aligned himself with the statement “ about the substance and process regarding the allegations in this latest claim . ”
Graham became the first Republican to open the door to a hearing from Ford , saying he would “ gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh . ”
But he caveated that the testimony should happen within the current timeline for confirming Kavanaugh , “ so the process can continue as scheduled . ”
And Sen. 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 ( R-Ariz. ) , another member of the Judiciary Committee , said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn ’ t vote on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination until they ’ ve had time to dig into the allegation .
“ For me , we can ’ t vote until we hear more , ” Flake told the Post .
A spokeswoman for Flake didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment . If the committee tried to move forward on Thursday and Flake joined all Democrats in voting `` no , '' that would likely result in a 10-11 vote in favor of Kavanaugh . But that would n't prohibit his nomination from coming to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote .
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a vote scheduled on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination on Thursday at 1:45 p.m. Republicans hold a majority on the committee , meaning if they stick together he could clear the panel this week .
In a move that could help stave off GOP defections , and keep Kavanaugh ’ s nomination on schedule , Grassley is working to set up calls before Thursday ’ s vote with both Kavanaugh and Ford .
“ Given the late addendum to the background file and revelations of Dr. Ford ’ s identity , Chairman Grassley is actively working to set up ... follow-up calls with Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford ahead of Thursday ’ s scheduled vote , ” a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said on Sunday .
Republican leadership showed no intention of slowing down their plan to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by the end of the month . If confirmed , he would give the party a major victory less than two months before the midterm election and is expected to help tilt the court to the right for decades .
A spokesman for 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. ) declined to comment on Sunday , but the tightlipped GOP leader has not signaled that the sexual assault allegations have changed his mind about confirming Kavanaugh before October .
But even as Republican leadership is indicating they want to move forward with Kavanaugh , his nomination remains short of the 50 votes needed to be confirmed .
The caucus ’ s two potential swing votes — GOP Sens . Lisa Murkowski Lisa Ann MurkowskiHillicon Valley : Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal | Facebook reports millions of post takedowns | Microsoft shakes up privacy debate | Disney plus tops 10M sign-ups in first day Senators press FDA tobacco chief on status of vaping ban Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal MORE ( Alaska ) and Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsLawmakers under pressure to pass benefits fix for military families Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges GOP senators warn against Trump firing intelligence community official MORE ( Maine ) — have yet to say how they will vote or if they want to delay the vote in the wake of the allegations , which first surfaced late last week when Senate Democrats said they had given a letter detailing the alleged incident to the FBI .
Spokespeople for both senators didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday . Collins had a one-hour phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday that was previously scheduled .
`` Well I obviously was very surprised and it 's , it 's an issue that I brought up with him last Friday and he denied as he did in his written statement , ” she told CNN on Sunday , declining to comment further .
The two senators are under a mountain of pressure by liberal activists and outside groups to oppose Kavanaugh in the wake of the sexual assault allegation . The two were already considered potential swing votes because they ’ ve previously broken with their party on ObamaCare repeal and abortion-related legislation .
Democrats would need to win over two Republican senators if they want to block Kavanaugh ’ s nomination . And the caucus began to break its days-long silence over the assault allegations on Sunday to unify behind a call for Kavanaugh ’ s vote to be delayed .
`` Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until , at a very minimum , these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated . For too long , when woman have made serious allegations of abuse , they have been ignored . That can not happen in this case , '' Senate Minority 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 ( D-N.Y. ) said in a statement on Sunday .
Democrats are widely expected to oppose Kavanaugh ’ s nomination , but the sexual assault allegation comes as several red- and purple-state senators up for reelection remain on the fence .
Sens . 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 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. ) previously voted for Neil Gorsuch , 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 ’ s first Supreme Court pick , and were widely seen as potential `` yes '' votes for Kavanaugh .
But the three are facing renewed pressure from progressives who believe Kavanaugh ’ s nomination should be withdrawn , or that senators should block him , after the sexual assault allegation . Progressives warn that voting for Kavanaugh would backfire for incumbent senators by angering base voters they need to turn out to win their tight elections .
“ We believe Christine Blasey Ford and so should every U.S Senator , ” Demand Justice , a progressive group that opposes Kavanaugh , said shortly after The Washington Post published its story on Sunday .
Shaunna Thomas , executive director and co-founder of UltraViolet , said on Sunday that all senators must give the allegations the “ seriousness that it deserves . ”
“ Ford ’ s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are deeply troubling and totally disqualifying . Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination immediately . Violence against women should have no place in our society and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation . ”
Heitkamp , Manchin and Donnelly , who aren ’ t on the Judiciary Committee , didn ’ t immediately echo their colleagues on Sunday to delay Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation . Spokespeople for the three moderate senators didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
It was a break from fellow red-state Sen. Doug Jones ( D-Ala. ) , who said on Twitter on Sunday that the Senate should hit “ pause ” on Kavanaugh ’ s nomination .
`` It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations . We can not rush to move forward under this cloud , '' Jones , who is not a member of the committee , said in a tweet .
The allegations sparked criticism from the conservative Judicial Crisis Network . `` Judge Kavanaugh is admired in his church , in his community , and in his profession . Throughout his distinguished career in public service , he has undergone half a dozen FBI background checks , and never a whisper of misconduct . Until the eve of his confirmation , '' the group said .
`` It does n't add up . But what does add up is that Democrats are doubling down on a strategy of character assassination , seeking to destroy the life of a distinguished public servant for the sake of appeasing their base . ''
`` Oh boy ... the Dems and their usual nonsense games really have him on the ropes now , '' Trump Jr. added .
|
Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was plunged into chaos after a woman accusing him of sexual assault spoke publicly for the first time about the allegation on Sunday.
The fallout from the decades-old allegation is putting a spotlight on Senate Republicans, who must decide if they want to rush forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination with questions lingering over the Senate’s debate and vote.
Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October, when the court starts its next term. But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh "groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it."
Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans quickly defended Kavanaugh, noting he had undergone multiple FBI background checks, and questioned the timing of the allegations.
Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley Charles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleySpeaker Pelosi, it's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Barr: Inspector general's report on alleged FISA abuses 'imminent' Pelosi aide hopeful White House will support drug-pricing bill despite criticism MORE (R-Iowa), released a lengthy statement after the Post published its interview with Ford saying it was “disturbing” that the “uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of the committee vote.”
“It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way. Senator Feinstein should publicly release the letter she received back in July so that everyone can know what she’s known for weeks,” he added.
Sen. 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 (R-S.C.) — who could become Judiciary Committee chairman next year — said that he aligned himself with the statement “about the substance and process regarding the allegations in this latest claim.”
Graham became the first Republican to open the door to a hearing from Ford, saying he would “gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh.”
But he caveated that the testimony should happen within the current timeline for confirming Kavanaugh, “so the process can continue as scheduled.”
And Sen. 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 (R-Ariz.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they’ve had time to dig into the allegation.
“For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,” Flake told the Post.
A spokeswoman for Flake didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If the committee tried to move forward on Thursday and Flake joined all Democrats in voting "no," that would likely result in a 10-11 vote in favor of Kavanaugh. But that wouldn't prohibit his nomination from coming to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a vote scheduled on Kavanaugh’s nomination on Thursday at 1:45 p.m. Republicans hold a majority on the committee, meaning if they stick together he could clear the panel this week.
In a move that could help stave off GOP defections, and keep Kavanaugh’s nomination on schedule, Grassley is working to set up calls before Thursday’s vote with both Kavanaugh and Ford.
“Given the late addendum to the background file and revelations of Dr. Ford’s identity, Chairman Grassley is actively working to set up ... follow-up calls with Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford ahead of Thursday’s scheduled vote,” a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said on Sunday.
Republican leadership showed no intention of slowing down their plan to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by the end of the month. If confirmed, he would give the party a major victory less than two months before the midterm election and is expected to help tilt the court to the right for decades.
A spokesman for 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.) declined to comment on Sunday, but the tightlipped GOP leader has not signaled that the sexual assault allegations have changed his mind about confirming Kavanaugh before October.
But even as Republican leadership is indicating they want to move forward with Kavanaugh, his nomination remains short of the 50 votes needed to be confirmed.
The caucus’s two potential swing votes — GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski Lisa Ann MurkowskiHillicon Valley: Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal | Facebook reports millions of post takedowns | Microsoft shakes up privacy debate | Disney plus tops 10M sign-ups in first day Senators press FDA tobacco chief on status of vaping ban Federal inquiry opened into Google health data deal MORE (Alaska) and Susan Collins Susan Margaret CollinsLawmakers under pressure to pass benefits fix for military families Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges GOP senators warn against Trump firing intelligence community official MORE (Maine) — have yet to say how they will vote or if they want to delay the vote in the wake of the allegations, which first surfaced late last week when Senate Democrats said they had given a letter detailing the alleged incident to the FBI.
Spokespeople for both senators didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday. Collins had a one-hour phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday that was previously scheduled.
"Well I obviously was very surprised and it's, it's an issue that I brought up with him last Friday and he denied as he did in his written statement,” she told CNN on Sunday, declining to comment further.
The two senators are under a mountain of pressure by liberal activists and outside groups to oppose Kavanaugh in the wake of the sexual assault allegation. The two were already considered potential swing votes because they’ve previously broken with their party on ObamaCare repeal and abortion-related legislation.
Democrats would need to win over two Republican senators if they want to block Kavanaugh’s nomination. And the caucus began to break its days-long silence over the assault allegations on Sunday to unify behind a call for Kavanaugh’s vote to be delayed.
"Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. For too long, when woman have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case," Senate Minority 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 (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Sunday.
Democrats are widely expected to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, but the sexual assault allegation comes as several red- and purple-state senators up for reelection remain on the fence.
Sens. 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 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.) previously voted for Neil Gorsuch, 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’s first Supreme Court pick, and were widely seen as potential "yes" votes for Kavanaugh.
But the three are facing renewed pressure from progressives who believe Kavanaugh’s nomination should be withdrawn, or that senators should block him, after the sexual assault allegation. Progressives warn that voting for Kavanaugh would backfire for incumbent senators by angering base voters they need to turn out to win their tight elections.
“We believe Christine Blasey Ford and so should every U.S Senator,” Demand Justice, a progressive group that opposes Kavanaugh, said shortly after The Washington Post published its story on Sunday.
Shaunna Thomas, executive director and co-founder of UltraViolet, said on Sunday that all senators must give the allegations the “seriousness that it deserves.”
“Ford’s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are deeply troubling and totally disqualifying. Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination immediately. Violence against women should have no place in our society and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation.”
Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly, who aren’t on the Judiciary Committee, didn’t immediately echo their colleagues on Sunday to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Spokespeople for the three moderate senators didn’t respond to a request for comment.
It was a break from fellow red-state Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who said on Twitter on Sunday that the Senate should hit “pause” on Kavanaugh’s nomination.
"It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations. We cannot rush to move forward under this cloud," Jones, who is not a member of the committee, said in a tweet.
The allegations sparked criticism from the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. "Judge Kavanaugh is admired in his church, in his community, and in his profession. Throughout his distinguished career in public service, he has undergone half a dozen FBI background checks, and never a whisper of misconduct. Until the eve of his confirmation," the group said.
"It doesn't add up. But what does add up is that Democrats are doubling down on a strategy of character assassination, seeking to destroy the life of a distinguished public servant for the sake of appeasing their base."
"Oh boy... the Dems and their usual nonsense games really have him on the ropes now," Trump Jr. added.
Updated on Sept. 17 at 11:23 a.m.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
FS0H0rKWyKUDSAbd
|
|
technology
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/13/jordan-peterson-launches-anti-censorship-site-thinkspot
|
Jordan Peterson launches anti-censorship site Thinkspot
|
2019-06-13
|
Matthew Weaver
|
Jordan Peterson , the controversial academic , has launched a new anti-censorship website that will only take down offensive content if specifically ordered to by a US court .
The psychology professor from Toronto said that Carl Benjamin , the failed Ukip MEP candidate who speculated about raping the Labour MP Jess Phillips , had agreed to test the subscription-only site , named Thinkspot .
How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson , the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets ' nest ' ? Read more
Peterson has a cult following among rightwingers for controversial views about identity politics and has become a hate figure for many on the left . Earlier this year the University of Cambridge rescinded an offer of visiting fellowship to Peterson after backlash from staff and students .
Peterson said he hoped the site would be a censorship-free alternative to Patreon , an online membership service that at one stage made the Canadian $ 80,000 per month .
He said : “ It ’ ll be a subscription service . And so that ’ s partly what makes it a replacement for Patreon to some degree , because we want to be able to monetise creators . ”
The terms of service for the new site take an extreme position on free speech . Peterson said : “ Once you ’ re on our platform , we won ’ t take you down , unless we ’ re ordered to by a US court of law . That ’ s basically the idea . So we ’ re trying to make an anti-censorship platform . ”
Peterson , who describes himself as a “ professor against political correctness ” said that Benjamin , who blogs under the name Sargon of Akkad , was one of a handful of controversial figures who had been invited to test the initiative .
He said : “ I think we ’ ve got four , five or six people who are lined up . [ Dave ] Rubin is going to use it . I ’ m going to use it , James Altucher , Jocko Willink , Michael Shermer , oh and Carl Benjamin , Sargon of Akkad . They ’ ll be our first beta testers fundamentally . ”
Peterson called for more testers of the site on his Twitter account . He said : “ I ’ m backing a new platform called Thinkspot , currently in beta . Get on the waitlist here , exciting announcements coming very soon . ”
Comments on the site would be voted on by users on a thumbs up or down basis . “ If your ratio of down votes to up votes , falls below 50/50 , then your comments will be hidden , ” Peterson said .
He said there were still problems on the site to iron out , but added : “ It would be nice to have a censorship-free platform if we could figure out how to do that . ”
• This article ’ s subheading was amended on 24 June 2019 to change the description of Jordan Peterson from a “ rightwing academic ” to a “ controversial academic ” .
|
This article is more than 7 months old
This article is more than 7 months old
Jordan Peterson, the controversial academic, has launched a new anti-censorship website that will only take down offensive content if specifically ordered to by a US court.
The psychology professor from Toronto said that Carl Benjamin, the failed Ukip MEP candidate who speculated about raping the Labour MP Jess Phillips, had agreed to test the subscription-only site, named Thinkspot.
How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'? Read more
Peterson has a cult following among rightwingers for controversial views about identity politics and has become a hate figure for many on the left. Earlier this year the University of Cambridge rescinded an offer of visiting fellowship to Peterson after backlash from staff and students.
Peterson said he hoped the site would be a censorship-free alternative to Patreon, an online membership service that at one stage made the Canadian $80,000 per month.
He said: “It’ll be a subscription service. And so that’s partly what makes it a replacement for Patreon to some degree, because we want to be able to monetise creators.”
The terms of service for the new site take an extreme position on free speech. Peterson said: “Once you’re on our platform, we won’t take you down, unless we’re ordered to by a US court of law. That’s basically the idea. So we’re trying to make an anti-censorship platform.”
Peterson, who describes himself as a “professor against political correctness” said that Benjamin, who blogs under the name Sargon of Akkad, was one of a handful of controversial figures who had been invited to test the initiative.
He said: “I think we’ve got four, five or six people who are lined up. [Dave] Rubin is going to use it. I’m going to use it, James Altucher, Jocko Willink, Michael Shermer, oh and Carl Benjamin, Sargon of Akkad. They’ll be our first beta testers fundamentally.”
Peterson called for more testers of the site on his Twitter account. He said: “I’m backing a new platform called Thinkspot, currently in beta. Get on the waitlist here, exciting announcements coming very soon.”
Comments on the site would be voted on by users on a thumbs up or down basis. “If your ratio of down votes to up votes, falls below 50/50, then your comments will be hidden,” Peterson said.
He said there were still problems on the site to iron out, but added: “It would be nice to have a censorship-free platform if we could figure out how to do that.”
• This article’s subheading was amended on 24 June 2019 to change the description of Jordan Peterson from a “rightwing academic” to a “controversial academic”.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
vewf8SqfJM8hN4B5
|
state_department
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/22/republicans-blast-kerry-for-suggesting-iran-could-skirt-new-visa-rules.html?intcmp=hpbt1
|
Republicans blast Kerry for suggesting Iran could skirt new visa rules
|
2015-12-22
|
Republicans on Monday blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress .
“ Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime , the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests , its continued support for terrorism , and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans , ” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif. , said in a statement to FoxNews.com .
At issue are tightened security requirements for America ’ s visa waiver program , which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without visas . Under changes in the newly signed spending bill , people from those countries who have traveled to Iran , Iraq , Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S .
Top Tehran officials , however , complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal , which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran .
Kerry responded to these concerns in a Dec. 19 letter to his Iranian counterpart , Mohammad Javad Zarif -- and suggested the administration could simply bypass the rules for Iran .
“ I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress , which the Administration has the authority to waive , will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [ nuclear deal ] commitments , and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran , ” he said .
Kerry ’ s letter to Zarif assured that the U.S. would “ adhere to the full measure of our commitments. ” As for changes to the visa program , Kerry floated several alternative options for easing any impact on Iran – including waiving the new requirements .
“ To this end , we have a number of potential tools available to us , including multiple entry ten-year business visas , programs for expediting business visas , and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation , ” he wrote .
The legislation indeed includes a provision allowing the Homeland Security secretary to waive the requirements if the secretary determines this “ is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States . ”
But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , voiced concern on Monday that Kerry was proposing a “ blanket ” waiver to accommodate Iran ’ s complaints . He said that is not Congress ’ intent .
“ Contrary to what the Secretary of State seems to be saying to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , it was not and has never been Congress ’ s intent to allow the Administration to grant a blanket waiver to travellers from Iran in order to facilitate the implementation of the Iran deal , ” he said in a statement .
McCarthy said the point of the legislation was to strengthen security and “ keep the American people safe from terrorism and from foreign travelers who potentially pose a threat to our homeland . ”
Kerry ’ s assurances also raised concerns that the U.S. may be backing down to Iran ’ s complaints while at the same time reluctant to punish Tehran for its own potential violations .
“ Instead of undermining Congressional intent regarding the visa waiver program , the White House should instead focus on Iran ’ s repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council 's bans on missile tests , ” McCarthy said . “ Iran ’ s unwillingness to follow these international agreements should be a red flag that the Iran nuclear deal isn ’ t worth the paper it is written on . ”
Omri Ceren , with the Washington , D.C.-based Israel Project , also told The Washington Free Beacon , “ According to the Obama administration ’ s latest interpretation , the nuclear deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law , but does not allow Congress to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States . ”
The same article noted that the State Department official in charge of implementing the nuclear agreement warned Congress last week that the new visa rules “ could have a very negative impact on the deal . ”
Indeed , Kerry ’ s letter came as top-ranking Iranian officials accused the U.S. of flouting the nuclear agreement .
Iran ’ s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that the change “ contradicts ” the nuclear deal .
`` Definitely , this law adversely affects economic , cultural , scientific and tourism relations , ” Araghchi was quoted by state TV as saying .
Asked about Kerry ’ s assurances at Monday ’ s daily briefing , State Department spokesman John Kirby said the secretary made clear they would “ implement this new legislation so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran . ”
Kirby said the law would be followed , but there are a “ number of potential tools ” to ensure this does not violate the nuclear deal . As for the DHS waiver authority , he said it ’ s too soon to say “ if and when ” that might be used .
The Kerry letter initially was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council .
|
Republicans on Monday blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress.
“Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime, the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests, its continued support for terrorism, and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., said in a statement to FoxNews.com.
At issue are tightened security requirements for America’s visa waiver program, which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without visas. Under changes in the newly signed spending bill, people from those countries who have traveled to Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S.
Top Tehran officials, however, complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal, which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.
Kerry responded to these concerns in a Dec. 19 letter to his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif -- and suggested the administration could simply bypass the rules for Iran.
“I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress, which the Administration has the authority to waive, will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [nuclear deal] commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” he said.
Kerry’s letter to Zarif assured that the U.S. would “adhere to the full measure of our commitments.” As for changes to the visa program, Kerry floated several alternative options for easing any impact on Iran – including waiving the new requirements.
“To this end, we have a number of potential tools available to us, including multiple entry ten-year business visas, programs for expediting business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation,” he wrote.
The legislation indeed includes a provision allowing the Homeland Security secretary to waive the requirements if the secretary determines this “is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States.”
But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., voiced concern on Monday that Kerry was proposing a “blanket” waiver to accommodate Iran’s complaints. He said that is not Congress’ intent.
“Contrary to what the Secretary of State seems to be saying to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, it was not and has never been Congress’s intent to allow the Administration to grant a blanket waiver to travellers from Iran in order to facilitate the implementation of the Iran deal,” he said in a statement.
McCarthy said the point of the legislation was to strengthen security and “keep the American people safe from terrorism and from foreign travelers who potentially pose a threat to our homeland.”
Kerry’s assurances also raised concerns that the U.S. may be backing down to Iran’s complaints while at the same time reluctant to punish Tehran for its own potential violations.
“Instead of undermining Congressional intent regarding the visa waiver program, the White House should instead focus on Iran’s repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council's bans on missile tests,” McCarthy said. “Iran’s unwillingness to follow these international agreements should be a red flag that the Iran nuclear deal isn’t worth the paper it is written on.”
Omri Ceren, with the Washington, D.C.-based Israel Project, also told The Washington Free Beacon, “According to the Obama administration’s latest interpretation, the nuclear deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law, but does not allow Congress to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States.”
The same article noted that the State Department official in charge of implementing the nuclear agreement warned Congress last week that the new visa rules “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”
Indeed, Kerry’s letter came as top-ranking Iranian officials accused the U.S. of flouting the nuclear agreement.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that the change “contradicts” the nuclear deal.
"Definitely, this law adversely affects economic, cultural, scientific and tourism relations,” Araghchi was quoted by state TV as saying.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani made similar comments.
Asked about Kerry’s assurances at Monday’s daily briefing, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the secretary made clear they would “implement this new legislation so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran.”
Kirby said the law would be followed, but there are a “number of potential tools” to ensure this does not violate the nuclear deal. As for the DHS waiver authority, he said it’s too soon to say “if and when” that might be used.
The Kerry letter initially was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council.
The State Department confirmed the document’s authenticity on Monday.
FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
noEoZHwUJXxu7p3N
|
|
federal_budget
|
New York Post
| 22
|
http://nypost.com/2017/10/26/house-passes-4-trillion-budget-clears-way-for-trump-tax-plan/
|
House passes $4 trillion budget, clears way for Trump tax plan
|
2017-10-26
|
President Trump and GOP senators buried their differences for an ...
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday narrowly adopted the Senate ’ s $ 4 trillion budget blueprint , despite grumblings about the impact on the deficit and the elimination of state and local tax deductions .
With 20 Republicans joining all Democrats in voting no , the budget passed 216-212 .
The House had already passed its own budget that directed upcoming tax reform legislation to be deficit-neutral . But to speed up the process toward their ultimate goal of tax cuts , the House passed the Senate plan that would allow tax cuts to add $ 1.5 trillion to the deficit .
“ By passing this budget today , we can send a clear message to the American people : Real tax reform is on the way , ” said Rep. Kevin Brady ( R-Texas ) .
The budget vote opened a process called reconciliation that will allow the upcoming tax reform legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote — and without any Democrats .
Democrats blasted the plan as “ the billionaires ’ budget ” that will roll back Medicaid and Medicare spending to deliver tax relief to the wealthiest Americans .
“ Snake oil is all that this Republican budget will give to the American middle class and working families , ” said Rep. Salud Carbajal ( D-Calif. ) . “ This Republican budget is squarely aimed at ramming through a tax plan without bipartisan consensus or input . … Eighty percent of the tax cuts in this plan benefits only the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans . ”
Rep. Diane Black ( R-Tenn. ) said Democrats shouldn ’ t make assumptions about a tax plan that hasn ’ t even been written yet .
“ The devil ’ s in the details and those details have not yet been released yet , ” Black said .
Republicans and President Trump believe they can deliver a massive tax cut to Americans and businesses this year that will create economic growth and deliver relief to the middle class .
One major sticking point is how to pay for those tax cuts . The current plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local taxes to save about $ 1.3 trillion over the decade .
More than 44 million people rely on those deductions , especially in high-taxes states like New York , New Jersey and California .
New York Republicans voting “ no ” were Dan Donovan , Claudia Tenney , Lee Zeldin , Elise Stefanik , John Katko , Peter King and John Faso .
Faso said he couldn ’ t support “ a budget resolution that singled out for elimination the ability of New York families to deduct state and local taxes . ”
|
President Trump and GOP senators buried their differences for an...
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday narrowly adopted the Senate’s $4 trillion budget blueprint, despite grumblings about the impact on the deficit and the elimination of state and local tax deductions.
With 20 Republicans joining all Democrats in voting no, the budget passed 216-212.
The House had already passed its own budget that directed upcoming tax reform legislation to be deficit-neutral. But to speed up the process toward their ultimate goal of tax cuts, the House passed the Senate plan that would allow tax cuts to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
“By passing this budget today, we can send a clear message to the American people: Real tax reform is on the way,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas).
The budget vote opened a process called reconciliation that will allow the upcoming tax reform legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote — and without any Democrats.
Democrats blasted the plan as “the billionaires’ budget” that will roll back Medicaid and Medicare spending to deliver tax relief to the wealthiest Americans.
“Snake oil is all that this Republican budget will give to the American middle class and working families,” said Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.). “This Republican budget is squarely aimed at ramming through a tax plan without bipartisan consensus or input. … Eighty percent of the tax cuts in this plan benefits only the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.”
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said Democrats shouldn’t make assumptions about a tax plan that hasn’t even been written yet.
“The devil’s in the details and those details have not yet been released yet,” Black said.
Republicans and President Trump believe they can deliver a massive tax cut to Americans and businesses this year that will create economic growth and deliver relief to the middle class.
“We’re going to make history,” Black said.
One major sticking point is how to pay for those tax cuts. The current plan would eliminate the deductibility of state and local taxes to save about $1.3 trillion over the decade.
More than 44 million people rely on those deductions, especially in high-taxes states like New York, New Jersey and California.
New York Republicans voting “no” were Dan Donovan, Claudia Tenney, Lee Zeldin, Elise Stefanik, John Katko, Peter King and John Faso.
Faso said he couldn’t support “a budget resolution that singled out for elimination the ability of New York families to deduct state and local taxes.”
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
QUVbgMX9oA4JJpdT
|
|
fbi
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newly-released-emails-show-fbi-scrambling-to-respond-to-clinton-lawyer-amid-weiner-laptop-review
|
FBI scrambled to respond to Hillary Clinton lawyer amid Weiner laptop review, newly released emails show
|
Gregg Re, Quoting Emerson
|
Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency 's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton 's lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election , on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner 's laptop .
The trove of documents turned over by the FBI , in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch , also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI -- in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad , and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI 's access is ordinarily restricted .
The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request , besides its classification level . There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place .
And , in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI , the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates , `` To be great is to be misunderstood . ''
The FBI did not respond to Fox News ' request for comment on the released emails .
On Oct. 28 , 2016 , Comey upended the presidential campaign by informing Congress that the FBI would quickly review the Weiner laptop . The Justice Department 's internal watchdog later faulted the FBI for failing to review the Weiner laptop through much of the fall of 2016 , and suggested it was possible that now-fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok may have slow-walked the laptop analysis until other federal prosecutors pressured the FBI to review its contents .
On the afternoon of Oct. 28 , Clinton lawyer David Kendall demanded answers from the FBI -- and the agency jumped into action , the emails showed .
STRZOK DEMANDED DECLASSIFICATION , OTHER POWERS BEFORE BECOMING NO . 2 ON MUELLER TEAM
Many of the emails found on the computer were between Clinton and her senior adviser Huma Abedin , Weiner 's now-estranged wife . Despite claims by top FBI officials , including Strzok , several of those emails were determined to contain classified information .
`` I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back , '' then-FBI General Counsel James Baker wrote to the agency 's top brass , including Comey , Page and Strzok , in an email . `` Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that . ''
Page and Strzok eventually were revealed to be having an extramarital affair , and Strzok was terminated after a slew of text messages surfaced in which he and Page derided Trump and his supporters using their government-issued phones . Republicans , citing some of those text messages , have accused Strzok and Page of orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president .
GOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING ' STRZOK : 'HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE 'S EYES AND LIE ? '
Although a portion of Kendall 's email was redacted , Baker continued : `` He said that our letter was 'tantalizingly ambiguous ' and made statements that were 'inchoate and highly ominous ' such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton . ... I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him .
`` To be great is to be misunderstood . '' — Fired FBI Director James Comey , quoting Emerson
`` I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours , '' Baker concluded . `` Sound reasonable ? ''
DOJ BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS ; STRZOK 'S PHONE TOTALLY WIPED
In a partially redacted response , Strzok agreed to spearhead a conference call among the FBI 's top officials the next day .
On Nov. 6 -- just two days before Election Day -- Comey sent another letter to Congress stating that agents had concluded their review of `` all of the communications '' to or from Clinton while she was secretary of state that appeared on the laptop , and that the review did not change his assessment that Clinton should not be prosecuted .
In an email also sent Nov. 6 and unearthed by Judicial Watch , Strzok wrote to the FBI 's leadership : `` [ Redacted ] , Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [ Anthony Weiner ] laptop . We found no previously unknown , potentially classified emails on the media . ”
Strzok added that a team was coming in to `` triple-check '' his methodology and conclusions .
However , at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin 's account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop . And , despite Strzok 's apparent claim , FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop , but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached .
ON FOUR OCCASIONS , FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT THAT YAHOO ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT REASON TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE
“ It is big news that , just days before the presidential election , Hillary Clinton ’ s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails , ” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement . “ These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton . When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal ? ”
Separately , another email from Page , apparently sent in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit , discussed an apparent attempt by the State Department to pressure the FBI to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email .
`` Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [ witness reports ] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation , '' Page wrote . `` These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week , and produced ( with redactions ) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week .
Page continued : `` As you will see , they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [ deputy assistant director in International Operations Division ] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [ legal attaché ] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else . ''
Fox News has previously reported , citing FBI documents , that a senior State Department official proposed a quid pro quo to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Clinton ’ s server – and repeatedly tried to “ influence ” the bureau ’ s decision when his offer was denied , even taking his plea up the chain of command .
In a statement at the time , the FBI acknowleged that an agency official had been in touch with the State Department about overseas positions , but denied that the conversation was tied to the classification of a Clinton email .
`` Prior to the initiation of the FBI ’ s investigation of former Secretary Clinton ’ s personal email server , the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA [ a Freedom of Information Act request ] . The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level . A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption , '' the FBI said .
The statement continued : `` A now-retired FBI official , who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation , told the State Department official that they would look into the matter . Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official , during the same conversation , the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending , unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad .
`` Following the call , the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level , '' the FBI 's statement continued . `` The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email . The classification of the email was not changed , and it remains classified today . Although there was never a quid pro quo , these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review. ''
Through it all , the trove of documents suggested that top to bottom , FBI brass were convinced they were acting appropriately .
In response to a press release from Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that criticized the FBI for failing to provide unclassified information on its Clinton probe in a timely and thorough manner to Congress , Comey quoted Emerson 's 1841 essay `` Self Reliance . ''
`` Outstanding . ... I should have added that I 'm proud of the way we have handled this release [ of unclassified information ] , '' Comey wrote to his subordinates , including Strzok , on Sept. 2 , 2016 . `` Thanks for the work on it . Just another reminder that Emerson was right when he said , 'To be great is to be misunderstood . ' Have a great and quiet weekend . ''
Page forwarded the email along to her colleagues , including Strzok , and added a smiley face .
Trump fired Comey in 2017 , leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation after Comey leaked a series of memos he recorded while speaking with Trump privately .
Comey acknowledged in closed-door testimony in December that as of July 2016 , investigators `` did n't know whether we had anything '' implicating Trump in improper Russia collusion , and that `` in fact , when I was fired as director [ in May 2017 ] , I still did n't know whether there was anything to it . ''
|
Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton's lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.
The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI -- in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI's access is ordinarily restricted.
The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place.
And, in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI, the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates, "To be great is to be misunderstood."
The FBI did not respond to Fox News' request for comment on the released emails.
On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey upended the presidential campaign by informing Congress that the FBI would quickly review the Weiner laptop. The Justice Department's internal watchdog later faulted the FBI for failing to review the Weiner laptop through much of the fall of 2016, and suggested it was possible that now-fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok may have slow-walked the laptop analysis until other federal prosecutors pressured the FBI to review its contents.
On the afternoon of Oct. 28, Clinton lawyer David Kendall demanded answers from the FBI -- and the agency jumped into action, the emails showed.
STRZOK DEMANDED DECLASSIFICATION, OTHER POWERS BEFORE BECOMING NO. 2 ON MUELLER TEAM
Many of the emails found on the computer were between Clinton and her senior adviser Huma Abedin, Weiner's now-estranged wife. Despite claims by top FBI officials, including Strzok, several of those emails were determined to contain classified information.
"I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back," then-FBI General Counsel James Baker wrote to the agency's top brass, including Comey, Page and Strzok, in an email. "Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that."
Page and Strzok eventually were revealed to be having an extramarital affair, and Strzok was terminated after a slew of text messages surfaced in which he and Page derided Trump and his supporters using their government-issued phones. Republicans, citing some of those text messages, have accused Strzok and Page of orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president.
GOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING' STRZOK: 'HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE'S EYES AND LIE?'
Although a portion of Kendall's email was redacted, Baker continued: "He said that our letter was 'tantalizingly ambiguous' and made statements that were 'inchoate and highly ominous' such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton. ... I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him.
"To be great is to be misunderstood." — Fired FBI Director James Comey, quoting Emerson
"I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours," Baker concluded. "Sound reasonable?"
DOJ BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS; STRZOK'S PHONE TOTALLY WIPED
In a partially redacted response, Strzok agreed to spearhead a conference call among the FBI's top officials the next day.
On Nov. 6 -- just two days before Election Day -- Comey sent another letter to Congress stating that agents had concluded their review of "all of the communications" to or from Clinton while she was secretary of state that appeared on the laptop, and that the review did not change his assessment that Clinton should not be prosecuted.
In an email also sent Nov. 6 and unearthed by Judicial Watch, Strzok wrote to the FBI's leadership: "[Redacted], Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [Anthony Weiner] laptop. We found no previously unknown, potentially classified emails on the media.”
Strzok added that a team was coming in to "triple-check" his methodology and conclusions.
However, at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin's account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop. And, despite Strzok's apparent claim, FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop, but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached.
ON FOUR OCCASIONS, FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT THAT YAHOO ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT REASON TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE
“It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”
Separately, another email from Page, apparently sent in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit, discussed an apparent attempt by the State Department to pressure the FBI to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email.
"Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation," Page wrote. "These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.
Page continued: "As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else."
Fox News has previously reported, citing FBI documents, that a senior State Department official proposed a quid pro quo to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Clinton’s server – and repeatedly tried to “influence” the bureau’s decision when his offer was denied, even taking his plea up the chain of command.
In a statement at the time, the FBI acknowleged that an agency official had been in touch with the State Department about overseas positions, but denied that the conversation was tied to the classification of a Clinton email.
"Prior to the initiation of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA [a Freedom of Information Act request]. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption," the FBI said.
The statement continued: "A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad.
"Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level," the FBI's statement continued. "The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Through it all, the trove of documents suggested that top to bottom, FBI brass were convinced they were acting appropriately.
In response to a press release from Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that criticized the FBI for failing to provide unclassified information on its Clinton probe in a timely and thorough manner to Congress, Comey quoted Emerson's 1841 essay "Self Reliance."
"Outstanding. ... I should have added that I'm proud of the way we have handled this release [of unclassified information]," Comey wrote to his subordinates, including Strzok, on Sept. 2, 2016. "Thanks for the work on it. Just another reminder that Emerson was right when he said, 'To be great is to be misunderstood.' Have a great and quiet weekend."
Page forwarded the email along to her colleagues, including Strzok, and added a smiley face.
Trump fired Comey in 2017, leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after Comey leaked a series of memos he recorded while speaking with Trump privately.
Comey acknowledged in closed-door testimony in December that as of July 2016, investigators "didn't know whether we had anything" implicating Trump in improper Russia collusion, and that "in fact, when I was fired as director [in May 2017], I still didn't know whether there was anything to it."
Fox News' Catherine Herridge and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
WpWXono2h0ActRvD
|
|
immigration
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/0826/Seeking-Refuge-Five-lessons-from-Europe-s-migration-crisis
|
Seeking Refuge: Five lessons from Europe's migration crisis
|
2015-08-26
|
Sara Miller Llana
|
Europe is experiencing the largest movement of people across its borders since World War II , and it is struggling . It ’ s not just wrestling with capacity and enforcement , as the crush of Middle Easterners and Africans take to the Mediterranean and trek across frontiers , but also testing the limits of its humanitarianism .
The human tide has weighed heavily on some countries and inundated swaths of European countryside or urban space – eliciting fortitude and generosity of spirit , which has been undercovered . It has also revealed a dark side to the continent : fences , tear gas , riots , and hate speech .
Today ’ s migrants are as poor or traumatized as those refugees during World War II , but many are also black or Muslim . They stand out in communities that have long known nothing but homogeneity . And they are entering at a time when EU citizens question what it really means to live in the 28-member union .
These questions have been brewing for years , but the sheer scale of migration has thrust them suddenly from abstract scenarios into a situation demanding answers now . Through July of this year , some 340,000 have attempted to reach Europe ’ s doorstep according to EU statistics , nearly three times the same period of last year . And so far nearly 2,440 have died trying .
In an ongoing series called Seeking Refuge , the Monitor has searched for themes and lessons learned in the midst of one of the European Union 's greatest modern tests .
When a boat capsized in April off of Libya , killing nearly 800 migrants on board , the argument that the EU should scale back patrols to deter migration – as they were doing at the time of the tragedy – was flipped on its head .
Rescue patrols and walls factor into a migrant ’ s choices to attempt the trip , but it doesn ’ t deter his or her decision to leave war or poverty . Life is still better in Europe .
That has been put in sharp focus in Greece . We kicked off the series on the island of Kos , where migrants were steadily streaming in amid an economic crisis that sapped the Greek state 's capacity – or appetite – to house and care for thousands of newcomers . Since then tens of thousands have arrived anyway , with 21,000 showing up in one week in August alone .
2 . Much of Europe see the migrants as 'the other guy 's ' problem
Greece and Italy face the physical crush of arrivals , while Germany , Sweden , and Britain are where most migrants want to go . Germany announced this week that it expects 750,000 asylum claims this year , four times more than last year .
Yet in between are nearly two dozen countries that do not see migration as their problem . An EU plan to relocate and resettle some 60,000 migrants has sent much of Europe into an emotional tailspin . One of the countries feeling the brunt of criticism for not doing its part is Britain .
Central and Eastern Europe , meanwhile , which have almost no experience with this type of migration , condemned Brussels for placing a burden on their shoulders where they say it doesn ’ t belong – even though emigration has long been that region 's only escape valve . In the end , a broad , mandatory relocation plan was torpedoed in favor of a smaller , voluntary one – which nonetheless continues to rile .
`` There is no incentive for central European countries to accept relocation . They don ’ t see it as their problem , ” said Elizabeth Collett , director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe in Brussels .
For all of the anger directed at Brussels , critics make a valid point too . Europe 's system for accepting migrants doesn ’ t work . The policy that ’ s been most tested is the Dublin Regulation , the European treaty that stipulates that refugees must have their asylum applications processed by the EU country they first set foot in . Though the convention is meant to be mandatory , overloaded periphery countries are turning a blind eye to the migrants who wish to move on , as virtually all do .
So the migrants easily leave , and take advantage of another European rule that applies to most countries in the bloc : the passport-free Schengen zone .
Earlier in the summer , France started checking passports at its frontier with Italy to dissuade migrants from entering – a violation of Schengen rules , particularly as it happened just as Europeans kicked off the summer vacation season .
“ This is a much wider problem than Schengen , but Schengen is the victim because it becomes a symbol of all the fears , that we are defenseless , ” explained Marc Pierini , a visiting scholar on European policy at Carnegie Europe in Brussels .
Now many of those same migrants who crossed the Italian-French border are amassing in Calais , at France ’ s northern edge . This time they face a harder task moving onto their final destination , Britain , both because of geography and because Britain is not part of Schengen . Thousands have stormed the Eurotunnel this summer , leaving at least nine dead .
This migration crisis has given a high-profile platform to xenophobia . It has led Hungary , where numbers of migrants entering has dramatically spiked , to start building a wall . The Slovakian government said it would accept refugees from Syria but only Christian ones , not Muslims .
Rich Clabaugh/Staff Europe 's migration crisis : The eastern Mediterranean and western Baltic routes
And yet , there are European citizens who are trying to rise above the fear . As the newest flashpoint has appeared in the Balkans , at Greece ’ s border with Macedonia , authorities have tried to keep them back with batons . Meanwhile , one group waits for their arrival – with supplies .
“ I ’ ve never seen anything like this , ” said Gabriela Andreevska , a young Macedonian who spends most nights at the border , helping the migrants trying to reach the EU . “ So many people sleeping on concrete . They ’ re there , and you can ’ t turn a blind eye . ”
In the heated discussion about Europe ’ s migration crisis , which can bleed into the wider debate over security and terrorism , it ’ s easy to forget the most important lesson of all . Each migrant is a person , with families back home and a lifetime of aspiration and regret behind him or her .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
The Monitor captured the human element by following the path of two Syrians through Europe ’ s borders until they finally reached northern Europe . Living in a tidy apartment in Germany , well-housed and fed and nearly guaranteed to be granted refugee status , one of them was still anxious ; his mother and sister were still in war-ravaged Syria .
“ I want to bring my family , and I ’ m just wasting time , ” he said . “ I don ’ t want to see one of them in [ the news ] someday . ”
|
Europe is experiencing the largest movement of people across its borders since World War II, and it is struggling. It’s not just wrestling with capacity and enforcement, as the crush of Middle Easterners and Africans take to the Mediterranean and trek across frontiers, but also testing the limits of its humanitarianism.
The human tide has weighed heavily on some countries and inundated swaths of European countryside or urban space – eliciting fortitude and generosity of spirit, which has been undercovered. It has also revealed a dark side to the continent: fences, tear gas, riots, and hate speech.
Today’s migrants are as poor or traumatized as those refugees during World War II, but many are also black or Muslim. They stand out in communities that have long known nothing but homogeneity. And they are entering at a time when EU citizens question what it really means to live in the 28-member union.
These questions have been brewing for years, but the sheer scale of migration has thrust them suddenly from abstract scenarios into a situation demanding answers now. Through July of this year, some 340,000 have attempted to reach Europe’s doorstep according to EU statistics, nearly three times the same period of last year. And so far nearly 2,440 have died trying.
In an ongoing series called Seeking Refuge, the Monitor has searched for themes and lessons learned in the midst of one of the European Union's greatest modern tests.
1. Migrants will keep coming
When a boat capsized in April off of Libya, killing nearly 800 migrants on board, the argument that the EU should scale back patrols to deter migration – as they were doing at the time of the tragedy – was flipped on its head.
Rescue patrols and walls factor into a migrant’s choices to attempt the trip, but it doesn’t deter his or her decision to leave war or poverty. Life is still better in Europe.
That has been put in sharp focus in Greece. We kicked off the series on the island of Kos, where migrants were steadily streaming in amid an economic crisis that sapped the Greek state's capacity – or appetite – to house and care for thousands of newcomers. Since then tens of thousands have arrived anyway, with 21,000 showing up in one week in August alone.
2. Much of Europe see the migrants as 'the other guy's' problem
Greece and Italy face the physical crush of arrivals, while Germany, Sweden, and Britain are where most migrants want to go. Germany announced this week that it expects 750,000 asylum claims this year, four times more than last year.
Yet in between are nearly two dozen countries that do not see migration as their problem. An EU plan to relocate and resettle some 60,000 migrants has sent much of Europe into an emotional tailspin. One of the countries feeling the brunt of criticism for not doing its part is Britain.
Central and Eastern Europe, meanwhile, which have almost no experience with this type of migration, condemned Brussels for placing a burden on their shoulders where they say it doesn’t belong – even though emigration has long been that region's only escape valve. In the end, a broad, mandatory relocation plan was torpedoed in favor of a smaller, voluntary one – which nonetheless continues to rile.
"There is no incentive for central European countries to accept relocation. They don’t see it as their problem,” said Elizabeth Collett, director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe in Brussels.
3. Europe's migration system is not working
For all of the anger directed at Brussels, critics make a valid point too. Europe's system for accepting migrants doesn’t work. The policy that’s been most tested is the Dublin Regulation, the European treaty that stipulates that refugees must have their asylum applications processed by the EU country they first set foot in. Though the convention is meant to be mandatory, overloaded periphery countries are turning a blind eye to the migrants who wish to move on, as virtually all do.
So the migrants easily leave, and take advantage of another European rule that applies to most countries in the bloc: the passport-free Schengen zone.
Earlier in the summer, France started checking passports at its frontier with Italy to dissuade migrants from entering – a violation of Schengen rules, particularly as it happened just as Europeans kicked off the summer vacation season.
“This is a much wider problem than Schengen, but Schengen is the victim because it becomes a symbol of all the fears, that we are defenseless,” explained Marc Pierini, a visiting scholar on European policy at Carnegie Europe in Brussels.
Now many of those same migrants who crossed the Italian-French border are amassing in Calais, at France’s northern edge. This time they face a harder task moving onto their final destination, Britain, both because of geography and because Britain is not part of Schengen. Thousands have stormed the Eurotunnel this summer, leaving at least nine dead.
4. Some Europeans have been magnanimous
This migration crisis has given a high-profile platform to xenophobia. It has led Hungary, where numbers of migrants entering has dramatically spiked, to start building a wall. The Slovakian government said it would accept refugees from Syria but only Christian ones, not Muslims.
Rich Clabaugh/Staff Europe's migration crisis: The eastern Mediterranean and western Baltic routes
And yet, there are European citizens who are trying to rise above the fear. As the newest flashpoint has appeared in the Balkans, at Greece’s border with Macedonia, authorities have tried to keep them back with batons. Meanwhile, one group waits for their arrival – with supplies.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” said Gabriela Andreevska, a young Macedonian who spends most nights at the border, helping the migrants trying to reach the EU. “So many people sleeping on concrete. They’re there, and you can’t turn a blind eye.”
5. The 'migrant crisis' is a human crisis
In the heated discussion about Europe’s migration crisis, which can bleed into the wider debate over security and terrorism, it’s easy to forget the most important lesson of all. Each migrant is a person, with families back home and a lifetime of aspiration and regret behind him or her.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
The Monitor captured the human element by following the path of two Syrians through Europe’s borders until they finally reached northern Europe. Living in a tidy apartment in Germany, well-housed and fed and nearly guaranteed to be granted refugee status, one of them was still anxious; his mother and sister were still in war-ravaged Syria.
“I want to bring my family, and I’m just wasting time,” he said. “I don’t want to see one of them in [the news] someday.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
FDpnzri3NkOp7IpE
|
us_house
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/416346-pelosi-leans-on-dems-for-support
|
Pelosi leans on Dems for support
|
2018-11-13
|
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOvernight 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 Speaker Pelosi , it 's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Why Americans must tune in to the Trump impeachment hearings MORE ( D-Calif. ) has launched a fierce lobbying campaign within her caucus to become the next Speaker , pressing Democrats to publicly declare their support for her in an effort designed both to show her strength in the race and discourage detractors who are scrambling to block her ascension .
Pelosi , 78 , has been “ working the phones nonstop ” over the past few days , targeting those lawmakers “ who may be close to some of the insurgents and are getting pressured by some of those insurgents , ” said a Democratic aide whose boss has been on the receiving end of the campaign . To boost her odds of success , Pelosi has recruited congressional allies , friendly chiefs of staff and lobbyists off Capitol Hill , who are all showering on-the-fence lawmakers with phone calls , texts and emails .
“ There is no question in my mind that she is concerned . She wants to get the votes , ” the aide said Monday . “ I think she can get them , because there ’ s nobody better at counting votes than Nancy Pelosi . ”
Her campaign has found early success . Several members who have been previously critical of leadership reversed course in recent days and released official statements in support of Pelosi .
And the top Democrats on three investigative committees , who had been armed by Pelosi ’ s allies with key messaging points , fanned out on the Sunday news shows where they gave high-profile endorsements .
The show of strength not only put key supporters on the record , but it also sent a not-so-subtle message to the rest of the conference : If even former critics are backing Pelosi , the insurgency is futile and those on the fence should simply fall in line .
“ She ’ s not going to be run out of town , ” said a former Democratic leadership aide .
Pelosi foresees the end of her long leadership reign and is working on the “ transition ” she ’ s promised , the former aide added . “ But it ain ’ t gon na be on anybody else ’ s terms . ”
Pelosi expressed confidence last week that she will secure the Speaker ’ s gavel after Democrats seized control of the House , though she acknowledged it ’ s not going to be a cake walk , like when she first won the job in 2006 with unanimous Democratic support .
Her pitch this time is simple : No one is more experienced to protect Obama-era victories like the Affordable Care Act , and there needs to be a woman at the leadership table to take on 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 .
“ You can not have the four leaders of Congress , the president of the United States — these five people — and not have the voice of women , especially since women were the majority of the voters , the workers and campaigns and now part of this glorious victory , ” Pelosi said Sunday on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation . ”
But there is a small yet vocal group of anti-Pelosi insurgents who are vowing to oppose her , and a number of candidates were critical of the longtime Democratic leader on the campaign trail . That could pose a serious threat to Pelosi ’ s bid for Speaker , depending on the size of the new Democratic majority and how many in the party are willing to vote against her .
Rep.-elect Mikie Sherrill , a New Jersey Democrat , added herself to that list on Monday .
“ I have been talking about how important it is we have new leadership in Congress right now , ” Sherrill told MSNBC ’ s Andrea Mitchell . “ And so I won ’ t be voting for Nancy Pelosi . ”
“ I do think it is important we move forward with new leadership , ” she said , while noting that Pelosi has been “ effective ” in her role as party leader in the House .
Throughout the midterm campaign season , Pelosi was notably accepting of Democrats vowing to oppose her leadership aspirations . She encouraged them to win , whatever it took , and didn ’ t lobby for any support before Election Day .
But now , with just two weeks before the Democratic leadership elections and the party on track to pick up about 35 seats , Pelosi has been campaigning aggressively behind the scenes to line up votes .
She has been working the phones , personally asking lawmakers for their support and even encouraging members to show their commitments publicly . The whip operation officially kicked off Wednesday and continued through the weekend .
An aide for Pelosi said no one has been forced to stake out their positions , but it ’ s an idea that has been suggested whenever a supporter asks how they can be helpful .
One text reviewed by ███ , however , indicated that Pelosi is seeking concrete commitments , in hopes of publicly highlighting them .
A former Democratic lawmaker said Pelosi , in tough fights like this one , shifts gears and adopts a no-nonsense persona — “ I call it ‘ the Baltimore Nancy , ’ ” the lawmaker said , an allusion to Pelosi ’ s roots in the rough-and-tumble world of Charm City politics .
“ She doesn ’ t swear , but when she does , ” said the lawmaker , trailing off . The lawmaker predicted her message to the fence-sitters . “ ‘ No more bullshit . … You haven ’ t made up your mind ? We ’ re going to hold the vote until you do , and you ’ re going to tell us [ where you stand ] . ’ And she ’ s going to do that . ”
Pelosi has already peeled off support from some of her former critics . That includes Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) , who openly criticized the party ’ s campaign efforts after the disappointing 2016 elections , and Rep. Albio Sires Albio B. SiresOvernight Defense : Protests at Trump 's NYC Veterans Day speech | House Dems release Pentagon official 's deposition transcript | Lawmakers ask Trump to rescind Erdogan invite Bipartisan House members call on Trump to rescind Erdoğan invitation Democratic lawmaker : Trudeau blackface photos 'disgusting ' MORE ( D-N.J. ) , who signed a letter earlier this year supporting a proposal that would have made it harder for Pelosi to secure the gavel .
Pelosi also blasted out a letter to the Democratic caucus on Monday urging members to unify when they return to Washington this week — a message that could be seen as applying to the leadership fight .
“ In the next few weeks , we need to be unified , find common ground with Republicans in our legislative engagements , but stand our ground when we must , ” she wrote .
The full-court press for Pelosi has also included enlisting left-leaning outside groups to tout their endorsements through tweets , statements and letters . Organizations like the Feminist Majority , Protect Our Care , AFL-CIO , National Education Foundation and People for the American Way have all voiced support for Pelosi in recent days .
“ I don ’ t think people think she can be beat , ” said one Democratic chief of staff tracking leadership races . “ No one has the tool kit and relationships that she has . ”
Pelosi ’ s critics , meanwhile , have struggled to coalesce around a candidate to run against her . While Rep. Tim Ryan Timothy ( Tim ) RyanTim Ryan endorses Biden for president Strategists say Warren 'Medicare for All ' plan could appeal to centrists Trump mocks O'Rourke after Democrat drops out of race MORE ( D-Ohio ) posed a challenge in 2016 , he has so far declined to jump in this year .
Rep. Ed Perlmutter Edwin ( Ed ) George PerlmutterFinancial sector 's work on SAFE Banking Act shows together , everyone achieves more House passes bill to protect cannabis industry access to banks , credit unions Showing consumers health care pricing could lower costs MORE ( D-Colo. ) , one of the lawmakers leading the charge to oust Pelosi , predicted a challenger will emerge before the Nov. 28 leadership elections within the caucus . But the real goal , he added , is to prevent Pelosi from getting the support of the majority in the subsequent Speaker vote on the House floor — a situation that would force her to step aside and spark a scramble to fill the void .
“ There ’ s always this comment , ‘ You can ’ t beat somebody with nobody , ’ ” Perlmutter said by phone . “ Well , that ’ s just not true when you have to meet a [ majority ] threshold . ”
Pelosi ’ s critics say they ’ ve found a dozen incumbent lawmakers willing to vote against her in the Speaker vote on the floor , which will occur in the first days of January . And the insurgents have been scouring the campaign comments from incoming freshmen , identifying 12 who have been critical of the Democratic leader to some degree .
“ Some were soft , ” said an aide familiar with the detractors ’ strategy , and could probably be persuaded either to support her or vote “ present . ”
But , the aide added , “ there ’ s no way eight of those 12 could ever say her name on the floor . ”
Rep. Henry Cuellar ( Texas ) , a Blue Dog Democrat , said those incoming lawmakers are in a “ tricky ” spot , warning that supporting Pelosi after telling voters differently will make them vulnerable to easy GOP attacks in 2020 .
“ That could expose them to possible defeat , ” said Cuellar , who backs Pelosi but wants assurances of House rules changes empowering all members . “ I would caution those members to be careful . ”
Perlmutter said the insurgents are making progress “ slowly but surely , ” targeting incumbents and newcomers alike in an aggressive phone campaign that ran through the weekend .
“ The calls are going out there . They are not met with ire or anger or resistance , because there ’ s a recognition that , you know , there ’ s been this leadership team in place for a very long time , ” Perlmutter said . “ And it may stay in position , but I don ’ t think so . ”
|
The Pelosi machine is in full force.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOvernight 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 Speaker Pelosi, it's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Why Americans must tune in to the Trump impeachment hearings MORE (D-Calif.) has launched a fierce lobbying campaign within her caucus to become the next Speaker, pressing Democrats to publicly declare their support for her in an effort designed both to show her strength in the race and discourage detractors who are scrambling to block her ascension.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pelosi, 78, has been “working the phones nonstop” over the past few days, targeting those lawmakers “who may be close to some of the insurgents and are getting pressured by some of those insurgents,” said a Democratic aide whose boss has been on the receiving end of the campaign. To boost her odds of success, Pelosi has recruited congressional allies, friendly chiefs of staff and lobbyists off Capitol Hill, who are all showering on-the-fence lawmakers with phone calls, texts and emails.
“There is no question in my mind that she is concerned. She wants to get the votes,” the aide said Monday. “I think she can get them, because there’s nobody better at counting votes than Nancy Pelosi.”
Her campaign has found early success. Several members who have been previously critical of leadership reversed course in recent days and released official statements in support of Pelosi.
And the top Democrats on three investigative committees, who had been armed by Pelosi’s allies with key messaging points, fanned out on the Sunday news shows where they gave high-profile endorsements.
The show of strength not only put key supporters on the record, but it also sent a not-so-subtle message to the rest of the conference: If even former critics are backing Pelosi, the insurgency is futile and those on the fence should simply fall in line.
“She’s not going to be run out of town,” said a former Democratic leadership aide.
Pelosi foresees the end of her long leadership reign and is working on the “transition” she’s promised, the former aide added. “But it ain’t gonna be on anybody else’s terms.”
Pelosi expressed confidence last week that she will secure the Speaker’s gavel after Democrats seized control of the House, though she acknowledged it’s not going to be a cake walk, like when she first won the job in 2006 with unanimous Democratic support.
Her pitch this time is simple: No one is more experienced to protect Obama-era victories like the Affordable Care Act, and there needs to be a woman at the leadership table to take on 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.
“You cannot have the four leaders of Congress, the president of the United States — these five people — and not have the voice of women, especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers and campaigns and now part of this glorious victory,” Pelosi said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
But there is a small yet vocal group of anti-Pelosi insurgents who are vowing to oppose her, and a number of candidates were critical of the longtime Democratic leader on the campaign trail. That could pose a serious threat to Pelosi’s bid for Speaker, depending on the size of the new Democratic majority and how many in the party are willing to vote against her.
Rep.-elect Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat, added herself to that list on Monday.
“I have been talking about how important it is we have new leadership in Congress right now,” Sherrill told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “And so I won’t be voting for Nancy Pelosi.”
“I do think it is important we move forward with new leadership,” she said, while noting that Pelosi has been “effective” in her role as party leader in the House.
ADVERTISEMENT
Throughout the midterm campaign season, Pelosi was notably accepting of Democrats vowing to oppose her leadership aspirations. She encouraged them to win, whatever it took, and didn’t lobby for any support before Election Day.
But now, with just two weeks before the Democratic leadership elections and the party on track to pick up about 35 seats, Pelosi has been campaigning aggressively behind the scenes to line up votes.
She has been working the phones, personally asking lawmakers for their support and even encouraging members to show their commitments publicly. The whip operation officially kicked off Wednesday and continued through the weekend.
An aide for Pelosi said no one has been forced to stake out their positions, but it’s an idea that has been suggested whenever a supporter asks how they can be helpful.
One text reviewed by The Hill, however, indicated that Pelosi is seeking concrete commitments, in hopes of publicly highlighting them.
A former Democratic lawmaker said Pelosi, in tough fights like this one, shifts gears and adopts a no-nonsense persona — “I call it ‘the Baltimore Nancy,’ ” the lawmaker said, an allusion to Pelosi’s roots in the rough-and-tumble world of Charm City politics.
“She doesn’t swear, but when she does,” said the lawmaker, trailing off. The lawmaker predicted her message to the fence-sitters. “ ‘No more bullshit. … You haven’t made up your mind? We’re going to hold the vote until you do, and you’re going to tell us [where you stand].’ And she’s going to do that.”
Pelosi has already peeled off support from some of her former critics. That includes Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), who openly criticized the party’s campaign efforts after the disappointing 2016 elections, and Rep. Albio Sires Albio B. SiresOvernight Defense: Protests at Trump's NYC Veterans Day speech | House Dems release Pentagon official's deposition transcript | Lawmakers ask Trump to rescind Erdogan invite Bipartisan House members call on Trump to rescind Erdoğan invitation Democratic lawmaker: Trudeau blackface photos 'disgusting' MORE (D-N.J.), who signed a letter earlier this year supporting a proposal that would have made it harder for Pelosi to secure the gavel.
Pelosi also blasted out a letter to the Democratic caucus on Monday urging members to unify when they return to Washington this week — a message that could be seen as applying to the leadership fight.
“In the next few weeks, we need to be unified, find common ground with Republicans in our legislative engagements, but stand our ground when we must,” she wrote.
The full-court press for Pelosi has also included enlisting left-leaning outside groups to tout their endorsements through tweets, statements and letters. Organizations like the Feminist Majority, Protect Our Care, AFL-CIO, National Education Foundation and People for the American Way have all voiced support for Pelosi in recent days.
“I don’t think people think she can be beat,” said one Democratic chief of staff tracking leadership races. “No one has the tool kit and relationships that she has.”
Pelosi’s critics, meanwhile, have struggled to coalesce around a candidate to run against her. While Rep. Tim Ryan Timothy (Tim) RyanTim Ryan endorses Biden for president Strategists say Warren 'Medicare for All' plan could appeal to centrists Trump mocks O'Rourke after Democrat drops out of race MORE (D-Ohio) posed a challenge in 2016, he has so far declined to jump in this year.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter Edwin (Ed) George PerlmutterFinancial sector's work on SAFE Banking Act shows together, everyone achieves more House passes bill to protect cannabis industry access to banks, credit unions Showing consumers health care pricing could lower costs MORE (D-Colo.), one of the lawmakers leading the charge to oust Pelosi, predicted a challenger will emerge before the Nov. 28 leadership elections within the caucus. But the real goal, he added, is to prevent Pelosi from getting the support of the majority in the subsequent Speaker vote on the House floor — a situation that would force her to step aside and spark a scramble to fill the void.
“There’s always this comment, ‘You can’t beat somebody with nobody,’ ” Perlmutter said by phone. “Well, that’s just not true when you have to meet a [majority] threshold.”
Pelosi’s critics say they’ve found a dozen incumbent lawmakers willing to vote against her in the Speaker vote on the floor, which will occur in the first days of January. And the insurgents have been scouring the campaign comments from incoming freshmen, identifying 12 who have been critical of the Democratic leader to some degree.
“Some were soft,” said an aide familiar with the detractors’ strategy, and could probably be persuaded either to support her or vote “present.”
But, the aide added, “there’s no way eight of those 12 could ever say her name on the floor.”
Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), a Blue Dog Democrat, said those incoming lawmakers are in a “tricky” spot, warning that supporting Pelosi after telling voters differently will make them vulnerable to easy GOP attacks in 2020.
“That could expose them to possible defeat,” said Cuellar, who backs Pelosi but wants assurances of House rules changes empowering all members. “I would caution those members to be careful.”
Perlmutter said the insurgents are making progress “slowly but surely,” targeting incumbents and newcomers alike in an aggressive phone campaign that ran through the weekend.
“The calls are going out there. They are not met with ire or anger or resistance, because there’s a recognition that, you know, there’s been this leadership team in place for a very long time,” Perlmutter said. “And it may stay in position, but I don’t think so.”
Scott Wong contributed.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
pYAAAdvyfs90p3MP
|
|
disaster
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/11/us/hurricane-irma-florida.html
|
Now a Tropical Storm, Irma Heads North
|
2017-09-11
|
Irma pushes north and is causing problems in Charleston , S.C .
High winds felled trees and severed service lines in Georgia and South Carolina on Monday , knocking out power for more than 900,000 electricity customers in the two states .
A tropical storm warning was issued for all of Georgia ’ s Atlantic coast and most of the South Carolina coast . Some of the worst flooding occurred in Charleston , where knee-high floodwaters coursed through the streets — high enough for some residents to navigate by kayak .
The National Weather Service issued a flash flood emergency for Charleston County , and said that parts of the Charleston peninsula , which contains the city ’ s historic core , were being closed down .
In an interview Monday afternoon , Mayor John Tecklenburg said that the city had been hit with a four-foot storm surge , leaving parts of the peninsula looking as if they had merged with the Ashley River .
“ It sounds kind of counterintuitive that we ’ d have that , because the center of the storm is over 200 miles away in western Georgia , and here we are over on the coast of South Carolina , ” he said . “ But just if you looked at the bigger weather map and saw the counterclockwise rotation of Irma , juxtaposed with a clockwise high-pressure rotation over the Atlantic , Charleston was like in the pincer of those two motions that has driven wind and hurricane bands almost directly into our city . ”
Mr. Tecklenburg said that the flooding was even worse than last year ’ s Hurricane Matthew , which inundated the city in October , in great part because Matthew arrived at low tide , whereas Irma ’ s effect came at high tide .
Farther inland , concerns about serious damage remained high , even as the storm ’ s power diminished somewhat .
In Atlanta , the winds whipping through the leaves created a sound like an angry sea breaking on a shoreline , and trees crashed into residences and onto roadways . The city ’ s public school system canceled classes through Tuesday , and Delta airlines , based in Atlanta , canceled about 900 flights Monday , noting a special concern about strong north-south crosswinds at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport , which bills itself as the busiest in the world .
The forecast in Alabama was somewhat milder , though a tropical storm warning was in effect for much of the state ’ s eastern half .
“ We need you to heed our warnings , ” Mayor Lenny Curry of Jacksonville said on Monday , explaining that high tides would raise river waters up to 6 feet above their normal levels and cause additional flooding .
The mayor urged residents to avoid drawing on city resources except for in emergencies , but said people who needed rescuing should raise a white flag to draw the authorities ’ attention .
Jacksonville was facing a “ trifecta ” of water-related threats , city officials said : storm surge , heavy rainfall over the weekend and Monday ’ s rising tides . “ This is potentially a weeklong event with water and the tides coming and going , ” Mr. Curry said .
In Tampa , Mayor Bob Buckhorn , who on Sunday warned residents that the city was about to get “ punched in the face , ” said on Monday that the city had been spared the storm ’ s worst .
“ It ’ s looking good , ” Mr. Buckhorn said . “ The first blush is that not only did we dodge a bullet , but we survived pretty well . Not a lot of flooding . Tree removal , debris — don ’ t want to say it ’ s negligible , but it ’ s manageable . ”
The city was again spared from a direct hit by a hurricane , as has been its good fortune for more than 90 years running . How ? “ Because we live good lives , because we only get drunk once in a while , ” Mr. Buckhorn joked . “ No , I don ’ t have an answer for that . ”
In St. Petersburg , tree limbs littered lawns and minor debris had blown onto roads but was not stopping traffic . In Orlando , officials said the city had weathered the storm without major damage .
Governor Scott inspected the Florida Keys on Monday from a Coast Guard aircraft , saying the flight revealed extensive flood damage , boats washed ashore and trailer parks filled with overturned homes . “ My heart goes out to the people in the Keys , ” he said .
Mr. Scott also flew over the state ’ s Gulf Coast and reported there was less damage than had been feared . “ We saw the remnants of the storm surge along the west coast , but I didn ’ t see the damage I thought I would see , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not as bad as we thought the storm surge would do , ” he added .
He asked for patience as the state deals with a long recovery . “ I know for our entire state , but especially the Keys , it ’ s going to be a long road , ” he said .
Here ’ s how officials tried to help people on Marco Island
Picking their way through ruined and waterlogged streets , rescue officials searched on Monday through neighborhoods on Marco Island , checking in on people who stayed behind during the storm , which made landfall there on Sunday .
“ As soon as it was safe , we went outside and immediately began as the storm was coming at us and during the eyewall , ” Capt . Dave Baer of the Marco Island Police Department said in an interview on Monday .
Officials were also assessing tens of thousands of homes and condominiums on the island , where an estimated 30 percent of the 20,000 permanent residents did not evacuate , Captain Baer said .
There were no deaths and no serious injuries , he said . The rescues were all fairly similar — people stuck in cars as they tried to evacuate or in houses that had some sort of structural collapse .
The storm surge had receded by daybreak . “ Now all our streets are dry , ” said Larry Honig , chairman of the City Council . “ We are without power and water , but presumably we will be restored in a couple of days . There is minimal structural damage . I know of no lost homes . ”
|
Irma pushes north and is causing problems in Charleston, S.C.
High winds felled trees and severed service lines in Georgia and South Carolina on Monday, knocking out power for more than 900,000 electricity customers in the two states.
A tropical storm warning was issued for all of Georgia’s Atlantic coast and most of the South Carolina coast. Some of the worst flooding occurred in Charleston, where knee-high floodwaters coursed through the streets — high enough for some residents to navigate by kayak.
The National Weather Service issued a flash flood emergency for Charleston County, and said that parts of the Charleston peninsula, which contains the city’s historic core, were being closed down.
In an interview Monday afternoon, Mayor John Tecklenburg said that the city had been hit with a four-foot storm surge, leaving parts of the peninsula looking as if they had merged with the Ashley River.
“It sounds kind of counterintuitive that we’d have that, because the center of the storm is over 200 miles away in western Georgia, and here we are over on the coast of South Carolina,” he said. “But just if you looked at the bigger weather map and saw the counterclockwise rotation of Irma, juxtaposed with a clockwise high-pressure rotation over the Atlantic, Charleston was like in the pincer of those two motions that has driven wind and hurricane bands almost directly into our city.”
Mr. Tecklenburg said that the flooding was even worse than last year’s Hurricane Matthew, which inundated the city in October, in great part because Matthew arrived at low tide, whereas Irma’s effect came at high tide.
Farther inland, concerns about serious damage remained high, even as the storm’s power diminished somewhat.
In Atlanta, the winds whipping through the leaves created a sound like an angry sea breaking on a shoreline, and trees crashed into residences and onto roadways. The city’s public school system canceled classes through Tuesday, and Delta airlines, based in Atlanta, canceled about 900 flights Monday, noting a special concern about strong north-south crosswinds at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which bills itself as the busiest in the world.
The forecast in Alabama was somewhat milder, though a tropical storm warning was in effect for much of the state’s eastern half.
Jacksonville is inundated, while Tampa is ‘looking good’
“We need you to heed our warnings,” Mayor Lenny Curry of Jacksonville said on Monday, explaining that high tides would raise river waters up to 6 feet above their normal levels and cause additional flooding.
The mayor urged residents to avoid drawing on city resources except for in emergencies, but said people who needed rescuing should raise a white flag to draw the authorities’ attention.
Jacksonville was facing a “trifecta” of water-related threats, city officials said: storm surge, heavy rainfall over the weekend and Monday’s rising tides. “This is potentially a weeklong event with water and the tides coming and going,” Mr. Curry said.
In Tampa, Mayor Bob Buckhorn, who on Sunday warned residents that the city was about to get “punched in the face,” said on Monday that the city had been spared the storm’s worst.
“It’s looking good,” Mr. Buckhorn said. “The first blush is that not only did we dodge a bullet, but we survived pretty well. Not a lot of flooding. Tree removal, debris — don’t want to say it’s negligible, but it’s manageable.”
The city was again spared from a direct hit by a hurricane, as has been its good fortune for more than 90 years running. How? “Because we live good lives, because we only get drunk once in a while,” Mr. Buckhorn joked. “No, I don’t have an answer for that.”
In St. Petersburg, tree limbs littered lawns and minor debris had blown onto roads but was not stopping traffic. In Orlando, officials said the city had weathered the storm without major damage.
The governor surveys the Florida Keys from the air
Governor Scott inspected the Florida Keys on Monday from a Coast Guard aircraft, saying the flight revealed extensive flood damage, boats washed ashore and trailer parks filled with overturned homes. “My heart goes out to the people in the Keys,” he said.
Mr. Scott also flew over the state’s Gulf Coast and reported there was less damage than had been feared. “We saw the remnants of the storm surge along the west coast, but I didn’t see the damage I thought I would see,” he said.
“It’s not as bad as we thought the storm surge would do,” he added.
He asked for patience as the state deals with a long recovery. “I know for our entire state, but especially the Keys, it’s going to be a long road,” he said.
Here’s how officials tried to help people on Marco Island
Picking their way through ruined and waterlogged streets, rescue officials searched on Monday through neighborhoods on Marco Island, checking in on people who stayed behind during the storm, which made landfall there on Sunday.
“As soon as it was safe, we went outside and immediately began as the storm was coming at us and during the eyewall,” Capt. Dave Baer of the Marco Island Police Department said in an interview on Monday.
Officials were also assessing tens of thousands of homes and condominiums on the island, where an estimated 30 percent of the 20,000 permanent residents did not evacuate, Captain Baer said.
There were no deaths and no serious injuries, he said. The rescues were all fairly similar — people stuck in cars as they tried to evacuate or in houses that had some sort of structural collapse.
The storm surge had receded by daybreak. “Now all our streets are dry,” said Larry Honig, chairman of the City Council. “We are without power and water, but presumably we will be restored in a couple of days. There is minimal structural damage. I know of no lost homes.”
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
8i0bT5IAKumu5jj3
|
|
trade
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-democrats-117978.html?hp=r2_4
|
Dems look to start Senate trade war next week
|
2015-05-14
|
Burgess Everett
|
Senate liberals know they are going to lose the battle over fast-track trade authority . But they ’ re doing all they can to prolong the fight — perhaps even past the Memorial Day recess into June — in hopes that a long delay will damage the bill ’ s already difficult prospects in the House .
A coalition of Senate Democrats who ’ ve long opposed new trade agreements , led by Sherrod Brown of Ohio , say they are planning to throw up procedural roadblocks and offer amendments that would expand worker protections and undermine GOP support for the fast-track measure . While they can ’ t win the battle , Brown and his allies hope their resistance will stoke popular sentiment against the bill and encourage Democrats to vote against it in the House , where Republican leaders warn they still need about 20 more votes for approval .
“ The handwriting ’ s on the wall , ” Brown said of the prospects of beating the bill in the Senate . But , he said : “ There ’ s real opportunity in the House to defeat it . ”
“ We ’ re going to work as hard as we can to defeat this legislation , ” added Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in an interview Thursday . “ Time is on our side . The longer we keep it on the floor , the more the American people understand what a disastrous agreement this is , the better it is for us . ”
Senate rules will work in their favor , given that any single member can drag out debate for days by objecting to time and amendment agreements . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s promise to have an open amendment process will also help liberals , as they mull offering amendments on currency manipulation and additional worker protections that could be tough for vulnerable Republicans to oppose . And lawmakers need to deal with the expiring PATRIOT Act next week , along with transportation law , putting the squeeze on the Senate ’ s tight schedule .
The White House and Senate Republicans are pressing the pace to keep momentum on their side after they broke a filibuster this week . Fast-track Trade Promotion Authority is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama ’ s economic agenda , and it is necessary if he wants to speed a huge trade pact with 12 Pacific Rim nations through Congress without amendment .
Republicans even tried to schedule a rare Friday Senate session to begin debating amendments , an effort that proved unsuccessful . The GOP is already blaming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev. ) for delaying votes and debate on the bill .
Meanwhile , liberal Democrats huddled this week with Brown to plot the measure ’ s defeat and are continuing to formulate a plan of attack . They remain tight-lipped about what exactly they will do to jam up McConnell ’ s priorities , but they ’ ve promised to make it an ugly skirmish .
“ The procedural tools will come out , ” warned Sen. Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) .
The time crunch is going to work against McConnell . Dealing with the high-stakes trade measure and a controversial extension of surveillance programs at the same time is going to be difficult , if not impossible . When push comes to shove , Republicans may be forced to punt trade until after the recess to deal with the more pressing PATRIOT Act .
“ Sen . McConnell has written more checks than he can cash on the schedule , ” said Adam Jentleson , a spokesman for Reid . “ Something ’ s got ta give , it ’ s just not clear what . ”
McConnell ( R-Ky. ) shrugged off the pessimism . “ We will finish it next week , ” he said of TPA on Thursday afternoon .
“ We ’ re running out of time , ” added McConnell ’ s whip , Sen. John Cornyn of Texas . “ My goal is to finish it next week . I ’ m an optimist . ”
But Republicans are already preparing for the worst . Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch ( R-Utah ) said in an interview that if he had his way , the Senate would stay in through the recess to finish his bill . That ’ s highly unlikely given that four senators are already running for president ; and the Senate barely works on Fridays anymore .
“ Anything beyond next week is obstructionism , ” Hatch said of Democrats ’ threats to hold up the bill . This week ’ s filibuster , he added , smacked of a Democratic strategy “ so that they can claim that they don ’ t have enough time to bring up amendments . ”
Potentially problematic amendments began piling up as soon as the Senate voted to begin debate on the bill . Brown wants to crank up spending on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program , which could appeal to several Rust Belt Republicans looking to assure their constituents that any job losses from new trade bills will be blunted by the TAA program .
“ If McConnell wants to keep us in , late nights and all , I ’ m fine , ” Brown said . “ I want to make sure we get these amendments out there . ”
Republicans already have begrudgingly agreed to move a trade assistance measure along with the fast-track bill , but expanding the TAA protections even further could erode GOP support for the fast-track measure it ’ s paired with .
Republicans have offered an amendment to strip the bill of the trade-assistance program , which likely would fail if it gets a vote but serves as a direct challenge to Brown .
“ If they want to defeat it , they might be able to defeat it with some amendments that just make it improbable to use , ” Hatch said of fast-track .
Sen. James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) wants the Senate to attach a provision that would require that religious liberty be factored into any new trade deals , injecting a social issues debate into an already fraught battle over economics and prosperity . He and Brown will get votes on their proposals on Monday evening .
And Sens . Jeff Sessions ( R-Ala. ) and Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) have offered amendments aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration . Cruz says he won ’ t support anything that doesn ’ t include his amendment .
“ We should put it in writing and make it binding law . I am a strong supporter of free trade , but I can not support legislation that would allow the president to once again circumvent Congress to enact his own immigration laws , ” Cruz said .
Democrats say that even if McConnell moves to block or limit the amendment jockeying early next week , their liberal members are likely to object to swift consideration of the fast-track bill . That could drag out the bill until the end of the week , which would then crash into the McConnell ’ s efforts to extend portions of the PATRIOT Act .
Republicans privately complained that Reid was playing both sides by working to delay the bill and block amendments , only to then complain about not getting votes on Democratic amendments .
Liberals and libertarians are vowing to fight McConnell ’ s effort to offer a clean extension of current surveillance law , including the bulk data-collection program , meaning the Senate may have to devote significant time to that , too .
In the middle of it all is Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , Hatch ’ s primary dance partner on trade issues . And though he said in an interview he ’ s doing everything he can to move the trade bill before the recess , he ’ s also vowed to filibuster any effort to extend the PATRIOT Act without reforms to bulk data collection .
“ I ’ m going to pull out all the stops to do both , ” Wyden said .
|
Senate liberals know they are going to lose the battle over fast-track trade authority. But they’re doing all they can to prolong the fight — perhaps even past the Memorial Day recess into June — in hopes that a long delay will damage the bill’s already difficult prospects in the House.
A coalition of Senate Democrats who’ve long opposed new trade agreements, led by Sherrod Brown of Ohio, say they are planning to throw up procedural roadblocks and offer amendments that would expand worker protections and undermine GOP support for the fast-track measure. While they can’t win the battle, Brown and his allies hope their resistance will stoke popular sentiment against the bill and encourage Democrats to vote against it in the House, where Republican leaders warn they still need about 20 more votes for approval.
Story Continued Below
“The handwriting’s on the wall,” Brown said of the prospects of beating the bill in the Senate. But, he said: “There’s real opportunity in the House to defeat it.”
“We’re going to work as hard as we can to defeat this legislation,” added Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in an interview Thursday. “Time is on our side. The longer we keep it on the floor, the more the American people understand what a disastrous agreement this is, the better it is for us.”
Senate rules will work in their favor, given that any single member can drag out debate for days by objecting to time and amendment agreements. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to have an open amendment process will also help liberals, as they mull offering amendments on currency manipulation and additional worker protections that could be tough for vulnerable Republicans to oppose. And lawmakers need to deal with the expiring PATRIOT Act next week, along with transportation law, putting the squeeze on the Senate’s tight schedule.
The White House and Senate Republicans are pressing the pace to keep momentum on their side after they broke a filibuster this week. Fast-track Trade Promotion Authority is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s economic agenda, and it is necessary if he wants to speed a huge trade pact with 12 Pacific Rim nations through Congress without amendment.
Republicans even tried to schedule a rare Friday Senate session to begin debating amendments, an effort that proved unsuccessful. The GOP is already blaming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for delaying votes and debate on the bill.
Meanwhile, liberal Democrats huddled this week with Brown to plot the measure’s defeat and are continuing to formulate a plan of attack. They remain tight-lipped about what exactly they will do to jam up McConnell’s priorities, but they’ve promised to make it an ugly skirmish.
“The procedural tools will come out,” warned Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
The time crunch is going to work against McConnell. Dealing with the high-stakes trade measure and a controversial extension of surveillance programs at the same time is going to be difficult, if not impossible. When push comes to shove, Republicans may be forced to punt trade until after the recess to deal with the more pressing PATRIOT Act.
“Sen. McConnell has written more checks than he can cash on the schedule,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Reid. “Something’s gotta give, it’s just not clear what.”
McConnell (R-Ky.) shrugged off the pessimism. “We will finish it next week,” he said of TPA on Thursday afternoon.
“We’re running out of time,” added McConnell’s whip, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “My goal is to finish it next week. I’m an optimist.”
But Republicans are already preparing for the worst. Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in an interview that if he had his way, the Senate would stay in through the recess to finish his bill. That’s highly unlikely given that four senators are already running for president; and the Senate barely works on Fridays anymore.
“Anything beyond next week is obstructionism,” Hatch said of Democrats’ threats to hold up the bill. This week’s filibuster, he added, smacked of a Democratic strategy “so that they can claim that they don’t have enough time to bring up amendments.”
Potentially problematic amendments began piling up as soon as the Senate voted to begin debate on the bill. Brown wants to crank up spending on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which could appeal to several Rust Belt Republicans looking to assure their constituents that any job losses from new trade bills will be blunted by the TAA program.
“If McConnell wants to keep us in, late nights and all, I’m fine,” Brown said. “I want to make sure we get these amendments out there.”
Republicans already have begrudgingly agreed to move a trade assistance measure along with the fast-track bill, but expanding the TAA protections even further could erode GOP support for the fast-track measure it’s paired with.
Republicans have offered an amendment to strip the bill of the trade-assistance program, which likely would fail if it gets a vote but serves as a direct challenge to Brown.
“If they want to defeat it, they might be able to defeat it with some amendments that just make it improbable to use,” Hatch said of fast-track.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) wants the Senate to attach a provision that would require that religious liberty be factored into any new trade deals, injecting a social issues debate into an already fraught battle over economics and prosperity. He and Brown will get votes on their proposals on Monday evening.
And Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have offered amendments aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration. Cruz says he won’t support anything that doesn’t include his amendment.
“We should put it in writing and make it binding law. I am a strong supporter of free trade, but I cannot support legislation that would allow the president to once again circumvent Congress to enact his own immigration laws,” Cruz said.
Democrats say that even if McConnell moves to block or limit the amendment jockeying early next week, their liberal members are likely to object to swift consideration of the fast-track bill. That could drag out the bill until the end of the week, which would then crash into the McConnell’s efforts to extend portions of the PATRIOT Act.
Republicans privately complained that Reid was playing both sides by working to delay the bill and block amendments, only to then complain about not getting votes on Democratic amendments.
Liberals and libertarians are vowing to fight McConnell’s effort to offer a clean extension of current surveillance law, including the bulk data-collection program, meaning the Senate may have to devote significant time to that, too.
In the middle of it all is Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Hatch’s primary dance partner on trade issues. And though he said in an interview he’s doing everything he can to move the trade bill before the recess, he’s also vowed to filibuster any effort to extend the PATRIOT Act without reforms to bulk data collection.
“I’m going to pull out all the stops to do both,” Wyden said.
Adam Behsudi contributed to this report.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
YWhH5dUpOJtgBS29
|
us_congress
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/18/667944005/science-technology-math-engineering-and-now-congress
|
Science, Technology, Math, Engineering And Now Congress
|
2018-11-18
|
Ashley Westerman
|
Chrissy Houlahan has done a lot with her industrial engineering degree over the last 30 years including serving in the Air Force , working in the aircraft manufacturing industry , being the COO of a sports apparel company and even teaching high school chemistry .
Houlahan says her science , technology , engineering and mathematics – or STEM – background has allowed her to be fluid in her career by helping her tackle everyday problems through a unique lens .
`` Somebody with a technical background might think in a little bit different than the way , for instance , that a lawyer would think , '' Houlahan says . This was one of her biggest motivators for running for office in Pennsylvania 's 6th Congressional District , she says .
`` I think a person with a technical background could be really useful in Washington , '' says Houlahan , noting that Congress is called to pass laws on issues the Founding Fathers would have never thought imaginable .
`` Anything from cybersecurity , biosecurity , information technology and privacy issues are all things the government now has the responsibility to be worried about , '' she says . `` Those are all things that scientific and technical backgrounds can be used for . ''
Houlahan won her congressional House race this month , defeating a Republican opponent who is a tax lawyer and businessman . She is one of the nine STEM-related professionals – one senator and eight members of the House of Representatives — voted into office during the 2018 midterms . All are Democrats except for one Republican and the cohort includes an ocean scientist , an aerospace engineer , a software engineer and a biochemist .
According to the latest congressional profile , released before Election Day , only about seven percent of the 115th Congress reported they have some kind of STEM background . Occupations that are typically associated with people running for office — lawyers , career politicians , business men and women — were the most frequently listed .
There 's a reason there are not a lot of STEM professionals in Congress , says Shaughnessy Naughton , founder of 314 Action , an advocacy group that helps candidates with such a background move beyond advocacy and into action .
Naughton started the group — named after the most widely known mathematical ratio — in 2016 in response to concern about the Trump administration 's attacks on science , especially the president 's stance on climate change . And 314 Action helped eight of the new STEM professionals get elected to Congress in the recent elections .
Naughton says while there are procedural hurdles for anyone trying to break into politics , scientists also face cultural barriers .
`` Scientists and physicians and STEM professionals often think of science as above politics , or their profession is above politics and therefore they should n't be involved in politics , '' says Naughton , who staged an unsuccessful campaign for Congress herself in 2014 and then again in 2016 . `` And I think we see the results of that attitude by just a real dearth of people with scientific backgrounds and the often misplaced priorities that are put forward [ by Congress ] . ''
314 Action spent more than $ 2 million endorsing 13 candidates in the midterm elections . Eight of them won their races , while the five candidates who did not still made tremendous gains in promoting STEM backgrounds as a way to talk about local issues , says Naughton .
`` I think it 's important because we would have a policy more based in facts and evidence , '' Naughton tells NPR . `` But I also think we would have a more collaborative approach to governing if more scientists were at the table . ''
Through trainings and financial support , 314 Action helps STEM professionals-turned-candidates promote their experience and skill set in their run for office .
Congresswoman-elect Dr. Kim Schrier says the group helped her use her experience both as a pediatrician and a Type 1 Diabetes patient to connect with voters . Last week she become the first Democrat to ever represent the 8th Congressional District of Washington state .
`` It gave me the ability to speak to the issues that other candidates just do n't have and an expertise that I can really bring to Congress to help fix our broken medical system , '' say Schrier , who decided to run because Republicans in Congress kept trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act .
`` And that directly affected patients like me with pre-existing conditions , '' she says .
Schrier hopes to bring a unique voice when topics such as health care , the pharmaceutical industry and prescription drugs arise in the next Congress .
Congresswoman-elect Elaine Luria says her being a nuclear engineer connected with voters on issues that deeply affect in the 2nd Congressional District of Virginia such as global warming , tourism , aquaculture and offshore drilling . Her district includes Virginia Beach , the Norfolk Naval Station and other parts of that city – which is starting to grapple with increased flooding as sea levels rise .
`` When we talk about those issues they are environmental issues and they have a scientific basis but because of the nature of our region they 're also people 's livelihood-type issues , '' she says . `` All of these things impact the economy here . ''
|
Science, Technology, Math, Engineering And Now Congress
Enlarge this image toggle caption Matt Rourke/AP Matt Rourke/AP
Chrissy Houlahan has done a lot with her industrial engineering degree over the last 30 years including serving in the Air Force, working in the aircraft manufacturing industry, being the COO of a sports apparel company and even teaching high school chemistry.
Houlahan says her science, technology, engineering and mathematics – or STEM – background has allowed her to be fluid in her career by helping her tackle everyday problems through a unique lens.
"Somebody with a technical background might think in a little bit different than the way, for instance, that a lawyer would think," Houlahan says. This was one of her biggest motivators for running for office in Pennsylvania's 6th Congressional District, she says.
"I think a person with a technical background could be really useful in Washington," says Houlahan, noting that Congress is called to pass laws on issues the Founding Fathers would have never thought imaginable.
"Anything from cybersecurity, biosecurity, information technology and privacy issues are all things the government now has the responsibility to be worried about," she says. "Those are all things that scientific and technical backgrounds can be used for."
Now she has the chance to prove her theory.
Houlahan won her congressional House race this month, defeating a Republican opponent who is a tax lawyer and businessman. She is one of the nine STEM-related professionals – one senator and eight members of the House of Representatives — voted into office during the 2018 midterms. All are Democrats except for one Republican and the cohort includes an ocean scientist, an aerospace engineer, a software engineer and a biochemist.
According to the latest congressional profile, released before Election Day, only about seven percent of the 115th Congress reported they have some kind of STEM background. Occupations that are typically associated with people running for office — lawyers, career politicians, business men and women — were the most frequently listed.
There's a reason there are not a lot of STEM professionals in Congress, says Shaughnessy Naughton, founder of 314 Action, an advocacy group that helps candidates with such a background move beyond advocacy and into action.
Naughton started the group — named after the most widely known mathematical ratio — in 2016 in response to concern about the Trump administration's attacks on science, especially the president's stance on climate change. And 314 Action helped eight of the new STEM professionals get elected to Congress in the recent elections.
Naughton says while there are procedural hurdles for anyone trying to break into politics, scientists also face cultural barriers.
"Scientists and physicians and STEM professionals often think of science as above politics, or their profession is above politics and therefore they shouldn't be involved in politics," says Naughton, who staged an unsuccessful campaign for Congress herself in 2014 and then again in 2016. "And I think we see the results of that attitude by just a real dearth of people with scientific backgrounds and the often misplaced priorities that are put forward [by Congress]."
314 Action spent more than $2 million endorsing 13 candidates in the midterm elections. Eight of them won their races, while the five candidates who did not still made tremendous gains in promoting STEM backgrounds as a way to talk about local issues, says Naughton.
"I think it's important because we would have a policy more based in facts and evidence," Naughton tells NPR. "But I also think we would have a more collaborative approach to governing if more scientists were at the table."
Through trainings and financial support, 314 Action helps STEM professionals-turned-candidates promote their experience and skill set in their run for office.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Elaine Thompson/AP Elaine Thompson/AP
Congresswoman-elect Dr. Kim Schrier says the group helped her use her experience both as a pediatrician and a Type 1 Diabetes patient to connect with voters. Last week she become the first Democrat to ever represent the 8th Congressional District of Washington state.
"It gave me the ability to speak to the issues that other candidates just don't have and an expertise that I can really bring to Congress to help fix our broken medical system," say Schrier, who decided to run because Republicans in Congress kept trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
"And that directly affected patients like me with pre-existing conditions," she says.
Schrier hopes to bring a unique voice when topics such as health care, the pharmaceutical industry and prescription drugs arise in the next Congress.
Congresswoman-elect Elaine Luria says her being a nuclear engineer connected with voters on issues that deeply affect in the 2nd Congressional District of Virginia such as global warming, tourism, aquaculture and offshore drilling. Her district includes Virginia Beach, the Norfolk Naval Station and other parts of that city – which is starting to grapple with increased flooding as sea levels rise.
"When we talk about those issues they are environmental issues and they have a scientific basis but because of the nature of our region they're also people's livelihood-type issues," she says. "All of these things impact the economy here."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
MOiPaVYdDOrtvQXO
|
immigration
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ending-birthright-citizenship-donald-trumps-immigration-plan/
|
OPINION: Ending Birthright Citizenship Is No Panacea
|
2018-10-30
|
Reihan Salam, Kyle Smith, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Luke Thompson, Zachary Evans, Jordan Sillars, Jay Nordlinger, Kevin D. Williamson, Tobias Hoonhout, Julie Gunlock
|
President Donald Trump delivers a speech in the White House East Room in Washington , D.C. , June 29 , 2018 . ( Jonathan Ernst/Reuters )
According to Axios , President Trump is gearing up to sign an executive order that would , in their words , “ remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil. ” There is some ambiguity in this formulation . Will the executive order in question limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens , or will it extend citizenship to the children of lawful permanent residents , as in the case of most market democracies that have revised their birthright citizenship rules in recent decades ? It is not clear from the video clip provided by Axios on HBO .
In truth , Trump ’ s response to reporter Jonathan Swan ’ s question seems rather off the cuff . At first , the president explains that while he once thought bringing an end to automatic birthright citizenship — presumably for the children of any class of non-citizens born in the U.S. , whether legally present or otherwise — would require a constitutional amendment , he has since been persuaded that a statute would do , or even an executive order . Pressed by Swan as to whether such an executive order was in process of being drafted , Trump confidently replied that “ it ’ s in the process , it ’ ll happen. ” Will it happen , though ? I ’ m skeptical .
First , I should stipulate that I have in the past argued for an amnesty for the long-settled unauthorized-immigrant population that would be accompanied by a constitutional amendment that would do two things : ( a ) grant Congress the authority to revise the rules around automatic birthright citizenship and ( b ) allow naturalized U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to serve as president . I ’ ve since changed my mind .
Though an amendment along these lines would have a hard time clearing the high hurdles we rightly put in the way of new constitutional amendments , it struck me as a tough-minded but ultimately fair way to address a serious and legitimate concern often raised by critics of an expansive amnesty : that such an amnesty would encourage further unauthorized inflows , future unauthorized immigrants would form families in the U.S. ( including native-born citizen children ) , and these mixed-status households have long been among the most sympathetic cases , as most Americans are , for good reason , reluctant to divide families . If mixed-status households are a barrier to stringent enforcement , revising the rules around automatic birthright citizenship seemed like a legitimate solution — indeed , a solution that has in the past appealed to partisans of more open borders .
If you believe that opponents of an expansive amnesty ought to be anathematized , a sentiment often expressed by admissionists , addressing their concerns is an inciting thing to do in itself . I disagree . As the political scientists Matthew Wright , Morris Levy , and Jack Citrin have found , “ opponents of legalization . . . often cast the issue in strict moral terms , regarding unlawful presence in the country as a blanket disqualification . To give any illegal immigrant a path to citizenship constitutes ‘ amnesty , ’ an act that transgresses respect for the law , rewards violators , and unjustly pushes aside those who have ‘ played by the rules. ’ ” Wright et al . are favorably disposed to legalization , as they call it , but they acknowledge that much of the opposition to it is driven by categorical moral judgments that can ’ t be reduced to , say , ethnic or racial bias , which is often cited as a driving force . ( I discuss these and other related issues at greater length in Melting Pot or Civil War ? ) Revising automatic birthright citizenship so that it extends only to the children of citizens and lawful permanent residents is , in theory , a powerful signal that the next amnesty would be the last , not yet another amnesty in a long series of them that sap support for the rule of law .
Why have I changed my mind ? It ’ s not because I believe that ending automatic birthright citizenship for the children of the unauthorized is offensive on its face . ( As others have mentioned , many market democracies have revised their birthright-citizenship rules , and some of them have devised reasonable compromises , e.g. , Australia ’ s 2007 citizenship law , which Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith recently discussed in National Affairs . ) The short answer is that I am more confident we can make immigration enforcement much more effective via mandatory E-verify and focusing our efforts on recent violators , though it will require a political compromise , and I am more concerned about the issues raised by creating a large class of stateless persons . If we can greatly diminish future unauthorized flows , as I believe we can , we can shrink the number of mixed-status households . If we fail to do so , the countries of origin of unauthorized immigrants might refuse to grant citizenship to the offspring of their nationals , which would , I fear , precipitate a serious and lasting problem . It is never wise to give a foreign government that much power to sow chaos in our country . That is why getting enforcement right is so essential .
To return to President Trump ’ s remarks , I find it hard to believe the Trump White House would pursue an executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship for the children of the unauthorized . For one , the practical realities of implementing such a rule would be enormously complex , and it would face serious legal challenges right from the start . My impression is that this is yet another attempt by the president to telegraph that he takes controlling immigration seriously . The danger , however , is that Trump will further exacerbate the “ thermostatic ” reaction to his immigration rhetoric , i.e. , the fact that the more hawkish the president comes across on the issue , the more moderates and liberals seem to take a more dovish line .
Consider the following from political scientist Daniel Hopkins , a leading expert on public opinion on immigration : “ With Trump taking a more hard-line stance than Romney , we might have expected some Americans to likewise shift against a pathway to citizenship , but that ’ s not what happened , ” observed Hopkins . “ Instead , Republicans and Democrats alike became more pro-pathway between 2012 and 2016 , and much of that uptick occurred during the 2016 campaign . This is a common phenomenon : When a politician advocates for a policy proposal , American opinion sometimes moves in the opposite direction . ”
If Trump ’ s opposition to birthright citizenship becomes a salient issue , it is more likely to undermine the restrictionist cause than strengthen it .
|
President Donald Trump delivers a speech in the White House East Room in Washington, D.C., June 29, 2018. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters )
According to Axios, President Trump is gearing up to sign an executive order that would, in their words, “remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil.” There is some ambiguity in this formulation. Will the executive order in question limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens, or will it extend citizenship to the children of lawful permanent residents, as in the case of most market democracies that have revised their birthright citizenship rules in recent decades? It is not clear from the video clip provided by Axios on HBO.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In truth, Trump’s response to reporter Jonathan Swan’s question seems rather off the cuff. At first, the president explains that while he once thought bringing an end to automatic birthright citizenship — presumably for the children of any class of non-citizens born in the U.S., whether legally present or otherwise — would require a constitutional amendment, he has since been persuaded that a statute would do, or even an executive order. Pressed by Swan as to whether such an executive order was in process of being drafted, Trump confidently replied that “it’s in the process, it’ll happen.” Will it happen, though? I’m skeptical.
First, I should stipulate that I have in the past argued for an amnesty for the long-settled unauthorized-immigrant population that would be accompanied by a constitutional amendment that would do two things: (a) grant Congress the authority to revise the rules around automatic birthright citizenship and (b) allow naturalized U.S. citizens who are otherwise eligible to serve as president. I’ve since changed my mind.
Advertisement
Though an amendment along these lines would have a hard time clearing the high hurdles we rightly put in the way of new constitutional amendments, it struck me as a tough-minded but ultimately fair way to address a serious and legitimate concern often raised by critics of an expansive amnesty: that such an amnesty would encourage further unauthorized inflows, future unauthorized immigrants would form families in the U.S. (including native-born citizen children), and these mixed-status households have long been among the most sympathetic cases, as most Americans are, for good reason, reluctant to divide families. If mixed-status households are a barrier to stringent enforcement, revising the rules around automatic birthright citizenship seemed like a legitimate solution — indeed, a solution that has in the past appealed to partisans of more open borders.
If you believe that opponents of an expansive amnesty ought to be anathematized, a sentiment often expressed by admissionists, addressing their concerns is an inciting thing to do in itself. I disagree. As the political scientists Matthew Wright, Morris Levy, and Jack Citrin have found, “opponents of legalization . . . often cast the issue in strict moral terms, regarding unlawful presence in the country as a blanket disqualification. To give any illegal immigrant a path to citizenship constitutes ‘amnesty,’ an act that transgresses respect for the law, rewards violators, and unjustly pushes aside those who have ‘played by the rules.’” Wright et al. are favorably disposed to legalization, as they call it, but they acknowledge that much of the opposition to it is driven by categorical moral judgments that can’t be reduced to, say, ethnic or racial bias, which is often cited as a driving force. (I discuss these and other related issues at greater length in Melting Pot or Civil War?) Revising automatic birthright citizenship so that it extends only to the children of citizens and lawful permanent residents is, in theory, a powerful signal that the next amnesty would be the last, not yet another amnesty in a long series of them that sap support for the rule of law.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Why have I changed my mind? It’s not because I believe that ending automatic birthright citizenship for the children of the unauthorized is offensive on its face. (As others have mentioned, many market democracies have revised their birthright-citizenship rules, and some of them have devised reasonable compromises, e.g., Australia’s 2007 citizenship law, which Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith recently discussed in National Affairs.) The short answer is that I am more confident we can make immigration enforcement much more effective via mandatory E-verify and focusing our efforts on recent violators, though it will require a political compromise, and I am more concerned about the issues raised by creating a large class of stateless persons. If we can greatly diminish future unauthorized flows, as I believe we can, we can shrink the number of mixed-status households. If we fail to do so, the countries of origin of unauthorized immigrants might refuse to grant citizenship to the offspring of their nationals, which would, I fear, precipitate a serious and lasting problem. It is never wise to give a foreign government that much power to sow chaos in our country. That is why getting enforcement right is so essential.
Advertisement
To return to President Trump’s remarks, I find it hard to believe the Trump White House would pursue an executive order ending automatic birthright citizenship for the children of the unauthorized. For one, the practical realities of implementing such a rule would be enormously complex, and it would face serious legal challenges right from the start. My impression is that this is yet another attempt by the president to telegraph that he takes controlling immigration seriously. The danger, however, is that Trump will further exacerbate the “thermostatic” reaction to his immigration rhetoric, i.e., the fact that the more hawkish the president comes across on the issue, the more moderates and liberals seem to take a more dovish line.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Consider the following from political scientist Daniel Hopkins, a leading expert on public opinion on immigration: “With Trump taking a more hard-line stance than Romney, we might have expected some Americans to likewise shift against a pathway to citizenship, but that’s not what happened,” observed Hopkins. “Instead, Republicans and Democrats alike became more pro-pathway between 2012 and 2016, and much of that uptick occurred during the 2016 campaign. This is a common phenomenon: When a politician advocates for a policy proposal, American opinion sometimes moves in the opposite direction.”
If Trump’s opposition to birthright citizenship becomes a salient issue, it is more likely to undermine the restrictionist cause than strengthen it.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
ctzdA1NgYDeGCssw
|
europe
|
Yahoo! News
| 00
|
http://news.yahoo.com/europes-migrant-crisis-key-questions-165210871.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=ma
|
Europe's migrant crisis: key questions
|
2015-08-31
|
Danny Kemp
|
Brussels ( AFP ) - Europe 's refugee and migrant crisis has escalated over the summer , leaving the continent divided over how to deal with a flood of people led by Syrians fleeing war in their homeland .
A record surge in numbers , and the opening up of new routes over the Balkans in addition to the Mediterranean sea route , have prompted the EU to call a special meeting on the issue in two weeks .
Here are the key questions and answers about the biggest crisis of its kind to face Europe since World War II :
The situation in Syria , the origin of the largest number of refugees , has worsened because of the rise of the Islamic State extremist group and continuing civil war , so more people are fleeing .
More people are coming directly to Europe instead of staying in refugee camps in neighbouring countries that are bursting at the seams , says Melissa Fleming , spokeswoman for the UN refugee agency .
But also the longer people spend in refugee camps in Lebanon , Jordan and Turkey , the more likely they are to realise they can not start a new life there and want to leave , especially with no sign of the four-year civil war ending anytime soon .
Recently people are being drawn by Germany 's announcement that it expects to process 800,000 asylum applications this year , and Berlin 's decision to become the first EU state to stop automatically returning Syrian asylum-seekers to their first EU port of entry .
Nearly 340,000 refugees and migrants illegally crossed the border into Europe from January to July 2015 , according to the EU 's border agency Frontex . The figure compares to 280,000 for the whole of 2014 .
The UN refugee agency separately gives the figure of more than 300,000 migrants and refugees having crossed the Mediterranean so far this year , compared to 219,000 crossings in the whole of 2014 .
Around 2,500 have died this year so far , compared to 3,500 for the whole of last year , it says .
Syria and Afghanistan were the two countries most represented among migrants entering the EU , according to Frontex .
The top five countries for arrivals in Europe on all sea crossings are Syria ( 43 percent ) , Eritrea ( 10 percent ) , Nigeria ( 5 percent ) , Somalia ( 3 percent ) , and others ( 27 percent ) , according to the UN .
Nine out of ten of those making the Mediterranean crossing to Italy are Africans , however .
But nearly a fifth of those coming over the Balkans are Kosovans , leading Germany and other EU states to call for a register of 'safe ' countries to which migrants can be returned .
- WHERE ARE THEY ARRIVING , AND BY WHAT ROUTES ? -
Greece , Hungary and Italy are bearing the brunt of the problem .
Greece had the most landings with nearly 200,000 this year , the UN says . Greece sees so many because of people getting boats from Turkey for the islands of Lesbos , Chios , Samos and Kos .
Italy has seen 110,000 landings this year , with people taking the central Mediterranean route on rickety boats from Libya . But numbers have slowed due to the breakdown of order in Libya and the danger of the route .
The Western Balkans have seen a huge surge in arrivals of mostly asylum seekers fleeing Middle East wars , who cross the region after crossing by boat from Turkey to Greece .
Hungary alone reported more than 34,800 detections from January to July , and the area as a whole has seen 102,342 , Frontex says .
The most popular final destinations are Germany , Sweden and Britain .
- WHAT HAS THE EU DONE , AND WHAT MORE CAN IT DO ? -
The EU was stung into action after a horrific Mediterranean shipwreck in April that left 700 migrants dead .
The bloc boosted its maritime search and rescue efforts and set up a military naval task force aiming to tackle people smugglers .
It is also setting up `` hot spots '' in frontline European countries to expedite the classification of newcomers as either refugees or economic migrants .
But plans for the compulsory relocation of 40,000 migrants , to take the strain off Greece and Italy , collapsed because of bickering between EU countries .
In the end they merely agreed to voluntary pledges to take in 32,000 , plus another 22,500 Syrian asylum seekers currently in camps outside the EU .
Many believe those numbers are dwarfed by the scale of the problem and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker will unveil new proposals in his state of the union speech next week .
They may include relaxing the `` Dublin rules '' that Germany has already waived , which currently mean asylum requests must be dealt with by the country where the person first arrives .
Meanwhile , rights groups advocate other solutions , such as giving work visas to refugees and migrants , arguing that it would reduce the smuggling that leads to tragedies .
|
Brussels (AFP) - Europe's refugee and migrant crisis has escalated over the summer, leaving the continent divided over how to deal with a flood of people led by Syrians fleeing war in their homeland.
A record surge in numbers, and the opening up of new routes over the Balkans in addition to the Mediterranean sea route, have prompted the EU to call a special meeting on the issue in two weeks.
Here are the key questions and answers about the biggest crisis of its kind to face Europe since World War II:
- WHY IS THE SURGE HAPPENING NOW? -
The situation in Syria, the origin of the largest number of refugees, has worsened because of the rise of the Islamic State extremist group and continuing civil war, so more people are fleeing.
More people are coming directly to Europe instead of staying in refugee camps in neighbouring countries that are bursting at the seams, says Melissa Fleming, spokeswoman for the UN refugee agency.
But also the longer people spend in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, the more likely they are to realise they cannot start a new life there and want to leave, especially with no sign of the four-year civil war ending anytime soon.
Recently people are being drawn by Germany's announcement that it expects to process 800,000 asylum applications this year, and Berlin's decision to become the first EU state to stop automatically returning Syrian asylum-seekers to their first EU port of entry.
- HOW MANY ARE ARRIVING? -
Nearly 340,000 refugees and migrants illegally crossed the border into Europe from January to July 2015, according to the EU's border agency Frontex. The figure compares to 280,000 for the whole of 2014.
The UN refugee agency separately gives the figure of more than 300,000 migrants and refugees having crossed the Mediterranean so far this year, compared to 219,000 crossings in the whole of 2014.
Around 2,500 have died this year so far, compared to 3,500 for the whole of last year, it says.
- WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? -
Syria and Afghanistan were the two countries most represented among migrants entering the EU, according to Frontex.
The top five countries for arrivals in Europe on all sea crossings are Syria (43 percent), Eritrea (10 percent), Nigeria (5 percent), Somalia (3 percent), and others (27 percent), according to the UN.
Nine out of ten of those making the Mediterranean crossing to Italy are Africans, however.
But nearly a fifth of those coming over the Balkans are Kosovans, leading Germany and other EU states to call for a register of 'safe' countries to which migrants can be returned.
- WHERE ARE THEY ARRIVING, AND BY WHAT ROUTES? -
Greece, Hungary and Italy are bearing the brunt of the problem.
Greece had the most landings with nearly 200,000 this year, the UN says. Greece sees so many because of people getting boats from Turkey for the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos and Kos.
Italy has seen 110,000 landings this year, with people taking the central Mediterranean route on rickety boats from Libya. But numbers have slowed due to the breakdown of order in Libya and the danger of the route.
The Western Balkans have seen a huge surge in arrivals of mostly asylum seekers fleeing Middle East wars, who cross the region after crossing by boat from Turkey to Greece.
Hungary alone reported more than 34,800 detections from January to July, and the area as a whole has seen 102,342, Frontex says.
The most popular final destinations are Germany, Sweden and Britain.
- WHAT HAS THE EU DONE, AND WHAT MORE CAN IT DO? -
The EU was stung into action after a horrific Mediterranean shipwreck in April that left 700 migrants dead.
The bloc boosted its maritime search and rescue efforts and set up a military naval task force aiming to tackle people smugglers.
It is also setting up "hot spots" in frontline European countries to expedite the classification of newcomers as either refugees or economic migrants.
But plans for the compulsory relocation of 40,000 migrants, to take the strain off Greece and Italy, collapsed because of bickering between EU countries.
In the end they merely agreed to voluntary pledges to take in 32,000, plus another 22,500 Syrian asylum seekers currently in camps outside the EU.
Many believe those numbers are dwarfed by the scale of the problem and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker will unveil new proposals in his state of the union speech next week.
They may include relaxing the "Dublin rules" that Germany has already waived, which currently mean asylum requests must be dealt with by the country where the person first arrives.
Meanwhile, rights groups advocate other solutions, such as giving work visas to refugees and migrants, arguing that it would reduce the smuggling that leads to tragedies.
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 0left
|
L3bmMj26OlCJA9iD
|
politics
|
Charles Krauthammer
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447748/donald-trump-american-democracy-25th-amendment-removal-bad-idea
|
OPINION: The Guardrails of American Democracy Can’t Contain Trump
|
2017-05-18
|
John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, Carrie Severino
|
But that doesn ’ t mean he should be removed via the 25th Amendment .
The pleasant surprise of the first 100 days is over . The action was hectic , heated , often confused , but well within the bounds of normalcy . Policy ( e.g. , health care ) was being hashed out , a Supreme Court nominee confirmed , foreign-policy challenges ( e.g. , North Korea ) addressed .
Donald Trump ’ s character — volatile , impulsive , often self-destructive — had not changed since the campaign . But it seemed as if the guardrails of our democracy — Congress , the courts , the states , the media , the cabinet — were keeping things within bounds .
Then came the last ten days . The country is now caught in the internal maelstrom that is the mind of Donald Trump . We are in the realm of the id . Chaos reigns . No guardrails can hold .
Normal activity disappears . North Korea ’ s launch of an alarming new missile and a problematic visit from the president of Turkey ( locus of our most complicated and tortured allied relationship ) barely evoke notice . Nothing can escape the black hole of a three-part presidential meltdown .
— First , the firing of James Comey . Trump , consumed by the perceived threat of the Russia probe to his legitimacy , executes a mindlessly impulsive dismissal of the FBI director . He then surrounds it with a bodyguard of lies — attributing the dismissal to a Justice Department recommendation — which his staff goes out and parrots . Only to be undermined and humiliated when the boss contradicts them within 48 hours .
Result ? Layers of falsehoods giving the impression of an elaborate cover-up — in the absence of a crime . At least Nixon was trying to quash a third-rate burglary and associated felonies . Here we don ’ t even have a body , let alone a smoking gun . Trump insists there ’ s no “ there ” there , but acts as if the “ there ” is everywhere .
— Second , Trump ’ s divulging classified information to the Russians . A stupid , needless mistake . But despite the media hysteria , hardly an irreparable national-security calamity .
The Israelis , whose asset might have been jeopardized , are no doubt upset , but the notion that this will cause a great rupture to their ( and others ’ ) intelligence relationship with the U.S. is nonsense . These kinds of things happen all the time . When the Obama administration spilled secrets of the anti-Iranian Stuxnet virus or blew the cover of a double agent in Yemen , there was none of the garment-rending that followed Trump ’ s disclosure .
The country is now caught in the internal maelstrom that is the mind of Donald Trump . We are in the realm of the id . Chaos reigns .
Once again , however , the cover-up far exceeded the crime . Trump had three top officials come out and declare the disclosure story false . The next morning , Trump tweeted he was entirely within his rights to reveal what he revealed , thereby verifying the truth of the story . His national-security adviser , H. R. McMaster , floundered his way through a news conference , trying to reconcile his initial denial with Trump ’ s subsequent contradiction . It was a sorry sight .
— Is it any wonder , therefore , that when the third crisis hit on Tuesday night — the Comey memo claiming that Trump tried to get him to call off the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn — Republicans hid under their beds rather than come out to defend the president ? The White House hurriedly issued a statement denying the story . The statement was unsigned . You want your name on a statement that your boss could peremptorily contradict in a Twitter-second ?
Republicans are beginning to panic . One sign is the notion now circulating that , perhaps to fend off ultimate impeachment , Trump be dumped by way of the 25th Amendment .
That ’ s the post-Kennedy assassination measure that provides for removing an incapacitated president on the decision of the vice president and a majority of the cabinet .
This is the worst idea since Leno at 10 p.m . It perverts the very intent of the amendment . It was meant for a stroke , not stupidity ; for Alzheimer ’ s , not narcissism . Otherwise , what it authorizes is a coup — willful overthrow by the leader ’ s own closest associates .
I thought we had progressed beyond the Tudors and the Stuarts . Moreover , this would be seen by millions as an establishment usurpation to get rid of a disruptive outsider . It would be the most destabilizing event in American political history — the gratuitous overthrow of an essential constant in American politics , namely the fixedness of the presidential term ( save for high crimes and misdemeanors ) .
Trump ’ s behavior is deeply disturbing but hardly surprising . His mercurial nature is not the product of a post-inaugural adder sting at Mar-a-Lago . It ’ s been there all along . And the American electorate chose him nonetheless .
What to do ? Strengthen the guardrails . Redouble oversight of this errant president . Follow the facts , especially the Comey memos . And let the chips fall where they may .
|
President Trump aboard Air Force One, May 13, 2017. (Reuters photo: Yuri Gripas)
But that doesn’t mean he should be removed via the 25th Amendment.
The pleasant surprise of the first 100 days is over. The action was hectic, heated, often confused, but well within the bounds of normalcy. Policy (e.g., health care) was being hashed out, a Supreme Court nominee confirmed, foreign-policy challenges (e.g., North Korea) addressed.
Donald Trump’s character — volatile, impulsive, often self-destructive — had not changed since the campaign. But it seemed as if the guardrails of our democracy — Congress, the courts, the states, the media, the cabinet — were keeping things within bounds.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Then came the last ten days. The country is now caught in the internal maelstrom that is the mind of Donald Trump. We are in the realm of the id. Chaos reigns. No guardrails can hold.
Normal activity disappears. North Korea’s launch of an alarming new missile and a problematic visit from the president of Turkey (locus of our most complicated and tortured allied relationship) barely evoke notice. Nothing can escape the black hole of a three-part presidential meltdown.
— First, the firing of James Comey. Trump, consumed by the perceived threat of the Russia probe to his legitimacy, executes a mindlessly impulsive dismissal of the FBI director. He then surrounds it with a bodyguard of lies — attributing the dismissal to a Justice Department recommendation — which his staff goes out and parrots. Only to be undermined and humiliated when the boss contradicts them within 48 hours.
Advertisement
Result? Layers of falsehoods giving the impression of an elaborate cover-up — in the absence of a crime. At least Nixon was trying to quash a third-rate burglary and associated felonies. Here we don’t even have a body, let alone a smoking gun. Trump insists there’s no “there” there, but acts as if the “there” is everywhere.
Advertisement
— Second, Trump’s divulging classified information to the Russians. A stupid, needless mistake. But despite the media hysteria, hardly an irreparable national-security calamity.
The Israelis, whose asset might have been jeopardized, are no doubt upset, but the notion that this will cause a great rupture to their (and others’) intelligence relationship with the U.S. is nonsense. These kinds of things happen all the time. When the Obama administration spilled secrets of the anti-Iranian Stuxnet virus or blew the cover of a double agent in Yemen, there was none of the garment-rending that followed Trump’s disclosure.
The country is now caught in the internal maelstrom that is the mind of Donald Trump. We are in the realm of the id. Chaos reigns.
Advertisement
Once again, however, the cover-up far exceeded the crime. Trump had three top officials come out and declare the disclosure story false. The next morning, Trump tweeted he was entirely within his rights to reveal what he revealed, thereby verifying the truth of the story. His national-security adviser, H. R. McMaster, floundered his way through a news conference, trying to reconcile his initial denial with Trump’s subsequent contradiction. It was a sorry sight.
Advertisement
— Is it any wonder, therefore, that when the third crisis hit on Tuesday night — the Comey memo claiming that Trump tried to get him to call off the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn — Republicans hid under their beds rather than come out to defend the president? The White House hurriedly issued a statement denying the story. The statement was unsigned. You want your name on a statement that your boss could peremptorily contradict in a Twitter-second?
Republicans are beginning to panic. One sign is the notion now circulating that, perhaps to fend off ultimate impeachment, Trump be dumped by way of the 25th Amendment.
Advertisement
That’s the post-Kennedy assassination measure that provides for removing an incapacitated president on the decision of the vice president and a majority of the cabinet.
This is the worst idea since Leno at 10 p.m. It perverts the very intent of the amendment. It was meant for a stroke, not stupidity; for Alzheimer’s, not narcissism. Otherwise, what it authorizes is a coup — willful overthrow by the leader’s own closest associates.
I thought we had progressed beyond the Tudors and the Stuarts. Moreover, this would be seen by millions as an establishment usurpation to get rid of a disruptive outsider. It would be the most destabilizing event in American political history — the gratuitous overthrow of an essential constant in American politics, namely the fixedness of the presidential term (save for high crimes and misdemeanors).
Trump’s behavior is deeply disturbing but hardly surprising. His mercurial nature is not the product of a post-inaugural adder sting at Mar-a-Lago. It’s been there all along. And the American electorate chose him nonetheless.
Advertisement
What to do? Strengthen the guardrails. Redouble oversight of this errant president. Follow the facts, especially the Comey memos. And let the chips fall where they may.
Advertisement
But no tricks, constitutional or otherwise.
READ MORE:
Against the ‘25th Amendment Option’
Editorial: Trump Brought the Special-Counsel Investigation on Himself
Trump’s Defense of His Russia Leak Is Not Reassuring
— Charles Krauthammer’s email address is [email protected]. © 2017, The Washington Post Writers Group.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
PI5oSsyQLq7sFvqB
|
white_house
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/25/632300960/federal-lawsuit-against-president-trumps-business-interests-allowed-to-proceed
|
Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed
|
2018-07-25
|
Peter Over
|
Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump 's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed
In a blow to President Trump , a federal judge says a lawsuit that alleges Trump 's business interests violate the Constitution can proceed .
Federal District Judge Peter Messitte denied the Department of Justice 's request to dismiss a case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia . The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments — or even U.S. state governments .
It 's the first ruling in federal court to define `` emolument , '' which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution 's two emoluments clauses .
Messitte rejected the `` cramped interpretation '' of the term offered by the Justice Department . He wrote that the term applies to `` any profit , gain or advantage '' of value that Trump has gotten from foreign , the federal or domestic governments .
`` Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the President has been receiving or is potentially able to receive 'emoluments ' from foreign , the federal and state governments in violation of the Constitution , '' wrote Messitte .
Until the Trump administration , emoluments have been an obscure part of the Constitution , said John Mikhail , a professor at Georgetown University Law Center , whose research was cited in Messitte 's opinion .
`` I think it comes as a surprise to many people that there are terms in the Constitution , individual words that at this late date , 230-plus years into the operation of the Constitution , that those have never been authoritatively adjudicated , '' said Mikhail .
The judge 's decision clears the way for the Maryland and District of Columbia legal teams to begin the discovery process , which could include requesting sensitive financial information from the president and the Trump Organization .
The Justice Department , which represents Trump in this matter , argues the clause is not relevant to Trump 's businesses . `` We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed , '' said Andy Reuss , a spokesman for the Justice Department .
It 's the second victory for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine , who were granted legal standing to sue Trump in March . They allege their jurisdictions are economically and financially harmed as political and diplomatic officials shift their business to Trump 's downtown Washington , D.C. , hotel from nearby convention centers owned by those governments .
`` Today 's historic ruling is a substantial step forward to ensure President Trump stops violating our nation 's original anti-corruption laws , '' said Racine . `` The Constitution is clear : The president ca n't accept money or other benefits from foreign or domestic governments . ''
After opening shortly before the 2016 election , the Trump International Hotel has quickly became a favorite gathering place for the president 's supporters , who frequently hold fundraisers and conferences there . Foreign governments have also held events and put dignitaries up in the hotel .
The hotel is housed in the Old Post Office , which is owned by the federal government and leased by the Trump Organization . Legal challenges to the Trump Organization 's lease on the property have not succeeded .
|
Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed
Enlarge this image toggle caption Pool/Getty Images Pool/Getty Images
Updated at 5:00 p.m. ET
In a blow to President Trump, a federal judge says a lawsuit that alleges Trump's business interests violate the Constitution can proceed.
Federal District Judge Peter Messitte denied the Department of Justice's request to dismiss a case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia. The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments — or even U.S. state governments.
It's the first ruling in federal court to define "emolument," which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution's two emoluments clauses.
Messitte rejected the "cramped interpretation" of the term offered by the Justice Department. He wrote that the term applies to "any profit, gain or advantage" of value that Trump has gotten from foreign, the federal or domestic governments.
"Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the President has been receiving or is potentially able to receive 'emoluments' from foreign, the federal and state governments in violation of the Constitution," wrote Messitte.
Until the Trump administration, emoluments have been an obscure part of the Constitution, said John Mikhail, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, whose research was cited in Messitte's opinion.
"I think it comes as a surprise to many people that there are terms in the Constitution, individual words that at this late date, 230-plus years into the operation of the Constitution, that those have never been authoritatively adjudicated," said Mikhail.
The judge's decision clears the way for the Maryland and District of Columbia legal teams to begin the discovery process, which could include requesting sensitive financial information from the president and the Trump Organization.
The Justice Department, which represents Trump in this matter, argues the clause is not relevant to Trump's businesses. "We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed," said Andy Reuss, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
It's the second victory for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine, who were granted legal standing to sue Trump in March. They allege their jurisdictions are economically and financially harmed as political and diplomatic officials shift their business to Trump's downtown Washington, D.C., hotel from nearby convention centers owned by those governments.
"Today's historic ruling is a substantial step forward to ensure President Trump stops violating our nation's original anti-corruption laws," said Racine. "The Constitution is clear: The president can't accept money or other benefits from foreign or domestic governments."
After opening shortly before the 2016 election, the Trump International Hotel has quickly became a favorite gathering place for the president's supporters, who frequently hold fundraisers and conferences there. Foreign governments have also held events and put dignitaries up in the hotel.
The hotel is housed in the Old Post Office, which is owned by the federal government and leased by the Trump Organization. Legal challenges to the Trump Organization's lease on the property have not succeeded.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
AyFqbxMAM1NxNQeU
|
disaster
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/12/trump-warns-post-hurricane-puerto-rico-says-fema-won-t-stay-forever.html
|
Trump warns post-hurricane Puerto Rico, says FEMA won’t stay 'forever'
|
2017-10-12
|
Brooke Singman
|
President Trump issued a warning Thursday to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico , saying the U.S. territory 's infrastructure was a mess before the storm and warning that federal officials can not stay on the island `` forever . ''
The president made the comments in a series of early-morning tweets .
“ ’ Puerto Rico survived the Hurricanes , now a financial crisis looms largely of their own making. ’ Says Sharyl Attkisson . A total lack of accountability say [ s ] the Governor . Electric and all infrastructure was disaster before hurricanes , ” Trump said .
“ Congress to decide how much to spend…We can not keep FEMA , the Military & the First Responders , who have been amazing ( under the most difficult circumstances ) in P.R . forever ! ”
The president ’ s comments come just one week after he visited the U.S. territory that is struggling to recover from the devastation left by Hurricane Maria , the strongest hurricane to hit Puerto Rico in nearly a century .
Trump ’ s trip to Puerto Rico was criticized , for among other things commenting on how the storm 's death toll was far lower than that of a “ real catastrophe like Katrina ” in 2005 .
“ Sixteen people versus in the thousands , ” Trump said . “ You can be very proud of all your people . ”
The president has repeatedly called for more help “ on a local level ” from Puerto Rico and has had an intermittent feud with the San Juan mayor , who also has faced criticism for engaging in political combat when other officials on the island are not .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , shot back Thursday at Trump 's latest tweets .
`` Why do you continue to treat Puerto Ricans differently than other Americans when it comes to natural disasters ? '' Schumer tweeted .
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency , earlier this month , there were more than 10,000 federal officials on the ground on the island .
On Friday , House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wis. , plans to lead a small bipartisan group , including the chairman and top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee that signs off on spending legislation , to visit Puerto Rico .
Ryan plans to meet with local officials and emergency personnel .
The House is expected to vote this week on an emergency spending package including billions of dollars more in relief for Puerto Rico , Texas and Florida in the wake of deadly storms Maria , Harvey and Irma this hurricane season .
The president asked Congress this week for a $ 4.9 billion loan to help Puerto Rico pay its bills from the storm . The island faced more than $ 70 billion in debt prior to the storm , and declared bankruptcy in May .
|
President Trump issued a warning Thursday to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico, saying the U.S. territory's infrastructure was a mess before the storm and warning that federal officials cannot stay on the island "forever."
The president made the comments in a series of early-morning tweets.
“’Puerto Rico survived the Hurricanes, now a financial crisis looms largely of their own making.’ Says Sharyl Attkisson. A total lack of accountability say[s] the Governor. Electric and all infrastructure was disaster before hurricanes,” Trump said.
“Congress to decide how much to spend…We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in P.R. forever!”
The president’s comments come just one week after he visited the U.S. territory that is struggling to recover from the devastation left by Hurricane Maria, the strongest hurricane to hit Puerto Rico in nearly a century.
Trump’s trip to Puerto Rico was criticized, for among other things commenting on how the storm's death toll was far lower than that of a “real catastrophe like Katrina” in 2005.
“Sixteen people versus in the thousands,” Trump said. “You can be very proud of all your people.”
The president has repeatedly called for more help “on a local level” from Puerto Rico and has had an intermittent feud with the San Juan mayor, who also has faced criticism for engaging in political combat when other officials on the island are not.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., shot back Thursday at Trump's latest tweets.
"Why do you continue to treat Puerto Ricans differently than other Americans when it comes to natural disasters?" Schumer tweeted.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, earlier this month, there were more than 10,000 federal officials on the ground on the island.
On Friday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., plans to lead a small bipartisan group, including the chairman and top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee that signs off on spending legislation, to visit Puerto Rico.
Ryan plans to meet with local officials and emergency personnel.
The House is expected to vote this week on an emergency spending package including billions of dollars more in relief for Puerto Rico, Texas and Florida in the wake of deadly storms Maria, Harvey and Irma this hurricane season.
The president asked Congress this week for a $4.9 billion loan to help Puerto Rico pay its bills from the storm. The island faced more than $70 billion in debt prior to the storm, and declared bankruptcy in May.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
GHkm1okxJTZ4YvWq
|
foreign_policy
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://www.apnews.com/dbe7d941eeaf44eba1e571e4ec0c6ea6
|
Turkey launches offensive against Kurdish fighters in Syria
|
2019-10-10
|
Lefteris Pitarakis, Sarah El Deeb
|
In this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria , in Akcakale , Sanliurfa province , southeastern Turkey , smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 . Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area , with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria 's northern border . ( AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis )
In this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria , in Akcakale , Sanliurfa province , southeastern Turkey , smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 . Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area , with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria 's northern border . ( AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis )
AKCAKALE , Turkey ( AP ) — Turkey launched airstrikes , fired artillery and began a ground offensive against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria on Wednesday after U.S. troops pulled back from the area , paving the way for an assault on forces that have long been allied with the United States .
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the start of the campaign , which followed the abrupt decision Sunday by U.S. President Donald Trump to essentially abandon the Syrian Kurdish fighters , leaving them vulnerable to a Turkish offensive that was widely condemned around the world .
The decision was a major shift in U.S. policy and drew opposition from all sides at home . It also marked a stark change in rhetoric by Trump , who during a press conference in New York last year vowed to stand by the Kurds , who have been America ’ s only allies in Syria fighting the Islamic State group . Trump said at the time that the Kurds “ fought with us ” and “ died with us , ” and insisted that America would never forget .
After Erdogan announced the offensive , Trump called the operation “ a bad idea. ” Later Wednesday , he said he didn ’ t want to be involved in “ endless , senseless wars . ”
In northern Syria , residents of the border areas were in a panic and got out on foot , in cars and with rickshaws piled with mattresses and a few belongings . It was a wrenchingly familiar scenario for the many who , only a few years ago , had fled the advances on their towns and villages by the Islamic State group .
Plumes of smoke could be seen rising near the town of Qamishli and clashes continued late Wednesday amid intense shelling as Turkey struck at least six different border towns along a 290-mile ( 300-kilometer ) stretch . At least seven civilians and three members of the Kurdish-led force known as the Syrian Democratic Forces were killed in the Turkish bombardment , Kurdish activists and a Syria war monitor said .
Turkey ’ s campaign — in which a NATO member rained down bombs on an area where hundreds of U.S. troops had been stationed — drew immediate criticism and calls for restraint from Europe . In his statement , Trump emphasized that there are no American soldiers in the immediate area under attack .
“ Our mission is to prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border , and to bring peace to the area , ” Erdogan said in a tweet announcing what he called “ Operation Peace Spring . ”
He said that Turkish forces , with Ankara-backed Syrian fighters known as the Syrian National Army , had begun to eradicate what he called “ the threat of terror ” against Turkey .
Mustafa Bali , a spokesman for the U.S.-backed SDF , said Turkish warplanes were targeting “ civilian areas ” in northern Syria and that shells also had fallen near a prison guarded by Kurds and holding some of the most dangerous IS militants . The AP could not verify the report independently .
In Washington , officials said two British militants believed to be part of an Islamic State group that beheaded hostages and was known as “ The Beatles ” had been moved out of a detention center in Syria and were in U.S. custody .
Before Turkey ’ s attack , Syrian Kurdish forces who control nearly 30 percent of Syria ’ s territory warned of a “ humanitarian catastrophe. ” More than 2 million people live in the area impacted by the attacks , according to aid groups .
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said those killed in the Turkish bombardments included two Christian Assyrians in Qamishli , a married couple and their child , a man in a village outside the town of Tal Abyad , and a child in a village west of Qamishli .
The Turkish operation meant to create a “ safe zone ” carries potential gains and risk for Turkey by getting its forces even more deeply involved in the Syria war . It also ignites new fighting in Syria ’ s 8-year-old war , potentially displacing hundreds of thousands .
A resident of Tal Abyad said one of the bombs hit an SDF post , and he fled with his wife and mother by car to Raqqa , nearly 100 kilometers ( 60 miles ) to the south , to flee the bombing . The resident , who gave his name as Maher , said the road to Raqqa was packed with vehicles and families , some fleeing on foot “ to get away from the bombing . ”
“ People fled and left everything behind , ” he said in a text message after he reached safety .
Turkey has long threatened to attack the Kurdish fighters that Ankara considers terrorists allied with a Kurdish insurgency in Turkey . Expectations of an invasion increased after Trump ’ s announcement Sunday , although he also threatened to “ totally destroy and obliterate ” Turkey ’ s economy if the Turkish push went too far .
U.S. critics said he was sacrificing an ally , the Syrian Kurdish forces , and undermining Washington ’ s credibility . Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham , a Trump ally , told “ Fox & Friends ” that if Trump “ follows through with this , it would be the biggest mistake of his presidency . ”
Trump later said the U.S. “ does not endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea . ”
Trump said he made clear from the start of his political career that “ I did not want to fight these endless , senseless wars — especially those that don ’ t benefit the United States . Turkey has committed to protecting civilians , protecting religious minorities , including Christians , and ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place — and we will hold them to this commitment . ”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg , while noting that Turkey “ has legitimate security concerns ” after suffering “ horrendous terrorist attacks ” and hosting thousands of refugees , said the country should not “ further destabilize the region ” with its military action in Syria .
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas condemned the offensive , saying it will “ further destabilize the region and strengthen IS. ” The operation also was criticized by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker .
The EU is paying Turkey 6 billion euros ( $ 6.6 billion ) to help the country cope with almost 4 million Syrian refugees on its territory in exchange for stopping migrants leaving for Europe .
The Turkish presidency ’ s communications director urged the international community to rally behind Ankara . In a Washington Post column published Wednesday , Fahrettin Altun said Turkey aimed to “ neutralize ” Syrian Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria and to “ liberate the local population from the yoke of the armed thugs . ”
Erdogan discussed the incursion by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Erdogan ’ s office said he told Putin the military action “ will contribute to the peace and stability ” and allow for a political process in Syria .
In its call for a general mobilization , the local civilian Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria asked the global community to fulfill its responsibilities and for the U.S.-led coalition to set up a no-fly zone in northeastern Syria to protect the civilian population from Turkish airstrikes .
The Syrian Kurdish group urged Moscow to broker talks with the Syrian government in Damascus in light of the Turkish operation . The Syrian Kurdish-led administration said it viewed positively calls from Moscow encouraging the Kurds and the Syrian government to settle their difference through talks .
Syria ’ s Foreign Ministry condemned Turkey ’ s military strike , calling it a “ blatant violation ” of international law and vowing to repel the incursion .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Washington of playing “ very dangerous games ” with the Syrian Kurds , saying the U.S. first propped up the Kurdish “ quasi state ” in Syria and now is withdrawing support .
“ Such reckless attitude to this highly sensitive subject can set fire to the entire region , and we have to avoid it at any cost , ” he said in Kazakhstan .
Earlier Wednesday , three IS militants targeted the SDF in Raqqa , once the de facto IS capital at the height of the militants ’ power . An activist collective in Raqqa reported an exchange of fire and an explosion ; the Observatory said two IS fighters engaged in a shootout before blowing themselves up .
IS claimed responsibility , saying one of its members killed or wounded 13 SDF members .
The SDF , which holds thousands of IS fighters in detention facilities in northeastern Syria , has warned that a Turkish incursion might lead to the resurgence of the extremists . The U.S.-allied Kurdish-led force captured the last IS area controlled by the militants in eastern Syria in March .
El Deeb reported from Beirut . ███ writers Suzan Fraser in Ankara , Turkey ; Mehmet Guzel in Akcakale , Turkey ; Nasser Karimi in Tehran , Iran ; Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow ; and Bassem Mroue in Beirut contributed .
|
In this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria, in Akcakale, Sanliurfa province, southeastern Turkey, smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019. Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area, with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria's northern border.(AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)
In this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria, in Akcakale, Sanliurfa province, southeastern Turkey, smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday, Oct. 9, 2019. Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area, with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria's northern border.(AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)
AKCAKALE, Turkey (AP) — Turkey launched airstrikes, fired artillery and began a ground offensive against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria on Wednesday after U.S. troops pulled back from the area, paving the way for an assault on forces that have long been allied with the United States.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the start of the campaign, which followed the abrupt decision Sunday by U.S. President Donald Trump to essentially abandon the Syrian Kurdish fighters, leaving them vulnerable to a Turkish offensive that was widely condemned around the world.
The decision was a major shift in U.S. policy and drew opposition from all sides at home. It also marked a stark change in rhetoric by Trump, who during a press conference in New York last year vowed to stand by the Kurds, who have been America’s only allies in Syria fighting the Islamic State group . Trump said at the time that the Kurds “fought with us” and “died with us,” and insisted that America would never forget.
After Erdogan announced the offensive, Trump called the operation “a bad idea.” Later Wednesday, he said he didn’t want to be involved in “endless, senseless wars.”
In northern Syria, residents of the border areas were in a panic and got out on foot, in cars and with rickshaws piled with mattresses and a few belongings. It was a wrenchingly familiar scenario for the many who, only a few years ago, had fled the advances on their towns and villages by the Islamic State group.
Plumes of smoke could be seen rising near the town of Qamishli and clashes continued late Wednesday amid intense shelling as Turkey struck at least six different border towns along a 290-mile (300-kilometer) stretch. At least seven civilians and three members of the Kurdish-led force known as the Syrian Democratic Forces were killed in the Turkish bombardment, Kurdish activists and a Syria war monitor said.
Turkey’s campaign — in which a NATO member rained down bombs on an area where hundreds of U.S. troops had been stationed — drew immediate criticism and calls for restraint from Europe. In his statement, Trump emphasized that there are no American soldiers in the immediate area under attack.
“Our mission is to prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border, and to bring peace to the area,” Erdogan said in a tweet announcing what he called “Operation Peace Spring.”
He said that Turkish forces, with Ankara-backed Syrian fighters known as the Syrian National Army, had begun to eradicate what he called “the threat of terror” against Turkey.
Mustafa Bali, a spokesman for the U.S.-backed SDF, said Turkish warplanes were targeting “civilian areas” in northern Syria and that shells also had fallen near a prison guarded by Kurds and holding some of the most dangerous IS militants. The AP could not verify the report independently.
In Washington, officials said two British militants believed to be part of an Islamic State group that beheaded hostages and was known as “The Beatles” had been moved out of a detention center in Syria and were in U.S. custody.
Before Turkey’s attack, Syrian Kurdish forces who control nearly 30 percent of Syria’s territory warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe.” More than 2 million people live in the area impacted by the attacks, according to aid groups.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said those killed in the Turkish bombardments included two Christian Assyrians in Qamishli, a married couple and their child, a man in a village outside the town of Tal Abyad, and a child in a village west of Qamishli.
The Turkish operation meant to create a “safe zone” carries potential gains and risk for Turkey by getting its forces even more deeply involved in the Syria war. It also ignites new fighting in Syria’s 8-year-old war, potentially displacing hundreds of thousands.
A resident of Tal Abyad said one of the bombs hit an SDF post, and he fled with his wife and mother by car to Raqqa, nearly 100 kilometers (60 miles) to the south, to flee the bombing. The resident, who gave his name as Maher, said the road to Raqqa was packed with vehicles and families, some fleeing on foot “to get away from the bombing.”
“People fled and left everything behind,” he said in a text message after he reached safety.
Turkey has long threatened to attack the Kurdish fighters that Ankara considers terrorists allied with a Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. Expectations of an invasion increased after Trump’s announcement Sunday, although he also threatened to “totally destroy and obliterate” Turkey’s economy if the Turkish push went too far.
U.S. critics said he was sacrificing an ally, the Syrian Kurdish forces, and undermining Washington’s credibility. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, told “Fox & Friends” that if Trump “follows through with this, it would be the biggest mistake of his presidency.”
Trump later said the U.S. “does not endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea.”
Trump said he made clear from the start of his political career that “I did not want to fight these endless, senseless wars — especially those that don’t benefit the United States. Turkey has committed to protecting civilians, protecting religious minorities, including Christians, and ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place — and we will hold them to this commitment.”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, while noting that Turkey “has legitimate security concerns” after suffering “horrendous terrorist attacks” and hosting thousands of refugees, said the country should not “further destabilize the region” with its military action in Syria.
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas condemned the offensive, saying it will “further destabilize the region and strengthen IS.” The operation also was criticized by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
The EU is paying Turkey 6 billion euros ($6.6 billion) to help the country cope with almost 4 million Syrian refugees on its territory in exchange for stopping migrants leaving for Europe.
The Turkish presidency’s communications director urged the international community to rally behind Ankara. In a Washington Post column published Wednesday, Fahrettin Altun said Turkey aimed to “neutralize” Syrian Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria and to “liberate the local population from the yoke of the armed thugs.”
Erdogan discussed the incursion by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Erdogan’s office said he told Putin the military action “will contribute to the peace and stability” and allow for a political process in Syria.
In its call for a general mobilization, the local civilian Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria asked the global community to fulfill its responsibilities and for the U.S.-led coalition to set up a no-fly zone in northeastern Syria to protect the civilian population from Turkish airstrikes.
The Syrian Kurdish group urged Moscow to broker talks with the Syrian government in Damascus in light of the Turkish operation. The Syrian Kurdish-led administration said it viewed positively calls from Moscow encouraging the Kurds and the Syrian government to settle their difference through talks.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry condemned Turkey’s military strike, calling it a “blatant violation” of international law and vowing to repel the incursion.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Washington of playing “very dangerous games” with the Syrian Kurds, saying the U.S. first propped up the Kurdish “quasi state” in Syria and now is withdrawing support.
“Such reckless attitude to this highly sensitive subject can set fire to the entire region, and we have to avoid it at any cost,” he said in Kazakhstan.
Earlier Wednesday, three IS militants targeted the SDF in Raqqa, once the de facto IS capital at the height of the militants’ power. An activist collective in Raqqa reported an exchange of fire and an explosion; the Observatory said two IS fighters engaged in a shootout before blowing themselves up.
IS claimed responsibility, saying one of its members killed or wounded 13 SDF members.
The SDF, which holds thousands of IS fighters in detention facilities in northeastern Syria, has warned that a Turkish incursion might lead to the resurgence of the extremists. The U.S.-allied Kurdish-led force captured the last IS area controlled by the militants in eastern Syria in March.
___
El Deeb reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey; Mehmet Guzel in Akcakale, Turkey; Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran; Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow; and Bassem Mroue in Beirut contributed.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
vns0RjJ5Vwj6KAVI
|
world
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48117238
|
Venezuela crisis: Defiant Maduro claims victory over Guaidó 'coup'
|
Venezuela 's President Nicolás Maduro says he has defeated an `` attempted coup '' by opposition leader Juan Guaidó .
Dozens of National Guardsmen sided with the opposition in clashes on Tuesday that injured more than 100 people .
But in a defiant TV address , President Maduro said Mr Guaidó had failed to turn the military against him .
Mr Guaidó insists that Mr Maduro has lost control of the armed forces . The opposition leader called for more streets protests on Wednesday .
`` Today we continue , '' he tweeted . `` We will keep going with more strength than ever , Venezuela . ''
Mr Guaidó has been recognised as interim leader of Venezuela by more than 50 countries , including the US , the UK and most in Latin America .
The US reiterated its support for Mr Guaidó on Wednesday , with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying `` military action is possible '' if necessary .
But Mr Maduro , backed by Russia , China and the top of the country 's military , has refused to cede leadership to his rival .
Mr Pompeo is scheduled to speak with Russia 's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday , National Security Adviser John Bolton said .
In his televised address , flanked by military commanders , Mr Maduro accused protesters of `` serious crimes '' which he said would `` not go unpunished '' .
Both the president and Mr Guaidó have called on their supporters to take to the streets , setting up more potential violent unrest in a nation already beset by economic crisis , chronic power cuts and widespread food shortages .
Mr Maduro lashed out again at the United States , which he accuses of plotting against him . He dismissed a claim by the US that he had a plane ready on the tarmac to take him to Cuba , a staunch supporter of the beleaguered president .
`` They had an airplane on the tarmac , '' Mr Pompeo said . `` He was ready to leave this morning [ Tuesday ] , as we understand it . Russians indicated he should stay . ''
A three-minute video by Mr Guaidó published in the early hours of Tuesday showed him standing alongside a number of men in military uniform . He announced that he had the support of `` brave soldiers '' in the capital , Caracas .
He urged Venezuelans to join them in the streets , and appeared alongside another opposition leader , Leopoldo López , who had been under house arrest since 2014 .
Supporters on both sides then gathered in different places of Caracas throughout the day , and there were clashes between Mr Guaidó 's supporters and armed military vehicles .
Protesters were also seen throwing rocks , but being repelled by tear gas and water cannon . At one stage a military vehicle was filmed driving into protesters .
Mr Guaidó , the president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly , has called on Venezuela 's military to back him ever since he declared himself interim president in January .
He argues that President Maduro is a `` usurper '' because he was re-elected in polls that had been widely disputed .
Tuesday marked the most violent episode of the Venezuelan political crisis this year . Venezuelan health officials said 69 people were injured in the clashes , including two with bullet wounds .
Broadcasts from a number of news agencies , including the BBC and CNN , were apparently suspended amid the violence .
Later on Tuesday , it emerged Mr López had sought safety in the Chilean , then the Spanish embassy , along with his family .
The US Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) issued an emergency prohibition against all US carriers flying below 26,000ft in Venezuelan airspace .
It also said all US operators should leave the country within 48 hours , due to increasing political instability .
One sidebar to the Venezuela story is the battle for influence between the US and Russia . It 's a battle that , for now at least , Russia seems to be winning .
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was quick to accuse Russia of meddling , insisting that its government had persuaded President Maduro to abandon plans to flee to Havana .
While the US has firmly backed the Venezuelan opposition leader Russia has thrown its weight behind Mr Maduro - vetoing a US resolution calling for fresh Venezuelan elections and offering considerable practical assistance - medicines , grain supplies and unspecified military support .
Russia 's support for Venezuela has been long-standing . And it 's not just a matter of strategic rivalry with Washington , corporate interests in Moscow and individuals close to President Putin have large stakes in Venezuela 's oil industry .
UN Secretary General António Guterres has appealed for both sides to avoid violence .
The US reiterated its support for Mr Guaidó . In a television interview on Wednesday , Mr Pompeo said Washington would prefer a peaceful transition of power but stated that `` military action is possible '' .
`` If that 's what 's required , that 's what the United States will do , '' the US Secretary of State said .
President Donald Trump said he was monitoring events in Venezuela `` very closely '' and said the US stood with the Venezuelan people and their freedom .
He also threatened to implement the `` highest-level sanctions '' and a `` full and complete embargo '' against Cuba unless its military immediately ceased its support of Mr Maduro .
Governments who still support Mr Maduro , including Bolivia and Cuba , condemned Mr Guaidó 's efforts as an attempted `` coup d'etat '' .
The Mexican government expressed `` concern about a possible increase in violence '' while Colombian President Ivan Duque urged the Venezuelan military to stand `` on the right side of history '' against Mr Maduro .
An emergency meeting of the Lima Group of Latin American countries has been scheduled for Friday .
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Opposition leader Juan Guaidó is appealing to the military for support
Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro says he has defeated an "attempted coup" by opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
Dozens of National Guardsmen sided with the opposition in clashes on Tuesday that injured more than 100 people.
But in a defiant TV address, President Maduro said Mr Guaidó had failed to turn the military against him.
Mr Guaidó insists that Mr Maduro has lost control of the armed forces. The opposition leader called for more streets protests on Wednesday.
"Today we continue," he tweeted. "We will keep going with more strength than ever, Venezuela."
Mr Guaidó has been recognised as interim leader of Venezuela by more than 50 countries, including the US, the UK and most in Latin America.
The US reiterated its support for Mr Guaidó on Wednesday, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying "military action is possible" if necessary.
But Mr Maduro, backed by Russia, China and the top of the country's military, has refused to cede leadership to his rival.
Mr Pompeo is scheduled to speak with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday, National Security Adviser John Bolton said.
What did Mr Maduro say?
In his televised address, flanked by military commanders, Mr Maduro accused protesters of "serious crimes" which he said would "not go unpunished".
Both the president and Mr Guaidó have called on their supporters to take to the streets, setting up more potential violent unrest in a nation already beset by economic crisis, chronic power cuts and widespread food shortages.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro defiant in speech
Mr Maduro lashed out again at the United States, which he accuses of plotting against him. He dismissed a claim by the US that he had a plane ready on the tarmac to take him to Cuba, a staunch supporter of the beleaguered president.
"They had an airplane on the tarmac," Mr Pompeo said. "He was ready to leave this morning [Tuesday], as we understand it. Russians indicated he should stay."
What happened on Tuesday?
A three-minute video by Mr Guaidó published in the early hours of Tuesday showed him standing alongside a number of men in military uniform. He announced that he had the support of "brave soldiers" in the capital, Caracas.
He urged Venezuelans to join them in the streets, and appeared alongside another opposition leader, Leopoldo López, who had been under house arrest since 2014.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "This is unstoppable," says Carlos Vecchio, Juan Guaido's envoy to the US
Supporters on both sides then gathered in different places of Caracas throughout the day, and there were clashes between Mr Guaidó's supporters and armed military vehicles.
Protesters were also seen throwing rocks, but being repelled by tear gas and water cannon. At one stage a military vehicle was filmed driving into protesters.
Mr Guaidó, the president of the opposition-controlled National Assembly, has called on Venezuela's military to back him ever since he declared himself interim president in January.
He argues that President Maduro is a "usurper" because he was re-elected in polls that had been widely disputed.
Tuesday marked the most violent episode of the Venezuelan political crisis this year. Venezuelan health officials said 69 people were injured in the clashes, including two with bullet wounds.
Broadcasts from a number of news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, were apparently suspended amid the violence.
Image copyright AFP Image caption An opposition demonstrator stands next to a burned out bus in Caracas
Later on Tuesday, it emerged Mr López had sought safety in the Chilean, then the Spanish embassy, along with his family.
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an emergency prohibition against all US carriers flying below 26,000ft in Venezuelan airspace.
It also said all US operators should leave the country within 48 hours, due to increasing political instability.
One sidebar to the Venezuela story is the battle for influence between the US and Russia. It's a battle that, for now at least, Russia seems to be winning.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was quick to accuse Russia of meddling, insisting that its government had persuaded President Maduro to abandon plans to flee to Havana.
While the US has firmly backed the Venezuelan opposition leader Russia has thrown its weight behind Mr Maduro - vetoing a US resolution calling for fresh Venezuelan elections and offering considerable practical assistance - medicines, grain supplies and unspecified military support.
Russia's support for Venezuela has been long-standing. And it's not just a matter of strategic rivalry with Washington, corporate interests in Moscow and individuals close to President Putin have large stakes in Venezuela's oil industry.
How did the international community react?
UN Secretary General António Guterres has appealed for both sides to avoid violence.
The US reiterated its support for Mr Guaidó. In a television interview on Wednesday, Mr Pompeo said Washington would prefer a peaceful transition of power but stated that "military action is possible".
"If that's what's required, that's what the United States will do," the US Secretary of State said.
President Donald Trump said he was monitoring events in Venezuela "very closely" and said the US stood with the Venezuelan people and their freedom.
He also threatened to implement the "highest-level sanctions" and a "full and complete embargo" against Cuba unless its military immediately ceased its support of Mr Maduro.
Governments who still support Mr Maduro, including Bolivia and Cuba, condemned Mr Guaidó's efforts as an attempted "coup d'etat".
The Mexican government expressed "concern about a possible increase in violence" while Colombian President Ivan Duque urged the Venezuelan military to stand "on the right side of history" against Mr Maduro.
An emergency meeting of the Lima Group of Latin American countries has been scheduled for Friday.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
il8L4FP56XHEOiF1
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.