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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
coronavirus
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53228134
|
Coronavirus: What's behind alarming new US outbreaks?
|
As coronavirus outbreaks are slowly brought to heel in many places around the world , the US is among a handful of countries facing a surge of new infections .
More than two dozen states are now seeing increases in new cases over the last 14 days .
Of these , Texas , Florida , Arizona and California have emerged as the country 's latest virus epicentres .
But while cases are clearly rising , state leaders and health experts are divided on the cause .
Here 's a look at these four US hotspots , the facts and figures raising alarm , and the theories that may help explain each surge .
First , it 's important to note that across the US , more efficient testing has played some role in the climbing case count . The number of Covid-19 tests being administered now is nearly double what it was in April and May .
But the positive test rate tells us that testing ca n't explain away the rise .
If lots of tests are being conducted and the spread of the coronavirus has been reduced , then the positive case rate would fall in tandem . The World Health Organization says that states should have a positive case rate at or below 5 % for two weeks before they loosen restrictions on movement .
Even with testing success stories , it 's clear that the southern and western US are seeing a particularly sharp spike in infections and their rate .
As of 30 June , Texas , Florida , Arizona or California all fall under that category - and all fail to meet the bar .
After nearly three months of new cases hovering between 1,000 and 2,000 each day - Texas ' infection count has spiked in the last two weeks , with up to 6,000 new illnesses reported in a single day .
The sharp rise in cases has been mirrored by record highs in hospital admissions - reaching at 5,913 on Monday - and stoking fears that the state 's hospitals will soon be overwhelmed .
If this trajectory persists , Houston , the state 's most populous city , `` would become the worst affected city in the US '' , possibly rivalling what 's happening now in Brazil , wrote Peter Hotez , director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children 's Hospital , on Twitter . `` I can not really see how things get better on their own . ''
Why the rise ? Many point to the south-western state 's leading role peeling back lockdown measures .
Texas Governor Greg Abbott allowed his stay home order to expire on 30 April , with almost all businesses - including bars and restaurants - operating to at least 50 % capacity by early June . Last week , amid the surge , the governor shut down all bars and ordered restaurants to cut down capacity from 75 to 50 % .
`` If I could go back and redo anything , it probably would have been to slow down the opening of bars , '' Mr Abbott said to El Paso station KVIA-TV . A `` bar setting , in reality , just does n't work with a pandemic '' .
Packed restaurants and bars may also fit with another national trend : the average age of people diagnosed with Covid-19 has decreased gradually throughout the pandemic .
In certain counties , people under the age 30 make up the majority of Covid patients , Mr Abbott said at a press conference earlier this month , which `` typically results from people going to the bar-type settings '' .
Parts of the state are now also enacting rules on face coverings .
Policies on masks are one of the factors differentiating states like Texas from those seeing lower transmission rates .
In 11 states with mask rules in place - including New York and Illinois - the number of new cases has declined 25 % in the last two weeks , according to an analysis by the Philadelphia Inquirer . On the other hand , in states where only some employees have to wear masks , new cases have risen by an average of 70 % .
Florida 's stay home order expired shortly after Texas ' , on 4 May .
While the state 's most populous counties , Miami-Dade and Broward , held off until 18 May , Florida still had one of the more aggressive reopening strategies in the US .
Disney properties and beaches began reopening by the end of last month , just as Americans across the country celebrated the Memorial Day holiday . Days into June , bars , restaurants , gyms , and shops were also resuming business .
Now , the Sunshine State is seeing a surge in Covid-19 - this past weekend saw over 8,500 new cases per day . In the last two weeks , cases have increased fivefold , according to the New York Times .
Hospitalisations are up as well , but Florida 's death toll has not seen so sharp a rise thus far .
The governor 's answer for why that may be lines up with what the White House has said : more testing and more young people with infections .
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis said a backlog `` test dump '' coupled with transmission in the 18 to 35 age range is behind the concerning counts . He said that 20 % of Floridians aged 25 to 34 are testing positive , and called on younger residents to be more careful , citing graduation parties that ignored social distancing rules .
`` We 've been stressing avoiding the three Cs , which are : closed spaces with poor ventilation , crowded places with many people nearby and close-contact settings , such as close-range conversations , '' Mr DeSantis said .
But some experts say even with testing , the numbers still point to community spread linked to more social contact .
Former CDC Director Tom Frieden told Fox News on Sunday : `` As a doctor , a scientist , an epidemiologist , I can tell you with 100 % certainty that in most states where you 're seeing an increase , it is a real increase . It is not more tests ; it is more spread of the virus . ''
Mr DeSantis has stopped short of enacting any mandatory measures to curb Covid-19 transmission - however , mayors in South Florida , the hardest-hit region of the state , have been discussing next steps .
In Miami , Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach , beaches will be closed for the Fourth of July Independence Day weekend . Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez will also be limiting gatherings to no more than 50 people , with masks required .
Arizona may be the region with the most concerning surge in America . In mid-June , a Harvard epidemiologist noted the state had a higher case count and percent positivity rate than Brazil and Peru at the time .
It 's a familiar story here too : the south-western state 's spike follows its reopening timeline .
Republican Governor Doug Ducey lifted Arizona 's stay-at-home order on 15 May . In the time since , dine-in restaurants , bars , casinos , gyms , golf clubs and swimming pools reopened . There were health recommendations but no mandate on face coverings or enforcement of social distancing .
As of 30 June , cases have been increasing by 85 % in a 14-day period , according to the Covid Exit Strategy tracker . Saturday alone saw a new record of over 3,500 new infections reported .
Arizonians between 20- and 44-years-old make up the bulk of the nearly 80,000 confirmed cases , but 1,200 of its 1,600 deaths are from those aged 65 and up , according to state data . Native Americans make up 18 % of the state 's deaths , but just over 5 % of the state 's population .
In addition to the case counts , it 's the speed at which they 're increasing that concerns health experts .
Arizona 's summertime climate could be adding to the problem , as many opt for indoor activities thanks to the triple-digit temperatures . Among indigenous groups , some households are without running water , making frequent hand-washing difficult , and live in areas with limited access to healthcare facilities .
There has also been local pushback to following health guidance , with anti-lockdown and , more recently , anti-mask rallies .
Amid this new outbreak , Arizona 's hospitals - which are in emergency mode - have warned intensive care units ( ICU ) could soon be overwhelmed . Bed space is already in short supply , with 88 % of ICU beds and 84 % of hospital inpatient beds occupied , according to AZ Central .
The state 's health director on Monday announced hospitals could activate `` crisis care standards '' that would allow them to prioritise resources to patients based on factors like likelihood of survival .
Following criticism from public health officials and Democrats over his inaction , Mr Ducey ordered bars , nightclubs , gyms , movie theatres and water parks to shut for at least 30 days to `` relieve stress '' on the healthcare system on 29 June .
Of the four states hit hardest by the resurgence , California is in many ways an outlier .
Its 19 March stay home order - the first in the nation - is widely credited with helping guard against the death tolls seen in other large states like New York and New Jersey .
But two months after Governor Gavin Newsom said the Covid curve had `` arguably flattened '' , cases are now sharply on the rise , hitting an all-time single day high of new cases on 30 June , with 8,086 confirmed new cases . Hospital admissions jumped 43 % in the last two weeks .
Los Angeles County has the most Covid-19 cases confirmed in the nation , at over 100,000 as of 30 June , according to a Johns Hopkins University count . Local health officials have warned that one in 140 residents may unknowingly have the virus - last week , that estimate was one in 400 .
California officials pin the surge in part to a rise in social and family gatherings , particularly among residents in the 18-49 age group , who make up the majority of California 's positive cases .
Easing restrictions on indoor businesses , like gyms and restaurants , likely also played a role . State leaders have also noted that many bars and restaurants were not following social distancing protocols or requiring face coverings .
Seven counties on Sunday , including Los Angeles , were ordered to shut their bars . Counties and cities , like San Francisco , have reversed reopening plans . Disney also delayed plans to reopen , citing a lack of guidance from the state .
Clusters of the virus have emerged in prisons , nursing homes , as well as rural and urban areas .
The San Francisco Bay Area 's San Quentin Prison reported more than 1,000 Covid-19 cases among its 3,500 inmates this week , following a transfer earlier this month from a prison experiencing an outbreak .
State data also shows a significantly higher number of Latino residents have been infected : Latinos account for around 39 % of the state 's population , but 56 % of the total positive cases as of 30 June .
California 's big cities , like thousands across the nation , also saw massive protests in the wake of George Floyd 's death - though we still do n't have data on how those gatherings may affect the virus ' spread .
|
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Younger Americans have been blamed for the rise in a number of states, including Florida
As coronavirus outbreaks are slowly brought to heel in many places around the world, the US is among a handful of countries facing a surge of new infections.
More than two dozen states are now seeing increases in new cases over the last 14 days.
Of these, Texas, Florida, Arizona and California have emerged as the country's latest virus epicentres.
But while cases are clearly rising, state leaders and health experts are divided on the cause.
Here's a look at these four US hotspots, the facts and figures raising alarm, and the theories that may help explain each surge.
What about testing?
First, it's important to note that across the US, more efficient testing has played some role in the climbing case count. The number of Covid-19 tests being administered now is nearly double what it was in April and May.
But the positive test rate tells us that testing can't explain away the rise.
If lots of tests are being conducted and the spread of the coronavirus has been reduced, then the positive case rate would fall in tandem. The World Health Organization says that states should have a positive case rate at or below 5% for two weeks before they loosen restrictions on movement.
Even with testing success stories, it's clear that the southern and western US are seeing a particularly sharp spike in infections and their rate.
As of 30 June, Texas, Florida, Arizona or California all fall under that category - and all fail to meet the bar.
Texas
After nearly three months of new cases hovering between 1,000 and 2,000 each day - Texas' infection count has spiked in the last two weeks, with up to 6,000 new illnesses reported in a single day.
The sharp rise in cases has been mirrored by record highs in hospital admissions - reaching at 5,913 on Monday - and stoking fears that the state's hospitals will soon be overwhelmed.
If this trajectory persists, Houston, the state's most populous city, "would become the worst affected city in the US", possibly rivalling what's happening now in Brazil, wrote Peter Hotez, director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children's Hospital, on Twitter. "I cannot really see how things get better on their own."
Why the rise? Many point to the south-western state's leading role peeling back lockdown measures.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott allowed his stay home order to expire on 30 April, with almost all businesses - including bars and restaurants - operating to at least 50% capacity by early June. Last week, amid the surge, the governor shut down all bars and ordered restaurants to cut down capacity from 75 to 50%.
"If I could go back and redo anything, it probably would have been to slow down the opening of bars," Mr Abbott said to El Paso station KVIA-TV. A "bar setting, in reality, just doesn't work with a pandemic".
Packed restaurants and bars may also fit with another national trend: the average age of people diagnosed with Covid-19 has decreased gradually throughout the pandemic.
In certain counties, people under the age 30 make up the majority of Covid patients, Mr Abbott said at a press conference earlier this month, which "typically results from people going to the bar-type settings".
Image copyright Getty Images
Parts of the state are now also enacting rules on face coverings.
Policies on masks are one of the factors differentiating states like Texas from those seeing lower transmission rates.
In 11 states with mask rules in place - including New York and Illinois - the number of new cases has declined 25% in the last two weeks, according to an analysis by the Philadelphia Inquirer. On the other hand, in states where only some employees have to wear masks, new cases have risen by an average of 70%.
Florida
Florida's stay home order expired shortly after Texas', on 4 May.
While the state's most populous counties, Miami-Dade and Broward, held off until 18 May, Florida still had one of the more aggressive reopening strategies in the US.
Disney properties and beaches began reopening by the end of last month, just as Americans across the country celebrated the Memorial Day holiday. Days into June, bars, restaurants, gyms, and shops were also resuming business.
Now, the Sunshine State is seeing a surge in Covid-19 - this past weekend saw over 8,500 new cases per day. In the last two weeks, cases have increased fivefold, according to the New York Times.
Hospitalisations are up as well, but Florida's death toll has not seen so sharp a rise thus far.
The governor's answer for why that may be lines up with what the White House has said: more testing and more young people with infections.
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis said a backlog "test dump" coupled with transmission in the 18 to 35 age range is behind the concerning counts. He said that 20% of Floridians aged 25 to 34 are testing positive, and called on younger residents to be more careful, citing graduation parties that ignored social distancing rules.
"We've been stressing avoiding the three Cs, which are: closed spaces with poor ventilation, crowded places with many people nearby and close-contact settings, such as close-range conversations," Mr DeSantis said.
But some experts say even with testing, the numbers still point to community spread linked to more social contact.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Some Florida businesses have been checking visitors' temperature as they enter
Former CDC Director Tom Frieden told Fox News on Sunday: "As a doctor, a scientist, an epidemiologist, I can tell you with 100% certainty that in most states where you're seeing an increase, it is a real increase. It is not more tests; it is more spread of the virus."
Mr DeSantis has stopped short of enacting any mandatory measures to curb Covid-19 transmission - however, mayors in South Florida, the hardest-hit region of the state, have been discussing next steps.
In Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, beaches will be closed for the Fourth of July Independence Day weekend. Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez will also be limiting gatherings to no more than 50 people, with masks required.
Arizona
Arizona may be the region with the most concerning surge in America. In mid-June, a Harvard epidemiologist noted the state had a higher case count and percent positivity rate than Brazil and Peru at the time.
It's a familiar story here too: the south-western state's spike follows its reopening timeline.
Republican Governor Doug Ducey lifted Arizona's stay-at-home order on 15 May. In the time since, dine-in restaurants, bars, casinos, gyms, golf clubs and swimming pools reopened. There were health recommendations but no mandate on face coverings or enforcement of social distancing.
As of 30 June, cases have been increasing by 85% in a 14-day period, according to the Covid Exit Strategy tracker. Saturday alone saw a new record of over 3,500 new infections reported.
Arizonians between 20- and 44-years-old make up the bulk of the nearly 80,000 confirmed cases, but 1,200 of its 1,600 deaths are from those aged 65 and up, according to state data. Native Americans make up 18% of the state's deaths, but just over 5% of the state's population.
In addition to the case counts, it's the speed at which they're increasing that concerns health experts.
Arizona's summertime climate could be adding to the problem, as many opt for indoor activities thanks to the triple-digit temperatures. Among indigenous groups, some households are without running water, making frequent hand-washing difficult, and live in areas with limited access to healthcare facilities.
There has also been local pushback to following health guidance, with anti-lockdown and, more recently, anti-mask rallies.
Amid this new outbreak, Arizona's hospitals - which are in emergency mode - have warned intensive care units (ICU) could soon be overwhelmed. Bed space is already in short supply, with 88% of ICU beds and 84% of hospital inpatient beds occupied, according to AZ Central.
The state's health director on Monday announced hospitals could activate "crisis care standards" that would allow them to prioritise resources to patients based on factors like likelihood of survival.
Following criticism from public health officials and Democrats over his inaction, Mr Ducey ordered bars, nightclubs, gyms, movie theatres and water parks to shut for at least 30 days to "relieve stress" on the healthcare system on 29 June.
California
Of the four states hit hardest by the resurgence, California is in many ways an outlier.
Its 19 March stay home order - the first in the nation - is widely credited with helping guard against the death tolls seen in other large states like New York and New Jersey.
But two months after Governor Gavin Newsom said the Covid curve had "arguably flattened", cases are now sharply on the rise, hitting an all-time single day high of new cases on 30 June, with 8,086 confirmed new cases. Hospital admissions jumped 43% in the last two weeks.
Los Angeles County has the most Covid-19 cases confirmed in the nation, at over 100,000 as of 30 June, according to a Johns Hopkins University count. Local health officials have warned that one in 140 residents may unknowingly have the virus - last week, that estimate was one in 400.
Image copyright Getty Images
California officials pin the surge in part to a rise in social and family gatherings, particularly among residents in the 18-49 age group, who make up the majority of California's positive cases.
Easing restrictions on indoor businesses, like gyms and restaurants, likely also played a role. State leaders have also noted that many bars and restaurants were not following social distancing protocols or requiring face coverings.
Seven counties on Sunday, including Los Angeles, were ordered to shut their bars. Counties and cities, like San Francisco, have reversed reopening plans. Disney also delayed plans to reopen, citing a lack of guidance from the state.
Clusters of the virus have emerged in prisons, nursing homes, as well as rural and urban areas.
The San Francisco Bay Area's San Quentin Prison reported more than 1,000 Covid-19 cases among its 3,500 inmates this week, following a transfer earlier this month from a prison experiencing an outbreak.
State data also shows a significantly higher number of Latino residents have been infected: Latinos account for around 39% of the state's population, but 56% of the total positive cases as of 30 June.
California's big cities, like thousands across the nation, also saw massive protests in the wake of George Floyd's death - though we still don't have data on how those gatherings may affect the virus' spread.
Reporting by Holly Honderich and Ritu Prasad
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
k9m6ljOPFD2NAccL
|
||
immigration
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/19/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-new-asylum-rules-migrant-caravan/2060994002/
|
Federal judge blocks Trump's new asylum rules: 'He may not rewrite the immigration laws'
|
2018-11-19
|
Alan Gomez
|
CLOSE President Trump signed an order blocking asylum claims for migrants who enter illegally . Time
A federal judge in San Francisco blocked new rules put into place by President Donald Trump that limit the ability of immigrants to request asylum , a legal blow to the administration ’ s efforts to curb legal immigration that opens the door for more members of the immigrant caravan to request asylum in the USA .
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled late Monday that the administration 's new policy of cutting off asylum to immigrants who enter the country illegally appears to run afoul of U.S. law that specifically allows them to do so .
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act states that any foreigner who arrives in the USA , `` whether or not at a designated port of arrival , '' may apply for asylum . On Nov. 9 , Trump tried to overrule that law , signing a presidential proclamation ending the ability of immigrants to request asylum if they enter the country illegally .
“ The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry irreconcilably conflicts with the INA and the expressed intent of Congress , '' wrote Tigar , who was appointed by President Barack Obama . `` Whatever the scope of the President ’ s authority , he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden . ”
More : Job fair kicks off for stranded immigrants facing long wait times in Tijuana
Tigar issued a temporary restraining order , meaning the administration is forbidden from enforcing the new rules until the court case proceeds Dec. 19 .
In a joint statement Tuesday , the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice said it was “ absurd ” that a collection of advocacy groups were able to sue the federal government to stop the asylum policy . The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four groups that help immigrants .
The statement did not announce an appeal , but it made clear that the administration will fight Tigar ’ s ruling in court .
`` We look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch 's legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border , '' wrote Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice spokesman Steven Stafford .
The White House later issued a statement saying the “ decision will open the floodgates , inviting countless illegal aliens to pour into our country on the American taxpayer ’ s dime . ”
“ This temporary injunction is yet another example of activist judges imposing their open borders policy preferences , which are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the American people , and interfering with the executive branch ’ s authority to administer the immigration system in a manner that ensures the Nation ’ s safety , security , and the rule of law , ” the statement said .
As that legal process moves along , the ruling could have an immediate impact on members of the immigrant caravan of mostly Central Americans who are gathering in Tijuana to try to enter the USA .
Asylum is a form of protection granted to people who fear persecution in their home countries based on their race , religion , nationality , membership in a particular social group or their political opinion . From 2000 to 2016 , the United States granted asylum to an average of 26,651 foreigners a year , according to Department of Homeland Security data .
The number of asylum applications has skyrocketed in recent years , from 5,000 in 2008 to 97,000 in 2018 , mostly fueled by Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries .
Trump signed his directive after a monthlong attack against the immigrant caravan . He took to the campaign trail to warn about a looming `` invasion '' from caravan members who were criminals , gang members and `` Middle Easterners . ''
To justify the move , he relied on a law that allows a president to suspend entry of foreigners if he signs a proclamation declaring them `` detrimental to the interests of the United States . '' That 's the same rationale he used to implement his controversial travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries . The first two versions of the travel ban were shot down in court , but the third was upheld by the Supreme Court .
Department of Justice lawyers cited the travel ban decision in the asylum lawsuit .
`` Consistent with this explanation , the proclamation imposes limited measures to ameliorate the crisis along the southern border , '' the lawyers wrote .
The ACLU argued that the president 's powers over immigration are not absolute and do not allow him to unilaterally cut off asylum for entire groups of people .
“ The Court ’ s ruling makes clear that the President can not override Congress , and will save lives , '' said Lee Gelernt , the ACLU attorney who brought the suit .
In court filings , the ACLU argued that the asylum restrictions were a direct challenge to the clear intention of Congress when it passed the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act . The group cited a 1951 United Nations treaty signed by the United States that says `` refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry '' because extreme situations sometimes `` require refugees to breach immigration rules . ''
The ACLU used the example of the immigrant caravan , which is massing by the thousands in Tijuana , Mexico . Many members have said they want to present themselves at ports of entry to make their asylum request , but the majority can not do so because U.S. officials at the San Ysidro Port of Entry can process only about 100 requests a day .
That has left caravan members stranded in Tijuana , a `` life-threatening '' situation that leaves them vulnerable to criminals who seek to take advantage of them , the ACLU attorneys wrote .
`` Asylum seekers turned back from a port of entry have been raped , beaten , and kidnapped and held for ransom by cartel members waiting outside , '' they wrote . `` Asylum seekers who need to reach safety as quickly as possible thus often feel compelled to enter the United States along the border , outside of a port of entry , in order to escape their persecutors and the violence on Mexico ’ s side of the border . ''
A separate lawsuit filed in Washington challenges another move by the Trump administration to limit asylum claims . In that case , the ACLU and other groups say the administration overstepped its legal limits when it issued rules barring immigrants from qualifying for asylum based on domestic abuse or gang violence .
Lawyers argued that case Monday , and the judge could issue a ruling any day .
|
CLOSE President Trump signed an order blocking asylum claims for migrants who enter illegally. Time
Members of the immigrant caravan wait in line to turn in requests for political asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border on Nov. 17 in Tijuana, Mexico. (Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)
A federal judge in San Francisco blocked new rules put into place by President Donald Trump that limit the ability of immigrants to request asylum, a legal blow to the administration’s efforts to curb legal immigration that opens the door for more members of the immigrant caravan to request asylum in the USA.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled late Monday that the administration's new policy of cutting off asylum to immigrants who enter the country illegally appears to run afoul of U.S. law that specifically allows them to do so.
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act states that any foreigner who arrives in the USA, "whether or not at a designated port of arrival," may apply for asylum. On Nov. 9, Trump tried to overrule that law, signing a presidential proclamation ending the ability of immigrants to request asylum if they enter the country illegally.
“The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry irreconcilably conflicts with the INA and the expressed intent of Congress," wrote Tigar, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. "Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.”
More: Immigrants' makeshift shelter in Tijuana nears capacity
More: Job fair kicks off for stranded immigrants facing long wait times in Tijuana
Tigar issued a temporary restraining order, meaning the administration is forbidden from enforcing the new rules until the court case proceeds Dec. 19.
In a joint statement Tuesday, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice said it was “absurd” that a collection of advocacy groups were able to sue the federal government to stop the asylum policy. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four groups that help immigrants.
The statement did not announce an appeal, but it made clear that the administration will fight Tigar’s ruling in court.
"We look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch's legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border," wrote Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice spokesman Steven Stafford.
The White House later issued a statement saying the “decision will open the floodgates, inviting countless illegal aliens to pour into our country on the American taxpayer’s dime.”
“This temporary injunction is yet another example of activist judges imposing their open borders policy preferences, which are rejected by the overwhelming majority of the American people, and interfering with the executive branch’s authority to administer the immigration system in a manner that ensures the Nation’s safety, security, and the rule of law,” the statement said.
As that legal process moves along, the ruling could have an immediate impact on members of the immigrant caravan of mostly Central Americans who are gathering in Tijuana to try to enter the USA.
Asylum is a form of protection granted to people who fear persecution in their home countries based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or their political opinion. From 2000 to 2016, the United States granted asylum to an average of 26,651 foreigners a year, according to Department of Homeland Security data.
The number of asylum applications has skyrocketed in recent years, from 5,000 in 2008 to 97,000 in 2018, mostly fueled by Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries.
Trump signed his directive after a monthlong attack against the immigrant caravan. He took to the campaign trail to warn about a looming "invasion" from caravan members who were criminals, gang members and "Middle Easterners."
To justify the move, he relied on a law that allows a president to suspend entry of foreigners if he signs a proclamation declaring them "detrimental to the interests of the United States." That's the same rationale he used to implement his controversial travel ban targeting majority-Muslim countries. The first two versions of the travel ban were shot down in court, but the third was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Department of Justice lawyers cited the travel ban decision in the asylum lawsuit.
"Consistent with this explanation, the proclamation imposes limited measures to ameliorate the crisis along the southern border," the lawyers wrote.
The ACLU argued that the president's powers over immigration are not absolute and do not allow him to unilaterally cut off asylum for entire groups of people.
“The Court’s ruling makes clear that the President cannot override Congress, and will save lives," said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who brought the suit.
In court filings, the ACLU argued that the asylum restrictions were a direct challenge to the clear intention of Congress when it passed the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. The group cited a 1951 United Nations treaty signed by the United States that says "refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry" because extreme situations sometimes "require refugees to breach immigration rules."
The ACLU used the example of the immigrant caravan, which is massing by the thousands in Tijuana, Mexico. Many members have said they want to present themselves at ports of entry to make their asylum request, but the majority cannot do so because U.S. officials at the San Ysidro Port of Entry can process only about 100 requests a day.
That has left caravan members stranded in Tijuana, a "life-threatening" situation that leaves them vulnerable to criminals who seek to take advantage of them, the ACLU attorneys wrote.
"Asylum seekers turned back from a port of entry have been raped, beaten, and kidnapped and held for ransom by cartel members waiting outside," they wrote. "Asylum seekers who need to reach safety as quickly as possible thus often feel compelled to enter the United States along the border, outside of a port of entry, in order to escape their persecutors and the violence on Mexico’s side of the border."
A separate lawsuit filed in Washington challenges another move by the Trump administration to limit asylum claims. In that case, the ACLU and other groups say the administration overstepped its legal limits when it issued rules barring immigrants from qualifying for asylum based on domestic abuse or gang violence.
Lawyers argued that case Monday, and the judge could issue a ruling any day.
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/11/19/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-new-asylum-rules-migrant-caravan/2060994002/
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
RLs4HeBOtzI6bNrj
|
fake_news
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-iran-specialreport/special-report-how-iran-spreads-disinformation-around-the-world-idUSKCN1NZ1FT
|
How Iran spreads disinformation around the world
|
2018-11-30
|
Jack Stubbs
|
LONDON/WASHINGTON A Tehran-based agency has quietly fed propaganda through at least 70 websites to countries from Afghanistan to Russia . And American firms have helped .
Website Nile Net Online promises Egyptians “ true news ” from its offices in the heart of Cairo ’ s Tahrir Square , “ to expand the scope of freedom of expression in the Arab world . ”
Its views on America do not chime with those of Egypt ’ s state media , which celebrate Donald Trump ’ s warm relations with Cairo . In one recent article , Nile Net Online derided the American president as a “ low-level theater actor ” who “ turned America into a laughing stock ” after he attacked Iran in a speech at the United Nations .
Until recently , Nile Net Online had more than 115,000 page-followers across Facebook , Twitter and Instagram . But its contact telephone numbers , including one listed as 0123456789 , don ’ t work . A Facebook map showing its location dropped a pin onto the middle of the street , rather than any building . And regulars at the square , including a newspaper stallholder and a policeman , say they have never heard of the website .
The reason : Nile Net Online is part of an influence operation based in Tehran .
It ’ s one of more than 70 websites found by ███ which push Iranian propaganda to 15 countries , in an operation that cybersecurity experts , social media firms and journalists are only starting to uncover . The sites found by ███ are visited by more than half a million people a month , and have been promoted by social media accounts with more than a million followers .
The sites underline how political actors worldwide are increasingly circulating distorted or false information online to influence public opinion . The discoveries follow allegations that Russian disinformation campaigns have swayed voters in the United States and Europe . Advisers to Saudi Arabia ’ s crown prince , and the army in Myanmar , are also among those using social media to distribute propaganda and attack their enemies . Moscow has denied the charges ; Riyadh and Yangon have not commented .
Former CIA director John Brennan told ███ that “ countries around the globe ” are now using such information warfare tactics .
“ The Iranians are sophisticated cyber players , ” he said of the Iranian campaign . “ There are elements of the Iranian intelligence services that are rather capable in terms of operating ( online ) . ”
Traced by building on research from cybersecurity firms FireEye and ClearSky , the sites in the campaign have been active at different times since 2012 . They look like normal news and media outlets , but only a couple disclose any Iranian ties .
███ could not determine whether the Iranian government is behind the sites ; Iranian officials in Tehran and London did not reply to questions .
But all the sites are linked to Iran in one of two ways . Some carry stories , video and cartoons supplied by an online agency called the International Union of Virtual Media ( IUVM ) , which says on its website it is headquartered in Tehran . Some have shared online registration details with IUVM , such as addresses and phone numbers . Twenty-one of the websites do both .
Emails sent to IUVM bounced back and telephone numbers the agency gave in web registration records did not work . Documents available on the main IUVM website say its objectives include “ confronting with remarkable arrogance , western governments and Zionism front activities . ”
Nile Net Online did not respond to questions sent to the email address on its website . Its operators , as well as those of the other websites identified by ███ , could not be located . Previous owners identified in historical registration records could not be reached . The Egyptian government did not respond to requests for comment .
Some of the sites in the Iranian operation were first exposed in August by companies including Facebook , Twitter and Google ’ s parent , Alphabet , after FireEye found them . The social media companies have closed hundreds of accounts that promoted the sites or pushed Iranian messaging . Facebook said last month it had taken down 82 pages , groups and accounts linked to the Iranian campaign ; these had gathered more than one million followers in the United States and Britain .
But the sites uncovered by ███ have a much wider scope . They have published in 16 different languages , from Azerbaijani to Urdu , targeting Internet users in less-developed countries . That they reached readers in tightly controlled societies such as Egypt , which has blocked hundreds of news websites since 2017 , highlights the campaign ’ s reach .
· A news site called Another Western Dawn which says its focus is on “ unspoken truth. ” It fooled the Pakistani defence minister into issuing a nuclear threat against Israel .
· Ten outlets targeting readers in Yemen , where Iran and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia have been fighting a proxy conflict since civil war broke out in 2015 ;
· A media outlet offering daily news and satirical cartoons in Sudan . ███ could not reach any of its staff ;
· A website called Realnie Novosti , or “ Real News , ” for Russian readers . It offers a downloadable mobile phone app but its operator could not be traced .
The news on the sites is not all fake . Authentic stories sit alongside pirated cartoons , as well as speeches from Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei . The sites clearly support Iran ’ s government and amplify antagonism to countries opposed to Tehran - particularly Israel , Saudi Arabia and the United States . Nile Net ’ s “ laughing stock ” piece was copied from an Iranian state TV network article published earlier the same day .
Some of the sites are slapdash . The self-styled , misspelled “ Yemen Press Agecny ” carries a running update of Saudi “ crimes against Yemenis during the past 24 hours. ” Emails sent to the agency ’ s listed contact , Arafat Shoroh , bounced back . The agency ’ s address and phone number led to a hotel in the Yemeni capital , Sana ’ a , whose staff said they had never heard of Shoroh .
The front page of the 'Yemen Press ' website . Nov. 30 2018
The identity or location of the past owners of some of the websites is visible in historical Internet registration records : 17 of 71 sites have in the past listed their locations as Iran or Tehran , or given an Iranian telephone or fax number . But who owns them now is often hidden , and none of the Iranian-linked operators could be reached .
More than 50 of the sites use American web service providers Cloudflare and OnlineNIC - firms that provide website owners with tools to shield themselves from spam and hackers . Frequently , such services also effectively conceal who owns the sites or where they are hosted . The companies declined to tell ███ who operates the sites .
Under U.S law , hosting and web services companies are not generally liable for the content of sites they serve , said Eric Goldman , co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University . Still , since 2014 , U.S. sanctions on Iran have banned “ the exportation or re-exportation , directly or indirectly , of web-hosting services that are for commercial endeavors or of domain name registration services . ”
Douglas Kramer , general counsel for Cloudflare , said the services it provides do not include web-hosting services . “ We ’ ve looked at those various sanctions regimes , we are comfortable that we are not in violation , ” he told ███ .
A spokesman for OnlineNIC said none of the sites declared a connection to Iran in their registration details , and the company was in full compliance with U.S. sanctions and trade embargoes .
The U.S. Treasury ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control ( OFAC ) declined to comment on whether it planned an investigation .
Iranians burn an effigy of U.S. President Donald Trump in Tehran , Iran June 8 , 2018 . Tasnim News Agency
The Kremlin is widely seen as the superpower in modern information warfare . From what is known so far , Russia ’ s influence operation - which Moscow denies - dwarfs Iran ’ s . According to Twitter , nearly 4,000 accounts connected to the Russian campaign posted over 9 million tweets between 2013 and 2018 , against over 1 million tweets from fewer than 1,000 accounts believed to originate in Iran .
Even though the Iranian operation is smaller , it has had impact on volatile topics . AWDnews - the site with the focus on “ unspoken truth ” - ran a false story in 2016 which prompted Pakistan ’ s defense minister to warn on Twitter he had the weapons to nuke Israel . He only found out that the hoax was part of an Iranian operation when contacted by ███ .
“ It was a learning experience , ” said the deceived politician , 69-year-old Khawaja Asif , who left Pakistan ’ s government earlier this year . “ But one can understand that these sorts of things happen , because fake news has become something huge . It ’ s something which anyone is capable of now , which is very dangerous . ”
Israeli officials did not respond to a request for comment .
AWDnews publishes in English , French , Spanish and German and , according to data from web analytics company SimilarWeb , receives around 12,000 unique visitors a month . Among others who shared stories from AWDnews and the other websites identified by ███ were politicians in Britain , Jordan , India , and the Netherlands ; human-rights activists ; an Indian music composer and a Japanese rap star .
Hatebook Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar
FireEye , a U.S. cybersecurity firm , originally named six websites as part of the Iranian influence operation . ███ examined those sites , and their content led to the Tehran-based International Union of Virtual Media .
IUVM is an array of 11 websites with names such as iuvmpress , iuvmapp and iuvmpixel . Together , they form a library of digital material , including mobile phone apps , items from Iranian state media and pictures , video clips and stories from elsewhere on the web , which support Tehran ’ s policies .
Tracking usage of IUVM content across the Internet led to sites which have used its material , registration details , or both . For instance , 22 of the sites have shared the same phone number , which does not work and has also been listed for IUVM . At least seven have used the same address , which belongs to a youth hostel in Berlin . Staff at the hostel told ███ they had never heard of the sites in question . The site operators could not be reached to explain their links with IUVM .
Two sites even posted job advertisements for IUVM , inviting applications from women with “ ability to work effectively and knowledge in dealing with social networks and ( the ) Internet . ”
One of IUVM ’ s most popular users is a site called Sudan Today , which SimilarWeb data shows receives almost 150,000 unique visitors each month . On Facebook , it tells its 57,000 followers that it operates without political bias . Its 18,000 followers on Twitter have included the Italian Embassy in Sudan , and its work has been cited in a report by the Egyptian Electricity Ministry .
The office address registered for Sudan Today in 2016 covers a whole city district in north Khartoum , according to archived website registration details provided by WhoisAPI Inc and DomainTools LLC . The phone number listed in those records does not work .
███ could not trace staff members named on Sudan Today ’ s Facebook page . The five-star Corinthia hotel in central Khartoum , where the site says it hosted an anniversary party last year , told ███ no such event took place . And an address listed on one of its social media accounts is a demolished home .
Sudan used to be an Iranian ally but has changed sides to align itself with Saudi Arabia , costing Tehran a foothold in the Horn of Africa just as it becomes more isolated by the West . In that environment , Iran sees itself as competing with Israel , Saudi Arabia and the United States for international support , and is taking the fight online , said Ariane Tabatabai , a senior associate and Iran expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington , D.C .
Headlines on Sudan Today ’ s homepage include a daily round-up of stories from local newspapers and Ugandan soccer results . It also features reports on bread prices - which doubled in January after Khartoum eliminated subsidies , triggering demonstrations .
Ohad Zaidenberg , senior researcher at Israeli cybersecurity firm ClearSky , said this mixture of content provides the cover for narratives geared at influencing a target audience ’ s attitudes and perceptions .
The site also draws attention to Saudi Arabia ’ s military actions in Yemen . Since Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir ended his allegiance with Iran he has sent troops and jets to join Saudi-led forces in the Yemeni conflict .
One cartoon from IUVM published by Sudan Today in August shows Donald Trump astride a military jet with an overflowing bag of dollar bills tucked under one arm . The jet is draped with traditional Saudi dress and shown dropping bombs on a bloodstained map of Yemen . The map is littered with children ’ s toys and shoes .
Turkish cartoonist Mikail Çiftçi drew the original . He told ███ he did not give Sudan Today permission to use it .
This cartoon was copied by IUVM without permission from the artist .
Alnagi Albashra , a 28-year-old software developer in Khartoum , said he likes to read articles on Sudan Today in the evenings when waiting for his baby to fall asleep . But he and three other Sudan Today readers reached by ███ had no idea who was behind the site .
“ This is a big problem , ” he said . “ You can ’ t see that they are not in Sudan . ”
Government officials in Khartoum , the White House , the Italian Embassy and the Egyptian Electricity Ministry did not respond to requests for comment .
It is unclear who globally is tasked with responding to online disinformation campaigns like Iran ’ s , or what if any action they should take , said David Conrad , chief technology officer at ICANN , a non-profit which helps manage global web addresses .
Social media accounts can be deleted in bulk by the firms that provide the platforms . But the Iranian campaign ’ s backbone of websites makes it harder to dismantle than social media , because taking down a website often requires the cooperation of law enforcement , Internet service providers and web infrastructure companies .
Efforts by social media companies in the United States and Europe to tackle the campaign have had mixed results .
Shortly after being contacted by ███ , Twitter suspended the accounts for Nile Net Online and Sudan Today . “ Clear attribution is very difficult , ” a spokeswoman said , but added that the company would continue to update a public database of tweets and accounts linked to state-backed information operations when it had new information .
Google did not respond directly to questions about the websites found by ███ . The company has said it identified and closed 99 accounts which it says are linked to Iranian state media . “ We ’ ve invested in robust systems to identify influence operations launched by foreign governments , ” a spokeswoman said .
Facebook said it was aware of the websites found by ███ and had removed five more Facebook pages . But a spokesman said that based on Facebook user data , the company was not yet able to link all the websites ’ accounts to the Iranian activity found earlier . “ In the past several months , we have removed hundreds of Pages , Groups , and accounts linked to Iranian actors engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior . We continue to remove accounts across our services and in all relevant languages , ” he said .
Accounts linked to the Iranian sites remain active online , especially in languages other than English . On Nov. 30 , 16 of the Iranian sites were still posting daily updates on Facebook , Twitter , Instagram or YouTube - including Sudan Today and Nile Net Online . Between them , the social media accounts had more than 700,000 followers .
The address listed for 'Sudan Today ' on one social media account leads here .
( Corrects to delete two paragraphs in section three - WHO representative was not authorised to speak to the media )
|
LONDON/WASHINGTON A Tehran-based agency has quietly fed propaganda through at least 70 websites to countries from Afghanistan to Russia. And American firms have helped.
Website Nile Net Online promises Egyptians “true news” from its offices in the heart of Cairo’s Tahrir Square, “to expand the scope of freedom of expression in the Arab world.”
Its views on America do not chime with those of Egypt’s state media, which celebrate Donald Trump’s warm relations with Cairo. In one recent article, Nile Net Online derided the American president as a “low-level theater actor” who “turned America into a laughing stock” after he attacked Iran in a speech at the United Nations.
Until recently, Nile Net Online had more than 115,000 page-followers across Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. But its contact telephone numbers, including one listed as 0123456789, don’t work. A Facebook map showing its location dropped a pin onto the middle of the street, rather than any building. And regulars at the square, including a newspaper stallholder and a policeman, say they have never heard of the website.
The reason: Nile Net Online is part of an influence operation based in Tehran.
The logo of Nile Net Online.
It’s one of more than 70 websites found by Reuters which push Iranian propaganda to 15 countries, in an operation that cybersecurity experts, social media firms and journalists are only starting to uncover. The sites found by Reuters are visited by more than half a million people a month, and have been promoted by social media accounts with more than a million followers.
The sites underline how political actors worldwide are increasingly circulating distorted or false information online to influence public opinion. The discoveries follow allegations that Russian disinformation campaigns have swayed voters in the United States and Europe. Advisers to Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, and the army in Myanmar, are also among those using social media to distribute propaganda and attack their enemies. Moscow has denied the charges; Riyadh and Yangon have not commented.
Former CIA director John Brennan told Reuters that “countries around the globe” are now using such information warfare tactics.
“The Iranians are sophisticated cyber players,” he said of the Iranian campaign. “There are elements of the Iranian intelligence services that are rather capable in terms of operating (online).”
Traced by building on research from cybersecurity firms FireEye and ClearSky, the sites in the campaign have been active at different times since 2012. They look like normal news and media outlets, but only a couple disclose any Iranian ties.
Reuters could not determine whether the Iranian government is behind the sites; Iranian officials in Tehran and London did not reply to questions.
But all the sites are linked to Iran in one of two ways. Some carry stories, video and cartoons supplied by an online agency called the International Union of Virtual Media (IUVM), which says on its website it is headquartered in Tehran. Some have shared online registration details with IUVM, such as addresses and phone numbers. Twenty-one of the websites do both.
Emails sent to IUVM bounced back and telephone numbers the agency gave in web registration records did not work. Documents available on the main IUVM website say its objectives include “confronting with remarkable arrogance, western governments and Zionism front activities.”
Nile Net Online did not respond to questions sent to the email address on its website. Its operators, as well as those of the other websites identified by Reuters, could not be located. Previous owners identified in historical registration records could not be reached. The Egyptian government did not respond to requests for comment.
Graphic: Tehran calling: tmsnrt.rs/2QquP35
“UNSPOKEN TRUTH”
Some of the sites in the Iranian operation were first exposed in August by companies including Facebook, Twitter and Google’s parent, Alphabet, after FireEye found them. The social media companies have closed hundreds of accounts that promoted the sites or pushed Iranian messaging. Facebook said last month it had taken down 82 pages, groups and accounts linked to the Iranian campaign; these had gathered more than one million followers in the United States and Britain.
But the sites uncovered by Reuters have a much wider scope. They have published in 16 different languages, from Azerbaijani to Urdu, targeting Internet users in less-developed countries. That they reached readers in tightly controlled societies such as Egypt, which has blocked hundreds of news websites since 2017, highlights the campaign’s reach.
The Iranian sites include:
· A news site called Another Western Dawn which says its focus is on “unspoken truth.” It fooled the Pakistani defence minister into issuing a nuclear threat against Israel.
The logo for the 'Another Western Dawn' website.
· Ten outlets targeting readers in Yemen, where Iran and U.S. ally Saudi Arabia have been fighting a proxy conflict since civil war broke out in 2015;
· A media outlet offering daily news and satirical cartoons in Sudan. Reuters could not reach any of its staff;
· A website called Realnie Novosti, or “Real News,” for Russian readers. It offers a downloadable mobile phone app but its operator could not be traced.
The news on the sites is not all fake. Authentic stories sit alongside pirated cartoons, as well as speeches from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The sites clearly support Iran’s government and amplify antagonism to countries opposed to Tehran - particularly Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Nile Net’s “laughing stock” piece was copied from an Iranian state TV network article published earlier the same day.
Some of the sites are slapdash. The self-styled, misspelled “Yemen Press Agecny” carries a running update of Saudi “crimes against Yemenis during the past 24 hours.” Emails sent to the agency’s listed contact, Arafat Shoroh, bounced back. The agency’s address and phone number led to a hotel in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, whose staff said they had never heard of Shoroh.
The front page of the 'Yemen Press' website. Nov. 30 2018
The identity or location of the past owners of some of the websites is visible in historical Internet registration records: 17 of 71 sites have in the past listed their locations as Iran or Tehran, or given an Iranian telephone or fax number. But who owns them now is often hidden, and none of the Iranian-linked operators could be reached.
More than 50 of the sites use American web service providers Cloudflare and OnlineNIC - firms that provide website owners with tools to shield themselves from spam and hackers. Frequently, such services also effectively conceal who owns the sites or where they are hosted. The companies declined to tell Reuters who operates the sites.
Under U.S law, hosting and web services companies are not generally liable for the content of sites they serve, said Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. Still, since 2014, U.S. sanctions on Iran have banned “the exportation or re-exportation, directly or indirectly, of web-hosting services that are for commercial endeavors or of domain name registration services.”
Douglas Kramer, general counsel for Cloudflare, said the services it provides do not include web-hosting services. “We’ve looked at those various sanctions regimes, we are comfortable that we are not in violation,” he told Reuters.
A spokesman for OnlineNIC said none of the sites declared a connection to Iran in their registration details, and the company was in full compliance with U.S. sanctions and trade embargoes.
The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) declined to comment on whether it planned an investigation.
Iranians burn an effigy of U.S. President Donald Trump in Tehran, Iran June 8, 2018. Tasnim News Agency
ANOTHER WESTERN DAWN
The Kremlin is widely seen as the superpower in modern information warfare. From what is known so far, Russia’s influence operation - which Moscow denies - dwarfs Iran’s. According to Twitter, nearly 4,000 accounts connected to the Russian campaign posted over 9 million tweets between 2013 and 2018, against over 1 million tweets from fewer than 1,000 accounts believed to originate in Iran.
Even though the Iranian operation is smaller, it has had impact on volatile topics. AWDnews - the site with the focus on “unspoken truth” - ran a false story in 2016 which prompted Pakistan’s defense minister to warn on Twitter he had the weapons to nuke Israel. He only found out that the hoax was part of an Iranian operation when contacted by Reuters.
“It was a learning experience,” said the deceived politician, 69-year-old Khawaja Asif, who left Pakistan’s government earlier this year. “But one can understand that these sorts of things happen, because fake news has become something huge. It’s something which anyone is capable of now, which is very dangerous.”
Israeli officials did not respond to a request for comment.
AWDnews publishes in English, French, Spanish and German and, according to data from web analytics company SimilarWeb, receives around 12,000 unique visitors a month. Among others who shared stories from AWDnews and the other websites identified by Reuters were politicians in Britain, Jordan, India, and the Netherlands; human-rights activists; an Indian music composer and a Japanese rap star.
Hatebook Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar
JOBS FOR WOMEN
FireEye, a U.S. cybersecurity firm, originally named six websites as part of the Iranian influence operation. Reuters examined those sites, and their content led to the Tehran-based International Union of Virtual Media.
IUVM is an array of 11 websites with names such as iuvmpress, iuvmapp and iuvmpixel. Together, they form a library of digital material, including mobile phone apps, items from Iranian state media and pictures, video clips and stories from elsewhere on the web, which support Tehran’s policies.
Tracking usage of IUVM content across the Internet led to sites which have used its material, registration details, or both. For instance, 22 of the sites have shared the same phone number, which does not work and has also been listed for IUVM. At least seven have used the same address, which belongs to a youth hostel in Berlin. Staff at the hostel told Reuters they had never heard of the sites in question. The site operators could not be reached to explain their links with IUVM.
Two sites even posted job advertisements for IUVM, inviting applications from women with “ability to work effectively and knowledge in dealing with social networks and (the) Internet.”
DEMOLISHED HOME
One of IUVM’s most popular users is a site called Sudan Today, which SimilarWeb data shows receives almost 150,000 unique visitors each month. On Facebook, it tells its 57,000 followers that it operates without political bias. Its 18,000 followers on Twitter have included the Italian Embassy in Sudan, and its work has been cited in a report by the Egyptian Electricity Ministry.
The office address registered for Sudan Today in 2016 covers a whole city district in north Khartoum, according to archived website registration details provided by WhoisAPI Inc and DomainTools LLC. The phone number listed in those records does not work.
Reuters could not trace staff members named on Sudan Today’s Facebook page. The five-star Corinthia hotel in central Khartoum, where the site says it hosted an anniversary party last year, told Reuters no such event took place. And an address listed on one of its social media accounts is a demolished home.
Sudan used to be an Iranian ally but has changed sides to align itself with Saudi Arabia, costing Tehran a foothold in the Horn of Africa just as it becomes more isolated by the West. In that environment, Iran sees itself as competing with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States for international support, and is taking the fight online, said Ariane Tabatabai, a senior associate and Iran expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Headlines on Sudan Today’s homepage include a daily round-up of stories from local newspapers and Ugandan soccer results. It also features reports on bread prices - which doubled in January after Khartoum eliminated subsidies, triggering demonstrations.
Ohad Zaidenberg, senior researcher at Israeli cybersecurity firm ClearSky, said this mixture of content provides the cover for narratives geared at influencing a target audience’s attitudes and perceptions.
The site also draws attention to Saudi Arabia’s military actions in Yemen. Since Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir ended his allegiance with Iran he has sent troops and jets to join Saudi-led forces in the Yemeni conflict.
One cartoon from IUVM published by Sudan Today in August shows Donald Trump astride a military jet with an overflowing bag of dollar bills tucked under one arm. The jet is draped with traditional Saudi dress and shown dropping bombs on a bloodstained map of Yemen. The map is littered with children’s toys and shoes.
Turkish cartoonist Mikail Çiftçi drew the original. He told Reuters he did not give Sudan Today permission to use it.
This cartoon was copied by IUVM without permission from the artist.
Alnagi Albashra, a 28-year-old software developer in Khartoum, said he likes to read articles on Sudan Today in the evenings when waiting for his baby to fall asleep. But he and three other Sudan Today readers reached by Reuters had no idea who was behind the site.
“This is a big problem,” he said. “You can’t see that they are not in Sudan.”
Government officials in Khartoum, the White House, the Italian Embassy and the Egyptian Electricity Ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
BACKBONE
It is unclear who globally is tasked with responding to online disinformation campaigns like Iran’s, or what if any action they should take, said David Conrad, chief technology officer at ICANN, a non-profit which helps manage global web addresses.
Social media accounts can be deleted in bulk by the firms that provide the platforms. But the Iranian campaign’s backbone of websites makes it harder to dismantle than social media, because taking down a website often requires the cooperation of law enforcement, Internet service providers and web infrastructure companies.
Efforts by social media companies in the United States and Europe to tackle the campaign have had mixed results.
Shortly after being contacted by Reuters, Twitter suspended the accounts for Nile Net Online and Sudan Today. “Clear attribution is very difficult,” a spokeswoman said, but added that the company would continue to update a public database of tweets and accounts linked to state-backed information operations when it had new information.
Google did not respond directly to questions about the websites found by Reuters. The company has said it identified and closed 99 accounts which it says are linked to Iranian state media. “We’ve invested in robust systems to identify influence operations launched by foreign governments,” a spokeswoman said.
Facebook said it was aware of the websites found by Reuters and had removed five more Facebook pages. But a spokesman said that based on Facebook user data, the company was not yet able to link all the websites’ accounts to the Iranian activity found earlier. “In the past several months, we have removed hundreds of Pages, Groups, and accounts linked to Iranian actors engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior. We continue to remove accounts across our services and in all relevant languages,” he said.
Accounts linked to the Iranian sites remain active online, especially in languages other than English. On Nov. 30, 16 of the Iranian sites were still posting daily updates on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or YouTube - including Sudan Today and Nile Net Online. Between them, the social media accounts had more than 700,000 followers.
The address listed for 'Sudan Today' on one social media account leads here.
(Corrects to delete two paragraphs in section three - WHO representative was not authorised to speak to the media)
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
iZOeEtUlCOJOC73F
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/04/ap-fact-check-claims-in-vp-debate.html
|
FACT CHECK: Claims in the VP debate
|
2016-10-04
|
Not all the claims in the vice presidential debate stand up to scrutiny . A look at some of them and how they compare with the facts :
REPUBLICAN MIKE PENCE : `` The fact that under this past administration , we 've almost doubled the national debt is atrocious .... Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want more of the same . ''
THE FACTS : As a share of the total U.S. economy , the national debt has gone up 35 percent ; not a doubling .
Still , the debt has ballooned to $ 19.6 trillion . This largely reflected efforts by the Obama administration to stop the Great Recession .
Would Clinton similarly increase the debt ? Not according to an analysis by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget .
The Clinton plan with its tax increases would increase the gross debt -- both privately and publicly held -- by $ 450 billion over 10 years . Mind you , that is on top of an $ 8.8 trillion increase already projected by the government under current law .
As for Donald Trump , the committee says his tax-cut-heavy plan would increase the gross debt by $ 4.3 trillion -- nearly 10 times more than Clinton 's plan would do .
DEMOCRAT TIM KAINE , on fighting the Islamic State : `` Donald Trump does n't have a plan . ''
THE FACTS : Clinton also does n't have a plan that is materially different than what President Barack Obama is already doing .
She 's described a three-part strategy that involves crushing IS `` on its home turf '' in the Middle East , disrupting its infrastructure on the ground and online , and protecting America and its allies . All are current elements of the Obama administration 's strategy , so it 's not clear what would change or if she would accelerate any portions of it .
It 's also the case that Trump has not laid out a clear plan .
PENCE , calling Clinton the `` architect of the Obama administration 's foreign policy , '' says the crisis in Syria was the result of a `` failed and weak foreign policy that Hillary Clinton helped lead . ''
THE FACTS : Clinton , as secretary of state , actually pushed for increased U.S. intervention after Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against rebels . But Obama is the commander in chief and nothing has swayed him thus far . Whatever her failings might be on foreign policy , it 's a stretch to accuse her of helping to lead a weak policy on Syria .
PENCE : `` We 've seen an economy stifled by more taxes , more regulation , a war on coal . ''
THE FACTS : The coal industry 's woes do n't come solely from onerous federal regulations . Pence omitted the effects of steep competition from cheap natural gas .
A string of major coal companies have filed for bankruptcy in recent years , including Arch Coal , Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy . Layoffs and cutbacks have spread economic suffering through coal country in the Appalachians and Wyoming 's Powder River Basin . By contrast , these are boom times for natural gas extraction , mostly due to hydraulic fracturing , or fracking .
Still , the Obama administration has implemented rules that are n't making the coal industry 's life any easier . Obama last year imposed a rule requiring coal-fired power plants to cut their carbon emissions as part of his effort to combat climate change . The rule has been suspended pending a legal challenge . Obama also has halted new coal leases on federal lands until it completes a comprehensive review .
PENCE , saying he 's proud that `` the state of Indiana has balanced budgets . ''
THE FACTS : True , but that 's not exactly to his credit as governor of Indiana . A balanced budget is required by law , as it is in every state except Vermont .
|
Not all the claims in the vice presidential debate stand up to scrutiny. A look at some of them and how they compare with the facts:
REPUBLICAN MIKE PENCE: "The fact that under this past administration, we've almost doubled the national debt is atrocious.... Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine want more of the same."
THE FACTS: As a share of the total U.S. economy, the national debt has gone up 35 percent; not a doubling.
Still, the debt has ballooned to $19.6 trillion. This largely reflected efforts by the Obama administration to stop the Great Recession.
Would Clinton similarly increase the debt? Not according to an analysis by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The Clinton plan with its tax increases would increase the gross debt -- both privately and publicly held-- by $450 billion over 10 years. Mind you, that is on top of an $8.8 trillion increase already projected by the government under current law.
As for Donald Trump, the committee says his tax-cut-heavy plan would increase the gross debt by $4.3 trillion --nearly 10 times more than Clinton's plan would do.
------
DEMOCRAT TIM KAINE, on fighting the Islamic State: "Donald Trump doesn't have a plan."
THE FACTS: Clinton also doesn't have a plan that is materially different than what President Barack Obama is already doing.
She's described a three-part strategy that involves crushing IS "on its home turf" in the Middle East, disrupting its infrastructure on the ground and online, and protecting America and its allies. All are current elements of the Obama administration's strategy, so it's not clear what would change or if she would accelerate any portions of it.
It's also the case that Trump has not laid out a clear plan.
------
PENCE, calling Clinton the "architect of the Obama administration's foreign policy," says the crisis in Syria was the result of a "failed and weak foreign policy that Hillary Clinton helped lead."
THE FACTS: Clinton, as secretary of state, actually pushed for increased U.S. intervention after Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against rebels. But Obama is the commander in chief and nothing has swayed him thus far. Whatever her failings might be on foreign policy, it's a stretch to accuse her of helping to lead a weak policy on Syria.
------
PENCE: "We've seen an economy stifled by more taxes, more regulation, a war on coal."
THE FACTS: The coal industry's woes don't come solely from onerous federal regulations. Pence omitted the effects of steep competition from cheap natural gas.
A string of major coal companies have filed for bankruptcy in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy. Layoffs and cutbacks have spread economic suffering through coal country in the Appalachians and Wyoming's Powder River Basin. By contrast, these are boom times for natural gas extraction, mostly due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Still, the Obama administration has implemented rules that aren't making the coal industry's life any easier. Obama last year imposed a rule requiring coal-fired power plants to cut their carbon emissions as part of his effort to combat climate change. The rule has been suspended pending a legal challenge. Obama also has halted new coal leases on federal lands until it completes a comprehensive review.
------
PENCE, saying he's proud that "the state of Indiana has balanced budgets."
THE FACTS: True, but that's not exactly to his credit as governor of Indiana. A balanced budget is required by law, as it is in every state except Vermont.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
WKFMFvukksJpkZIO
|
|
white_house
|
National Review
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447612/trump-ambassadors-appointment-delays
|
Personnel and Policy
|
2017-05-14
|
Kevin D. Williamson, John Mccormack, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, Jim Geraghty
|
With empty embassies , Trump is falling down on the job
With North Korean nuclear threats escalating into a genuine international crisis , the ordinary thing to do would be to have our ambassadors in Seoul , Beijing , and Tokyo keep in close consultation with the relevant authorities in those countries . A problem : As Evelyn Cheng points out at CNBC , we do not have ambassadors in South Korea , China , or Japan .
There is no undersecretary of state for East Asia . There is no ambassador to India or Australia . There are in fact more than 100 senior positions vacant in the State Department .
At some point , Donald J. Trump is going to start having to do the actual work of being president .
Trump has nominated Iowa governor Terry Branstad to serve in Beijing , but his nomination foundered in the Senate because the Trump administration was unable to complete much of the necessary paperwork . A nominee to the Tokyo embassy was not selected until March and still has not been confirmed . No nominee to South Korea was even under consideration as of Friday .
Salutary inaction often is the best medicine in government . We could close the Small Business Administration tomorrow , and the republic would stand . I am pleased that Betsy DeVos is the secretary of education , and I hope she is the last one . By all means , shutter the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Federal Consumer Information Center , fire the employees , burn the records , knock down the buildings , and salt the earth , until nothing is left of them but sad stories .
Trump , as a businessman with independent and populist instincts , taps into a very old and deep tradition in American political life : The desire to “ run the government like a business. ” One of the problems with running the government like a business is that the government is not a business . It is a different kind of undertaking , and it makes no more sense to try to run it like a business than it would to try to run your church like a business , or a Girl Scout troop . ( Okay , maybe Girl Scout troops are a business , the running dogs of cookie capitalism . ) Businesses , nonprofit corporations , and religious congregations are all worthwhile forms of social organization , but they are not interchangeable . There is something poetic about the fact that our contemporary populist conservatives , avowed foes of progressives and progressivism , are in thrall to one of the most ancient and enduring of all progressive errors : the belief that the government ( and society ) can be run the way a business is run , as though a nation were only “ one big factory , ” as the socialists used to put it .
One of the problems with running the government like a business is that the government is not a business .
Donald Trump has in fact never successfully run a large organization , and his few attempts to do so — notably with the Trump Taj Mahal and the Plaza Hotel bankruptcies — ended badly . For all his boasting about his employees and sprawling business empire ( on the campaign trail , he lied about owning a hotel in Honolulu ) , what he has mostly done is run a small family business he inherited from his father , employing his wives and children , and leverage his tabloid celebrity into a series of very lucrative licensing and media deals . There is nothing wrong with a career that consists of a series of licensing deals and the like , but it is a very different kind of career from , say , running Microsoft or Ford . Donald Trump is not the executive he played on television .
And even if he were , the skills of a business executive are not necessarily transferable to the public sector — and especially not to the presidency , as Herbert Hoover learned the hard way . The president proposes a policy agenda and works to forge a political consensus to support it , working with Congress to implement it through legislation . Trump is not doing that . He is putting on public spectacles and tweeting . If you would like an indication of how that is going to work out in the long run , consider the mess that Republicans are making of health care at a moment when they control the presidency , the Senate , and the House of Representatives , while Democrats are in their worst position in nearly a century .
What ’ s worse is that Trump will not even take his own side in the fight that really matters in Washington : who holds power . Trump and his talk-radio cheerleaders bawl about the “ deep state , ” by which they mean the unelected bureaucrats who actually do the daily business of running the federal apparatus , but he refuses to put his own people in the key roles in the bureaucracies that would enable him to bind the bureaucrats to his agenda . They complain about “ Obama holdovers , ” and they are not necessarily wrong to do so , but many of those people can and should be replaced , and they would be , if the president could figure out how to do his job .
“ Personnel is policy , ” the proverb goes , and Trump ’ s policy is , for the moment , not to have a policy . He does not know what he wants to do about health care or the nuclear terrorists in Pyongyang , and even if he did , he does not have people in place to do it .
|
Iowa governor Terry Branstad testifies at his Senate confirmation hearings, May 2, 2017. (Reuters photo: Carlos Barria)
With empty embassies, Trump is falling down on the job
With North Korean nuclear threats escalating into a genuine international crisis, the ordinary thing to do would be to have our ambassadors in Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo keep in close consultation with the relevant authorities in those countries. A problem: As Evelyn Cheng points out at CNBC, we do not have ambassadors in South Korea, China, or Japan.
Advertisement
There is no undersecretary of state for East Asia. There is no ambassador to India or Australia. There are in fact more than 100 senior positions vacant in the State Department.
At some point, Donald J. Trump is going to start having to do the actual work of being president.
Trump has nominated Iowa governor Terry Branstad to serve in Beijing, but his nomination foundered in the Senate because the Trump administration was unable to complete much of the necessary paperwork. A nominee to the Tokyo embassy was not selected until March and still has not been confirmed. No nominee to South Korea was even under consideration as of Friday.
Salutary inaction often is the best medicine in government. We could close the Small Business Administration tomorrow, and the republic would stand. I am pleased that Betsy DeVos is the secretary of education, and I hope she is the last one. By all means, shutter the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Federal Consumer Information Center, fire the employees, burn the records, knock down the buildings, and salt the earth, until nothing is left of them but sad stories.
Advertisement
Advertisement
But let’s have an ambassador in China.
Trump, as a businessman with independent and populist instincts, taps into a very old and deep tradition in American political life: The desire to “run the government like a business.” One of the problems with running the government like a business is that the government is not a business. It is a different kind of undertaking, and it makes no more sense to try to run it like a business than it would to try to run your church like a business, or a Girl Scout troop. (Okay, maybe Girl Scout troops are a business, the running dogs of cookie capitalism.) Businesses, nonprofit corporations, and religious congregations are all worthwhile forms of social organization, but they are not interchangeable. There is something poetic about the fact that our contemporary populist conservatives, avowed foes of progressives and progressivism, are in thrall to one of the most ancient and enduring of all progressive errors: the belief that the government (and society) can be run the way a business is run, as though a nation were only “one big factory,” as the socialists used to put it.
One of the problems with running the government like a business is that the government is not a business.
Advertisement
Donald Trump has in fact never successfully run a large organization, and his few attempts to do so — notably with the Trump Taj Mahal and the Plaza Hotel bankruptcies — ended badly. For all his boasting about his employees and sprawling business empire (on the campaign trail, he lied about owning a hotel in Honolulu), what he has mostly done is run a small family business he inherited from his father, employing his wives and children, and leverage his tabloid celebrity into a series of very lucrative licensing and media deals. There is nothing wrong with a career that consists of a series of licensing deals and the like, but it is a very different kind of career from, say, running Microsoft or Ford. Donald Trump is not the executive he played on television.
Advertisement
And even if he were, the skills of a business executive are not necessarily transferable to the public sector — and especially not to the presidency, as Herbert Hoover learned the hard way. The president proposes a policy agenda and works to forge a political consensus to support it, working with Congress to implement it through legislation. Trump is not doing that. He is putting on public spectacles and tweeting. If you would like an indication of how that is going to work out in the long run, consider the mess that Republicans are making of health care at a moment when they control the presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, while Democrats are in their worst position in nearly a century.
What’s worse is that Trump will not even take his own side in the fight that really matters in Washington: who holds power. Trump and his talk-radio cheerleaders bawl about the “deep state,” by which they mean the unelected bureaucrats who actually do the daily business of running the federal apparatus, but he refuses to put his own people in the key roles in the bureaucracies that would enable him to bind the bureaucrats to his agenda. They complain about “Obama holdovers,” and they are not necessarily wrong to do so, but many of those people can and should be replaced, and they would be, if the president could figure out how to do his job.
Advertisement
“Personnel is policy,” the proverb goes, and Trump’s policy is, for the moment, not to have a policy. He does not know what he wants to do about health care or the nuclear terrorists in Pyongyang, and even if he did, he does not have people in place to do it.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
zpYESuf3J7DckdSJ
|
white_house
|
HotAir
| 22
|
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/05/oh-my-obama-falls-to-39-job-approval-in-new-gallup-poll/
|
Oh my: Obama falls to 39% job approval in new Gallup poll; Update: Under 50% among Latinos too
|
2013-11-05
|
John Sexton, Ed Morrissey, Jazz Shaw, Karen Townsend
|
I told you it was coming and now here it is .
His all-time low in Gallup is … 38 percent , which he reached twice in late summer and fall 2011 before rebounding . This is why I thought it was noteworthy last week when his favorable rating ended up negative for the first time in that WSJ/NBC poll . He ’ s had dips in job approval before but retained his personal popularity with voters . People liked him even when they thought he was doing a bad job , which I think provided a floor for his overall approval rating . I ’ m not sure that floor is there anymore . He ’ s had a horrendously bad month , from the shutdown to the Healthcare.gov nightmare to the new wrinkles about NSA spying to , of course , the fiasco of “ if you like your plan ” having been exposed as a grand lie . If you supported Obama before because you thought he ’ d be an omnicompetent best-and-brightest liberal technocrat , your image of him has been shattered by the Healthcare.gov rollout . If you supported Obama before because you thought he was a straight-shooting hopey-changey fighter for the middle class , your image of him now has to be reconciled with the fact that millions of middle-class people are being forced into more expensive coverage and that O lied , lied , lied his ass off about it for three years . I said it in the WSJ/NBC post and I ’ ll say it again : Given the amount of crap raining on him , he ’ s lucky to be as high as 39 percent . If the website can ’ t be fixed this month and he ’ s forced to do something drastic like delaying the law for six months , some liberals will abandon him too and he ’ ll end up in the low 30s . And yes , even a lame duck ’ s approval rating matters :
If Obama 's job approval were to be -14 on Election Day 2014 , Rs would almost certainly gain seats . Big if . — Sean Trende ( @ SeanTrende ) November 5 , 2013
It ’ s -14 today , a full year removed from the midterms . Where will it be in October 2014 , a month removed , when the new , almost certainly higher insurance rates for 2015 are released ?
I have no new Obama video for this post so here ’ s Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitting that he ’ s smoked crack in the past . Approval rating : 43 percent .
Update : Latinos are big supporters of ObamaCare under normal circumstances , but a month of Glitchpalooza and lies about people keeping their plans isn ’ t “ normal circumstances. ” He ’ s at 49 percent now , down nine points since the week before .
|
I told you it was coming and now here it is.
His all-time low in Gallup is … 38 percent, which he reached twice in late summer and fall 2011 before rebounding. This is why I thought it was noteworthy last week when his favorable rating ended up negative for the first time in that WSJ/NBC poll. He’s had dips in job approval before but retained his personal popularity with voters. People liked him even when they thought he was doing a bad job, which I think provided a floor for his overall approval rating. I’m not sure that floor is there anymore. He’s had a horrendously bad month, from the shutdown to the Healthcare.gov nightmare to the new wrinkles about NSA spying to, of course, the fiasco of “if you like your plan” having been exposed as a grand lie. If you supported Obama before because you thought he’d be an omnicompetent best-and-brightest liberal technocrat, your image of him has been shattered by the Healthcare.gov rollout. If you supported Obama before because you thought he was a straight-shooting hopey-changey fighter for the middle class, your image of him now has to be reconciled with the fact that millions of middle-class people are being forced into more expensive coverage and that O lied, lied, lied his ass off about it for three years. I said it in the WSJ/NBC post and I’ll say it again: Given the amount of crap raining on him, he’s lucky to be as high as 39 percent. If the website can’t be fixed this month and he’s forced to do something drastic like delaying the law for six months, some liberals will abandon him too and he’ll end up in the low 30s. And yes, even a lame duck’s approval rating matters:
If Obama's job approval were to be -14 on Election Day 2014, Rs would almost certainly gain seats. Big if. — Sean Trende (@SeanTrende) November 5, 2013
It’s -14 today, a full year removed from the midterms. Where will it be in October 2014, a month removed, when the new, almost certainly higher insurance rates for 2015 are released?
I have no new Obama video for this post so here’s Toronto Mayor Rob Ford admitting that he’s smoked crack in the past. Approval rating: 43 percent.
Update: Latinos are big supporters of ObamaCare under normal circumstances, but a month of Glitchpalooza and lies about people keeping their plans isn’t “normal circumstances.” He’s at 49 percent now, down nine points since the week before.
|
www.hotair.com
| 1right
|
roz3g86o1fxsEbps
|
elections
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://nypost.com/2018/11/01/republicans-have-delivered-as-democrats-went-off-the-deep-end/
|
Republicans have delivered as Democrats went off the deep end
|
2018-11-01
|
Americans prefer divided to unified government , and voters have historically punished the incumbent party in midterm elections . To these historical trends we can add Donald Trump ’ s relentless antics and his rude defiance of presidential norms , which have rankled nerves and generated bad blood .
So all told , the president ’ s party deserves to lose one or both chambers next week , right ? Wrong .
At stake Tuesday is legislative power , and on that count congressional Republicans have earned the right to retain their majority , while Democrats have proved themselves unprepared for governance . The GOP has navigated the nation through the Trumpian minefield , while Democrats spent the time chasing after Russian pee-pee tapes and lionizing porn stars .
Start with the GOP side of the ledger . Thanks to unthanked House Speaker Paul Ryan , Trump has two major legislative accomplishments under his belt : The individual mandate — the least popular element of ObamaCare — is gone . And Ryan ’ s tax overhaul slashed the corporate rate to 21 percent from an eye-watering 35 percent , which had long discouraged investment and hiring .
The tax cut , combined with Trump ’ s war on regulatory bloat , has yielded strong growth . Lefty economists who predicted prolonged stagnation look not a little foolish these days . Consumer spending , capital investment and exports are all up . Unemployment has plummeted below 4 percent , and according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis , for the first time on record , job openings outstrip the number of the unemployed seeking a job .
The result : Wednesday ’ s news that US wages and salaries had risen 3.1 percent in the third quarter — the highest jump in a decade .
Nancy Pelosi sneers that such jobs numbers “ mean little. ” She can afford to do that . American workers can ’ t afford to put her in charge of the economy .
Then there ’ s the Senate , where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it his singular mission to confirm the president ’ s nominees to the federal bench . Much of our present discord traces back to liberals altering the moral landscape of the country by judicial fiat . The judges nominated by Trump and confirmed by McConnell could offer a much-needed rebalancing to our constitutional structure and help lower the temperature in the long term .
Now turn to the Democratic side of the ledger . After 2016 ’ s drubbing , Democrats could have re-examined their agenda . They could have gone back to the drawing board . They could have — but they didn ’ t . Instead , they resolved to undo the outcome of a legitimate election . Each week brought a fresh conspiracy theory or a new savior on whom liberals could pin their hopes of unseating Trump .
Christopher Steele . Michael Wolff . Michael Avenatti . Stormy Daniels . Some Maltese professor who had the goods on Trump ’ s alleged vulnerability to Russian blackmail . These and numerous other unsavory characters had their 15 minutes before sinking back into anonymity or third-rate celebrity . Trump stayed put .
Democrats also fell into every cultural trap that Trump set for them , seemingly determined to prove his point that they are the party of hard-left identity politics and hatred for the “ deplorables ” : From the pussy-hat resistance , which embraced the anti-Semitic loon Louis Farrakhan , to DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison ’ s promotion of the violent thugs of Antifa , to Elizabeth Warren ’ s 1/1024th Native heritage , and much else of the kind .
Note , too , that elected Democrats refuse to speak out forcefully against the caravan , though as a policy matter it ’ s a no-brainer , and stating the obvious would inoculate voters against some of the more fevered Trumpian talk about an invasion . The silence suggests a party beholden to a borderless ideology that has zero purchase with broad swaths of the country .
And what , really , is the Democratic electoral message to voters ? Fairly or not , for many voters it has come to be summed up in Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono ’ s primal scream : “ I just want to say to the men in this country , just shut up and step up . Do the right thing , for a change . ”
That statement came amid the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle — Exhibit A in the case against handing Democrats legislative majorities . Voters shouldn ’ t soon forget what Hirono and her colleagues attempted to do to Justice Kavanaugh . For several hellish weeks , no allegation was too baseless or implausible to air in the prestige press . If this was how Democrats conducted themselves in the minority , imagine what they would do with committee chairmanships .
No doubt many Americans wish Trump would tone down some of his rhetoric , particularly in the aftermath of Pittsburgh . I ’ m one of them . But Trump ’ s Twitter account isn ’ t on the ballot Tuesday .
Nor are the cable-news shouters , pro- and anti-Trump , whose foghorn voices pierce the airwaves . Nor , finally , is the broken state of our culture , which won ’ t be healed anytime soon and certainly not at the polls .
Sohrab Ahmari is senior writer at Commentary and author of the forthcoming memoir of Catholic conversion , “ From Fire , By Water . ”
|
Americans prefer divided to unified government, and voters have historically punished the incumbent party in midterm elections. To these historical trends we can add Donald Trump’s relentless antics and his rude defiance of presidential norms, which have rankled nerves and generated bad blood.
So all told, the president’s party deserves to lose one or both chambers next week, right? Wrong.
At stake Tuesday is legislative power, and on that count congressional Republicans have earned the right to retain their majority, while Democrats have proved themselves unprepared for governance. The GOP has navigated the nation through the Trumpian minefield, while Democrats spent the time chasing after Russian pee-pee tapes and lionizing porn stars.
Start with the GOP side of the ledger. Thanks to unthanked House Speaker Paul Ryan, Trump has two major legislative accomplishments under his belt: The individual mandate — the least popular element of ObamaCare — is gone. And Ryan’s tax overhaul slashed the corporate rate to 21 percent from an eye-watering 35 percent, which had long discouraged investment and hiring.
The tax cut, combined with Trump’s war on regulatory bloat, has yielded strong growth. Lefty economists who predicted prolonged stagnation look not a little foolish these days. Consumer spending, capital investment and exports are all up. Unemployment has plummeted below 4 percent, and according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, for the first time on record, job openings outstrip the number of the unemployed seeking a job.
The result: Wednesday’s news that US wages and salaries had risen 3.1 percent in the third quarter — the highest jump in a decade.
Nancy Pelosi sneers that such jobs numbers “mean little.” She can afford to do that. American workers can’t afford to put her in charge of the economy.
Then there’s the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made it his singular mission to confirm the president’s nominees to the federal bench. Much of our present discord traces back to liberals altering the moral landscape of the country by judicial fiat. The judges nominated by Trump and confirmed by McConnell could offer a much-needed rebalancing to our constitutional structure and help lower the temperature in the long term.
Now turn to the Democratic side of the ledger. After 2016’s drubbing, Democrats could have re-examined their agenda. They could have gone back to the drawing board. They could have — but they didn’t. Instead, they resolved to undo the outcome of a legitimate election. Each week brought a fresh conspiracy theory or a new savior on whom liberals could pin their hopes of unseating Trump.
Christopher Steele. Michael Wolff. Michael Avenatti. Stormy Daniels. Some Maltese professor who had the goods on Trump’s alleged vulnerability to Russian blackmail. These and numerous other unsavory characters had their 15 minutes before sinking back into anonymity or third-rate celebrity. Trump stayed put.
Democrats also fell into every cultural trap that Trump set for them, seemingly determined to prove his point that they are the party of hard-left identity politics and hatred for the “deplorables”: From the pussy-hat resistance, which embraced the anti-Semitic loon Louis Farrakhan, to DNC deputy chairman Keith Ellison’s promotion of the violent thugs of Antifa, to Elizabeth Warren’s 1/1024th Native heritage, and much else of the kind.
Note, too, that elected Democrats refuse to speak out forcefully against the caravan, though as a policy matter it’s a no-brainer, and stating the obvious would inoculate voters against some of the more fevered Trumpian talk about an invasion. The silence suggests a party beholden to a borderless ideology that has zero purchase with broad swaths of the country.
And what, really, is the Democratic electoral message to voters? Fairly or not, for many voters it has come to be summed up in Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono’s primal scream: “I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change.”
That statement came amid the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle — Exhibit A in the case against handing Democrats legislative majorities. Voters shouldn’t soon forget what Hirono and her colleagues attempted to do to Justice Kavanaugh. For several hellish weeks, no allegation was too baseless or implausible to air in the prestige press. If this was how Democrats conducted themselves in the minority, imagine what they would do with committee chairmanships.
No doubt many Americans wish Trump would tone down some of his rhetoric, particularly in the aftermath of Pittsburgh. I’m one of them. But Trump’s Twitter account isn’t on the ballot Tuesday.
Nor are the cable-news shouters, pro- and anti-Trump, whose foghorn voices pierce the airwaves. Nor, finally, is the broken state of our culture, which won’t be healed anytime soon and certainly not at the polls.
Sohrab Ahmari is senior writer at Commentary and author of the forthcoming memoir of Catholic conversion, “From Fire, By Water.”
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
TFXMntVOWeYmnJLS
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/debate-women/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
Did Romney undo gains with women voters?
|
2012-10-17
|
Halimah Abdullah
|
Washington ( CNN ) -- Before Tuesday night 's debate , polls showed Mitt Romney had gained ground with women voters .
But his comments about using `` whole binders full of women '' as a hiring aid while governor , whiffing on an equal pay law question , and alluding to helping women get home to cook dinner has landed the GOP presidential hopeful in verbal quicksand with some female voters .
He 'll have to do some serious repair to regain traction , political experts say .
That 's because Tuesday night 's debate made clear that both presidential campaigns are focusing on female voters — a group that makes up the majority of the electorate .
Some of the spiciest exchanges between the candidates in their second debate were over so-called `` women 's issues . ''
`` Romney 's discussion of his promotion of women in his gubernatorial administration was ... problematic , '' said Andra Gillespie , an associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta . `` First , Romney 's description of how he found female appointees sounded an awful lot like affirmative action , and someone will bring this up again .
Also , the Twitterverse exploded with links to articles about how Bain Capital under Romney 's leadership did n't have a female partner . ''
The highest-ranking woman in his gubernatorial administration was his No . 2 , Lieutenant Gov . Kerry Healey . Beth Myers has long held senior positions in Romney 's political campaign .
President Barack Obama was quick to use the `` binders '' line against Romney on the campaign trail Wednesday .
`` We do n't have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified , talented , driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now , '' Obama told supporters in Mount Vernon , Iowa .
Vice President Joe Biden at a campaign event Wednesday in Greeley , Colorado , questioned where Romney 's comments were coming from .
`` What I ca n't understand is how he has gotten in this sort of 1950s time warp in terms of women , '' he said .
Romney responded on Twitter : @ MittRomney `` I understand the challenges women face and want to make it easier for them in the workplace . ''
During the debate at Hofstra University in New York , Romney , who worked in business before serving as governor of Massachusetts , said he `` learned a great deal '' about the inequalities between men and women in the workplace when leading his state .
When he and his staff ran into problems finding qualified female applicants to fill cabinet posts , Romney said he `` went to a number of women 's groups and said , 'Can you help us find folks , ' and they brought us whole binders full of women . ''
Undecided women voters who were watching the debate and participating in a focus group in Ohio reacted positively to Romney 's anecdote during dial-testing for CNN . The responses from the women jumped sharply on-screen when Romney spoke about workplace flexibility .
The tweets , posts and pictures quickly exploded on the internet .
Before the debate ended , there were Twitter hashtags and handles , a series of memes on Tumblr , and a Facebook page with over 100,000 fans . The `` binders full of women '' phrase was the third-fastest rising search on Google during the debate .
Not to be outdone or out-messaged , the Romney campaign put out an ad as the debate wrapped up , clarifying the GOP nominee 's support for contraception and belief that in some cases abortion should be legal .
But there is a lingering perception behind the comedic Internet takes on Romney 's `` binders full of women '' response and pre-emptive advertising aimed at women that he is disconnected from the day-to-day issues facing that critical group of voters . And in a close election , that type of narrative could be a problem for Romney as he fights to woo a narrow pool of voters .
`` The gap between Obama and Romney was declining and I 'm not sure ... if the governor made significant headway ( with women voters ) , '' said Meena Bose , director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra .
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted last week showed Romney had closed the gap with women and was within one point among women who are likely voters , 48 % for Romney and 49 % for Obama .
Throughout the debate , Obama and Democrats sought to reverse that trend and widen that gap .
Obama tried to draw a distinction between himself and Romney on a number of women 's issues , tying equal pay , contraceptives and health care to the economy .
Obama said his administration 's Affordable Care Act gives insured women free contraception coverage and asserted that Romney `` feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making . ''
Romney pushed back , calling the president 's statement `` completely and totally wrong . '' While not opposing the availability of contraception , Romney opposes the contraception rule , arguing it forces some religious institutions to go against their faith .
After the debate , Democratic pundits criticized Romney 's efforts to hire women .
`` What it demonstrates here and why these debates are important because they 're a window into what people are really thinking and how they operate , '' former Clinton adviser and Democratic analyst Richard Socarides said on CNN 's Early Start . `` Here 's a situation where , you know , it should have been readily apparent to anyone that there were plenty of qualified women but they had to make this special effort . ''
Socarides gave Romney points for trying to hire women but said in doing so , `` Romney demonstrates that he 's living in another world . '' `` Qualified women should be apparent to everyone , '' added Socarides .
He said he did n't understand why Romney `` has to go out and make this special effort to find women . ''
And though Romney sought to highlight his support of flexible work schedules for women , his reference to women who need such schedules to race home to make dinner for their families may have ruffled some female voters the wrong way .
`` His discussion of work-life balance appeared condescending to some because of the reference to women cooking dinner , '' Gillespie said .
Romney will now have to rebuff the Obama campaign 's attempts to define him as someone who is anti-woman , political experts say .
Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Marsha Blackburn , R-Tennessee , said one reason more women may be looking to vote for Romney is because of his economic message .
`` The Number One issue with women is jobs and the economy , '' Blackburn said on CNN 's Early Start recently .
The former governor will have to do more of this type of messaging if he wants to sway this group , Bose said .
Romney , she said , will have to hammer home the message `` what 's good for women is good for the country . ''
|
Washington (CNN) -- Before Tuesday night's debate, polls showed Mitt Romney had gained ground with women voters.
But his comments about using "whole binders full of women" as a hiring aid while governor, whiffing on an equal pay law question, and alluding to helping women get home to cook dinner has landed the GOP presidential hopeful in verbal quicksand with some female voters.
He'll have to do some serious repair to regain traction, political experts say.
Online erupts over 'Binders full of women'
That's because Tuesday night's debate made clear that both presidential campaigns are focusing on female voters — a group that makes up the majority of the electorate.
Some of the spiciest exchanges between the candidates in their second debate were over so-called "women's issues."
"Romney's discussion of his promotion of women in his gubernatorial administration was ... problematic," said Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. "First, Romney's description of how he found female appointees sounded an awful lot like affirmative action, and someone will bring this up again.
Accusations, interruptions define bruising debate
Also, the Twitterverse exploded with links to articles about how Bain Capital under Romney's leadership didn't have a female partner."
The highest-ranking woman in his gubernatorial administration was his No. 2, Lieutenant Gov. Kerry Healey. Beth Myers has long held senior positions in Romney's political campaign.
President Barack Obama was quick to use the "binders" line against Romney on the campaign trail Wednesday.
"We don't have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now," Obama told supporters in Mount Vernon, Iowa.
Vice President Joe Biden at a campaign event Wednesday in Greeley, Colorado, questioned where Romney's comments were coming from.
"What I can't understand is how he has gotten in this sort of 1950s time warp in terms of women," he said.
Romney responded on Twitter: @MittRomney "I understand the challenges women face and want to make it easier for them in the workplace."
'Romney just can't connect with working women'
During the debate at Hofstra University in New York, Romney, who worked in business before serving as governor of Massachusetts, said he "learned a great deal" about the inequalities between men and women in the workplace when leading his state.
When he and his staff ran into problems finding qualified female applicants to fill cabinet posts, Romney said he "went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."
Undecided women voters who were watching the debate and participating in a focus group in Ohio reacted positively to Romney's anecdote during dial-testing for CNN. The responses from the women jumped sharply on-screen when Romney spoke about workplace flexibility.
25 funniest debate tweets
The tweets, posts and pictures quickly exploded on the internet.
Before the debate ended, there were Twitter hashtags and handles, a series of memes on Tumblr, and a Facebook page with over 100,000 fans. The "binders full of women" phrase was the third-fastest rising search on Google during the debate.
Romney's comments 'extremely offensive to women'
Not to be outdone or out-messaged, the Romney campaign put out an ad as the debate wrapped up, clarifying the GOP nominee's support for contraception and belief that in some cases abortion should be legal.
But there is a lingering perception behind the comedic Internet takes on Romney's "binders full of women" response and pre-emptive advertising aimed at women that he is disconnected from the day-to-day issues facing that critical group of voters. And in a close election, that type of narrative could be a problem for Romney as he fights to woo a narrow pool of voters.
5 things we learned from the debate
"The gap between Obama and Romney was declining and I'm not sure ... if the governor made significant headway (with women voters)," said Meena Bose, director of the Peter S. Kalikow Center for the Study of the American Presidency at Hofstra.
A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted last week showed Romney had closed the gap with women and was within one point among women who are likely voters, 48% for Romney and 49% for Obama.
Throughout the debate, Obama and Democrats sought to reverse that trend and widen that gap.
Obama tried to draw a distinction between himself and Romney on a number of women's issues, tying equal pay, contraceptives and health care to the economy.
Obama said his administration's Affordable Care Act gives insured women free contraception coverage and asserted that Romney "feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making."
Romney reacts to frenzy over 'binders' comment
Romney pushed back, calling the president's statement "completely and totally wrong." While not opposing the availability of contraception, Romney opposes the contraception rule, arguing it forces some religious institutions to go against their faith.
After the debate, Democratic pundits criticized Romney's efforts to hire women.
"What it demonstrates here and why these debates are important because they're a window into what people are really thinking and how they operate," former Clinton adviser and Democratic analyst Richard Socarides said on CNN's Early Start. "Here's a situation where, you know, it should have been readily apparent to anyone that there were plenty of qualified women but they had to make this special effort."
Socarides gave Romney points for trying to hire women but said in doing so, "Romney demonstrates that he's living in another world." "Qualified women should be apparent to everyone," added Socarides.
He said he didn't understand why Romney "has to go out and make this special effort to find women."
And though Romney sought to highlight his support of flexible work schedules for women, his reference to women who need such schedules to race home to make dinner for their families may have ruffled some female voters the wrong way.
Opinion: Romney's empty 'binders full of women'
"His discussion of work-life balance appeared condescending to some because of the reference to women cooking dinner," Gillespie said.
Romney will now have to rebuff the Obama campaign's attempts to define him as someone who is anti-woman, political experts say.
Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, said one reason more women may be looking to vote for Romney is because of his economic message.
"The Number One issue with women is jobs and the economy," Blackburn said on CNN's Early Start recently.
The former governor will have to do more of this type of messaging if he wants to sway this group, Bose said.
Romney, she said, will have to hammer home the message "what's good for women is good for the country."
Roundup: 10 takes on the second presidential debate
CNN's wire staff, political unit and Emily Smith contributed.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
giyPDEkDnLV2AIDA
|
tea_party
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/24/editorial-silencing-the-opposition/
|
Silencing the political opposition
|
2014-01-24
|
Chuck Schumer , the Senate ’ s No . 3 Democrat , thinks the Internal Revenue Service hasn ’ t done enough to silence the Tea Party . He wants the White House and the IRS to “ immediately redouble ” efforts to shut down conservative political-action groups through tougher government oversight and enforcement .
The Tea Party opposes much of President Obama ’ s agenda , and to Mr. Schumer , that ’ s both a sin and a crime .
In a speech last week to the liberal Center for American Progress , the senior senator from New York said , “ There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies ” to silence groups that obstruct Democratic policies .
When several dozen conservative organizations applied to the IRS for nonprofit status in the run-up to the 2012 elections , they had to struggle through bureaucratic roadblocks and obstacles while the applications of liberal groups sailed through without a hitch . The government insisted this was mere coincidence , but Mr. Schumer ’ s remarks revealed the fire under the smoke .
In late November , the Treasury Department introduced a new rule to “ redefine and restrict ” the political activities of nonprofits . The administration says the revised regulations are needed to improve the way such organizations are regulated , but it ’ s obvious the rules were changed to thwart the legitimate politicking of the Tea Party .
Liberals just can ’ t get over the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that guaranteed the free speech of everyone . They can ’ t get over the plain and unambiguous language of the First Amendment that citizens have the right of free speech and the right to petition the government , even harass the government , whether the government likes it or not .
What they despise most of all is that the Supreme Court leveled the playing field , enabling conservative billionaires to spend their money as freely as liberal billionaires such as George Soros spend theirs to win friends and influence as many voters as they can .
“ The fundamental weakness in the Tea Party machine , ” Mr. Schumer said , “ is the stark difference between what the leaders of the Tea Party elite , plutocrats like the Koch Brothers , want and what the average grass-roots Tea Party follower wants … . Obviously , the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government. ” His solution to a level playing field is IRS harassment .
The latest group harassed by the IRS might be the smallest in America ; namely , conservatives in Hollywood . An organization known as Friends of Abe , named for Abraham Lincoln , is trying to get tax-exempt status . The IRS is doing what it can to scuttle the application and wants to see the organization ’ s membership list .
The actors , directors and writers who are Friends of Abe are wary of coming out of the closet where traditional values are often hidden in Hollywood . Nothing threatens a promising career in Tinseltown faster than exposure as a Republican or other conservative .
In a just world , the Center for American Progress , the 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) nonprofit organization that hosted Mr. Schumer ’ s call for government harassment of conservatives groups , would get similar scrutiny .
In the negotiations over the budget , Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to stop the IRS chicanery . Politico , the Capitol Hill daily , reported that Mr. McConnell submitted language to scuttle the revised IRS rules . Democrats blocked the attempt , even after Republicans agreed to a sweetener of more money for the International Monetary Fund , a Democratic favorite .
Strengthening the IRS ‘ ability to make trouble for conservatives in politics is a priority for Mr. Obama and Harry Reid , the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate . They regard the IRS scandal not as a scandal , but as a starting point for suppressing enemies .
|
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat, thinks the Internal Revenue Service hasn’t done enough to silence the Tea Party. He wants the White House and the IRS to “immediately redouble” efforts to shut down conservative political-action groups through tougher government oversight and enforcement.
The Tea Party opposes much of President Obama’s agenda, and to Mr. Schumer, that’s both a sin and a crime.
In a speech last week to the liberal Center for American Progress, the senior senator from New York said, “There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies” to silence groups that obstruct Democratic policies.
When several dozen conservative organizations applied to the IRS for nonprofit status in the run-up to the 2012 elections, they had to struggle through bureaucratic roadblocks and obstacles while the applications of liberal groups sailed through without a hitch. The government insisted this was mere coincidence, but Mr. Schumer’s remarks revealed the fire under the smoke.
In late November, the Treasury Department introduced a new rule to “redefine and restrict” the political activities of nonprofits. The administration says the revised regulations are needed to improve the way such organizations are regulated, but it’s obvious the rules were changed to thwart the legitimate politicking of the Tea Party.
Liberals just can’t get over the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court that guaranteed the free speech of everyone. They can’t get over the plain and unambiguous language of the First Amendment that citizens have the right of free speech and the right to petition the government, even harass the government, whether the government likes it or not.
What they despise most of all is that the Supreme Court leveled the playing field, enabling conservative billionaires to spend their money as freely as liberal billionaires such as George Soros spend theirs to win friends and influence as many voters as they can.
“The fundamental weakness in the Tea Party machine,” Mr. Schumer said, “is the stark difference between what the leaders of the Tea Party elite, plutocrats like the Koch Brothers, want and what the average grass-roots Tea Party follower wants … . Obviously, the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.” His solution to a level playing field is IRS harassment.
The latest group harassed by the IRS might be the smallest in America; namely, conservatives in Hollywood. An organization known as Friends of Abe, named for Abraham Lincoln, is trying to get tax-exempt status. The IRS is doing what it can to scuttle the application and wants to see the organization’s membership list.
The actors, directors and writers who are Friends of Abe are wary of coming out of the closet where traditional values are often hidden in Hollywood. Nothing threatens a promising career in Tinseltown faster than exposure as a Republican or other conservative.
In a just world, the Center for American Progress, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that hosted Mr. Schumer’s call for government harassment of conservatives groups, would get similar scrutiny.
In the negotiations over the budget, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to stop the IRS chicanery. Politico, the Capitol Hill daily, reported that Mr. McConnell submitted language to scuttle the revised IRS rules. Democrats blocked the attempt, even after Republicans agreed to a sweetener of more money for the International Monetary Fund, a Democratic favorite.
Strengthening the IRS‘ ability to make trouble for conservatives in politics is a priority for Mr. Obama and Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate. They regard the IRS scandal not as a scandal, but as a starting point for suppressing enemies.
Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
26R717jdPbnxWLPX
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/01/politics/romney-image/index.html
|
Romney gets personal, more likeable
|
2012-09-01
|
Allison Brennan, Thomas Hanson
|
Story highlights Romney showed a personal side of himself in his RNC acceptance speech
The speech had heart , but not enough soul , says a CNN contributor
Republicans expended enormous effort last week to make Mitt Romney more appealing to everyday Americans , and strategists believe that could pay dividends as the campaign moves into its next phase .
In his speech at the Republican National Convention that was aimed at changing the dynamics of his campaign and painting who he would be as both a candidate and a commander-in-chief , Romney showed a more personal side .
`` I think the Romney campaign needs to continue what it started last night . It 's done a really good job , thanks to the candidate , of defining itself , '' said David Morey , vice chairman of Core Strategy Group and an adviser to Obama 's 2008 campaign .
A Romney adviser told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley that Romney `` did n't need to move a mountain ... [ they ] needed to push forward ... [ to ] move the ball down the court and he did . ''
`` The key word is they 've humanized him , '' said Mike Paul , public relations strategist at MGP and Associates and a former aide to one-time Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani .
In helping to do that , political strategists say Romney made himself more likeable -- a benefit to a political campaign .
JUST WATCHED Mitt Romney 's entire RNC speech Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mitt Romney 's entire RNC speech 37:18
JUST WATCHED RNC declares Romney and Ryan nominees Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH RNC declares Romney and Ryan nominees 03:16
JUST WATCHED Romney 's speech : Did he win the crowd ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney 's speech : Did he win the crowd ? 11:36
`` It 's been long established that voters want a president they 're comfortable with , '' Jennifer Duffy , a senior editor with the Cook Political Report told CNN in May .
Since Ronald Reagan , the candidate who connects with voters personally has won every White House race . In fact , none of the winning presidential candidates had claimed victory with likability numbers as low as Romney 's .
Romney spent most of his professional life in business as a private equity executive and carries himself like a corporate chief executive , analysts say , which may be an asset in the complex world of governing but appears not to resonate with voters looking for a common bond or a personal connection during difficult times for millions .
In a rare moment for the reserved candidate , Romney teared up when he spoke about his parents .
`` Mom and Dad were married 64 years , '' Romney said , `` ... every day Dad gave Mom a rose , which he put on her bedside table . That 's how she found out what happened on the day my father died . She went looking for him because that morning , there was no rose . ''
`` I do n't think there 's a person in the country , whether you love or hate the guy , who did n't get a little touched when he choked up talking about his parents , especially about his mother , '' he said .
`` We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan ; that might have seemed unusual or out of place , '' Romney said . `` But I really do n't remember it that way . My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to . ''
Romney continued the theme following the convention , flying to Louisiana on Friday to tour damage from Hurricane Isaac . Romney , who was invited by Louisiana Gov . Bobby Jindal , met with local officials and relief workers and shook hands with a man along a flooded roadway with a sign that read , `` Mitt 's Our Man . ''
With polls showing a dead heat between the candidates coming out of the Republican convention , the White House is either candidates ' to lose , Morey said .
`` This campaign will be won or lost by which candidate defines themselves , the stakes and the future best , '' Morey said . `` And right now , Romney 's taking a big step in defining himself . Obama 's essentially already done that .
`` I would argue whoever does that bolder and faster will win the election , and this election is still , in my judgment , up for grabs . ''
But with that chapter of the race closed , Paul says voters could expect a different campaign moving forward , and he would be surprised if Romney allowed himself to be vulnerable again .
`` The Republicans are historically very good at using negative campaigning , '' Paul said .
|
Story highlights Romney showed a personal side of himself in his RNC acceptance speech
"The key word is they've humanized him," strategist says
The speech had heart, but not enough soul, says a CNN contributor
Republicans expended enormous effort last week to make Mitt Romney more appealing to everyday Americans, and strategists believe that could pay dividends as the campaign moves into its next phase.
In his speech at the Republican National Convention that was aimed at changing the dynamics of his campaign and painting who he would be as both a candidate and a commander-in-chief, Romney showed a more personal side.
"I think the Romney campaign needs to continue what it started last night. It's done a really good job, thanks to the candidate, of defining itself," said David Morey, vice chairman of Core Strategy Group and an adviser to Obama's 2008 campaign.
A Romney adviser told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley that Romney "didn't need to move a mountain...[they] needed to push forward...[to] move the ball down the court and he did."
"The key word is they've humanized him," said Mike Paul, public relations strategist at MGP and Associates and a former aide to one-time Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
In helping to do that, political strategists say Romney made himself more likeable -- a benefit to a political campaign.
JUST WATCHED Mitt Romney's entire RNC speech Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mitt Romney's entire RNC speech 37:18
JUST WATCHED RNC declares Romney and Ryan nominees Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH RNC declares Romney and Ryan nominees 03:16
JUST WATCHED Romney's speech: Did he win the crowd? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney's speech: Did he win the crowd? 11:36
"It's been long established that voters want a president they're comfortable with," Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the Cook Political Report told CNN in May.
Since Ronald Reagan, the candidate who connects with voters personally has won every White House race. In fact, none of the winning presidential candidates had claimed victory with likability numbers as low as Romney's.
Romney spent most of his professional life in business as a private equity executive and carries himself like a corporate chief executive, analysts say, which may be an asset in the complex world of governing but appears not to resonate with voters looking for a common bond or a personal connection during difficult times for millions.
In a rare moment for the reserved candidate, Romney teared up when he spoke about his parents.
"Mom and Dad were married 64 years," Romney said, "...every day Dad gave Mom a rose, which he put on her bedside table. That's how she found out what happened on the day my father died. She went looking for him because that morning, there was no rose."
That memory made an impact with Paul.
"I don't think there's a person in the country, whether you love or hate the guy, who didn't get a little touched when he choked up talking about his parents, especially about his mother," he said.
Romney also revealed more about his faith.
"We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place," Romney said. "But I really don't remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to."
Romney continued the theme following the convention, flying to Louisiana on Friday to tour damage from Hurricane Isaac. Romney, who was invited by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, met with local officials and relief workers and shook hands with a man along a flooded roadway with a sign that read, "Mitt's Our Man."
With polls showing a dead heat between the candidates coming out of the Republican convention, the White House is either candidates' to lose, Morey said.
"This campaign will be won or lost by which candidate defines themselves, the stakes and the future best," Morey said. "And right now, Romney's taking a big step in defining himself. Obama's essentially already done that.
"I would argue whoever does that bolder and faster will win the election, and this election is still, in my judgment, up for grabs."
But with that chapter of the race closed, Paul says voters could expect a different campaign moving forward, and he would be surprised if Romney allowed himself to be vulnerable again.
"The Republicans are historically very good at using negative campaigning," Paul said.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
ePZpNmvRcfItC9KI
|
facts_and_fact_checking
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/22/politics/april-22-wednesday-coronavirus-briefing-fact-check/index.html
|
Trump makes false claims about governors not wanting tests, and repeats errors about Pelosi and Michelle Obama
|
2020-04-22
|
Daniel Dale, Marshall Cohen, Tara Subramaniam, Liz Stark
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump made yet another false claim about coronavirus testing on Wednesday , wrongly saying at a White House briefing that the US is conducting more tests than any governor probably even wants . In fact , numerous governors , including Republicans , have said that more testing is necessary .
Trump also continued to embellish about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's February 24 visit to San Francisco 's Chinatown , inaccurately saying that she had held a Chinatown `` rally . '' He continued to insist that his travel restrictions on China were a `` ban , '' though they contained significant exemptions . And he threw in an old false claim about Michelle Obama for good measure .
Trump bragged about the level of coronavirus testing in the US and played down criticism from medical professionals that there still is n't enough testing to get a handle of the pandemic .
`` Ultimately , we 're doing more testing , I think , than probably any of the governors even want , '' Trump said , suggesting that his administration was leading the way on coronavirus testing .
Trump later said that `` not everybody believes as strongly as some people on testing . '' And suggesting that calls for more testing are some sort of partisan plot , he claimed that `` some people want ( us ) to do testing because they think it 's impossible for us to fulfill that goal . ''
Facts First : Trump is off the mark . There have been bipartisan calls from governors and medical professionals for the Trump administration to ramp up testing and give states the supplies they need to get it done . There is no evidence that calls for more tests are some sort of anti-Trump plot ; nonpartisan public health experts have said it 's critical for the government to significantly increase the level of testing as part of any plan to end social distancing and lift economic restrictions .
Even as Trump shifts his rhetoric to reopening the country , governors from both parties say they need more testing or that they 're still struggling to obtain the testing materials they need . This includes Republican governors from Ohio , Nebraska , Maryland , Massachusetts , South Dakota and Wyoming
During the same briefing on Wednesday , Surgeon General Jerome Adams , a Trump appointee who has been a strong defender of the President during the pandemic , acknowledged that `` many different groups '' have talked to the administration about testing , `` and we hear that testing is absolutely a concern . ''
It 's not clear who Trump is referring to when he says some `` not everybody believes as strongly as some people '' in testing . While skeptics certainly exist , there is a strong consensus among public health and elected officials that testing is pivotal . These views are shared by major business executives , doctors , and even some Trump appointees , including Dr. Scott Gottlieb , his former chief of the Food and Drug Administration .
During Wednesday 's press briefing , Trump repeated a false claim he 's made numerous times about the travel restrictions imposed on China due to the coronavirus .
He once again described the restrictions as a `` ban '' and claimed that `` if we did n't close our country to China , we would have been so infected like nobody 's ever seen . ''
Facts First : Trump 's comments are misleading because he did not `` close our country to China . '' On February 2 , the United States began Trump 's comments are misleading because he did not `` close our country to China . '' On February 2 , the United States began implementing travel restrictions that denied entry to foreign nationals who had visited China within 14 days of arrival in the United States . But the travel restrictions contain exemptions for US citizens who had visited China , which makes Trump 's characterization that there was a `` ban '' misleading .
As of February 2 , US citizens who had been in China 's Hubei province in the two weeks prior to their return to the United States are subject to a mandatory quarantine of up to 14 days upon their return to the US . American citizens returning from the rest of mainland China may also face up to 14 days of quarantine after undergoing health screenings at selected ports of entry .
Only foreign nationals who have visited China within the past 14 days are temporarily banned from entering the United States .
Despite publicly disagreeing with Georgia Gov . Brian Kemp 's decision to open up businesses such as barbershops and tattoo parlors , Trump reiterated his past support for the governor . He compared his efforts to get Kemp elected with those of Democrats , erroneously claiming that Michelle Obama joined her husband in campaigning for Kemp 's opponent .
`` As you know , Brian Kemp , governor of Georgia , I worked very hard for his election , he beat their superstar , he beat the superstar of their party . I think you can say I helped a lot , '' Trump said , `` Michelle Obama , Barack Obama , Oprah Winfrey they all went in , they campaigned for him very , very hard and he lost . ''
Facts First : Michelle Obama did not campaign for either of Kemp 's opponents . Kemp beat Republican Lt. Gov . Casey Cagle , a man , in the primary and Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams , a woman , in the general election .
While Trump 's comments make it unclear which of Kemp 's opponents he 's referring to specifically , he has claimed on multiple occasions that both the Obamas and Winfrey campaigned for Abrams . While Barack Obama and Winfrey did , Michelle Obama did not .
Trump again exaggerated about Pelosi 's visit to San Francisco 's Chinatown on February 24 , this time claiming Pelosi was having a `` rally in San Francisco , in Chinatown . ''
|
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump made yet another false claim about coronavirus testing on Wednesday, wrongly saying at a White House briefing that the US is conducting more tests than any governor probably even wants. In fact, numerous governors, including Republicans, have said that more testing is necessary.
Trump also continued to embellish about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's February 24 visit to San Francisco's Chinatown, inaccurately saying that she had held a Chinatown "rally." He continued to insist that his travel restrictions on China were a "ban," though they contained significant exemptions. And he threw in an old false claim about Michelle Obama for good measure.
Here's a rundown of the claims and the facts:
Governors and testing
Trump bragged about the level of coronavirus testing in the US and played down criticism from medical professionals that there still isn't enough testing to get a handle of the pandemic.
"Ultimately, we're doing more testing, I think, than probably any of the governors even want," Trump said, suggesting that his administration was leading the way on coronavirus testing.
Trump later said that "not everybody believes as strongly as some people on testing." And suggesting that calls for more testing are some sort of partisan plot, he claimed that "some people want (us) to do testing because they think it's impossible for us to fulfill that goal."
Facts First: Trump is off the mark. There have been bipartisan calls from governors and medical professionals for the Trump administration to ramp up testing and give states the supplies they need to get it done. There is no evidence that calls for more tests are some sort of anti-Trump plot; nonpartisan public health experts have said it's critical for the government to significantly increase the level of testing as part of any plan to end social distancing and lift economic restrictions.
Even as Trump shifts his rhetoric to reopening the country, governors from both parties say they need more testing or that they're still struggling to obtain the testing materials they need. This includes Republican governors from Ohio, Nebraska, Maryland, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Wyoming
During the same briefing on Wednesday, Surgeon General Jerome Adams, a Trump appointee who has been a strong defender of the President during the pandemic, acknowledged that "many different groups" have talked to the administration about testing, "and we hear that testing is absolutely a concern."
It's not clear who Trump is referring to when he says some "not everybody believes as strongly as some people" in testing. While skeptics certainly exist, there is a strong consensus among public health and elected officials that testing is pivotal. These views are shared by major business executives , doctors, and even some Trump appointees , including Dr. Scott Gottlieb, his former chief of the Food and Drug Administration.
Travel restrictions
During Wednesday's press briefing, Trump repeated a false claim he's made numerous times about the travel restrictions imposed on China due to the coronavirus.
He once again described the restrictions as a "ban" and claimed that "if we didn't close our country to China, we would have been so infected like nobody's ever seen."
Facts First: Trump's comments are misleading because he did not "close our country to China." On February 2, the United States began Trump's comments are misleading because he did not "close our country to China." On February 2, the United States began implementing travel restrictions that denied entry to foreign nationals who had visited China within 14 days of arrival in the United States. But the travel restrictions contain exemptions for US citizens who had visited China, which makes Trump's characterization that there was a "ban" misleading.
As of February 2 , US citizens who had been in China's Hubei province in the two weeks prior to their return to the United States are subject to a mandatory quarantine of up to 14 days upon their return to the US. American citizens returning from the rest of mainland China may also face up to 14 days of quarantine after undergoing health screenings at selected ports of entry.
Only foreign nationals who have visited China within the past 14 days are temporarily banned from entering the United States.
Michelle Obama and the Georgia governors race
Despite publicly disagreeing with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp's decision to open up businesses such as barbershops and tattoo parlors, Trump reiterated his past support for the governor. He compared his efforts to get Kemp elected with those of Democrats, erroneously claiming that Michelle Obama joined her husband in campaigning for Kemp's opponent.
"As you know, Brian Kemp, governor of Georgia, I worked very hard for his election, he beat their superstar, he beat the superstar of their party. I think you can say I helped a lot," Trump said, "Michelle Obama, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey they all went in, they campaigned for him very, very hard and he lost."
Facts First: Michelle Obama did not campaign for either of Kemp's opponents. Kemp beat Republican Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a man, in the primary and Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams, a woman, in the general election.
While Trump's comments make it unclear which of Kemp's opponents he's referring to specifically, he has claimed on multiple occasions that both the Obamas and Winfrey campaigned for Abrams. While Barack Obama and Winfrey did , Michelle Obama did not.
Pelosi's Chinatown visit
Trump again exaggerated about Pelosi's visit to San Francisco's Chinatown on February 24, this time claiming Pelosi was having a "rally in San Francisco, in Chinatown."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
UYvBanONRZTBGVjN
|
culture
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/bill-clinton-donald-trump-america-lacks-sense-of-shame-and-more-jay-nordlingers-impromptus-august-24/
|
OPINION: No shame, &c.
|
2018-08-24
|
Jay Nordlinger, Mairead Mcardle, Michael Brendan Dougherty, John Mccormack, Carrie Severino, John Fund, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Bill Corsair, Jason Richwine
|
Donald Trump and President Bill Clinton at a fundraiser in New York City in 2000 ( William J. Clinton Presidential Library / Handout via Reuters )
The Clinton ’ 90s , the Trump ’ 10s , friendless Taiwan , savage Saudi Arabia , and more
In the Clinton ’ 90s , a lot of us said the following : There was the lawbreaking , yes — the perjury , subornation of perjury , etc . But also the “ underlying facts ” : The president used an intern for sex in the Oval Office . That was no good . The president was unfit to hold the office .
Today , there are legal questions , as before : campaign-finance violations , for example . But also the underlying facts : a president who pays off porn stars and Playboy bunnies , and lies and lies .
Where is a sense of shame ? Where is a sense of honor ? In late 1995 , Colin Powell gave some remarks , explaining why he wasn ’ t running for president . In the course of those remarks , he made some points about America — including a certain lack of shame . Shame needed to be brought back to our society , Powell said .
Did you see this news article from earlier this week ? “ Four Japanese basketball players on Monday apologized for bringing ‘ disgrace ’ to their nation after they were kicked out of the Asian Games for paying prostitutes for sex . ”
One of the players said , “ I deeply apologize for our careless act that has brought disgrace not only on basketball fans but also on all of the Japanese people. ” The head of the delegation said , “ I just feel a sense of shame . ”
• Trump gave an interview to Reuters . Asked about Kim Jong-un , he said , “ Look , I have a good relationship with him . I like him . A lot of people will say , ‘ How could you possibly like him ? ’ I get along with him very well . We have a good chemistry . I have a good chemistry with Putin , too . ”
I ’ m sure of it . Personally , I prefer American presidents who don ’ t “ like ” murderous dictators and who have something unlike chemistry with them . America is a great liberal democracy . In the national interest , we have to have relations with some dictators — but we don ’ t have to like them or have good chemistry with them .
This is something that every Republican and every conservative would have said until very recently .
• If they retake the House , Democrats will be itching to impeach Trump . I think that would be unwise for them , politically . ( I ’ m not in the habit of giving them advice , and they ’ re not in the habit of taking it from me . ) Impeachment would cause many Trump-skeptical Americans — Republicans and independents — to rally ’ round the president . Trump voters would consider themselves cheated out of their rightful choice in 2016 . If they were smart , the Democrats ’ watchword would be : Ballot Box or Bust .
• My favorite headline of the recent period ? Oh , man , behold this beauty from the Associated Press : “ Mooning case against Virginia softball coach ’ s wife wanes. ” ( Article here . )
• A friend of mine lives in that state , Virginia , which has a Senate race this year . My friend is a conservative — old-school , pre-Trump . He is loath to vote for the Republican , a guy who has flirted with white nationalism , and he is loath to vote for the incumbent Democrat . What can he do ? Not much .
If someone wants to give us a new party , I propose a slogan for it : “ Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. ” I thought of that all by myself , you see . ( Do you happen to know the second part of Washington ’ s statement ? “ The rest is in the hands of God . ” )
• Politico published an article headed “ Behind Trump allies ’ shifting explanations of 2016 payoffs to women. ” In March 2018 , the Wall Street Journal asked Michael Cohen for a comment , and he answered with two words : “ Fake News. ” What the Journal was reporting was not fake news , of course . Cohen has pleaded guilty to what he said was “ fake . ”
More and more , I think that “ fake news ” is the most obnoxious phrase in the English language . For many , it does not mean news that is false ; it means “ news I don ’ t want to hear . ”
• Last Sunday , the president tweeted , “ Some members of the media are very Angry at the Fake Story in the New York Times . They actually called to complain and apologize – a big step forward. ” Angry with a capital A , mind you .
But more important : Does anyone believe that journalists called to complain and apologize ? Whom did they call ? Could we have a list of the callers ?
• Also on Sunday , the president tweeted , “ The failing @ nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel , he must be a John Dean type ‘ RAT. ’ But I allowed him and all others to testify – I didn ’ t have to . ”
Earlier , The Drudge Report affixed a label to Cohen : “ RAT . ”
I have a memory . One of the things that turned me off the New York Post , many years ago , was its habit of using the word “ rat ” to describe FBI informants , in headlines . The paper was adopting mafia lingo and the mafia mentality . I didn ’ t like that .
When someone says “ rat , ” he often means , “ He broke the code of omertà and is now telling the truth , which is a betrayal . ”
Loyalty is a fine quality , but one fraught with complications , as you know . Loyalty to a lie is especially problematic . . .
• For the past many years , the PRC has been buying off Taiwan ’ s few remaining allies . El Salvador is the latest to bite the dust . The Salvadoran government is even moving Salvadoran students who are studying in Taiwan to the PRC .
Too bad , on many counts . From what I understand , the kids will learn a lesser Chinese on the mainland — choked with ugly Communist abbreviations and such . ( The Soviets debased Russian , too . )
• I highly recommend this article by Stephen F. Hayes , “ Rand Paul , Russian Stooge. ” I understand the sympathy that authoritarian-minded people have for Putin ’ s Kremlin . But Libertarians for Putin ? That ’ s downright weird . Kind of like Vegetarians for Lamb Chops .
Or is Rand Paul authentically libertarian ? I ’ m not even a libertarian and I feel I have to defend the libertarians against the charge that Paul is one of them . . .
• Miloš Zeman is the president of the Czech Republic . This is a big year for that country : the 50th anniversary of the Prague Spring and the subsequent Soviet invasion , which snuffed out the spring . There are commemorative ceremonies , of course .
But the president won ’ t be appearing at them . Why ? He is a big Putin man , and he would not want Putin to be offended . ( To read an article on the subject , go here . )
There are many things to say , one of which is this : We are constantly told — and rightly — that there ’ s a big difference between the Soviet Union and Russia , even under Putin . Fine . So . . . why would Putin be offended by a ceremony commemorating the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion ?
Maybe Putin & Co. are more Soviet than one would like to think . . .
Some of my friends on the right are pro-Zeman because they are anti-EU , and they hope that Zeman will lead the Czech Republic out of the EU , which would hasten the demise of the union , which these friends devoutly wish for . I am anti-Zeman because I am anti-Putin , anti-dictatorship , anti-illiberalism — and Zeman is a Putin man , for sure .
• There are also Putin women in power — and I don ’ t mean in Russia . Take Karin Kneissl ( please ) . She is the Austrian foreign minister , recently married . Putin attended her wedding and danced with her . She curtsied fondly . Kneissl was nominated for her post by the ( sickeningly named ) Freedom party , founded by SS men . Needless to say , this party has a friendship-and-cooperation agreement with Putin , back in the homeland . Salvini ’ s party in Italy — the League — has the same agreement .
• The word “ evil ” is the “ strongest of all epithets , ” as Norman Podhoretz once wrote , and it certainly applies to the Chinese dictatorship . This piece tells how the dictatorship induces Uyghurs abroad to spy on their own . ( If they refuse to spy , the dictatorship will do bad things to their families , stuck at home . )
The piece is by Megha Rajagopalan , an American who is one of the best reporters in all of China . Actually , she had some news the other day : “ In May , China ’ s Foreign Ministry declined to issue me a new journalist visa . They say this is a process thing , we are not totally clear why . ”
Let me put it this way : If I were a dictatorship , I wouldn ’ t want Megha around either . She is invaluable . And she will keep up her work , from elsewhere .
• For decades , Canadians have liked to vacation in Cuba — which is why I particularly appreciated this article by Aedan O ’ Connor , saying : Don ’ t .
• A headline , stomach-turning : “ Saudi Arabia seeks its first death penalty against a female human rights activist. ” ( Article here . ) The United States and other Saudi allies are not without leverage . They/we should use it .
• Did you see this one from President Trump , last Saturday ? “ All of the fools that are so focused on looking only at Russia should start also looking in another direction , China . But in the end , if we are smart , tough and well prepared , we will get along with everyone ! ” The point is not to get along — the point is to defend and promote the American interest , period .
Sometimes — wouldn ’ t ya know ? — the interests of anti-American dictators clash with the interests of America . . .
• Another one from Trump , issued Sunday : “ Study the late Joseph McCarthy , because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby ! Rigged Witch Hunt ! ” Uh-oh . Trump dissing Tailgunner Joe ? This could cause a rupture in The Base . . .
• Two years ago , I wrote a piece called “ Killing Aida. ” It was about the clash — the fatal clash — between identity politics and art . Daniel Hannan has written a brilliant piece on essentially the same topic . Here is a nugget from it :
“ Sierra Boggess , who was to have starred as Maria in the BBC Proms production of West Side Story , withdrew from the role after critics complained that the part should be reserved for a singer of Latin American background . ”
Oh , gim me a break ( and I ’ m being as polite as I can ) . Leonard Bernstein cast Kiri the Kiwi — Dame Kiri Te Kanawa — in the part . And he wrote the [ expletive deleted ] thing .
• Trending on Twitter in recent days has been “ Make a Disney song sexy ” — that is , an invitation to do it . This made me see red . Isn ’ t the world sexed up enough ? Is there a blade of grass , or a speck of dust , that has not yet been sexualized ?
I think of something Bill Buckley once said of Norman Mailer : If only he ’ d lift his gaze above the world ’ s groin .
• An obituary from the New York Times— of Rita Borsellino , whose brother , a prosecutor , was murdered by the mafia . This made her an anti-mafia crusader . What is so valuable as a person who stands up to bullies ? Especially murderous ones .
• Here is an obit of David McReynolds , a Socialist activist , who died at 88 . I thought these paragraphs were fascinating :
Mr. McReynolds resigned from the Socialist Party in 2015 after he was censured for two comments he had made on social media . In one , he expressed concern over Islamist extremism following a terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo , a newspaper in Paris . In the other , he used the word “ thuggish ” in reference to Michael Brown , the unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson , Mo . “ The failure of the Socialist Party , its tendency to substitute a kind of left rhetoric for serious analysis , is to be regretted because if ever we needed a democratic socialist movement it is today , ” Mr. McReynolds wrote after his resignation .
No one — not even the venerably Left — can escape censure by PC cops .
• This is a painful , painful obit of Isamu Shibayama . I had never known about the Peruvian side of Japanese internment , so to speak . A tragic , maddening story .
• My old friend from The Weekly Standard , Jonathan V. Last , tweeted , “ . . . this is one of the most gracious displays of intellectual honesty you ’ ll ever see. ” He was linking to this article : “ Rod Was Right and I Was Wrong . ”
I was working with Rod Dreher here at ███ during the period in question . Rod was determined to find the truth , and tell it . A lot of people didn ’ t like this very much . He was lion-like , unbullyable . You want that kind of person in journalism , and in life .
Thank you , dearhearts — this was a long one , wasn ’ t it ? ( the next one will be shorter ) — and I ’ ll catch you soon .
IN THE NEWS : ‘ [ WATCH ] Trump Says Mueller Team “ Are Looking to Impact ” Midterm Elections ’
|
Donald Trump and President Bill Clinton at a fundraiser in New York City in 2000 (William J. Clinton Presidential Library / Handout via Reuters)
The Clinton ’90s, the Trump ’10s, friendless Taiwan, savage Saudi Arabia, and more
In the Clinton ’90s, a lot of us said the following: There was the lawbreaking, yes — the perjury, subornation of perjury, etc. But also the “underlying facts”: The president used an intern for sex in the Oval Office. That was no good. The president was unfit to hold the office.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Today, there are legal questions, as before: campaign-finance violations, for example. But also the underlying facts: a president who pays off porn stars and Playboy bunnies, and lies and lies.
Where is a sense of shame? Where is a sense of honor? In late 1995, Colin Powell gave some remarks, explaining why he wasn’t running for president. In the course of those remarks, he made some points about America — including a certain lack of shame. Shame needed to be brought back to our society, Powell said.
This thrilled a lot of us conservatives, back then.
Did you see this news article from earlier this week? “Four Japanese basketball players on Monday apologized for bringing ‘disgrace’ to their nation after they were kicked out of the Asian Games for paying prostitutes for sex.”
Advertisement
One of the players said, “I deeply apologize for our careless act that has brought disgrace not only on basketball fans but also on all of the Japanese people.” The head of the delegation said, “I just feel a sense of shame.”
Advertisement
We could use some of that over here.
• Trump gave an interview to Reuters. Asked about Kim Jong-un, he said, “Look, I have a good relationship with him. I like him. A lot of people will say, ‘How could you possibly like him?’ I get along with him very well. We have a good chemistry. I have a good chemistry with Putin, too.”
I’m sure of it. Personally, I prefer American presidents who don’t “like” murderous dictators and who have something unlike chemistry with them. America is a great liberal democracy. In the national interest, we have to have relations with some dictators — but we don’t have to like them or have good chemistry with them.
This is something that every Republican and every conservative would have said until very recently.
Advertisement
Advertisement
• If they retake the House, Democrats will be itching to impeach Trump. I think that would be unwise for them, politically. (I’m not in the habit of giving them advice, and they’re not in the habit of taking it from me.) Impeachment would cause many Trump-skeptical Americans — Republicans and independents — to rally ’round the president. Trump voters would consider themselves cheated out of their rightful choice in 2016. If they were smart, the Democrats’ watchword would be: Ballot Box or Bust.
• My favorite headline of the recent period? Oh, man, behold this beauty from the Associated Press: “Mooning case against Virginia softball coach’s wife wanes.” (Article here.)
• A friend of mine lives in that state, Virginia, which has a Senate race this year. My friend is a conservative — old-school, pre-Trump. He is loath to vote for the Republican, a guy who has flirted with white nationalism, and he is loath to vote for the incumbent Democrat. What can he do? Not much.
If someone wants to give us a new party, I propose a slogan for it: “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” I thought of that all by myself, you see. (Do you happen to know the second part of Washington’s statement? “The rest is in the hands of God.”)
Advertisement
• Politico published an article headed “Behind Trump allies’ shifting explanations of 2016 payoffs to women.” In March 2018, the Wall Street Journal asked Michael Cohen for a comment, and he answered with two words: “Fake News.” What the Journal was reporting was not fake news, of course. Cohen has pleaded guilty to what he said was “fake.”
More and more, I think that “fake news” is the most obnoxious phrase in the English language. For many, it does not mean news that is false; it means “news I don’t want to hear.”
• Last Sunday, the president tweeted, “Some members of the media are very Angry at the Fake Story in the New York Times. They actually called to complain and apologize – a big step forward.” Angry with a capital A, mind you.
But more important: Does anyone believe that journalists called to complain and apologize? Whom did they call? Could we have a list of the callers?
Advertisement
Advertisement
• Also on Sunday, the president tweeted, “The failing @nytimes wrote a Fake piece today implying that because White House Councel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the Special Councel, he must be a John Dean type ‘RAT.’ But I allowed him and all others to testify – I didn’t have to.”
Earlier, The Drudge Report affixed a label to Cohen: “RAT.”
I have a memory. One of the things that turned me off the New York Post, many years ago, was its habit of using the word “rat” to describe FBI informants, in headlines. The paper was adopting mafia lingo and the mafia mentality. I didn’t like that.
When someone says “rat,” he often means, “He broke the code of omertà and is now telling the truth, which is a betrayal.”
Loyalty is a fine quality, but one fraught with complications, as you know. Loyalty to a lie is especially problematic . . .
Advertisement
• For the past many years, the PRC has been buying off Taiwan’s few remaining allies. El Salvador is the latest to bite the dust. The Salvadoran government is even moving Salvadoran students who are studying in Taiwan to the PRC.
Too bad, on many counts. From what I understand, the kids will learn a lesser Chinese on the mainland — choked with ugly Communist abbreviations and such. (The Soviets debased Russian, too.)
(For an article on the Taiwan-and-El-Salvador matter, go here.)
• I highly recommend this article by Stephen F. Hayes, “Rand Paul, Russian Stooge.” I understand the sympathy that authoritarian-minded people have for Putin’s Kremlin. But Libertarians for Putin? That’s downright weird. Kind of like Vegetarians for Lamb Chops.
Or is Rand Paul authentically libertarian? I’m not even a libertarian and I feel I have to defend the libertarians against the charge that Paul is one of them . . .
• Miloš Zeman is the president of the Czech Republic. This is a big year for that country: the 50th anniversary of the Prague Spring and the subsequent Soviet invasion, which snuffed out the spring. There are commemorative ceremonies, of course.
But the president won’t be appearing at them. Why? He is a big Putin man, and he would not want Putin to be offended. (To read an article on the subject, go here.)
There are many things to say, one of which is this: We are constantly told — and rightly — that there’s a big difference between the Soviet Union and Russia, even under Putin. Fine. So . . . why would Putin be offended by a ceremony commemorating the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion?
Maybe Putin & Co. are more Soviet than one would like to think . . .
Some of my friends on the right are pro-Zeman because they are anti-EU, and they hope that Zeman will lead the Czech Republic out of the EU, which would hasten the demise of the union, which these friends devoutly wish for. I am anti-Zeman because I am anti-Putin, anti-dictatorship, anti-illiberalism — and Zeman is a Putin man, for sure.
• There are also Putin women in power — and I don’t mean in Russia. Take Karin Kneissl (please). She is the Austrian foreign minister, recently married. Putin attended her wedding and danced with her. She curtsied fondly. Kneissl was nominated for her post by the (sickeningly named) Freedom party, founded by SS men. Needless to say, this party has a friendship-and-cooperation agreement with Putin, back in the homeland. Salvini’s party in Italy — the League — has the same agreement.
Watch your back, Europe.
• The word “evil” is the “strongest of all epithets,” as Norman Podhoretz once wrote, and it certainly applies to the Chinese dictatorship. This piece tells how the dictatorship induces Uyghurs abroad to spy on their own. (If they refuse to spy, the dictatorship will do bad things to their families, stuck at home.)
The piece is by Megha Rajagopalan, an American who is one of the best reporters in all of China. Actually, she had some news the other day: “In May, China’s Foreign Ministry declined to issue me a new journalist visa. They say this is a process thing, we are not totally clear why.”
Let me put it this way: If I were a dictatorship, I wouldn’t want Megha around either. She is invaluable. And she will keep up her work, from elsewhere.
Advertisement
• For decades, Canadians have liked to vacation in Cuba — which is why I particularly appreciated this article by Aedan O’Connor, saying: Don’t.
• A headline, stomach-turning: “Saudi Arabia seeks its first death penalty against a female human rights activist.” (Article here.) The United States and other Saudi allies are not without leverage. They/we should use it.
• Did you see this one from President Trump, last Saturday? “All of the fools that are so focused on looking only at Russia should start also looking in another direction, China. But in the end, if we are smart, tough and well prepared, we will get along with everyone!” The point is not to get along — the point is to defend and promote the American interest, period.
Sometimes — wouldn’t ya know? — the interests of anti-American dictators clash with the interests of America . . .
• Another one from Trump, issued Sunday: “Study the late Joseph McCarthy, because we are now in period with Mueller and his gang that make Joseph McCarthy look like a baby! Rigged Witch Hunt!” Uh-oh. Trump dissing Tailgunner Joe? This could cause a rupture in The Base . . .
• Two years ago, I wrote a piece called “Killing Aida.” It was about the clash — the fatal clash — between identity politics and art. Daniel Hannan has written a brilliant piece on essentially the same topic. Here is a nugget from it:
“Sierra Boggess, who was to have starred as Maria in the BBC Proms production of West Side Story, withdrew from the role after critics complained that the part should be reserved for a singer of Latin American background.”
Oh, gimme a break (and I’m being as polite as I can). Leonard Bernstein cast Kiri the Kiwi — Dame Kiri Te Kanawa — in the part. And he wrote the [expletive deleted] thing.
• Trending on Twitter in recent days has been “Make a Disney song sexy” — that is, an invitation to do it. This made me see red. Isn’t the world sexed up enough? Is there a blade of grass, or a speck of dust, that has not yet been sexualized?
I think of something Bill Buckley once said of Norman Mailer: If only he’d lift his gaze above the world’s groin.
• An obituary from the New York Times— of Rita Borsellino, whose brother, a prosecutor, was murdered by the mafia. This made her an anti-mafia crusader. What is so valuable as a person who stands up to bullies? Especially murderous ones.
I admire her no end.
• Here is an obit of David McReynolds, a Socialist activist, who died at 88. I thought these paragraphs were fascinating:
Mr. McReynolds resigned from the Socialist Party in 2015 after he was censured for two comments he had made on social media. In one, he expressed concern over Islamist extremism following a terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, a newspaper in Paris. In the other, he used the word “thuggish” in reference to Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Mo. “The failure of the Socialist Party, its tendency to substitute a kind of left rhetoric for serious analysis, is to be regretted because if ever we needed a democratic socialist movement it is today,” Mr. McReynolds wrote after his resignation.
No one — not even the venerably Left — can escape censure by PC cops.
• This is a painful, painful obit of Isamu Shibayama. I had never known about the Peruvian side of Japanese internment, so to speak. A tragic, maddening story.
• My old friend from The Weekly Standard, Jonathan V. Last, tweeted, “. . . this is one of the most gracious displays of intellectual honesty you’ll ever see.” He was linking to this article: “Rod Was Right and I Was Wrong.”
I was working with Rod Dreher here at National Review during the period in question. Rod was determined to find the truth, and tell it. A lot of people didn’t like this very much. He was lion-like, unbullyable. You want that kind of person in journalism, and in life.
Thank you, dearhearts — this was a long one, wasn’t it? (the next one will be shorter) — and I’ll catch you soon.
Advertisement
IN THE NEWS: ‘[WATCH] Trump Says Mueller Team “Are Looking to Impact” Midterm Elections’
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
iXqP4FMNslN5fHOz
|
defense
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/31/170730602/iran-israel-defense-cuts-to-be-key-topics-at-hagel-hearing
|
Iran, Israel, Defense Cuts To Be Key Topics At Hagel Hearing
|
2013-01-31
|
Mark Memmott
|
Iran , Israel , Defense Cuts To Be Key Topics At Hagel Hearing
What 's shaping up to be one of the more contentious nomination hearings for one of President Obama 's cabinet choices is set to open at 9:30 a.m . ET when members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services get their chance to publicly grill former Sen. Chuck Hagel , R-Neb. , who has been tapped for the post of defense secretary .
As Ari Shapiro reported on Morning Edition , Obama 's choices of Hagel , Sen. John Kerry , D-Mass. , for secretary of state , and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan for CIA director , `` represent a shift in the way the U.S. wages war . It 's a shift from big to small , from the Pentagon to the CIA . ''
But today 's Hagel hearing , as Defense News writes , is expected to be dominated by the issues of Israel , Iran and looming defense budget cuts and sharp questions about the nominees views :
`` Since Hagel 's name was floated for the post in early December , Hagel has been sharply criticized by his former fellow-GOP senators and pro-Israel groups for his past comments on the U.S.-Israel alliance , whether the Pentagon budget can and should be trimmed , how to confront Iran over its nuclear arms program , gay rights and the proper size of the U.S. nuclear arms fleet . Expect questions on all those topics . ''
According to the Los Angeles Times , Hagel `` will stress at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he opposes letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons and will focus on developing military options to set back Tehran 's program , according to a U.S. official familiar with his planned testimony . ''
The conventional wisdom in Washington seems to be that after some initial doubts , it 's now likely Hagel will be confirmed . The Washington Post 's The Fix blog this morning suggests there are `` 5 senators to watch '' during the hearing : Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas ; Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand , D-N.Y. ; Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. ; Sen. Jim Inhofe , R-Okla. ; and Sen. John McCain , R-Ariz .
We 'll monitor the hearing and post highlights later . C-SPAN.org will be streaming here .
Update at 10:45 a.m . ET . Early News From The Hearing :
Hagel : 'No One Individual Vote , Quote Or Statement Defines Me '
|
Iran, Israel, Defense Cuts To Be Key Topics At Hagel Hearing
What's shaping up to be one of the more contentious nomination hearings for one of President Obama's cabinet choices is set to open at 9:30 a.m. ET when members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services get their chance to publicly grill former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has been tapped for the post of defense secretary.
As Ari Shapiro reported on Morning Edition, Obama's choices of Hagel, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for secretary of state, and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan for CIA director, "represent a shift in the way the U.S. wages war. It's a shift from big to small, from the Pentagon to the CIA."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Brendan Smialowski /AFP/Getty Images Brendan Smialowski /AFP/Getty Images
But today's Hagel hearing, as Defense News writes, is expected to be dominated by the issues of Israel, Iran and looming defense budget cuts and sharp questions about the nominees views:
"Since Hagel's name was floated for the post in early December, Hagel has been sharply criticized by his former fellow-GOP senators and pro-Israel groups for his past comments on the U.S.-Israel alliance, whether the Pentagon budget can and should be trimmed, how to confront Iran over its nuclear arms program, gay rights and the proper size of the U.S. nuclear arms fleet. Expect questions on all those topics."
According to the Los Angeles Times, Hagel "will stress at his confirmation hearing Thursday that he opposes letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons and will focus on developing military options to set back Tehran's program, according to a U.S. official familiar with his planned testimony."
The conventional wisdom in Washington seems to be that after some initial doubts, it's now likely Hagel will be confirmed. The Washington Post's The Fix blog this morning suggests there are "5 senators to watch" during the hearing: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
We'll monitor the hearing and post highlights later. C-SPAN.org will be streaming here.
Update at 10:45 a.m. ET. Early News From The Hearing:
Hagel: 'No One Individual Vote, Quote Or Statement Defines Me'
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
se1xXFh6r8UeJMJP
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/24/too-soon-media-cast-trumps-task-as-mission-impossible.html
|
The media cast Trump's task as Mission Impossible
|
2016-10-24
|
Howard Kurtz
|
The tenor of the coverage certainly suggests that Donald Trump has no hope and Hillary Clinton is coasting to victory .
Whether it ’ s the third debate , the latest polls , the Al Smith dinner or a feeling that they ’ ve finally slayed the Trump dragon , many pundits are now portraying the billionaire ’ s plight as Mission Impossible .
I ’ m always more cautious than that . I ’ ve seen too many elections where a candidate bounced back after being written off , the polls were off , or some unexpected event moved the needle .
Is Clinton now the favorite to reach 270 electoral votes , or , according to some forecasts , much more ? Sure .
You don ’ t have to look very far to see the Trump-is-sinking narrative . It ’ s as if the media left open the possibility that he could still shake up the race in the third debate , until the Las Vegas faceoff ended with him being attacked by both parties for not promising to accept the election outcome .
This goes beyond the horse race stories . You see it when the Washington Post analyzes how the pro-life movement will fare in a Hillary Clinton administration .
You see it with a New York Times headline , `` Clinton Hopes for a Mandate and Coattails . ''
You see it when Politico runs a big piece on whether Hillary will tap Facebook 's Sheryl Sandberg as Treasury secretary and , yes , handicaps who 's on the short list to be her Agriculture secretary .
You see it when Fox 's Karl Rove says Trump will have a very hard time coming back and it leads the Huffington Post : `` ROVE : HE 'S TOAST . ''
“ A wave of apprehension and anguish swept the Republican Party on Thursday , with many GOP leaders alarmed by Donald Trump ’ s refusal to accept the outcome of the election and concluding that it is probably too late to salvage his flailing presidential campaign . ”
And there was this Post headline over the weekend : `` Donald Trump is in a funk : Bitter , hoarse and pondering , ‘ If I lose . . . ’ ''
Then , of course , there are the polling and prognostication stories :
“ Even if Trump ran the table in the remaining battleground states — Florida , Iowa , Nevada , North Carolina and Ohio — he would fall short of the White House if he can not flip another state where Clinton currently leads in the polls , ” says Politico .
“ The six states where Clinton is currently comfortably ahead show all the hallmarks of swing states that have faded from contention . ”
“ I ’ m not sure I need to tell you this , but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president . It ’ s just a question of what ‘ probably ’ means . ”
“ With less than three weeks to go , and all of the debates blessedly in the rearview mirror , Clinton is in a commanding position in the contest to become the 45th president…
“ A striking development in recent days has been the smattering of polling showing Trump with weak leads in some reliably Republican states . He ’ s barely ahead in some polls of Alaska , Indiana , Missouri , South Carolina , and Texas — states that shouldn ’ t be close in any competitive election…
“ We have moved Utah to Toss-up . Seriously , did you ever even for a second think Utah would be a Toss-up in late October ? ”
These are fair questions in studying the electoral map . Yes , the L.A. Times poll calls the race a tie and an IBD poll gives Trump a 2-point lead , but these seem to be outliers , and in any event the race will be decided in Florida , Ohio , North Carolina , Colorado , Arizona and a handful of other states .
I have the growing sense that journalists want this long and rather ugly election to be over , and that much of the country does as well .
But remember what Yogi Berra said . And we still have two weeks to go .
|
Is the press declaring the presidential race over?
The tenor of the coverage certainly suggests that Donald Trump has no hope and Hillary Clinton is coasting to victory.
Whether it’s the third debate, the latest polls, the Al Smith dinner or a feeling that they’ve finally slayed the Trump dragon, many pundits are now portraying the billionaire’s plight as Mission Impossible.
I’m always more cautious than that. I’ve seen too many elections where a candidate bounced back after being written off, the polls were off, or some unexpected event moved the needle.
Is Clinton now the favorite to reach 270 electoral votes, or, according to some forecasts, much more? Sure.
But it’s not over.
You don’t have to look very far to see the Trump-is-sinking narrative. It’s as if the media left open the possibility that he could still shake up the race in the third debate, until the Las Vegas faceoff ended with him being attacked by both parties for not promising to accept the election outcome.
This goes beyond the horse race stories. You see it when the Washington Post analyzes how the pro-life movement will fare in a Hillary Clinton administration.
You see it with a New York Times headline, "Clinton Hopes for a Mandate and Coattails."
You see it when Politico runs a big piece on whether Hillary will tap Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg as Treasury secretary and, yes, handicaps who's on the short list to be her Agriculture secretary.
You see it when Fox's Karl Rove says Trump will have a very hard time coming back and it leads the Huffington Post: "ROVE: HE'S TOAST."
Take this Washington Post lead:
“A wave of apprehension and anguish swept the Republican Party on Thursday, with many GOP leaders alarmed by Donald Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the election and concluding that it is probably too late to salvage his flailing presidential campaign.”
And there was this Post headline over the weekend: "Donald Trump is in a funk: Bitter, hoarse and pondering, ‘If I lose. . .’"
Then, of course, there are the polling and prognostication stories:
“Even if Trump ran the table in the remaining battleground states — Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio — he would fall short of the White House if he cannot flip another state where Clinton currently leads in the polls,” says Politico.
“The six states where Clinton is currently comfortably ahead show all the hallmarks of swing states that have faded from contention.”
Data guru Nate Silver of 538:
“I’m not sure I need to tell you this, but Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the next president. It’s just a question of what ‘probably’ means.”
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball:
“With less than three weeks to go, and all of the debates blessedly in the rearview mirror, Clinton is in a commanding position in the contest to become the 45th president…
“A striking development in recent days has been the smattering of polling showing Trump with weak leads in some reliably Republican states. He’s barely ahead in some polls of Alaska, Indiana, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas — states that shouldn’t be close in any competitive election…
“We have moved Utah to Toss-up. Seriously, did you ever even for a second think Utah would be a Toss-up in late October?”
These are fair questions in studying the electoral map. Yes, the L.A. Times poll calls the race a tie and an IBD poll gives Trump a 2-point lead, but these seem to be outliers, and in any event the race will be decided in Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona and a handful of other states.
I have the growing sense that journalists want this long and rather ugly election to be over, and that much of the country does as well.
But remember what Yogi Berra said. And we still have two weeks to go.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
se20dXZZpk1Ru4fZ
|
defense
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/senate-armed-services-committee-endorses-chuck-hagel-14-11-87531.html
|
Senate Armed Services Committee endorses Chuck Hagel 14-11
|
2013-02-12
|
Tim Mak
|
Hagel ’ s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor . | John Shinkle/███ Hagel nomination clears Senate committee
Splitting along party lines , the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-11 on Tuesday to advance Chuck Hagel ’ s nomination after a tense two-hour meeting that closed the latest chapter in a weeks-long political saga .
The nomination heads to the full Senate , where Republicans may demand a 60-vote threshold in a vote expected later this week .
Democrats and Republicans broke sharply over whether the former Republican senator from Nebraska is the right man to run the Pentagon . Supporters cited Hagel ’ s experience as an enlisted soldier in Vietnam and his service in the Senate and elsewhere as reasons he should succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta while opponents stuck with their criticisms about Hagel ’ s past positions on Iran , Israel and the defense budget .
A few Republicans kept up their bid to stop Hagel ’ s nomination from moving ahead , arguing he has kept some information from the committee , but Democrats insisted that he has satisfied its disclosure requirements and accused Republicans of tarring Hagel unfairly .
Sen. Bill Nelson ( D-Fla. ) said Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) had `` gone over the line '' and `` basically ... impugned the patriotism of the nominee ” by pointing out that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had praised Hagel .
The top Republican on the committee , Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) , shot back later in defense of Cruz , `` You do n't get any cozier than that . ''
Former ranking member Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) interjected soon thereafter with a message for his colleagues : `` Sen. Hagel is an honorable man who has served his country , and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character , '' McCain said .
But for most of the meeting , senators referred to Hagel ’ s late January confirmation hearing . McCain slammed Hagel ’ s performance as “ the worst I have seen of any nomination for office ” and said it was “ disturbing ” that Hagel would not directly respond to his question about whether the Iraq surge was a success . Democrats said the criticism of Hagel ’ s day in the spotlight was unfair , and they defended his description of a policy of “ containment ” for a nuclear Iran — which the White House does not support – as a simple slip of the tongue .
Apart from the politics involved with Hagel himself , Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin ( D-Mich. ) had warned senators that rejecting him would endanger the Pentagon at a time it could ill afford another complication .
“ If there ’ s a risk here , it is that the defeat of this nomination would leave the Department of Defense leaderless at a time when we face immense budgetary challenges and our military is engaged in combat operations overseas , '' Levin said .
While he acknowledged that many senators oppose President Barack Obama 's foreign policy , `` our vote on Sen. Hagel 's nomination will not change those policies . ''
The meeting ultimately proved civil compared with what might have been — Republican aides had suggested earlier that some GOP senators were considering walking out to protest what they called Hagel ’ s insufficient financial disclosures . Inhofe and Cruz later ruled that out .
“ I don ’ t think anything is gained by theatrics , ” Cruz told ███ .
Just the same , Republicans continued to try to put on the brakes . Louisiana Sen. David Vitter quarreled with Levin over what Vitter said was an incomplete disclosure from Hagel of past speeches , and Cruz renewed the GOP line of questioning about whether Hagel had taken payments from “ foreign sources . ”
Hagel ’ s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor , where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev. ) has said he hopes the chamber could vote on it Wednesday or Thursday .
Some Republicans said they might continue to oppose Hagel before the full Senate , but Reid responded with a single word on Tuesday when asked whether he ’ d honor an attempt at a hold : “ No . ”
With 55 Democrats controlling the Senate and two Republicans — Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — already publicly supporting Hagel , only three more Republicans would need to support him for confirmation under a request from Republicans for a 60-vote threshold .
Inhofe said Monday night that he would not use his privilege to delay Hagel ’ s confirmation into the weekend or early next week , so long as Democrats produced 60 votes upfront to support Hagel .
This article first appeared on ███ Pro at 5:05 p.m. on February 12 , 2013 .
|
Hagel’s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Hagel nomination clears Senate committee
Splitting along party lines, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-11 on Tuesday to advance Chuck Hagel’s nomination after a tense two-hour meeting that closed the latest chapter in a weeks-long political saga.
The nomination heads to the full Senate, where Republicans may demand a 60-vote threshold in a vote expected later this week.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing)
Democrats and Republicans broke sharply over whether the former Republican senator from Nebraska is the right man to run the Pentagon. Supporters cited Hagel’s experience as an enlisted soldier in Vietnam and his service in the Senate and elsewhere as reasons he should succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta while opponents stuck with their criticisms about Hagel’s past positions on Iran, Israel and the defense budget.
A few Republicans kept up their bid to stop Hagel’s nomination from moving ahead, arguing he has kept some information from the committee, but Democrats insisted that he has satisfied its disclosure requirements and accused Republicans of tarring Hagel unfairly.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had "gone over the line" and "basically ... impugned the patriotism of the nominee” by pointing out that the Iranian Foreign Ministry had praised Hagel.
The top Republican on the committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), shot back later in defense of Cruz, "You don't get any cozier than that."
Former ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) interjected soon thereafter with a message for his colleagues: "Sen. Hagel is an honorable man who has served his country, and no one on this committee at any time should impugn his character," McCain said.
( PHOTOS: Chuck Hagel’s career)
But for most of the meeting, senators referred to Hagel’s late January confirmation hearing. McCain slammed Hagel’s performance as “the worst I have seen of any nomination for office” and said it was “disturbing” that Hagel would not directly respond to his question about whether the Iraq surge was a success. Democrats said the criticism of Hagel’s day in the spotlight was unfair, and they defended his description of a policy of “containment” for a nuclear Iran — which the White House does not support – as a simple slip of the tongue.
Apart from the politics involved with Hagel himself, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) had warned senators that rejecting him would endanger the Pentagon at a time it could ill afford another complication.
“If there’s a risk here, it is that the defeat of this nomination would leave the Department of Defense leaderless at a time when we face immense budgetary challenges and our military is engaged in combat operations overseas," Levin said.
While he acknowledged that many senators oppose President Barack Obama's foreign policy, "our vote on Sen. Hagel's nomination will not change those policies."
The meeting ultimately proved civil compared with what might have been — Republican aides had suggested earlier that some GOP senators were considering walking out to protest what they called Hagel’s insufficient financial disclosures. Inhofe and Cruz later ruled that out.
“I don’t think anything is gained by theatrics,” Cruz told POLITICO.
Just the same, Republicans continued to try to put on the brakes. Louisiana Sen. David Vitter quarreled with Levin over what Vitter said was an incomplete disclosure from Hagel of past speeches, and Cruz renewed the GOP line of questioning about whether Hagel had taken payments from “foreign sources.”
Hagel’s nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he hopes the chamber could vote on it Wednesday or Thursday.
Some Republicans said they might continue to oppose Hagel before the full Senate, but Reid responded with a single word on Tuesday when asked whether he’d honor an attempt at a hold: “No.”
With 55 Democrats controlling the Senate and two Republicans — Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — already publicly supporting Hagel, only three more Republicans would need to support him for confirmation under a request from Republicans for a 60-vote threshold.
Inhofe said Monday night that he would not use his privilege to delay Hagel’s confirmation into the weekend or early next week, so long as Democrats produced 60 votes upfront to support Hagel.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:05 p.m. on February 12, 2013.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
ULmVy4YVUU8ypWx4
|
isis
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/23/us-launches-first-wave-bombing-strikes-over-syria/
|
US, Arab allies launch first wave of strikes in Syria
|
2014-09-23
|
The United States , joined by five Arab allies , launched an intense campaign of airstrikes , bombings and cruise-missile attacks against the Islamic State and another militant group in Syria Monday night – marking the first U.S. military intervention in Syria since the start of that country ’ s civil war in 2011 .
U.S. Central Command ( Centcom ) said in a statement released early Tuesday that 14 Islamic State targets were hit , including the group 's fighters , training camps , headquarters and command-and-control facilities , and armed vehicles . The operation involved a combination of fighter jets , bombers , Predator drones and Tomahawk missiles launched from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf .
`` We 're going to do what 's necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group , '' President Obama said Tuesday , before traveling to New York for meetings at the U.N . He cautioned that the effort `` will take time . ''
Lt. Gen. William Mayville Jr. , director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff , described the operation as `` the beginnings of a sustained campaign . '' The strikes in Syria `` destroyed or damaged '' multiple targets , according to the U.S. military , which reported `` all aircraft safely exited the strike areas . ''
The mission was not limited to hitting Islamic State positions . Centcom said that U.S. aircraft also struck eight targets associated with another terrorist group called the Khorasan Group , made of up Al Qaeda veterans . Those strikes , near the northwestern Syrian city of Aleppo , targeted training camps , a munitions production facility , a communication building and command-and-control facilities .
Centcom said the Khorasan Group was involved in `` imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western interests . ''
The military strikes come less than two weeks after Obama , on Sept. 10 , authorized U.S. airstrikes inside Syria as part of a broad campaign to root out the militants . The strikes ostensibly put the United States , for now , on the same side as Bashar Assad , the Syrian strongman whose ouster Obama once sought -- though the Assad regime was not involved in Monday 's strikes .
Syria 's Foreign Ministry told the Associated Press that the U.S. informed Syria 's envoy to the U.N. that `` strikes will be launched against the terrorist Daesh group in Raqqa . '' The statement used an Arabic name to refer to the Islamic State group , which is more commonly known as ISIS or ISIL .
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. `` did not request the regime 's permission '' and had warned the Syrian government `` not to engage U.S . aircraft . ''
`` We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government , '' she said .
U.S. officials said that the airstrikes began around 8:30 p.m . ET , and were conducted by the U.S. , Bahrain , Qatar , Saudi Arabia , Jordan and the United Arab Emirates . The first wave of strikes finished about 90 minutes later , though the operation was expected to have lasted several hours .
`` We believe we hit , largely , everything we were aiming at , '' Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told Fox News . Kirby said the military made the decision to strike early Monday .
The operation involved 47 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles launched from the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Philippine Sea . Officials told Fox News that B-1 bombers , F-16 and F-18 fighters , and Predator drones were also used . The F-18s flew missions off the USS George H.W . Bush in the Persian Gulf .
Obama , in announcing plans for an expanded campaign against ISIS earlier this month , said : “ I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country , wherever they are . That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria , as well as Iraq . ''
The following day , at a conference with Secretary of State John Kerry , key Arab allies promised they would `` do their share '' to fight the Islamic State militants . The Obama administration , which at a NATO meeting in Wales earlier this month also got commitments from European allies as well as Canada and Australia , has insisted that the fight against the Islamic State militants could not be the United States ' fight alone .
Until now , U.S. airstrikes have been limited to specific missions in northern Iraq , where 194 missions have been launched since August 8 . Lawmakers and military advisers , though , had stressed for weeks that any campaign against the Islamic State would have to include action in Syria , where the militant network is based .
`` To defeat ISIS , we must cut off the head of the snake , which exists in Syria , '' Rep. Michael McCaul , R-Texas , said in a statement late Monday . `` I support the administration ’ s move to conduct airstrikes against ISIS wherever it exists . ''
A senior official told Fox News that Obama was briefed by military officials on the operation throughout the night . Earlier in the evening , the president spoke to House Speaker John Boeher , R-Ohio , and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. A White House official also updated House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , on the progress of the airstrikes .
Because the United States had stayed out of the Syria conflict for so long , the Obama administration had spent the last several weeks scrambling to gather intelligence about possible targets in Syria , launching surveillance missions over the country last month .
Syrian activists reported several airstrikes on militant targets in the northern city of Raqqa , ISIS 's main base . One Raqqa-based activist , speaking on condition of anonymity , told AP that the airstrikes lit the night sky over the city , and reported a power cut that lasted for two hours .
The head of the main Western-backed Syrian opposition group , Hadi Bahra , welcomed the commencement of airstrikes in Syria .
`` Tonight , the international community has joined our fight against ISIS in Syria , '' he said in a statement . `` We have called for airstrikes such as those that commenced tonight with a heavy heart and deep concern , as these strikes begin in our own homeland . We insist that utmost care is taken to avoid civilian casualties . ''
Centcom said that other airstrikes hit ISIS targets near the Syrian cities of Dayr az Zawr , Al Hasakah , and Abu Kamal . Also , the U.S. carried out four airstrikes against ISIS in northern Iraq , southwest of the city of Kirkuk .
Military leaders have said about two-thirds of the estimated 31,000 Islamic State militants were in Syria .
Some officials have expressed concern that going after Islamic State militants in Syria could inadvertently help Assad , since the militants are fighting in part to overthrow Assad .
Urged on by the White House and U.S. defense and military officials , Congress passed legislation late last week authorizing the military to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels . Obama signed the bill into law Friday , providing $ 500 million for the U.S. to train about 5,000 rebels over the next year .
The militant group , meanwhile , has threatened retribution . Its spokesman , Abu Mohammed al-Adnani , said in a 42-minute audio statement released Sunday that the fighters were ready to battle the U.S.-led military coalition and called for attacks at home and abroad .
|
The United States, joined by five Arab allies, launched an intense campaign of airstrikes, bombings and cruise-missile attacks against the Islamic State and another militant group in Syria Monday night – marking the first U.S. military intervention in Syria since the start of that country’s civil war in 2011.
[audio-clip]
U.S. Central Command (Centcom) said in a statement released early Tuesday that 14 Islamic State targets were hit, including the group's fighters, training camps, headquarters and command-and-control facilities, and armed vehicles. The operation involved a combination of fighter jets, bombers, Predator drones and Tomahawk missiles launched from the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.
"We're going to do what's necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group," President Obama said Tuesday, before traveling to New York for meetings at the U.N. He cautioned that the effort "will take time."
Lt. Gen. William Mayville Jr., director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the operation as "the beginnings of a sustained campaign." The strikes in Syria "destroyed or damaged" multiple targets, according to the U.S. military, which reported "all aircraft safely exited the strike areas."
More On This...
The mission was not limited to hitting Islamic State positions. Centcom said that U.S. aircraft also struck eight targets associated with another terrorist group called the Khorasan Group, made of up Al Qaeda veterans. Those strikes, near the northwestern Syrian city of Aleppo, targeted training camps, a munitions production facility, a communication building and command-and-control facilities.
Centcom said the Khorasan Group was involved in "imminent attack plotting against the United States and Western interests."
The military strikes come less than two weeks after Obama, on Sept. 10, authorized U.S. airstrikes inside Syria as part of a broad campaign to root out the militants. The strikes ostensibly put the United States, for now, on the same side as Bashar Assad, the Syrian strongman whose ouster Obama once sought -- though the Assad regime was not involved in Monday's strikes.
Syria's Foreign Ministry told the Associated Press that the U.S. informed Syria's envoy to the U.N. that "strikes will be launched against the terrorist Daesh group in Raqqa." The statement used an Arabic name to refer to the Islamic State group, which is more commonly known as ISIS or ISIL.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki made clear in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. "did not request the regime's permission" and had warned the Syrian government "not to engage U.S. aircraft."
"We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government," she said.
U.S. officials said that the airstrikes began around 8:30 p.m. ET, and were conducted by the U.S., Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. The first wave of strikes finished about 90 minutes later, though the operation was expected to have lasted several hours.
"We believe we hit, largely, everything we were aiming at," Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told Fox News. Kirby said the military made the decision to strike early Monday.
The operation involved 47 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles launched from the USS Arleigh Burke and USS Philippine Sea. Officials told Fox News that B-1 bombers, F-16 and F-18 fighters, and Predator drones were also used. The F-18s flew missions off the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf.
Obama, in announcing plans for an expanded campaign against ISIS earlier this month, said: “I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq."
The following day, at a conference with Secretary of State John Kerry, key Arab allies promised they would "do their share" to fight the Islamic State militants. The Obama administration, which at a NATO meeting in Wales earlier this month also got commitments from European allies as well as Canada and Australia, has insisted that the fight against the Islamic State militants could not be the United States' fight alone.
Until now, U.S. airstrikes have been limited to specific missions in northern Iraq, where 194 missions have been launched since August 8. Lawmakers and military advisers, though, had stressed for weeks that any campaign against the Islamic State would have to include action in Syria, where the militant network is based.
"To defeat ISIS, we must cut off the head of the snake, which exists in Syria," Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in a statement late Monday. "I support the administration’s move to conduct airstrikes against ISIS wherever it exists."
A senior official told Fox News that Obama was briefed by military officials on the operation throughout the night. Earlier in the evening, the president spoke to House Speaker John Boeher, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. A White House official also updated House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., on the progress of the airstrikes.
Because the United States had stayed out of the Syria conflict for so long, the Obama administration had spent the last several weeks scrambling to gather intelligence about possible targets in Syria, launching surveillance missions over the country last month.
Syrian activists reported several airstrikes on militant targets in the northern city of Raqqa, ISIS's main base. One Raqqa-based activist, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AP that the airstrikes lit the night sky over the city, and reported a power cut that lasted for two hours.
The head of the main Western-backed Syrian opposition group, Hadi Bahra, welcomed the commencement of airstrikes in Syria.
"Tonight, the international community has joined our fight against ISIS in Syria," he said in a statement. "We have called for airstrikes such as those that commenced tonight with a heavy heart and deep concern, as these strikes begin in our own homeland. We insist that utmost care is taken to avoid civilian casualties."
Centcom said that other airstrikes hit ISIS targets near the Syrian cities of Dayr az Zawr, Al Hasakah, and Abu Kamal. Also, the U.S. carried out four airstrikes against ISIS in northern Iraq, southwest of the city of Kirkuk.
Military leaders have said about two-thirds of the estimated 31,000 Islamic State militants were in Syria.
Some officials have expressed concern that going after Islamic State militants in Syria could inadvertently help Assad, since the militants are fighting in part to overthrow Assad.
Urged on by the White House and U.S. defense and military officials, Congress passed legislation late last week authorizing the military to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels. Obama signed the bill into law Friday, providing $500 million for the U.S. to train about 5,000 rebels over the next year.
The militant group, meanwhile, has threatened retribution. Its spokesman, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, said in a 42-minute audio statement released Sunday that the fighters were ready to battle the U.S.-led military coalition and called for attacks at home and abroad.
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin, Justin Fishel, Ed Henry, Chad Pergram and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
kvVCCEwLh10rjRAA
|
|
bridging_divides
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/nancy-pelosi-paul-ryan-baseball/index.html
|
Ryan and Pelosi back 'Team Scalise' at congressional baseball game
|
6/15/17
|
Eli Watkins
|
Washington ( CNN ) House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi projected a message of unity Thursday evening at the outset of the congressional baseball game .
The joint interview , a first for the two , with CNN 's Jake Tapper on `` Erin Burnett OutFront , '' came a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others were shot at a Republican baseball practice .
`` He 's got a ways to go , '' Ryan said of Scalise . `` He 's going to recover . It 's going to take him some time . ''
Pelosi , who like Ryan was wearing Louisiana gear in honor of Scalise , said the injured member was a `` lovely person , '' and hailed the bipartisan spirit of the annual game .
Asked if the political climate and incidents like Wednesday 's shooting indicated an increased threat to lawmakers , Ryan said it was incumbent on politicians to cool things down across the nation .
Ryan said , `` What we 're trying to do is tone down the rhetoric , lead by example and show people we can disagree with one another , we can have different ideas without being vitriolic , without going to such extremes . ''
He added that members of Congress had to meet with the public and needed to strike a balance between `` openness and security . ''
Pelosi noted that in the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , several of her constituents were also shot -- including a nine-year-old girl who died .
`` When we evaluate the needs of our members it 's about protecting the members and their constituents as well , '' Pelosi said .
Both stressed repeatedly the need for politicians to step away from inflammatory remarks .
As for the prospect of passing legislation on a bipartisan basis that could prevent gun violence incidents like Wednesday 's shooting , Ryan pointed to existing mental health legislation .
`` We 've made some pretty good progress on that , '' Ryan said . `` We now have to execute and implement that progress . ''
Pelosi said there is desire among Democrats for a task force on gun safety to study the issue .
`` But that 's not for today , '' Pelosi said . `` Today is about coming together and celebrating the greatness of Steve Scalise . ''
Ryan and Pelosi have sought to present a unified front since the shooting . Shortly after the incident , the pair addressed a packed House chamber , calling for unity and condemning the attack .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Pelosi and Ryan 's calls for unity .
`` We want everybody to know that we 've always had a robust discussion of the issues in this country throughout our history , '' McConnell told CNN 's Anderson Cooper on Thursday in a joint interview with Schumer . `` But we do n't dislike each other . We work together all the time . ... We have our political arguments but at the end of the day , we are all Americans . And I think everybody needs to remember that because we 're all in this thing together . ''
Schumer said he hopes the tragedy can bring the parties even `` closer together . ''
`` We work together pretty closely before this tragedy , '' he said . `` But if it can help bring things closer together and help us all work closer together , it 's a horrible way to do it . We all pray for Mr. Scalise and all the other people 's speedy recovery , but let 's hope we can get some good at this tragedy. ``
Both agreed that arguments between Republicans and Democrats often make the news , but cooperation between the two parties does n't .
`` If we can still , despite the rhetoric , work together in areas where we can work together and the Senate as the cooling saucer help and bring people together a little bit , that 's a very good thing and I know Mitch does because we 've talked about it , and I do -- we aim to do it , '' Schumer said .
But as several voices supportive of President Donald Trump , like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , drew lines between anti-Trump rhetoric and the shooting , Pelosi pushed back earlier Thursday , arguing the Republican insistence that Democratic rhetoric was to blame for the shooting rang hollow , given the long record of `` vitriolic '' language from the Republican side of the aisle .
The alleged gunman expressed intense opposition to Republicans on social media and identified himself as a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders .
Sanders took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to say the gunman had `` apparently volunteered '' for his campaign . He said the shooting `` sickened '' him and stressed his commitment to nonviolent action .
In the Thursday interview , Ryan said he wanted to find more opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to `` break bread '' together .
|
Washington (CNN) House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi projected a message of unity Thursday evening at the outset of the congressional baseball game.
The joint interview, a first for the two, with CNN's Jake Tapper on "Erin Burnett OutFront," came a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others were shot at a Republican baseball practice.
"He's got a ways to go," Ryan said of Scalise. "He's going to recover. It's going to take him some time."
Pelosi, who like Ryan was wearing Louisiana gear in honor of Scalise, said the injured member was a "lovely person," and hailed the bipartisan spirit of the annual game.
"Tonight we're all Team Scalise," Pelosi said.
Asked if the political climate and incidents like Wednesday's shooting indicated an increased threat to lawmakers, Ryan said it was incumbent on politicians to cool things down across the nation.
Ryan said, "What we're trying to do is tone down the rhetoric, lead by example and show people we can disagree with one another, we can have different ideas without being vitriolic, without going to such extremes."
He added that members of Congress had to meet with the public and needed to strike a balance between "openness and security."
Pelosi noted that in the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, several of her constituents were also shot -- including a nine-year-old girl who died.
"When we evaluate the needs of our members it's about protecting the members and their constituents as well," Pelosi said.
Both stressed repeatedly the need for politicians to step away from inflammatory remarks.
As for the prospect of passing legislation on a bipartisan basis that could prevent gun violence incidents like Wednesday's shooting, Ryan pointed to existing mental health legislation.
"We've made some pretty good progress on that," Ryan said. "We now have to execute and implement that progress."
Pelosi said there is desire among Democrats for a task force on gun safety to study the issue.
"But that's not for today," Pelosi said. "Today is about coming together and celebrating the greatness of Steve Scalise."
Ryan and Pelosi have sought to present a unified front since the shooting. Shortly after the incident, the pair addressed a packed House chamber, calling for unity and condemning the attack.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Pelosi and Ryan's calls for unity.
"We want everybody to know that we've always had a robust discussion of the issues in this country throughout our history," McConnell told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday in a joint interview with Schumer. "But we don't dislike each other. We work together all the time. ... We have our political arguments but at the end of the day, we are all Americans. And I think everybody needs to remember that because we're all in this thing together."
Schumer said he hopes the tragedy can bring the parties even "closer together."
"We work together pretty closely before this tragedy," he said. "But if it can help bring things closer together and help us all work closer together, it's a horrible way to do it. We all pray for Mr. Scalise and all the other people's speedy recovery, but let's hope we can get some good at this tragedy. "
Both agreed that arguments between Republicans and Democrats often make the news, but cooperation between the two parties doesn't.
"If we can still, despite the rhetoric, work together in areas where we can work together and the Senate as the cooling saucer help and bring people together a little bit, that's a very good thing and I know Mitch does because we've talked about it, and I do -- we aim to do it," Schumer said.
But as several voices supportive of President Donald Trump, like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, drew lines between anti-Trump rhetoric and the shooting, Pelosi pushed back earlier Thursday , arguing the Republican insistence that Democratic rhetoric was to blame for the shooting rang hollow, given the long record of "vitriolic" language from the Republican side of the aisle.
The alleged gunman expressed intense opposition to Republicans on social media and identified himself as a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sanders took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to say the gunman had "apparently volunteered" for his campaign. He said the shooting "sickened" him and stressed his commitment to nonviolent action.
In the Thursday interview, Ryan said he wanted to find more opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to "break bread" together.
"There are not enough relationship-building exercises," Ryan said.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
aO3ihb4lmL6q95eA
|
environment
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/drought-ravaged-california-obama-sounds-alarm-clim/
|
In drought-ravaged California, Obama sounds alarm on climate change
|
2014-02-14
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
While touring areas of California ravaged by a historic drought , President Obama on Friday sounded an ominous warning and said that even if the federal government takes meaningful action to combat climate change , much of the damage already has been done .
“ Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change , this trend is going to get worse , and the hard truth is even if we do take action on climate change , carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades . The planet is slowly going to keep warming for a long time to come , ” Mr. Obama said while touring a farm in Los Banos . “ We ’ re going to have to stop looking at these disasters as something to wait for . We ’ ve got to start looking at these disasters as something to prepare for , to anticipate . ”
Mr. Obama and many Democrats , along with their supporters in the environmental community , have held up extreme weather events such as California ’ s drought , Hurricane Sandy and others as proof that global warming is wreaking havoc all across the planet .
But the issue remains bitterly divisive , and many lawmakers believe Mr. Obama ’ s dire warnings are grossly overstated .
The heated debate over climate change has led to near gridlock on Capitol Hill , with Republicans and some Democrats standing in staunch opposition to major legislative proposals to address the issue . That opposition helped kill the controversial 2010 cap-and-trade bill , which would have put a limit on carbon emissions nationwide .
In lieu of congressional action , the Obama administration has taken a number of executive steps . The most notable were the ambitious automobile fuel standards , which call for American cars and trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025 , and the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s strict new rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants .
The White House on Friday also announced that in the president ’ s new budget proposal , due out next month , Mr. Obama will ask Congress to create a new $ 1 billion “ climate resilience ” fund to spur new research into how communities and infrastructure can be better prepared for the impacts of climate change .
The initiative , if approved , also would fund new technologies “ that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate , ” the White House said in a statement .
Moving forward , the president said , such efforts will become more critical — especially in states such as California , which will have to deal with longer , more severe droughts and less water as the climate situation worsens .
“ Everybody , from farmers to residential areas to the north of California and the south of California and every place in between , as well as the entire Western region , are going to have to start rethinking how we approach water for decades to come , ” the president said .
While in California , the president also attended a town hall meeting with the state ’ s Democratic governor , Jerry Brown , Sens . Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein , both Democrats , and other state and local officials .
Mr. Obama will spend the rest of the weekend in California . Later on Friday , he ’ ll hold a bilateral meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan at a private retreat in Rancho Mirage .
|
While touring areas of California ravaged by a historic drought, President Obama on Friday sounded an ominous warning and said that even if the federal government takes meaningful action to combat climate change, much of the damage already has been done.
“Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change, this trend is going to get worse, and the hard truth is even if we do take action on climate change, carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades. The planet is slowly going to keep warming for a long time to come,” Mr. Obama said while touring a farm in Los Banos. “We’re going to have to stop looking at these disasters as something to wait for. We’ve got to start looking at these disasters as something to prepare for, to anticipate.”
Mr. Obama and many Democrats, along with their supporters in the environmental community, have held up extreme weather events such as California’s drought, Hurricane Sandy and others as proof that global warming is wreaking havoc all across the planet.
But the issue remains bitterly divisive, and many lawmakers believe Mr. Obama’s dire warnings are grossly overstated.
The heated debate over climate change has led to near gridlock on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and some Democrats standing in staunch opposition to major legislative proposals to address the issue. That opposition helped kill the controversial 2010 cap-and-trade bill, which would have put a limit on carbon emissions nationwide.
In lieu of congressional action, the Obama administration has taken a number of executive steps. The most notable were the ambitious automobile fuel standards, which call for American cars and trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s strict new rules limiting carbon emissions from power plants.
The White House on Friday also announced that in the president’s new budget proposal, due out next month, Mr. Obama will ask Congress to create a new $1 billion “climate resilience” fund to spur new research into how communities and infrastructure can be better prepared for the impacts of climate change.
The initiative, if approved, also would fund new technologies “that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate,” the White House said in a statement.
Moving forward, the president said, such efforts will become more critical — especially in states such as California, which will have to deal with longer, more severe droughts and less water as the climate situation worsens.
“Everybody, from farmers to residential areas to the north of California and the south of California and every place in between, as well as the entire Western region, are going to have to start rethinking how we approach water for decades to come,” the president said.
While in California, the president also attended a town hall meeting with the state’s Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both Democrats, and other state and local officials.
Mr. Obama will spend the rest of the weekend in California. Later on Friday, he’ll hold a bilateral meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan at a private retreat in Rancho Mirage.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
eHlJAxTSmYIKJ9Aj
|
justice_department
|
Fox News (Online)
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/appeals-court-orders-flynn-case-be-dismissed-after-years-long-legal-saga
|
Appeals court orders Flynn case dismissal, after years-long legal saga
|
Brooke Singman
|
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a lower court to allow the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to be dismissed , as requested by the Justice Department -- likely ending the years-long legal saga stemming from the Russia investigation .
The abrupt ending came in a 2-1 ruling and order from judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia .
This was the result of an appeal from Flynn 's lawyers asking for a so-called writ of mandamus -- essentially an order telling a government official to carry out a certain duty -- directing District Judge Emmet Sullivan to approve the DOJ 's motion to dismiss .
Sullivan did not immediately grant that motion and instead sought to hold hearings on the matter , angering Flynn allies .
The unusual move from Sullivan to keep the case alive despite prosecutors ' wishes was preceded by an unusual move from the DOJ itself to drop the charges against Flynn even after he had pleaded guilty -- saying the FBI interview that led to his charge of lying to investigators about his contacts with Russia 's ambassador had no `` legitimate investigative basis . ''
It 's unclear whether Sullivan could try to appeal to the full appeals court or even to the Supreme Court in order to keep the case alive . The next step otherwise would likely be for Sullivan to comply .
Wednesday 's court order was direct , ordering `` that Flynn ’ s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part ; the District Court is directed to grant the government ’ s ... motion to dismiss ; and the District Court ’ s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot , in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date . ''
Flynn dialed into Rush Limbaugh 's radio show Wednesday , breaking his silence on the case , and calling the decision a “ good thing ” for him and his family , but “ a great boost of confidence ” for the American people and “ our justice system , '' while touting his lawyer Sidney Powell as a “ terrific lawyer ” and “ the American guardian of justice . ”
President Trump cheered the decision Wednesday morning , tweeting : `` Great ! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against General Michael Flynn ! ''
JUDGES APPEAR SKEPTICAL OF DOJ MOVE TO DISMISS CASE , AS HIS LAWYER ALLEGES 'GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT '
A senior DOJ official told Fox News the department is “ pleased ” by the appeals court decision in the Flynn case .
The accompanying decision essentially backed federal prosecutors in their move to drop the case .
” In this case , the district court ’ s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch ’ s exclusive prosecutorial power . The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion , interfering with the Article II charging authority , ” Judge Neomi Rao , a Trump appointee , wrote in the decision .
Judge Robert Wilkins , dissenting , wrote : “ It is a great irony that , in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction , this Court so grievously oversteps its own . This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling . ''
FLYNN-KISLYAK CALL TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED , REVEALING FATEFUL TALKS OVER RUSSIA SANCTIONS
Of the DOJ 's move to abandon the case , he added , `` This is no mere about-face ; it is more akin to turning around an aircraft carrier . ''
Democrats , meanwhile , have slammed the DOJ decision and cited it as an example of the department becoming politicized under Attorney General Bill Barr .
The Justice Department last month made the stunning move to drop its case against Flynn `` after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case , including newly discovered and disclosed information , '' as the department put it .
DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn 's interview by the FBI was `` untethered to , and unjustified by , the FBI 's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn '' and that the interview was `` conducted without any legitimate investigative basis , '' while arguing that Flynn 's statements were not `` material , even if untrue . ''
The motion to dismiss came after unsealed FBI notes revealed that there had been a question regarding what the purpose of Flynn ’ s interview was : whether the aim was to find out the truth or to get him to lie and thus subject him to being prosecuted or fired . Flynn ended up facing charges and being terminated from his role as national security adviser .
The handwritten notes – which the FBI 's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap penned after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – showed officials discussing the fateful January 2017 interview in advance . They apparently discussed various options , including getting Flynn `` to admit to breaking the Logan Act '' when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period .
`` What is our goal ? '' one of the notes read . `` Truth/Admission or to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ? ''
Another note read , `` If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act , give facts to DOJ + have them decide . '' The memo appeared to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths , while cautioning : `` If we ’ re seen as playing games , WH [ White House ] will be furious . ''
Aside from swiftly being ensnared in Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation in the fallout from that interview , Flynn was fired from his prominent post as national security adviser in February 2017 . The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak .
Flynn 's communications with Kislyak in December 2016 had been picked up in wiretapped discussions , apparently unbeknownst to him . The FBI agents in January 2017 questioned him on the communications and later used his answers to form the basis for the false-statement charge and his guilty plea .
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe made transcripts of those wiretapped calls between Flynn and Kislyak public earlier this month .
|
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered a lower court to allow the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to be dismissed, as requested by the Justice Department -- likely ending the years-long legal saga stemming from the Russia investigation.
The abrupt ending came in a 2-1 ruling and order from judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
READ: COURT'S OPINION ORDERING FLYNN CASE DISMISSAL
This was the result of an appeal from Flynn's lawyers asking for a so-called writ of mandamus -- essentially an order telling a government official to carry out a certain duty -- directing District Judge Emmet Sullivan to approve the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
Sullivan did not immediately grant that motion and instead sought to hold hearings on the matter, angering Flynn allies.
The unusual move from Sullivan to keep the case alive despite prosecutors' wishes was preceded by an unusual move from the DOJ itself to drop the charges against Flynn even after he had pleaded guilty -- saying the FBI interview that led to his charge of lying to investigators about his contacts with Russia's ambassador had no "legitimate investigative basis."
It's unclear whether Sullivan could try to appeal to the full appeals court or even to the Supreme Court in order to keep the case alive. The next step otherwise would likely be for Sullivan to comply.
Wednesday's court order was direct, ordering "that Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus be granted in part; the District Court is directed to grant the government’s ... motion to dismiss; and the District Court’s order appointing an amicus is hereby vacated as moot, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date."
DOJ DROPS CASE AGAINST MICHAEL FLYNN
Flynn dialed into Rush Limbaugh's radio show Wednesday, breaking his silence on the case, and calling the decision a “good thing” for him and his family, but “a great boost of confidence” for the American people and “our justice system," while touting his lawyer Sidney Powell as a “terrific lawyer” and “the American guardian of justice.”
President Trump cheered the decision Wednesday morning, tweeting: "Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request To Drop Criminal Case Against General Michael Flynn!"
JUDGES APPEAR SKEPTICAL OF DOJ MOVE TO DISMISS CASE, AS HIS LAWYER ALLEGES 'GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT'
A senior DOJ official told Fox News the department is “pleased” by the appeals court decision in the Flynn case.
The accompanying decision essentially backed federal prosecutors in their move to drop the case.
”In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the Executive Branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power. The contemplated proceedings would likely require the Executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority,” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote in the decision.
Judge Robert Wilkins, dissenting, wrote: “It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own. This appears to be the first time that we have issued a writ of mandamus to compel a district court to rule in a particular manner on a motion without first giving the lower court a reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling."
FLYNN-KISLYAK CALL TRANSCRIPTS RELEASED, REVEALING FATEFUL TALKS OVER RUSSIA SANCTIONS
Of the DOJ's move to abandon the case, he added, "This is no mere about-face; it is more akin to turning around an aircraft carrier."
Democrats, meanwhile, have slammed the DOJ decision and cited it as an example of the department becoming politicized under Attorney General Bill Barr.
The Justice Department last month made the stunning move to drop its case against Flynn "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information," as the department put it.
DOJ officials said they concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was "untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn" and that the interview was "conducted without any legitimate investigative basis," while arguing that Flynn's statements were not "material, even if untrue."
The motion to dismiss came after unsealed FBI notes revealed that there had been a question regarding what the purpose of Flynn’s interview was: whether the aim was to find out the truth or to get him to lie and thus subject him to being prosecuted or fired. Flynn ended up facing charges and being terminated from his role as national security adviser.
The handwritten notes – which the FBI's former head of counterintelligence Bill Priestap penned after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe – showed officials discussing the fateful January 2017 interview in advance. They apparently discussed various options, including getting Flynn "to admit to breaking the Logan Act" when he spoke to former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period.
"What is our goal?" one of the notes read. "Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
Another note read, "If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide." The memo appeared to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing those different paths, while cautioning: "If we’re seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious."
Aside from swiftly being ensnared in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation in the fallout from that interview, Flynn was fired from his prominent post as national security adviser in February 2017. The resignation came as he was accused of misleading Vice President Pence and other senior White House officials about his communications with Kislyak.
Flynn's communications with Kislyak in December 2016 had been picked up in wiretapped discussions, apparently unbeknownst to him. The FBI agents in January 2017 questioned him on the communications and later used his answers to form the basis for the false-statement charge and his guilty plea.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe made transcripts of those wiretapped calls between Flynn and Kislyak public earlier this month.
Fox News' Tyler Olson, Bill Mears and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
rZ6tdv5WbLLFQuUz
|
|
technology
|
The Week - News
| 11
|
https://theweek.com/speedreads/862328/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-hacked
|
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was hacked
|
2019-08-30
|
Brendan Morrow, Peter Weber
|
In Wednesday 's televised impeachment hearing , U.S . Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent `` did not paint a flattering portrait of our president , and his bootlickers in the House did n't look too good , either , '' Jimmy Kimmel said on Wednesday 's Kimmel Live . `` The president called the hearing a 'joke , ' a 'sham , ' and a 'hoax , ' and he said he did n't watch it . A White House spokesperson said the president was too busy working . Right . They might as well have said he was at a Zumba class . ''
In reality , Trump spent the hearing `` tweeting and retweeting all of these things from right-wing Twitter feeds , in between hosting one of his favorite foreign strongmen , Turkish President Erdogan , '' Kimmel said . `` Trump says he 's a big fan of Erdogan , who last month notably slaughtered our allies , the Kurds . ''
`` Trump got things off to a great start by mispronouncing President Erdogan 's name , '' Stephen Colbert said on The Late Show . He also dismissed Trump 's claim he was too busy to watch the hearings : `` No you 're not ! For Pete 's sake , you live-tweeted Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars ! ''
Yes , `` apparently Trump did n't watch , '' Jimmy Fallon said at The Tonight Show . `` Trump wanted to , but he threw his TV remote out the window when he was n't named People Magazine 's Sexiest Man of the Year . '' Taylor 's testimony `` was brutal for Trump , '' Fallon said . `` He clearly outlined how the president tried to get Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for aid . Which means it 's the second time in Trump 's life that his cover-up did n't work . ''
`` Trump claimed he did not watch the televised impeachment hearings , '' Conan O'Brien said on Conan . `` When asked what he was doing , Trump said , ' I was cleaning out my desk . ' '' On Wednesday , he added , `` new evidence against President Trump was called damning . Some say this could end his presidency . No , wait , I 'm sorry , this joke is from two years ago . ''
`` Today was the first time in over 20 years that Congress has held a public impeachment hearing , '' Seth Meyers said at Late Night . `` And if this one is anything like the last one , Trump will be impeached , then be acquitted in the Senate , and then in 20 years his wife will lose an election to some idiot . ''
|
In Wednesday's televised impeachment hearing, U.S. Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent "did not paint a flattering portrait of our president, and his bootlickers in the House didn't look too good, either," Jimmy Kimmel said on Wednesday's Kimmel Live. "The president called the hearing a 'joke,' a 'sham,' and a 'hoax,' and he said he didn't watch it. A White House spokesperson said the president was too busy working. Right. They might as well have said he was at a Zumba class."
In reality, Trump spent the hearing "tweeting and retweeting all of these things from right-wing Twitter feeds, in between hosting one of his favorite foreign strongmen, Turkish President Erdogan," Kimmel said. "Trump says he's a big fan of Erdogan, who last month notably slaughtered our allies, the Kurds."
"Trump got things off to a great start by mispronouncing President Erdogan's name," Stephen Colbert said on The Late Show. He also dismissed Trump's claim he was too busy to watch the hearings: "No you're not! For Pete's sake, you live-tweeted Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars!"
Yes, "apparently Trump didn't watch," Jimmy Fallon said at The Tonight Show. "Trump wanted to, but he threw his TV remote out the window when he wasn't named People Magazine's Sexiest Man of the Year." Taylor's testimony "was brutal for Trump," Fallon said. "He clearly outlined how the president tried to get Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for aid. Which means it's the second time in Trump's life that his cover-up didn't work."
"Trump claimed he did not watch the televised impeachment hearings," Conan O'Brien said on Conan. "When asked what he was doing, Trump said, 'I was cleaning out my desk.'" On Wednesday, he added, "new evidence against President Trump was called damning. Some say this could end his presidency. No, wait, I'm sorry, this joke is from two years ago."
"Today was the first time in over 20 years that Congress has held a public impeachment hearing," Seth Meyers said at Late Night. "And if this one is anything like the last one, Trump will be impeached, then be acquitted in the Senate, and then in 20 years his wife will lose an election to some idiot."
|
www.theweek.com
| 2center
|
FZjz7KUMVOihDlZI
|
taxes
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/30/president-to-propose-grand-bargain-on-jobs/?hpt=po_c2
|
President to propose 'grand bargain' on jobs
|
2013-07-30
|
( CNN ) – A new plan from President Barack Obama that would alter the corporate tax code while investing in job creation is a deal that any `` serious '' lawmaker could sign onto , the president argued in Tennessee Tuesday .
What Obama called a `` grand bargain '' is being proposed in a bid to break partisan gridlock currently plaguing attempts to pass major legislation in Washington , though congressional Republicans signaled on Tuesday they were unlikely to back the plan , which the president announced at an Amazon.com distribution center in Chattanooga .
`` Here 's the bottom line : If folks in Washington really want a 'grand bargain , ' how about a grand bargain for middle-class jobs ? '' Obama said in his fourth speech in a week centered on the economy . `` I do n't want to go through the same old arguments , where I propose an idea and Republicans say no just because it 's my idea . So I 'm going to try offering something that serious people in both parties should be able to support . ''
Obama suggested Congress cut corporate tax rates - long a goal of Republicans - while simultaneously making investments in job creation programs , which Democrats and the president have been championing .
In the past , both Obama and Republicans have insisted that corporate tax reform be passed alongside reform for individual earners . Republicans argue that some small business owners file taxes as individuals , and would only benefit from an overhaul of the entire tax code .
The president 's plan would propose slashing the corporate tax rate to 28 % from 35 % while making the filing process simpler and ramping up incentives for small businesses to hire workers .
The plan would also put the tax rate on manufacturers at 25 % and remove current tax incentives to send jobs overseas .
On Tuesday , Obama explained that he 's open to changing only the corporate tax code as long as it 's combined with major investments in programs that create high-paying middle class jobs .
`` If we 're going to give businesses a better deal , we 're also going to have to give workers a better deal , too , '' he said , suggesting money saved by closing tax loopholes should be put toward infrastructure initiatives that would create construction jobs .
Obama also called for bolstering the country 's manufacturing sector and network of community colleges , and proposed creating 45 `` innovation institutes '' that pair companies with universities and community colleges with the goal of fostering research and development .
Early reaction from Republicans to the outlines of the president 's plan was not receptive .
`` While I understand he is looking for headlines here , reports indicate that the policy he intends to announce does n't exactly qualify as news , '' Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday . `` It is just a further left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed two years ago , this time with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals . ''
McConnell said he first learned of the plan Monday night . Brendan Buck , a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner , wrote on Twitter his office learned of the proposed `` grand bargain '' through media reports , though White House officials said they reached out to a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday to discuss the proposal .
Michael Steel , another spokesman for Boehner , cast the proposal as old news .
`` The President has always supported corporate tax reform , '' Steel wrote in a statement . `` Republicans want to help families and small businesses , too . This proposal allows President Obama to support President Obama 's position on taxes and President Obama 's position on spending , while leaving small businesses and American families behind . ''
Another House Republican leadership aide said the White House was taking their own plan and making it less amenable to Republicans than previous offers , while `` trying to extract a ransom of infrastructure spending '' at the same time .
The aide argued the new White House plan was an attempt to `` get a headline that says they 're offering a grand bargain . ''
Obama 's address in Chattanooga is the latest in a series of speeches the president will deliver on the economy and jobs , part of an attempt to turn back to the issue that rates as most important among Americans . The tour began last week in Illinois , Missouri and Florida .
Tuesday 's announcement of a `` grand bargain '' was the first specific proposal the president made in his new push to focus on the economy , though White House officials say there will be more as the initiative continues .
During his remarks , Obama said he 'd `` keep throwing things out there to see if something takes '' on jobs .
`` If ( Republicans ) have better ideas to help create jobs rebuilding our infrastructure , or help workers earn the high-tech skills our businesses demand , let 's hear 'em , '' the president said .
Amazon.com , whose facility Obama spoke at Tuesday , announced this week plans to hire 7,000 workers for its U.S. operation , with most jobs offering pay and benefits far above typical retail wages , the company said .
Amazon did not give specific pay scales for the positions , but said the 5,000 warehouse jobs will pay 30 % more than jobs in traditional retail stores .
The jobs are full-time permanent positions and also include stock grants that , over the last five years , have averaged 9 % of pay for Amazon 's full-time workers . And the company said many workers would also be eligible for 95 % tuition reimbursement for those attending college , whether or not their field of study is related to their job .
In addition , Amazon is looking for 2,000 workers for its customer service department , with those jobs being a mix of full-time , part-time and seasonal positions .
|
6 years ago
Updated at 2:58 p.m. ET on 7/30
(CNN) – A new plan from President Barack Obama that would alter the corporate tax code while investing in job creation is a deal that any "serious" lawmaker could sign onto, the president argued in Tennessee Tuesday.
What Obama called a "grand bargain" is being proposed in a bid to break partisan gridlock currently plaguing attempts to pass major legislation in Washington, though congressional Republicans signaled on Tuesday they were unlikely to back the plan, which the president announced at an Amazon.com distribution center in Chattanooga.
"Here's the bottom line: If folks in Washington really want a 'grand bargain,' how about a grand bargain for middle-class jobs?" Obama said in his fourth speech in a week centered on the economy. "I don't want to go through the same old arguments, where I propose an idea and Republicans say no just because it's my idea. So I'm going to try offering something that serious people in both parties should be able to support."
Obama suggested Congress cut corporate tax rates - long a goal of Republicans - while simultaneously making investments in job creation programs, which Democrats and the president have been championing.
In the past, both Obama and Republicans have insisted that corporate tax reform be passed alongside reform for individual earners. Republicans argue that some small business owners file taxes as individuals, and would only benefit from an overhaul of the entire tax code.
The president's plan would propose slashing the corporate tax rate to 28% from 35% while making the filing process simpler and ramping up incentives for small businesses to hire workers.
The plan would also put the tax rate on manufacturers at 25% and remove current tax incentives to send jobs overseas.
On Tuesday, Obama explained that he's open to changing only the corporate tax code as long as it's combined with major investments in programs that create high-paying middle class jobs.
"If we're going to give businesses a better deal, we're also going to have to give workers a better deal, too," he said, suggesting money saved by closing tax loopholes should be put toward infrastructure initiatives that would create construction jobs.
Obama also called for bolstering the country's manufacturing sector and network of community colleges, and proposed creating 45 "innovation institutes" that pair companies with universities and community colleges with the goal of fostering research and development.
Early reaction from Republicans to the outlines of the president's plan was not receptive.
"While I understand he is looking for headlines here, reports indicate that the policy he intends to announce doesn't exactly qualify as news," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Tuesday. "It is just a further left version of a widely panned plan he already proposed two years ago, this time with extra goodies for tax-and-spend liberals."
McConnell said he first learned of the plan Monday night. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, wrote on Twitter his office learned of the proposed "grand bargain" through media reports, though White House officials said they reached out to a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Monday to discuss the proposal.
Michael Steel, another spokesman for Boehner, cast the proposal as old news.
"The President has always supported corporate tax reform," Steel wrote in a statement. "Republicans want to help families and small businesses, too. This proposal allows President Obama to support President Obama's position on taxes and President Obama's position on spending, while leaving small businesses and American families behind."
Another House Republican leadership aide said the White House was taking their own plan and making it less amenable to Republicans than previous offers, while "trying to extract a ransom of infrastructure spending" at the same time.
The aide argued the new White House plan was an attempt to "get a headline that says they're offering a grand bargain."
Obama's address in Chattanooga is the latest in a series of speeches the president will deliver on the economy and jobs, part of an attempt to turn back to the issue that rates as most important among Americans. The tour began last week in Illinois, Missouri and Florida.
Tuesday's announcement of a "grand bargain" was the first specific proposal the president made in his new push to focus on the economy, though White House officials say there will be more as the initiative continues.
During his remarks, Obama said he'd "keep throwing things out there to see if something takes" on jobs.
"If (Republicans) have better ideas to help create jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, or help workers earn the high-tech skills our businesses demand, let's hear 'em," the president said.
Amazon.com, whose facility Obama spoke at Tuesday, announced this week plans to hire 7,000 workers for its U.S. operation, with most jobs offering pay and benefits far above typical retail wages, the company said.
Amazon did not give specific pay scales for the positions, but said the 5,000 warehouse jobs will pay 30% more than jobs in traditional retail stores.
The jobs are full-time permanent positions and also include stock grants that, over the last five years, have averaged 9% of pay for Amazon's full-time workers. And the company said many workers would also be eligible for 95% tuition reimbursement for those attending college, whether or not their field of study is related to their job.
In addition, Amazon is looking for 2,000 workers for its customer service department, with those jobs being a mix of full-time, part-time and seasonal positions.
CNN's Brianna Keilar, Chris Isidore and Adam Aigner-Treworgy contributed to this report.
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
EtM0Z6a0NuNx2En9
|
|
economy_and_jobs
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/07/news/economy/january-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
Job growth remains weak
|
2014-02-07
|
Annalyn Kurtz
|
After a chilly month for job growth in December , hiring warmed up a bit in January . But not by much .
The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month , according to the government . That 's an improvement from December , but was far weaker than hoped . Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs .
They called the report `` disappointing '' and `` weak , '' but characterized broader economic growth as `` steady-as-she-goes . ''
`` The U.S. economy is very stable , '' said Julia Coronado , chief economist , North America for BNP Paribas . `` 2014 might not be a breakout year , but it 's not a disaster either . ''
Many economists had also been hoping that December 's weak job gains would be revised much higher , as many experts were quick to write off the December report as a fluke . The number was revised higher , but only by 1,000 jobs to 75,000 .
Lowest unemployment in 5 years , but : The unemployment rate was 6.6 % in January , as 10 million Americans were counted as unemployed . Overall , the unemployment rate has improved substantially since it peaked at 10 % in 2009 and is now at its lowest level in more than five years .
That said , much of the decline in unemployment has come for a discouraging reason : some Americans are dropping out of the labor force . As of January , only 63 % of Americans over age 16 participated in the labor market -- meaning they either had a job or looked for one . Although there was a slight improvement in January , participation is still hovering around its lowest level since 1978 .
While some of the decline is partly due to baby boomers retiring , economists are also concerned about the long-term unemployed , who may be giving up on the job market altogether . Following the report , one of President Obama 's top economic advisers , Jason Furman called the unemployment rate still `` unacceptably high . ''
About 3.6 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or more . Those who were relying on extended government benefits lost that lifeline in December .
`` These figures provide a stark reminder that despite the progress that has been made , the after-effects of the recession still linger and are creating hardship for many families , '' Furman wrote in a White House blog post .
The Federal Reserve has been stressing that its stimulus policies depend on the economic data , and while it has been aiming for an unemployment rate of 6.5 % , it 's expected to distance itself from using that number as its main measure of the job market .
`` Using the narrow , widely reported unemployment rate alone could suggest a misleadingly optimistic state of affairs , '' Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said in a prepared speech Thursday , ahead of the jobs report .
Recently appointed Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen is scheduled to testify before two Congressional committees next week .
Where are the jobs ? Surprisingly , more than half of January 's job gains came from traditional blue collar sectors . Goods-producing industries added more jobs than the services sector for the first time since 2005 .
Construction firms added 48,000 jobs and manufacturers added 21,000 jobs . The mining industry added 7,200 jobs .
But that was one of few bright spots in the report . The health care sector cut 400 jobs -- the first month of job losses since 2003 . Health care had been an industry with strong job growth throughout the recession .
Professional and business services added 36,000 jobs , but a large part of those jobs were through staffing agencies . About 15,000 jobs were added at restaurants and bars . Sporting goods , hobby , book and music stores cut 22,000 jobs .
Overall , the U.S. economy lost 8.7 million jobs in the financial crisis . As of January , 7.8 million jobs have come back , but once economists also account for population growth , they expect that it will still take years to get back to a pre-recession job market .
|
After a chilly month for job growth in December, hiring warmed up a bit in January. But not by much.
The U.S. economy added 113,000 jobs last month, according to the government. That's an improvement from December, but was far weaker than hoped. Economists had been expecting an addition of 178,000 jobs.
They called the report "disappointing" and "weak," but characterized broader economic growth as "steady-as-she-goes."
"The U.S. economy is very stable," said Julia Coronado, chief economist, North America for BNP Paribas. "2014 might not be a breakout year, but it's not a disaster either."
Many economists had also been hoping that December's weak job gains would be revised much higher, as many experts were quick to write off the December report as a fluke. The number was revised higher, but only by 1,000 jobs to 75,000.
Lowest unemployment in 5 years, but: The unemployment rate was 6.6% in January, as 10 million Americans were counted as unemployed. Overall, the unemployment rate has improved substantially since it peaked at 10% in 2009 and is now at its lowest level in more than five years.
That said, much of the decline in unemployment has come for a discouraging reason: some Americans are dropping out of the labor force. As of January, only 63% of Americans over age 16 participated in the labor market -- meaning they either had a job or looked for one. Although there was a slight improvement in January, participation is still hovering around its lowest level since 1978.
While some of the decline is partly due to baby boomers retiring, economists are also concerned about the long-term unemployed, who may be giving up on the job market altogether. Following the report, one of President Obama's top economic advisers, Jason Furman called the unemployment rate still "unacceptably high."
About 3.6 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or more. Those who were relying on extended government benefits lost that lifeline in December.
"These figures provide a stark reminder that despite the progress that has been made, the after-effects of the recession still linger and are creating hardship for many families," Furman wrote in a White House blog post.
The Federal Reserve has been stressing that its stimulus policies depend on the economic data, and while it has been aiming for an unemployment rate of 6.5%, it's expected to distance itself from using that number as its main measure of the job market.
"Using the narrow, widely reported unemployment rate alone could suggest a misleadingly optimistic state of affairs," Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren said in a prepared speech Thursday, ahead of the jobs report.
Recently appointed Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen is scheduled to testify before two Congressional committees next week.
Where are the jobs? Surprisingly, more than half of January's job gains came from traditional blue collar sectors. Goods-producing industries added more jobs than the services sector for the first time since 2005.
Construction firms added 48,000 jobs and manufacturers added 21,000 jobs. The mining industry added 7,200 jobs.
But that was one of few bright spots in the report. The health care sector cut 400 jobs -- the first month of job losses since 2003. Health care had been an industry with strong job growth throughout the recession.
Professional and business services added 36,000 jobs, but a large part of those jobs were through staffing agencies. About 15,000 jobs were added at restaurants and bars. Sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores cut 22,000 jobs.
Overall, the U.S. economy lost 8.7 million jobs in the financial crisis. As of January, 7.8 million jobs have come back, but once economists also account for population growth, they expect that it will still take years to get back to a pre-recession job market.
|
www.money.cnn.com
| 0left
|
8o92cKgFlWRTDrCC
|
white_house
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/us/politics/obamas-gop-outreach-hits-barriers.html?hp&_r=0
|
In President’s Outreach to G.O.P., Past Failures Loom
|
2013-03-12
|
Jackie Calmes
|
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had a scheduling conflict that evening , but he has been one of the few Republicans in Congress to have an open channel to the president , a relationship that began when Mr. Obama was a senator . Mr. Coburn , in an interview recently but before the president ’ s latest outreach , said that such legislative engagement was counter to Mr. Obama ’ s “ personality type . ”
“ What he doesn ’ t realize is if he tried a different style , he ’ d get a whole lot more cooperation , ” Mr. Coburn said , adding : “ He ’ s really a neat guy . People don ’ t know that about him . ”
“ I promise you , we invite folks from Congress over here all the time , ” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference in January , when challenged about criticism of his infrequent outreach . He added , “ Sometimes they don ’ t choose to come , and that has to do with the fact that I think they don ’ t consider the optics useful for them politically . ”
Mr. Obama cited the example of Charlie Crist , the former Republican governor of Florida . In early 2009 , Mr. Crist literally embraced the new president and his $ 800 billion two-year economic stimulus package when Mr. Obama visited Florida , thereby poisoning his candidacy for his party ’ s Senate nomination ; it went to Marco Rubio , who then won the general election .
“ It was the death knell for me as a Republican , ” said Mr. Crist , who is now a Democrat .
Mr. Rubio , he recalled , put a photograph of the Crist-Obama embrace on his political literature and , at one rally , an angry Republican voter heckled , “ Why don ’ t you just go hug Obama ? ” ( These days it is Mr. Rubio , widely considered a potential 2016 presidential candidate , who has been trying to walk a hazardous line between getting legislative results — in his case a bipartisan immigration bill that Mr. Obama will sign — and not appearing too close to the president . )
More recently Gov . Chris Christie of New Jersey , another Republican seen as a presidential contender , enraged conservative activists with his warm reception of Mr. Obama as he toured the state after Hurricane Sandy , just before the November election .
Mr. Crist said his immediate thought was : “ First Crist , now Christie . Look out buddy. ” Before long came news of Mr. Christie ’ s snub by organizers of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference : He is not invited to this week ’ s conclave , which for years has served as a showplace for ambitious Republicans .
|
Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had a scheduling conflict that evening, but he has been one of the few Republicans in Congress to have an open channel to the president, a relationship that began when Mr. Obama was a senator. Mr. Coburn, in an interview recently but before the president’s latest outreach, said that such legislative engagement was counter to Mr. Obama’s “personality type.”
“What he doesn’t realize is if he tried a different style, he’d get a whole lot more cooperation,” Mr. Coburn said, adding: “He’s really a neat guy. People don’t know that about him.”
But Mr. Obama insists that he tries.
“I promise you, we invite folks from Congress over here all the time,” Mr. Obama said at a White House news conference in January, when challenged about criticism of his infrequent outreach. He added, “Sometimes they don’t choose to come, and that has to do with the fact that I think they don’t consider the optics useful for them politically.”
Mr. Obama cited the example of Charlie Crist, the former Republican governor of Florida. In early 2009, Mr. Crist literally embraced the new president and his $800 billion two-year economic stimulus package when Mr. Obama visited Florida, thereby poisoning his candidacy for his party’s Senate nomination; it went to Marco Rubio, who then won the general election.
“It was the death knell for me as a Republican,” said Mr. Crist, who is now a Democrat.
Mr. Rubio, he recalled, put a photograph of the Crist-Obama embrace on his political literature and, at one rally, an angry Republican voter heckled, “Why don’t you just go hug Obama?” (These days it is Mr. Rubio, widely considered a potential 2016 presidential candidate, who has been trying to walk a hazardous line between getting legislative results — in his case a bipartisan immigration bill that Mr. Obama will sign — and not appearing too close to the president.)
More recently Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, another Republican seen as a presidential contender, enraged conservative activists with his warm reception of Mr. Obama as he toured the state after Hurricane Sandy, just before the November election.
Mr. Crist said his immediate thought was: “First Crist, now Christie. Look out buddy.” Before long came news of Mr. Christie’s snub by organizers of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference: He is not invited to this week’s conclave, which for years has served as a showplace for ambitious Republicans.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
2W2tvPw0MrmGTxPK
|
white_house
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49914704
|
Trump impeachment: President lashes out at Democrats over inquiry
|
US President Donald Trump has lashed out at congressional Democrats after they vowed to summons the White House to produce documents this week .
Committees are demanding documents relating to the administration 's dealings with Ukraine , which is now at the heart of an impeachment inquiry .
The president accused Democratic leaders of dishonesty and even treason .
Democrats have defended the inquiry - which focuses on a phone call between Mr Trump and the Ukrainian president .
During a joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö , Mr Trump called Mr Biden and his son , Hunter , `` stone-cold corrupt '' .
Mr Trump directed much of his anger towards House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , calling him `` shifty Schiff , `` a lowlife '' and saying he `` should resign from office in disgrace '' .
He added : `` Frankly , they should look at him for treason . ''
Mr Trump also stated that he believed Mr Schiff had `` helped write '' a complaint about the call filed by a whistleblower , without offering evidence .
The US president told reporters that only `` legitimate '' whistleblowers should be protected .
`` This country has to find out who this person was , because that person 's a spy , in my opinion , '' Mr Trump said .
He labelled the entire inquiry a `` hoax '' and a `` fraudulent crime on the American people '' while maintaining he would `` always co-operate '' with Congress .
The US president also sparred at the White House with a Reuters correspondent , who asked him what he considered treasonous .
As the Finnish leader looked on , Mr Trump said `` there are those who think I 'm a very stable genius '' and said he `` probably will be bringing a lot of litigation '' against those who participated in the Russia investigation .
When the reporter pressed Mr Trump , the US president cut him off , saying : `` Do n't be rude . ''
Earlier , Mr Trump raged at the most powerful elected Democrat , House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi , and Mr Schiff on Twitter , accusing Democrats of focusing on `` BULLSHIT '' .
Mr Trump said Mrs Pelosi should focus on her own city , San Francisco , which he described as a `` tent city '' of homeless people .
The impeachment inquiry - which may seek to remove Mr Trump from office - stems from the whistleblower 's complaint about his 25 July phone conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky .
In the call , Mr Trump pressed for an investigation of his Democratic political rival Joe Biden and his son , who worked for a Ukrainian gas firm that faced allegations of corruption .
As vice-president and the Obama administration 's point man on Ukraine , Mr Biden threatened to withhold US loan guarantees to the country unless it fired its top prosecutor , at a time when Hunter Biden 's employer had been under official scrutiny .
But European countries and international bodies had also wanted Viktor Shokin fired , accusing him of failing to clamp down on corruption .
The Ukrainian prosecutor general who took over from Mr Shokin has told the BBC there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden .
However , questions were raised at the time about a potential conflict of interest for the US vice-president .
Democrats have pointed out Mr Trump 's call with the newly elected Mr Zelensky took place at the same time as the US president decided to withhold military aid from Ukraine .
From what has been shared of the call so far , Mr Trump did not directly reference withholding aid , but a full verbatim transcript has not been made available .
Mr Trump 's opponents say he was pressuring a vulnerable American ally to interfere in the 2020 US election for the US president 's personal benefit .
Democrats have accused the White House of blocking congressional inquiries and refusing to respond to record requests , which has prompted the subpoena threat this week .
House oversight committee chairman Elijah Cummings said in a memo : `` I do not take this step lightly .
`` Over the past several weeks , the committees tried several times to obtain voluntary compliance with our requests for documents , but the White House has refused to engage with - or even respond to - the committees . ''
The subpoena will request documents on Mr Trump 's call with Ukraine and any related items from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Mrs Pelosi and Mr Schiff held a joint news conference on Wednesday , defending the impeachment proceedings .
`` We 're not fooling around here , '' Mr Schiff said , adding that Democrats did not want the inquiry to `` drag on '' .
He also criticised the president 's comments against the whistleblower as `` a blatant effort to intimidate witnesses '' and `` an incitement of violence '' .
Mr Schiff has also issued a statement saying his committee never reviewed or received the whistleblower 's complaint in advance , as Mr Trump claimed .
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office
If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment , the Senate is forced to hold a trial
A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case , given that Mr Trump 's party controls the chamber
Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached but neither was convicted and removed
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Stand-off between Trump and reporter on Ukraine phone call
US President Donald Trump has lashed out at congressional Democrats after they vowed to summons the White House to produce documents this week.
Committees are demanding documents relating to the administration's dealings with Ukraine, which is now at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
The president accused Democratic leaders of dishonesty and even treason.
Democrats have defended the inquiry - which focuses on a phone call between Mr Trump and the Ukrainian president.
Warning: this report contains strong language
What did President Trump say?
During a joint news conference with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, Mr Trump called Mr Biden and his son, Hunter, "stone-cold corrupt".
Mr Trump directed much of his anger towards House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, calling him "shifty Schiff, "a lowlife" and saying he "should resign from office in disgrace".
He added: "Frankly, they should look at him for treason."
Mr Trump also stated that he believed Mr Schiff had "helped write" a complaint about the call filed by a whistleblower, without offering evidence.
The US president told reporters that only "legitimate" whistleblowers should be protected.
"This country has to find out who this person was, because that person's a spy, in my opinion," Mr Trump said.
He labelled the entire inquiry a "hoax" and a "fraudulent crime on the American people" while maintaining he would "always co-operate" with Congress.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Who is Rudy Giuliani?
The US president also sparred at the White House with a Reuters correspondent, who asked him what he considered treasonous.
As the Finnish leader looked on, Mr Trump said "there are those who think I'm a very stable genius" and said he "probably will be bringing a lot of litigation" against those who participated in the Russia investigation.
When the reporter pressed Mr Trump, the US president cut him off, saying: "Don't be rude."
Earlier, Mr Trump raged at the most powerful elected Democrat, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Mr Schiff on Twitter, accusing Democrats of focusing on "BULLSHIT".
Mr Trump said Mrs Pelosi should focus on her own city, San Francisco, which he described as a "tent city" of homeless people.
What's the inquiry about?
The impeachment inquiry - which may seek to remove Mr Trump from office - stems from the whistleblower's complaint about his 25 July phone conversation with President Volodymyr Zelensky.
In the call, Mr Trump pressed for an investigation of his Democratic political rival Joe Biden and his son, who worked for a Ukrainian gas firm that faced allegations of corruption.
As vice-president and the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, Mr Biden threatened to withhold US loan guarantees to the country unless it fired its top prosecutor, at a time when Hunter Biden's employer had been under official scrutiny.
But European countries and international bodies had also wanted Viktor Shokin fired, accusing him of failing to clamp down on corruption.
The Ukrainian prosecutor general who took over from Mr Shokin has told the BBC there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden.
However, questions were raised at the time about a potential conflict of interest for the US vice-president.
Democrats have pointed out Mr Trump's call with the newly elected Mr Zelensky took place at the same time as the US president decided to withhold military aid from Ukraine.
From what has been shared of the call so far, Mr Trump did not directly reference withholding aid, but a full verbatim transcript has not been made available.
Mr Trump's opponents say he was pressuring a vulnerable American ally to interfere in the 2020 US election for the US president's personal benefit.
What did Democrats say?
Democrats have accused the White House of blocking congressional inquiries and refusing to respond to record requests, which has prompted the subpoena threat this week.
House oversight committee chairman Elijah Cummings said in a memo: "I do not take this step lightly.
"Over the past several weeks, the committees tried several times to obtain voluntary compliance with our requests for documents, but the White House has refused to engage with - or even respond to - the committees."
The subpoena will request documents on Mr Trump's call with Ukraine and any related items from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff and Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the impeachment inquiry
Mrs Pelosi and Mr Schiff held a joint news conference on Wednesday, defending the impeachment proceedings.
"We're not fooling around here," Mr Schiff said, adding that Democrats did not want the inquiry to "drag on".
He also criticised the president's comments against the whistleblower as "a blatant effort to intimidate witnesses" and "an incitement of violence".
Mr Schiff has also issued a statement saying his committee never reviewed or received the whistleblower's complaint in advance, as Mr Trump claimed.
Quick facts on impeachment
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office
If the House of Representatives votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial
A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict - unlikely in this case, given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber
Only two US presidents in history - Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson - have been impeached but neither was convicted and removed
President Nixon resigned before he could have been impeached
How could Trump be impeached?
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
mz4r6bJ4Djd591sF
|
||
defense
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/11/11th-anniversary-ceremony-911-begins-ny/
|
11th anniversary ceremony of 9/11 begins in N.Y.
|
2012-09-11
|
Jennifer Peltz
|
NEW YORK — Americans paused again Tuesday to mark the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terror attacks with familiar ceremony , but also a sense that it ’ s time to move forward after a decade of remembrance .
As in past years , thousands gathered at the World Trade Center site in New York , the Pentagon and Shanksville , Pa. , to read the names of nearly 3,000 victims killed in the worst terror attack in U.S. history . President Barack Obama was to attend the Pentagon memorial , and Vice President Joe Biden was to speak in Pennsylvania .
But many felt that last year ’ s 10th anniversary was an emotional turning point for public mourning of the attacks . For the first time , elected officials weren ’ t speaking at the ceremony , which often allowed them a solemn turn in the spotlight , but raised questions about the public and private Sept. 11 . Fewer families attended the ceremonies this year , and some cities canceled their remembrances altogether .
“ I feel much more relaxed ” this year , said Jane Pollicino , who came to ground zero Tuesday morning to remember her husband , who was killed at the trade center . “ After the ninth anniversary , that next day , you started building up to the 10th year . This feels a lot different , in that regard . It ’ s another anniversary that we can commemorate in a calmer way , without that 10-year pressure . ”
As bagpipes played at the year-old Sept. 11 memorial in New York , family clutching balloons , flowers and photos of their loved ones bowed their heads in silence at 8:46 a.m. , the moment that the first hijacked jetliner crashed into the trade center ’ s north tower , and again to mark the crashes into the second tower , the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field .
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama observed the moment in a ceremony on the White House ’ s south lawn , and then laid a white floral wreath at the Pentagon , above a concrete slab that said “ Sept . 11 , 2001 — 937 am . ”
Victims ’ families in New York began the solemn , familiar ritual of tearfully reading the names of nearly 3,000 killed , with personal messages to their lost loved ones .
“ Rick , can you hear your name as the roll is called again ? On this sacred ground where your dust settled ? ” said Richard Blood , whose son , Richard Middleton Blood , Jr. , died in the trade center ’ s south tower . “ If only those who hear your name could know what a loving son and beautiful person you grew to be . I love you , son , and miss you terribly . ”
Thousands had attended the ceremony in New York in previous years , including last year ’ s milestone 10th anniversary . About 1,000 gathered by Tuesday morning , making paper rubbings of their loved ones ’ names etched onto the Sept. 11 memorial .
Commuters rushed out of the subway and fewer police barricades were in place than in past years in the lower Manhattan neighborhood surrounding ground zero . More than 4 million people have visited the memorial in the past year , becoming more of a public space than a closed-off construction site . On Tuesday , much of downtown Manhattan bustled like a regular weekday , except for clusters of police and emergency vehicles on the borders of the site .
Families had a mixed reaction to the changing ceremony , which kept politicians away from the microphone in New York for the first time . Charles G. Wolf , whose wife , Katherine , was killed at the trade center , said : “ We ’ ve gone past that deep , collective public grief. ” But Pollicino said it ’ s important that politicians still attend the ceremony .
“ There ’ s something missing if they ’ re not here at all , ” she said . “ Now , all of a sudden , it ’ s ‘ for the families. ’ This happened to our country — it didn ’ t happen only to me . ”
And Joe Torres , who put in 16-hour days in ground zero ’ s “ pit ” in the days after the attacks , cleaning up tons of debris , said another year has changed nothing for him .
“ The 11th year , for me , it ’ s the same as if it happened yesterday . It could be 50 years from now , and to me , it ’ ll be just as important as year one , or year five or year ten . ”
Political leaders still are welcome to attend the ground zero ceremony , and they are expected at the other commemorations , as well .
The Obamas planned later to visit wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center . The U.S. terror attacks were followed by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , where the U.S. military death toll years ago surpassed the 9/11 victim count . At least 1,987 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan and 4,475 in Iraq , according to the Pentagon .
Allied military forces marked the anniversary at a short ceremony at NATO ’ s headquarters in Kabul , Afghanistan with a tribute to more than 3,000 foreign troops killed in the decade-long war .
“ Eleven years on from that day there should be no doubt that our dedication to this commitment , that commitment that was seared into our souls that day so long ago , remains strong and unshaken , ” said Marine Gen. John Allen , the top commander of U.S. and coalition troops .
Scores gathered at the Flight 93 National Memorial in western Pennsylvania , where the fourth hijacked plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field . Biden and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar were to speak at the ceremony for the flight ’ s 40 victims .
Other ceremonies were held across the country — from New York ’ s Long Island , where hundreds wrote messages to their loved ones on a memorial , to Boston , where more than 200 people with ties to Massachusetts were remembered . But some cities scaled back — the suburb of Glen Rock , N.J. , where 11 people were killed , did not hold a memorial this year for the first time . Past events often ran for several hours , with speeches , music and the laying of roses in front of a granite memorial built with remnants of trade center steel .
“ It was appropriate for this year — not that the losses will ever be forgotten , ” said Brad Jordan , chairman of a community group that helps victims ’ families . “ But we felt it was right to shift the balance a bit from the observance of loss to a commemoration of how the community came together to heal . ”
The anniversary led to a brief pause in the presidential campaign as Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney pulled their negative ads and avoided campaign rallies . Romney shook hands with firefighters at Chicago ’ s O ’ Hare Airport and was flying to Nevada to address the National Guard , whose members deployed after the attacks . His running mate , Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin , had no scheduled public events .
The memorial foundation announced this summer that politicians wouldn ’ t be included this year , to separate politics from the ceremony . But others said keeping elected officials off the rostrum smacked of … politics . And several said they were unwilling to let go .
“ Coming here , it ’ s like ripping off a Band-Aid , ” said Yasmin Leon , whose sister was killed at the trade center . “ You rip it off and the wound is opened again . But you keep coming back anyway . ”
And at ground zero , family members reading their loved ones ’ names said the passage of time did not change their grief .
“ Mark , they say time heals all wounds . It ’ s not true , Mark , ” said Joanne Hindy , whose nephew died in the north tower . “ There ’ s a void in all our lives because this that will never ever be filled or healed . ”
|
NEW YORK — Americans paused again Tuesday to mark the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks with familiar ceremony, but also a sense that it’s time to move forward after a decade of remembrance.
As in past years, thousands gathered at the World Trade Center site in New York, the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pa., to read the names of nearly 3,000 victims killed in the worst terror attack in U.S. history. President Barack Obama was to attend the Pentagon memorial, and Vice President Joe Biden was to speak in Pennsylvania.
But many felt that last year’s 10th anniversary was an emotional turning point for public mourning of the attacks. For the first time, elected officials weren’t speaking at the ceremony, which often allowed them a solemn turn in the spotlight, but raised questions about the public and private Sept. 11. Fewer families attended the ceremonies this year, and some cities canceled their remembrances altogether.
“I feel much more relaxed” this year, said Jane Pollicino, who came to ground zero Tuesday morning to remember her husband, who was killed at the trade center. “After the ninth anniversary, that next day, you started building up to the 10th year. This feels a lot different, in that regard. It’s another anniversary that we can commemorate in a calmer way, without that 10-year pressure.”
As bagpipes played at the year-old Sept. 11 memorial in New York, family clutching balloons, flowers and photos of their loved ones bowed their heads in silence at 8:46 a.m., the moment that the first hijacked jetliner crashed into the trade center’s north tower, and again to mark the crashes into the second tower, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.
President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama observed the moment in a ceremony on the White House’s south lawn, and then laid a white floral wreath at the Pentagon, above a concrete slab that said “Sept. 11, 2001 — 937 am.”
Victims’ families in New York began the solemn, familiar ritual of tearfully reading the names of nearly 3,000 killed, with personal messages to their lost loved ones.
“Rick, can you hear your name as the roll is called again? On this sacred ground where your dust settled?” said Richard Blood, whose son, Richard Middleton Blood, Jr., died in the trade center’s south tower. “If only those who hear your name could know what a loving son and beautiful person you grew to be. I love you, son, and miss you terribly.”
Thousands had attended the ceremony in New York in previous years, including last year’s milestone 10th anniversary. About 1,000 gathered by Tuesday morning, making paper rubbings of their loved ones’ names etched onto the Sept. 11 memorial.
Commuters rushed out of the subway and fewer police barricades were in place than in past years in the lower Manhattan neighborhood surrounding ground zero. More than 4 million people have visited the memorial in the past year, becoming more of a public space than a closed-off construction site. On Tuesday, much of downtown Manhattan bustled like a regular weekday, except for clusters of police and emergency vehicles on the borders of the site.
Families had a mixed reaction to the changing ceremony, which kept politicians away from the microphone in New York for the first time. Charles G. Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, was killed at the trade center, said: “We’ve gone past that deep, collective public grief.” But Pollicino said it’s important that politicians still attend the ceremony.
“There’s something missing if they’re not here at all,” she said. “Now, all of a sudden, it’s ‘for the families.’ This happened to our country — it didn’t happen only to me.”
And Joe Torres, who put in 16-hour days in ground zero’s “pit” in the days after the attacks, cleaning up tons of debris, said another year has changed nothing for him.
“The 11th year, for me, it’s the same as if it happened yesterday. It could be 50 years from now, and to me, it’ll be just as important as year one, or year five or year ten.”
Political leaders still are welcome to attend the ground zero ceremony, and they are expected at the other commemorations, as well.
The Obamas planned later to visit wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The U.S. terror attacks were followed by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. military death toll years ago surpassed the 9/11 victim count. At least 1,987 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan and 4,475 in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
Allied military forces marked the anniversary at a short ceremony at NATO’s headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan with a tribute to more than 3,000 foreign troops killed in the decade-long war.
“Eleven years on from that day there should be no doubt that our dedication to this commitment, that commitment that was seared into our souls that day so long ago, remains strong and unshaken,” said Marine Gen. John Allen, the top commander of U.S. and coalition troops.
Scores gathered at the Flight 93 National Memorial in western Pennsylvania, where the fourth hijacked plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field. Biden and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar were to speak at the ceremony for the flight’s 40 victims.
Other ceremonies were held across the country — from New York’s Long Island, where hundreds wrote messages to their loved ones on a memorial, to Boston, where more than 200 people with ties to Massachusetts were remembered. But some cities scaled back — the suburb of Glen Rock, N.J., where 11 people were killed, did not hold a memorial this year for the first time. Past events often ran for several hours, with speeches, music and the laying of roses in front of a granite memorial built with remnants of trade center steel.
“It was appropriate for this year — not that the losses will ever be forgotten,” said Brad Jordan, chairman of a community group that helps victims’ families. “But we felt it was right to shift the balance a bit from the observance of loss to a commemoration of how the community came together to heal.”
The anniversary led to a brief pause in the presidential campaign as Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney pulled their negative ads and avoided campaign rallies. Romney shook hands with firefighters at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and was flying to Nevada to address the National Guard, whose members deployed after the attacks. His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, had no scheduled public events.
The memorial foundation announced this summer that politicians wouldn’t be included this year, to separate politics from the ceremony. But others said keeping elected officials off the rostrum smacked of … politics. And several said they were unwilling to let go.
“Coming here, it’s like ripping off a Band-Aid,” said Yasmin Leon, whose sister was killed at the trade center. “You rip it off and the wound is opened again. But you keep coming back anyway.”
And at ground zero, family members reading their loved ones’ names said the passage of time did not change their grief.
“Mark, they say time heals all wounds. It’s not true, Mark,” said Joanne Hindy, whose nephew died in the north tower. “There’s a void in all our lives because this that will never ever be filled or healed.”
• Associated Press writers Verena Dobnik, Meghan Barr and Alex Katz in New York, Wayne Parry in Atlantic City, N.J., and Amir Shah in Afghanistan contributed to this report.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
wBeSBWH4MV3oVEzU
|
healthcare
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/politics/town-halls/index.html?hpt=po_t1
|
GOP's Obamacare dilemma: To shut down or not shut down
|
2013-08-08
|
Z. Byron Wolf
|
Story highlights Republican Party elders concerned with upstarts ' efforts to shut down government
Split among Republicans playing out in town hall meetings across the country
North Carolina Republican jeered when he suggested party should n't force shutdown
Party elders appear increasingly concerned -- alarmed , even -- by an upstart effort by a new band of conservative lawmakers who want to shut down the federal government to protest the president 's signature health care law , Obamacare .
The plan -- really more of a bargaining strategy -- was hatched primarily by lawmakers elected in the past few years -- exposing a rift in the GOP about how best to deal with the controversial health care law a year before the 2014 elections .
Supporters of a government shutdown are nowhere near critical mass even as 13 lawmakers recently signed a letter pledging opposition to any spending bill that does n't defund the health law . To be successful , supporters of a government shutdown would need almost every Republican in the Senate to join their effort .
The GOP establishment is undoubtedly against a shutdown and many of them are becoming more vocal about it .
`` The people of the nation would not be happy , '' said 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney this week at a New Hampshire fundraiser about the possibility of a shutdown where Medicare benefits were skipped and troops did n't get paid .
`` Most Americans are really tired of those kinds of shenanigans here in Washington , '' Arizona Sen. John McCain said on the conservative Michael Medved radio show last month .
JUST WATCHED Sen. Cruz focused on defunding Obamacare Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Sen. Cruz focused on defunding Obamacare 08:33
JUST WATCHED McCain on heated town hall exchange Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McCain on heated town hall exchange 00:59
JUST WATCHED Romney re-enters GOP fray Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney re-enters GOP fray 04:38
A prominent conservative opinion maker , columnist Charles Krauthammer , called the idea `` nuts . ''
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn , who in the past has showed himself more than willing to step on the cogs of government if he disagrees with something , told the Washington Examiner a shutdown could cost Republicans control of the House . His Oklahoma colleague , Rep. Tom Cole , said on Fox News that shutting down the government would be like a legislative `` temper tantrum . ''
But there is evidence that many in the outspoken party base would seriously disagree .
Tea party activists posted a video critical of freshman North Carolina Rep . Rob Pittenger , who drew jeers when he said during a town hall event in his district this week , `` No , '' the party should n't shut the government down .
In an interview with CNN 's Jim Acosta on Wednesday , Pittenger defended his decision to stand against tea party activists who called for a shutdown to defund Obamacare .
But Pittenger appears to be an exception as a younger lawmaker standing against shutdown proponents .
`` The reality is , if we 're willing to take a government shutdown unless we repeal Obamacare , ... we will lose that vote and Obamacare will survive it , '' Pittenger said . `` Why would we go about a strategy that is doomed to failure . ''
Seeking to find middle ground in the party , a separate group of conservatives , including anti-tax activist Grover Norquist , have suggested instead to use the threat of shutdown to force a one year delay in implementing the law in place of pursuing a full repeal .
Backlash against Obamacare helped propel Republicans to take back control of the House in 2010 . But exhaustive efforts since to repeal it have been ineffective .
Utah Sen. Mike Lee , the leader of the shutdown effort , was elected in 2010 after defeating longtime Republican Sen. Bob Bennett in the primary .
While his proposal to shut down the government is not embraced by establishment Republicans , it has drawn praise from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio , two conservative stars who are believed to be considering runs for president in 2016 .
Both also , like Lee , defeated more establishment GOP candidates on their way to Washington in 2010 .
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , who has n't taken a definitive position on the shutdown plan , is now facing a primary challenge in his bid for reelection in Kentucky .
Add to all of this the default , shutdown , economic calamity show that has been a Washington rerun due to a string of battles over the federal borrowing limit and government spending .
These conservative newcomers to Washington have seen the White House make dire warnings about how the recent forced spending cuts -- known formally as sequestration -- would have a negative effect on the government and military .
But months later , the forced spending cuts have been largely swept out of the news and the federal government -- from the Pentagon to the Health and Human Services Department -- has shown an ability to absorb it for now .
Cruz recently argued in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that shutting down the government would n't be that bad and could help the GOP .
`` There are some Democrats , some in the media and some Republicans who portray a shutdown as a horrible calamity , ''
Cruz said . `` I think the term 'shutdown ' is a misnomer . It 's actually a partial , temporary shutdown . We have seen them before . ''
Cruz argued that Saturday and Sunday are kind of like government shutdowns .
But it is Romney , who has acknowledged that he 's probably the last person Republicans are now looking to for advice , who gave the most earnest argument on Tuesday against shutting down the government .
`` I badly want Obamacare to go away , and stripping it of funds has appeal . But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government , '' said Romney , according to a prepared text of his remarks at the private fundraiser . `` What would come next ... what would come next when soldiers are n't paid , when seniors fear for their Medicare and Social Security , and when the FBI is off duty ? I 'm afraid that in the final analysis , Obamacare would get its funding , our party would suffer in the next elections , and the people of the nation would not be happy . ''
A spokesman for Cruz , responded to Romney on Wednesday , arguing that Americans see Obamacare as `` train wreck . ''
`` They expect their elected representatives to fight to undo it , '' said Cruz spokesman Sean Ruston . `` If Republicans stand up for principle , we can win this debate . ''
|
Story highlights Republican Party elders concerned with upstarts' efforts to shut down government
Split among Republicans playing out in town hall meetings across the country
North Carolina Republican jeered when he suggested party shouldn't force shutdown
It feels like a generation gap in the GOP.
Party elders appear increasingly concerned -- alarmed, even -- by an upstart effort by a new band of conservative lawmakers who want to shut down the federal government to protest the president's signature health care law, Obamacare.
The plan -- really more of a bargaining strategy -- was hatched primarily by lawmakers elected in the past few years -- exposing a rift in the GOP about how best to deal with the controversial health care law a year before the 2014 elections.
Supporters of a government shutdown are nowhere near critical mass even as 13 lawmakers recently signed a letter pledging opposition to any spending bill that doesn't defund the health law. To be successful, supporters of a government shutdown would need almost every Republican in the Senate to join their effort.
The GOP establishment is undoubtedly against a shutdown and many of them are becoming more vocal about it.
"The people of the nation would not be happy," said 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney this week at a New Hampshire fundraiser about the possibility of a shutdown where Medicare benefits were skipped and troops didn't get paid.
"Most Americans are really tired of those kinds of shenanigans here in Washington," Arizona Sen. John McCain said on the conservative Michael Medved radio show last month.
JUST WATCHED Sen. Cruz focused on defunding Obamacare Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Sen. Cruz focused on defunding Obamacare 08:33
JUST WATCHED McCain on heated town hall exchange Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH McCain on heated town hall exchange 00:59
JUST WATCHED Romney re-enters GOP fray Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Romney re-enters GOP fray 04:38
A prominent conservative opinion maker, columnist Charles Krauthammer, called the idea "nuts."
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, who in the past has showed himself more than willing to step on the cogs of government if he disagrees with something, told the Washington Examiner a shutdown could cost Republicans control of the House. His Oklahoma colleague, Rep. Tom Cole, said on Fox News that shutting down the government would be like a legislative "temper tantrum."
But there is evidence that many in the outspoken party base would seriously disagree.
Tea party activists posted a video critical of freshman North Carolina Rep. Rob Pittenger, who drew jeers when he said during a town hall event in his district this week, "No," the party shouldn't shut the government down.
In an interview with CNN's Jim Acosta on Wednesday, Pittenger defended his decision to stand against tea party activists who called for a shutdown to defund Obamacare.
But Pittenger appears to be an exception as a younger lawmaker standing against shutdown proponents.
"The reality is, if we're willing to take a government shutdown unless we repeal Obamacare, ... we will lose that vote and Obamacare will survive it," Pittenger said. "Why would we go about a strategy that is doomed to failure."
Seeking to find middle ground in the party, a separate group of conservatives, including anti-tax activist Grover Norquist , have suggested instead to use the threat of shutdown to force a one year delay in implementing the law in place of pursuing a full repeal.
Backlash against Obamacare helped propel Republicans to take back control of the House in 2010. But exhaustive efforts since to repeal it have been ineffective.
Utah Sen. Mike Lee, the leader of the shutdown effort, was elected in 2010 after defeating longtime Republican Sen. Bob Bennett in the primary.
While his proposal to shut down the government is not embraced by establishment Republicans, it has drawn praise from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, two conservative stars who are believed to be considering runs for president in 2016.
Both also, like Lee, defeated more establishment GOP candidates on their way to Washington in 2010.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who hasn't taken a definitive position on the shutdown plan, is now facing a primary challenge in his bid for reelection in Kentucky.
Add to all of this the default, shutdown, economic calamity show that has been a Washington rerun due to a string of battles over the federal borrowing limit and government spending.
These conservative newcomers to Washington have seen the White House make dire warnings about how the recent forced spending cuts -- known formally as sequestration -- would have a negative effect on the government and military.
But months later, the forced spending cuts have been largely swept out of the news and the federal government -- from the Pentagon to the Health and Human Services Department -- has shown an ability to absorb it for now.
Cruz recently argued in a speech at the Heritage Foundation that shutting down the government wouldn't be that bad and could help the GOP.
"There are some Democrats, some in the media and some Republicans who portray a shutdown as a horrible calamity,"
Cruz said. "I think the term 'shutdown' is a misnomer. It's actually a partial, temporary shutdown. We have seen them before."
Cruz argued that Saturday and Sunday are kind of like government shutdowns.
But it is Romney, who has acknowledged that he's probably the last person Republicans are now looking to for advice, who gave the most earnest argument on Tuesday against shutting down the government.
"I badly want Obamacare to go away, and stripping it of funds has appeal. But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government," said Romney, according to a prepared text of his remarks at the private fundraiser. "What would come next ... what would come next when soldiers aren't paid, when seniors fear for their Medicare and Social Security, and when the FBI is off duty? I'm afraid that in the final analysis, Obamacare would get its funding, our party would suffer in the next elections, and the people of the nation would not be happy."
A spokesman for Cruz, responded to Romney on Wednesday, arguing that Americans see Obamacare as "train wreck."
"They expect their elected representatives to fight to undo it," said Cruz spokesman Sean Ruston. "If Republicans stand up for principle, we can win this debate."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
NAglVJHcWBsb1eCU
|
federal_budget
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/17/with-budget-deal-national-debt-free-to-soar-again/
|
With budget ‘deal,’ national debt free to soar again
|
2013-10-17
|
The good news : The national parks are open , furloughed federal workers are back on the job , and the country will not cut off benefit payments because it ca n't borrow .
The bad news : The national debt is back on course to hit $ 17 trillion any day now , with no deal in sight to ever reverse the climb .
The latest increase in the debt cap is the sixth since President Obama took office , when the debt was $ 10.6 trillion . It was raised three times when Democrats controlled Congress , and has been raised three times since Republicans took control of the House .
Fiscal conservatives and government watchdog groups reacted with dismay Thursday after Washington , following weeks of hard-nosed negotiations , produced only a stopgap bill to end the partial government shutdown and raise that cap . And despite the chaos of the past few weeks , they are once again trying to refocus Washington on the need to -- seriously -- lasso the nation 's debt and break the habit of endless over-spending .
`` Both houses should act quickly to stop the madness , '' said Maya MacGuineas , head of the Committee for a Responsible Budget and the Campaign to Fix the Debt . While voicing relief that the partial shutdown is over , she called the last-minute deal `` incredibly disheartening , '' describing the debt as a `` fire '' that could `` get out of control at any moment . ''
Republicans have been modestly emboldened in their push for spending cuts after the dire consequences that administration officials said would emerge from the so-called sequester , in large part , did not happen . Even the partial government shutdown had a limited impact on the country .
Obama , while urging both sides to come together on a new budget agreement in the coming weeks that addresses the nation 's fiscal problems , on Thursday also downplayed the red ink .
That 's true . But , Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , said : `` You still have an unsustainable problem in place . ''
Since Obama took office , the total national debt has risen by nearly 60 percent . It was $ 10.6 trillion on the day he took office . It was $ 16.7 trillion when the nation technically hit the debt ceiling .
But , even during that period , the Treasury racked up another $ 200 billion in debt , borrowing from various U.S. funds to buy more time while Congress debated . As the New York Post explained Thursday , the debt is actually at $ 16.9 trillion .
So what do numbers so impossible to comprehend mean for the United States ?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a rather dire warning last month about what the future holds if the trajectory is not changed .
The analysis explained how the government has been expanding at historic rates . Between 2009 and 2012 , it said , deficits were larger relative to the size of the economy than at any point since 1946 -- in turn fueling the rapid growth in the debt .
Deficits are projected to fall for the next few years , but then rise again , in large part because of two major factors -- interest on the debt , and entitlement programs .
The growth of the debt has triggered a vicious cycle , where higher debt leads to bigger interest payments , in turn growing the debt even more .
The CBO estimates that by 2038 , interest on the debt will rise to 5 percent of GDP -- compared against a modern historical average of 2 percent . That means less money in the federal coffers for everything from the military to benefits programs .
But the biggest benefits programs , known in Washington as entitlements , are the dominant factor .
Programs like Medicare , Medicaid and Social Security are poised to eat up more and more of the federal budget . The CBO says the share of spending on those programs will double by 2038 , to 14 percent of GDP . As a consequence , spending on everything else will drop .
Obama said Thursday that longer-term deficits do need to be addressed , and that budget negotiators need to focus on programs like Medicare and Social Security .
But Rubio said the problem is Obama has resisted major changes to any of those programs , due in part to resistance from the liberal base .
|
The good news: The national parks are open, furloughed federal workers are back on the job, and the country will not cut off benefit payments because it can't borrow.
The bad news: The national debt is back on course to hit $17 trillion any day now, with no deal in sight to ever reverse the climb.
The latest increase in the debt cap is the sixth since President Obama took office, when the debt was $10.6 trillion. It was raised three times when Democrats controlled Congress, and has been raised three times since Republicans took control of the House.
Fiscal conservatives and government watchdog groups reacted with dismay Thursday after Washington, following weeks of hard-nosed negotiations, produced only a stopgap bill to end the partial government shutdown and raise that cap. And despite the chaos of the past few weeks, they are once again trying to refocus Washington on the need to -- seriously -- lasso the nation's debt and break the habit of endless over-spending.
"Both houses should act quickly to stop the madness," said Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Budget and the Campaign to Fix the Debt. While voicing relief that the partial shutdown is over, she called the last-minute deal "incredibly disheartening," describing the debt as a "fire" that could "get out of control at any moment."
Republicans have been modestly emboldened in their push for spending cuts after the dire consequences that administration officials said would emerge from the so-called sequester, in large part, did not happen. Even the partial government shutdown had a limited impact on the country.
Obama, while urging both sides to come together on a new budget agreement in the coming weeks that addresses the nation's fiscal problems, on Thursday also downplayed the red ink.
"The deficit is getting smaller, not bigger," Obama said.
That's true. But, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said: "You still have an unsustainable problem in place."
Since Obama took office, the total national debt has risen by nearly 60 percent. It was $10.6 trillion on the day he took office. It was $16.7 trillion when the nation technically hit the debt ceiling.
But, even during that period, the Treasury racked up another $200 billion in debt, borrowing from various U.S. funds to buy more time while Congress debated. As the New York Post explained Thursday, the debt is actually at $16.9 trillion.
So what do numbers so impossible to comprehend mean for the United States?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a rather dire warning last month about what the future holds if the trajectory is not changed.
The analysis explained how the government has been expanding at historic rates. Between 2009 and 2012, it said, deficits were larger relative to the size of the economy than at any point since 1946 -- in turn fueling the rapid growth in the debt.
Deficits are projected to fall for the next few years, but then rise again, in large part because of two major factors -- interest on the debt, and entitlement programs.
The growth of the debt has triggered a vicious cycle, where higher debt leads to bigger interest payments, in turn growing the debt even more.
The CBO estimates that by 2038, interest on the debt will rise to 5 percent of GDP -- compared against a modern historical average of 2 percent. That means less money in the federal coffers for everything from the military to benefits programs.
But the biggest benefits programs, known in Washington as entitlements, are the dominant factor.
Programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are poised to eat up more and more of the federal budget. The CBO says the share of spending on those programs will double by 2038, to 14 percent of GDP. As a consequence, spending on everything else will drop.
Obama said Thursday that longer-term deficits do need to be addressed, and that budget negotiators need to focus on programs like Medicare and Social Security.
But Rubio said the problem is Obama has resisted major changes to any of those programs, due in part to resistance from the liberal base.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
RmaUQ5Hjn2uJWGbg
|
|
abortion
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/pro-life-lawmakers-not-waiting-gosnell-verdict/
|
Pro-life lawmakers not waiting for Gosnell verdict, question states on abortion
|
2013-05-09
|
Cheryl Wetzstein
|
The jury remained out for an eighth consecutive day in the sensational murder trial of an inner-city Philadelphia abortionist , but the impact of the case already is being felt far beyond the courtroom .
As jurors weighed the fate of Dr. Kermit Gosnell , a group of top lawmakers on Capitol Hill announced a drive to investigate the quality and oversight of clinics and facilities that provide abortion in every state in the union . A letter mailed Thursday to public health officials and states attorneys general is seeking information on the regulation and monitoring of abortion clinics .
Separately , black religious leaders have announced plans to come to Capitol Hill next week to demand congressional hearings on illegal , late-term abortions in poor and minority communities . The overwhelming number of patients at Dr. Gosnell ’ s Women ’ s Medical Society were minorities .
Pro-choice advocates say the practices in Dr. Gosnell ’ s clinic were not representative of the industry as a whole , but abortion opponents clearly have been galvanized as revelations of the Philadelphia clinic — and the apparent lack of oversight by state health officials .
The Gosnell trial “ raises troubling questions about the practices of abortion clinics , and whether state departments of health are aware , or even conducting appropriate monitoring of these facilities , ” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton , Michigan Republican , wrote in a letter signed by five Republican colleagues .
Prosecutors charge that Dr. Gosnell , who is black , performed his late-term abortions in a filthy “ house of horrors , ” with most of his clients low-income minority women . He is charged with the first-degree murders of four newborns and third-degree murder of a female patient , as well as scores of other violations related to his clinic and abortion practices .
Dr. Gosnell ’ s defense has vigorously denied the charges , arguing that none of the babies was alive when he and others snipped their spinal cords . The defense attorneys did not call Dr. Gosnell , 72 , to the stand or bring any witnesses during the trial .
The jury in the trial , which began deliberations more than a week ago , adjourned again Thursday without announcing a verdict .
Whatever the verdict , pro-choice groups warned , lawmakers should not make broad generalizations about the industry .
“ All of us are appalled by the substandard , illegal practices , ” said Vicki Saporta , chief executive of the National Abortion Federation , which represents hundreds of U.S. abortion clinics and refused to accept the Gosnell clinic as a member . “ But to make the leap to say that ’ s indicative of the state of abortion care throughout the U.S. is absolutely false . ”
But pro-life groups hailed the congressional move , saying lax oversight of abortion providers has long been a major problem .
“ Kermit Gosnell is the tip of the iceberg , ” said Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List . There has been “ multi-state breakdown of oversight in the abortion industry , as well as the barbarism of abortions performed on children capable of feeling pain and surviving outside the womb . ”
Lila Rose , whose Live Action organization has released four “ undercover ” videos of pregnant women talking candidly with abortion providers , also applauded the oversight letters . Live Action videos show that “ gruesome ” abortion practices , including leaving babies to die after failed abortions , “ are just another day at the office for many abortion center doctors and employees , ” Ms. Rose said .
The Guttmacher Institute estimated in 2008 that there were about 1,800 abortion providers in the United States .
In the letter from the Republican House members , public health officials in the states and the District are asked to detail by May 22 their licensing regulations ; inspections ; handling of complaints ; license suspensions and revocations ; disciplinary actions ; and legal protections for infants , including born-alive infants . Documented data are requested from 2008 to 2013 .
Leading Democrats on the committees , including Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California , Frank Pallone Jr. , of New Jersey and Diana L. DeGette of Colorado , were copied on the letters . Their offices did not immediately have a reaction on Thursday .
Separately , the 50 state attorneys general are asked by June 1 to answer five questions for the House Judiciary Committee about the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and any similar laws passed in their states .
“ Do prosecutors in your state treat the deliberate killing of newborns , including those newborns who were delivered alive in the process of abortions , as a criminal offense ? If so , have there been any prosecutions in your state for this crime ? ” asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte , Virginia Republican , and Rep. Trent Franks , Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice .
The black religious leaders say the Gosnell case has special resonance for their communities .
Star Parker , founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education , this week announced an event at the National Press Club on abortion practices in black communities . Religious leaders from Georgia , Michigan , Illinois , California , Texas , North Carolina , Ohio , New Jersey and Maryland are expected to support the event , which will call for congressional oversight hearings on the issue .
• This article is based in part on wire service reports .
|
The jury remained out for an eighth consecutive day in the sensational murder trial of an inner-city Philadelphia abortionist, but the impact of the case already is being felt far beyond the courtroom.
As jurors weighed the fate of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a group of top lawmakers on Capitol Hill announced a drive to investigate the quality and oversight of clinics and facilities that provide abortion in every state in the union. A letter mailed Thursday to public health officials and states attorneys general is seeking information on the regulation and monitoring of abortion clinics.
Separately, black religious leaders have announced plans to come to Capitol Hill next week to demand congressional hearings on illegal, late-term abortions in poor and minority communities. The overwhelming number of patients at Dr. Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society were minorities.
Pro-choice advocates say the practices in Dr. Gosnell’s clinic were not representative of the industry as a whole, but abortion opponents clearly have been galvanized as revelations of the Philadelphia clinic — and the apparent lack of oversight by state health officials.
The Gosnell trial “raises troubling questions about the practices of abortion clinics, and whether state departments of health are aware, or even conducting appropriate monitoring of these facilities,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, wrote in a letter signed by five Republican colleagues.
Prosecutors charge that Dr. Gosnell, who is black, performed his late-term abortions in a filthy “house of horrors,” with most of his clients low-income minority women. He is charged with the first-degree murders of four newborns and third-degree murder of a female patient, as well as scores of other violations related to his clinic and abortion practices.
Dr. Gosnell’s defense has vigorously denied the charges, arguing that none of the babies was alive when he and others snipped their spinal cords. The defense attorneys did not call Dr. Gosnell, 72, to the stand or bring any witnesses during the trial.
The jury in the trial, which began deliberations more than a week ago, adjourned again Thursday without announcing a verdict.
Whatever the verdict, pro-choice groups warned, lawmakers should not make broad generalizations about the industry.
“All of us are appalled by the substandard, illegal practices,” said Vicki Saporta, chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, which represents hundreds of U.S. abortion clinics and refused to accept the Gosnell clinic as a member. “But to make the leap to say that’s indicative of the state of abortion care throughout the U.S. is absolutely false.”
But pro-life groups hailed the congressional move, saying lax oversight of abortion providers has long been a major problem.
“Kermit Gosnell is the tip of the iceberg,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. There has been “multi-state breakdown of oversight in the abortion industry, as well as the barbarism of abortions performed on children capable of feeling pain and surviving outside the womb.”
Lila Rose, whose Live Action organization has released four “undercover” videos of pregnant women talking candidly with abortion providers, also applauded the oversight letters. Live Action videos show that “gruesome” abortion practices, including leaving babies to die after failed abortions, “are just another day at the office for many abortion center doctors and employees,” Ms. Rose said.
The Guttmacher Institute estimated in 2008 that there were about 1,800 abortion providers in the United States.
In the letter from the Republican House members, public health officials in the states and the District are asked to detail by May 22 their licensing regulations; inspections; handling of complaints; license suspensions and revocations; disciplinary actions; and legal protections for infants, including born-alive infants. Documented data are requested from 2008 to 2013.
Leading Democrats on the committees, including Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California, Frank Pallone Jr., of New Jersey and Diana L. DeGette of Colorado, were copied on the letters. Their offices did not immediately have a reaction on Thursday.
Separately, the 50 state attorneys general are asked by June 1 to answer five questions for the House Judiciary Committee about the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and any similar laws passed in their states.
“Do prosecutors in your state treat the deliberate killing of newborns, including those newborns who were delivered alive in the process of abortions, as a criminal offense? If so, have there been any prosecutions in your state for this crime?” asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, and Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.
The black religious leaders say the Gosnell case has special resonance for their communities.
Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, this week announced an event at the National Press Club on abortion practices in black communities. Religious leaders from Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, California, Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, New Jersey and Maryland are expected to support the event, which will call for congressional oversight hearings on the issue.
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
5lstVFVesP8ZDBIY
|
middle_east
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Kerry-Syrian-refugees/2015/09/20/id/692440/
|
Kerry: US to Increase Refugee Influx to 100,000 in 2017
|
2015-09-20
|
Greg Richter
|
The Obama administration will increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States annually to 100,000 in 2017 , The New York Times reports . The current limit is 70,000 , and that would go up to 85,000 in fiscal 2016 , then to 100,000 annually in 2017 , Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday during meetings in Berlin.Kerry also said he would be looking into ways to expand the number beyond 100,000 in later years while still maintaining the background check process . `` This step is in keeping with America ’ s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope , '' Kerry said . `` And it will be accompanied by continued financial contributions to the humanitarian effort — not only from the U.S. government , but from the American people . The need is enormous , but we are determined to answer the call . `` Syrians fleeing their war-torn country would benefit from the move , the Times noted , though a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week showed that most Americans do n't want to take in more Syrian refugees , though they do want to do more to help them.One of the fears is that terrorists from the Islamic State ( ISIS ) or other groups could infiltrate legitimate refugees and attack the country in the homeland . Kerry insisted the review process will be streamlined to avoid that.Critics also complain that the refugees are fleeing to European nations and the United States , but are not being taken in in large numbers by neighboring Muslim countries . Saudia Arabia has offered to build mosques in Germany for the refugees.The United States has received about 1,500 Syrians since the three-way conflict began there in 2011 between ISIS , the government of President Bashar Assad and the Free Syrian Army . European nations have taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees , and numbers recently have been growing.Germany is expecting 1 million immigrants this year.Kerry 's announcement comes a day after Anne Richard , assistant secretary of state for population , refugees and migration , told National Public Radio that the move would be coming . `` I think that the most senior leadership at the State Department , the National Security Council and the White House want to bring more refugees and so that 's something that we 're very focused on right now , '' Richard said.Pope Francis also has urged people to take families into their homes in Europe .
|
The Obama administration will increase the number of refugees allowed into the United States annually to 100,000 in 2017, The New York Times reports. The current limit is 70,000, and that would go up to 85,000 in fiscal 2016, then to 100,000 annually in 2017, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday during meetings in Berlin.Kerry also said he would be looking into ways to expand the number beyond 100,000 in later years while still maintaining the background check process."This step is in keeping with America’s best tradition as a land of second chances and a beacon of hope," Kerry said. "And it will be accompanied by continued financial contributions to the humanitarian effort — not only from the U.S. government, but from the American people. The need is enormous, but we are determined to answer the call."Syrians fleeing their war-torn country would benefit from the move, the Times noted, though a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week showed that most Americans don't want to take in more Syrian refugees, though they do want to do more to help them.One of the fears is that terrorists from the Islamic State (ISIS) or other groups could infiltrate legitimate refugees and attack the country in the homeland. Kerry insisted the review process will be streamlined to avoid that.Critics also complain that the refugees are fleeing to European nations and the United States, but are not being taken in in large numbers by neighboring Muslim countries. Saudia Arabia has offered to build mosques in Germany for the refugees.The United States has received about 1,500 Syrians since the three-way conflict began there in 2011 between ISIS, the government of President Bashar Assad and the Free Syrian Army. European nations have taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, and numbers recently have been growing.Germany is expecting 1 million immigrants this year.Kerry's announcement comes a day after Anne Richard , assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, told National Public Radio that the move would be coming."I think that the most senior leadership at the State Department, the National Security Council and the White House want to bring more refugees and so that's something that we're very focused on right now," Richard said.Pope Francis also has urged people to take families into their homes in Europe.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
znV3XB5KkBLQL2UA
|
world
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/opinion/ayotte-moment-of-truth-nato-ukraine/index.html?hpt=op_t1
|
OPINION: NATO's moment of truth on Ukraine
|
2014-09-04
|
Kelly Ayotte
|
( CNN ) -- As Moscow escalates its invasion of eastern Ukraine and NATO convenes this week in Wales , the United States , NATO , and free nations around the world confront a pivotal moment of truth .
If the international community , led by the United States , fails to respond in a strong and unified manner to Moscow 's blatant aggression in Ukraine , the ramifications will be both serious and far-reaching .
By now , it should be clear to all objective observers that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not impressed by starkly worded statements and declarations , and if that is the only outcome in Wales , it could represent a historic failure of the alliance at a time when NATO 's foundational purpose has renewed relevance .
As NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen confirmed last week , Russian forces have `` engaged in direct military operations inside Ukraine , '' including firing on Ukrainian forces from inside Ukraine itself . According to NATO , in addition to the Russian-backed separatists , there are now more than a thousand Russian military forces in Ukraine .
This latest escalation follows Russia 's illegal annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine , as well as months of instigating and perpetuating the crisis in eastern Ukraine . Even after the Russian-backed separatists apparently launched a missile that murdered 298 people on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 , Putin has continued to provide separatists with tanks , armored vehicles , artillery , rocket launchers and anti-aircraft weapons .
In short , Putin has brushed aside U.S. and European warnings , as well as initial sanctions , and has invaded eastern Ukraine .
The pre-eminent question now is what will the United States and NATO—and nations around the world that value democracy , freedom and the rule of law—do about it ?
In May 2012 , NATO governments declared that , `` An independent , sovereign and stable Ukraine , firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law , is key to Euro-Atlantic security . ''
In his June 4 speech in Poland , President Obama said , `` Our free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia . ''
As NATO declared at the 2010 Lisbon Conference , `` Crises and conflicts beyond NATO 's borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance territory and populations . '' Russia 's aggression in Ukraine certainly presents a threat to NATO .
The NATO Summit in Wales presents a critical opportunity to build the consensus necessary to back up these declarations with tangible and urgent action .
This action should include the toughest possible U.S. and European sanctions against Russia , the provision of much-needed and long-requested weapons to Ukraine , the strengthening of NATO 's military posture in eastern Europe , the sharing of real-time intelligence with Kyiv , as well as robust economic assistance .
The United States and NATO do not need to send combat forces to Ukraine . The Ukrainian people have demonstrated a willingness to fight , and all they have asked for is our support .
As Europeans learned at a tremendous cost during World War II , weakness and delay in the face of invasion and aggression only invite more aggression . Thus far , the West 's tepid response to Moscow 's actions in Ukraine has only confirmed Putin 's view that the United States and Europe lack the resolve to stand up to him -- and even worse , he views it as a green light for expanded aggression .
Continued weakness in the face of Putin 's invasion risks leaving him with the dangerous impression that he can send his `` little green men '' to NATO member nations on Russia 's periphery . Such a step by Moscow would trigger NATO 's Article Five commitments and would require a NATO military response , as Gen. Philip Breedlove , NATO 's Supreme Allied Commander Europe , has reiterated .
The United States and our NATO allies wish we had a well-intentioned partner in Moscow who follows international law and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors . Despite NATO 's best efforts to establish friendly and constructive relations with Russia since at least 1994 , we clearly do not have a partner in Moscow .
Putin is a bully who wants to prevent the Ukrainian people and their legitimately elected government from choosing their own future based on his nostalgia for his days in the KGB , his desire to restore Russian dominance over its neighbors , and his fear that a democratic , independent and prosperous Ukraine might entice Russians to demand more accountability , democracy and prosperity at home .
The United States and our democratic allies in Europe and around the world are not and must not be neutral when a free people and their democratically elected government confront an unprovoked invasion of their sovereign territory .
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , Kim Jong Un in North Korea , the Taliban in Afghanistan , and Putin in Russia are watching . Do the United States and NATO possess the political will to back up their statements ?
The answer to that question will have national security consequences for years to come in Europe and around the world .
|
Editor's note: Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican representing New Hampshire, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers.
(CNN) -- As Moscow escalates its invasion of eastern Ukraine and NATO convenes this week in Wales, the United States, NATO, and free nations around the world confront a pivotal moment of truth.
If the international community, led by the United States, fails to respond in a strong and unified manner to Moscow's blatant aggression in Ukraine, the ramifications will be both serious and far-reaching.
By now, it should be clear to all objective observers that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not impressed by starkly worded statements and declarations, and if that is the only outcome in Wales, it could represent a historic failure of the alliance at a time when NATO's foundational purpose has renewed relevance.
As NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen confirmed last week, Russian forces have "engaged in direct military operations inside Ukraine," including firing on Ukrainian forces from inside Ukraine itself. According to NATO, in addition to the Russian-backed separatists, there are now more than a thousand Russian military forces in Ukraine.
This latest escalation follows Russia's illegal annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine, as well as months of instigating and perpetuating the crisis in eastern Ukraine. Even after the Russian-backed separatists apparently launched a missile that murdered 298 people on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, Putin has continued to provide separatists with tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft weapons.
In short, Putin has brushed aside U.S. and European warnings, as well as initial sanctions, and has invaded eastern Ukraine.
The pre-eminent question now is what will the United States and NATO—and nations around the world that value democracy, freedom and the rule of law—do about it?
In May 2012, NATO governments declared that, "An independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security."
Opinion: "The NATO Show" -- Putin's favorite comedy?
In his June 4 speech in Poland, President Obama said, "Our free nations will stand united so that further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia."
As NATO declared at the 2010 Lisbon Conference, "Crises and conflicts beyond NATO's borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance territory and populations." Russia's aggression in Ukraine certainly presents a threat to NATO.
The NATO Summit in Wales presents a critical opportunity to build the consensus necessary to back up these declarations with tangible and urgent action.
This action should include the toughest possible U.S. and European sanctions against Russia, the provision of much-needed and long-requested weapons to Ukraine, the strengthening of NATO's military posture in eastern Europe, the sharing of real-time intelligence with Kyiv, as well as robust economic assistance.
The United States and NATO do not need to send combat forces to Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have demonstrated a willingness to fight, and all they have asked for is our support.
As Europeans learned at a tremendous cost during World War II, weakness and delay in the face of invasion and aggression only invite more aggression. Thus far, the West's tepid response to Moscow's actions in Ukraine has only confirmed Putin's view that the United States and Europe lack the resolve to stand up to him -- and even worse, he views it as a green light for expanded aggression.
Continued weakness in the face of Putin's invasion risks leaving him with the dangerous impression that he can send his "little green men" to NATO member nations on Russia's periphery. Such a step by Moscow would trigger NATO's Article Five commitments and would require a NATO military response, as Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has reiterated.
The United States and our NATO allies wish we had a well-intentioned partner in Moscow who follows international law and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. Despite NATO's best efforts to establish friendly and constructive relations with Russia since at least 1994, we clearly do not have a partner in Moscow.
Putin is a bully who wants to prevent the Ukrainian people and their legitimately elected government from choosing their own future based on his nostalgia for his days in the KGB, his desire to restore Russian dominance over its neighbors, and his fear that a democratic, independent and prosperous Ukraine might entice Russians to demand more accountability, democracy and prosperity at home.
The United States and our democratic allies in Europe and around the world are not and must not be neutral when a free people and their democratically elected government confront an unprovoked invasion of their sovereign territory.
Opinion: Ukraine's strong argument for military aid
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Kim Jong Un in North Korea, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Putin in Russia are watching. Do the United States and NATO possess the political will to back up their statements?
The answer to that question will have national security consequences for years to come in Europe and around the world.
Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
0G2eYASADwpfyHqr
|
us_senate
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/20/senate-passes-republicans-15-trillion-tax-cut-plan/
|
Senate Republicans pass $1.5 trillion tax-cut plan on party-line vote
|
2017-12-20
|
David Sherfinski
|
The Senate early Wednesday passed the Republicans ’ $ 1.5 trillion tax-cut plan , putting it closer to President Trump ’ s desk with an additional House vote expected Wednesday .
Senate Democrats managed to strike several provisions from a House-passed bill on procedural grounds , but Republicans nevertheless expect to send a final measure to Mr. Trump shortly to fulfill his top legislative priority and complete the most significant rewrite of the tax code in three decades .
“ Many of us in this body have been waiting years for this opportunity , and millions of Americans outside of this body have been waiting even longer , ” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch , Utah Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee .
The Senate passed the slightly modified plan on a 51-48 vote after the House passed its bill earlier in the day on a 227-203 vote . The procedural hiccup is not expected to significantly delay the proceedings , as the House is expected to take up the Senate-passed version Wednesday .
The action will complete a once-unthinkable timeline to get a tax bill through Congress before Christmas , and comes less than two months after House Republicans released their initial legislative text of the tax bill .
The final package cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent . It trims individual rates and lowers the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent , but makes the individual cuts temporary in order to comply with Senate budget rules that imposed a $ 1.5 trillion cost limit .
SEE ALSO : Ryan , McConnell lead Congress to finish line of legacy-defining tax bill for Trump
On average , taxpayers across all income levels will see an income tax cut next year , but thanks to the phaseouts would start to see an increase long-term , according to congressional scorekeepers .
Republicans say they anticipate that future Congresses will simply extend the individual cuts .
The plan generally maintains the current progressivity of the tax code , with the top 20 percent of taxpayers paying 65 percent of the taxes next year and the top 5 percent accounting for 50 percent of the taxes .
It winds down various loopholes and exemptions while expanding others , including the child tax credit , which was a change demanded by Republican Sens . Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah .
The package also repeals Obamacare ’ s individual mandate — partially making good on the GOP ’ s repeated pledges to repeal the law — and opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ( ANWR ) for oil drilling , which is a long-sought goal of Alaska lawmakers and many other Republicans .
Republicans say they ’ re moving quickly because they want taxpayers to feel the changes in their paychecks as early as February .
But there ’ s also a numbers issue , as the GOP ranks in the Senate will drop from 52 members to 51 once Sen.-elect Doug Jones of Alabama is sworn in , which would narrow an already tight window for passage there .
Republicans also say they need to deliver something to the voters who gave them full control of Washington , D.C. , and do so ahead of the 2018 midterm elections , particularly after they failed to repeal Obamacare in its entirety this year .
Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday waved aside polling that has shown the plan isn ’ t all that popular , saying that public distortions might be dragging down the numbers .
“ When you have a slingfest , a mudfest on TV , when pundits are slamming each other about this tax bill before it passes , that ’ s what ’ s going to happen , ” Mr. Ryan said . “ Results are going to make this popular . ”
Democrats , meanwhile , have cast the plan as a giveaway to the wealthy , and say Republicans are rushing the process because they don ’ t want Americans to actually know what ’ s in the bill .
“ This is the worst bill to ever come to the floor of the House , with stiff competition for what some of the things they ’ ve tried to do , ” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi . “ The worst bill in history . ”
|
The Senate early Wednesday passed the Republicans’ $1.5 trillion tax-cut plan, putting it closer to President Trump’s desk with an additional House vote expected Wednesday.
Senate Democrats managed to strike several provisions from a House-passed bill on procedural grounds, but Republicans nevertheless expect to send a final measure to Mr. Trump shortly to fulfill his top legislative priority and complete the most significant rewrite of the tax code in three decades.
“Many of us in this body have been waiting years for this opportunity, and millions of Americans outside of this body have been waiting even longer,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
The Senate passed the slightly modified plan on a 51-48 vote after the House passed its bill earlier in the day on a 227-203 vote. The procedural hiccup is not expected to significantly delay the proceedings, as the House is expected to take up the Senate-passed version Wednesday.
The action will complete a once-unthinkable timeline to get a tax bill through Congress before Christmas, and comes less than two months after House Republicans released their initial legislative text of the tax bill.
The final package cuts the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. It trims individual rates and lowers the top rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, but makes the individual cuts temporary in order to comply with Senate budget rules that imposed a $1.5 trillion cost limit.
SEE ALSO: Ryan, McConnell lead Congress to finish line of legacy-defining tax bill for Trump
On average, taxpayers across all income levels will see an income tax cut next year, but thanks to the phaseouts would start to see an increase long-term, according to congressional scorekeepers.
Republicans say they anticipate that future Congresses will simply extend the individual cuts.
The plan generally maintains the current progressivity of the tax code, with the top 20 percent of taxpayers paying 65 percent of the taxes next year and the top 5 percent accounting for 50 percent of the taxes.
It winds down various loopholes and exemptions while expanding others, including the child tax credit, which was a change demanded by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah.
The package also repeals Obamacare’s individual mandate — partially making good on the GOP’s repeated pledges to repeal the law — and opens up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, which is a long-sought goal of Alaska lawmakers and many other Republicans.
Republicans say they’re moving quickly because they want taxpayers to feel the changes in their paychecks as early as February.
But there’s also a numbers issue, as the GOP ranks in the Senate will drop from 52 members to 51 once Sen.-elect Doug Jones of Alabama is sworn in, which would narrow an already tight window for passage there.
Republicans also say they need to deliver something to the voters who gave them full control of Washington, D.C., and do so ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, particularly after they failed to repeal Obamacare in its entirety this year.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan on Tuesday waved aside polling that has shown the plan isn’t all that popular, saying that public distortions might be dragging down the numbers.
“When you have a slingfest, a mudfest on TV, when pundits are slamming each other about this tax bill before it passes, that’s what’s going to happen,” Mr. Ryan said. “Results are going to make this popular.”
Democrats, meanwhile, have cast the plan as a giveaway to the wealthy, and say Republicans are rushing the process because they don’t want Americans to actually know what’s in the bill.
“This is the worst bill to ever come to the floor of the House, with stiff competition for what some of the things they’ve tried to do,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “The worst bill in history.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
nELxShY5jmKSWgIy
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43105701
|
Florida school shooting: Students to march on Washington
|
Young survivors of Wednesday 's school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control .
Student organisers told US media that they were determined to make Wednesday 's shooting a turning point in the national gun debate .
The attack , which left 17 students and staff members dead , was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012 .
Yesterday protestors chanted `` shame on you '' to US lawmakers and the president .
Mr Trump said last year he would `` never '' infringe on the right to keep arms - a long-running and contested debate within the US .
In his first public comments on the gun control issue since the attack , Mr Trump blamed the Democrats for not passing legislation when they controlled Congress during the early years of Barack Obama 's administration .
He also rebuked the FBI for missing signals before Wednesday 's school shooting , after the organisation admitted it had failed to act on a tip-off about the suspected shooter Nikolas Cruz .
Speaking on US television networks on Sunday morning , student survivors from Marjory Stoneman Douglas announced their March for Our Lives campaign .
They are planning to march on Washington on 24 March to demand that children and their families `` become a priority '' to US lawmakers . They want other protests to happen simultaneously in other cities on the same day .
`` We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around , '' Cameron Kasky , a survivor from the school said .
It is one of many student-led protests amassing support on social media in the wake of Wednesday 's attack .
On Saturday students and their parents - as well as politicians - took part in an emotionally-charged rally in Fort Lauderdale , close to Parkland .
Arguably the most memorable moment came when high school student Emma Gonzalez took to the podium and attacked the US president and other politicians for accepting political donations from the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) , a powerful gun rights lobby group .
`` If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and ... how nothing is going to be done about it , I 'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association , '' said Ms Gonzalez .
`` It does n't matter because I already know . Thirty million dollars , '' the 18-year-old said , referring to donations during Mr Trump 's presidential campaign .
`` To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA - shame on you ! '' said Ms Gonzalez , who took cover on the floor of her secondary school 's auditorium during the attack .
According to the Center for Responsive Politics , the NRA spent $ 11.4m ( £8.1m ) supporting Mr Trump in the 2016 campaign , and $ 19.7m opposing Hillary Clinton .
The president 's views on gun control have shifted over time . In recent years , he has pledged to fiercely defend the Second Amendment to the US Constitution , which protects people 's right to keep and bear arms .
Last year , he told an NRA convention he would `` never , ever infringe '' on that right .
In a tweet late on Saturday , the Republican president accused the Democrats of not acting on gun legislation `` when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration .
`` Because they did n't want to , and now they just talk ! '' he wrote , referring to criticism from Democrats following Wednesday 's shooting .
Mr Trump - who on Friday met survivors of the attack - has also blamed the shooter 's mental health and the FBI 's failings .
The US news network CNN has invited Florida lawmakers and the president to attend a town hall event with survivors of the attack on Wednesday .
Saturday 's rally coincided with a gun show in Florida . Hundreds of people attended the event at the Dade County fairgrounds , despite calls to cancel it .
Mr Cruz , 19 , is a former student at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School .
He was reportedly investigated by local police and the Department of Children and Family Services in 2016 after posting evidence of self-harm on the Snapchat app , according to the latest US media reports .
Child services said he had planned to buy a gun , but authorities determined he was already receiving adequate support , the reports say .
The reports come after the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) admitted it did not properly follow up on a tip-off about Mr Cruz last month .
The 5 January tip was not the only information the FBI received . In September , a Mississippi man reported to the law enforcement agency a disturbing comment left on a YouTube video under Mr Cruz 's name .
Florida Governor Rick Scott called for FBI director Christopher Wray to resign over the failures to act .
In a late tweet on Saturday , the President rebuked the organisation for their handling of tip-offs .
`` Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter . This is not acceptable . They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign . ''
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption On Saturday student Emma Gonzalez, an organiser of the march, told lawmakers: "Shame on you!"
Young survivors of Wednesday's school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control.
Student organisers told US media that they were determined to make Wednesday's shooting a turning point in the national gun debate.
The attack, which left 17 students and staff members dead, was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012.
Yesterday protestors chanted "shame on you" to US lawmakers and the president.
Mr Trump said last year he would "never" infringe on the right to keep arms - a long-running and contested debate within the US.
In his first public comments on the gun control issue since the attack, Mr Trump blamed the Democrats for not passing legislation when they controlled Congress during the early years of Barack Obama's administration.
He also rebuked the FBI for missing signals before Wednesday's school shooting, after the organisation admitted it had failed to act on a tip-off about the suspected shooter Nikolas Cruz.
What are the students' plans?
Speaking on US television networks on Sunday morning, student survivors from Marjory Stoneman Douglas announced their March for Our Lives campaign.
They are planning to march on Washington on 24 March to demand that children and their families "become a priority" to US lawmakers. They want other protests to happen simultaneously in other cities on the same day.
"We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around," Cameron Kasky, a survivor from the school said.
It is one of many student-led protests amassing support on social media in the wake of Wednesday's attack.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption The students from Parkland have demanded "never again" in response to the shooting
On Saturday students and their parents - as well as politicians - took part in an emotionally-charged rally in Fort Lauderdale, close to Parkland.
Arguably the most memorable moment came when high school student Emma Gonzalez took to the podium and attacked the US president and other politicians for accepting political donations from the National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful gun rights lobby group.
"If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and... how nothing is going to be done about it, I'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association," said Ms Gonzalez.
"It doesn't matter because I already know. Thirty million dollars," the 18-year-old said, referring to donations during Mr Trump's presidential campaign.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Inside the classroom: 'We watched gunman shoot our friends'
"To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA - shame on you!" said Ms Gonzalez, who took cover on the floor of her secondary school's auditorium during the attack.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent $11.4m (£8.1m) supporting Mr Trump in the 2016 campaign, and $19.7m opposing Hillary Clinton.
What is Mr Trump's stance on gun control?
The president's views on gun control have shifted over time. In recent years, he has pledged to fiercely defend the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects people's right to keep and bear arms.
Last year, he told an NRA convention he would "never, ever infringe" on that right.
In a tweet late on Saturday, the Republican president accused the Democrats of not acting on gun legislation "when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration.
"Because they didn't want to, and now they just talk!" he wrote, referring to criticism from Democrats following Wednesday's shooting.
Mr Trump - who on Friday met survivors of the attack - has also blamed the shooter's mental health and the FBI's failings.
The US news network CNN has invited Florida lawmakers and the president to attend a town hall event with survivors of the attack on Wednesday.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption What has Donald Trump said in the past about guns and gun control?
Saturday's rally coincided with a gun show in Florida. Hundreds of people attended the event at the Dade County fairgrounds, despite calls to cancel it.
What do we know about the suspect?
Mr Cruz, 19, is a former student at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
He was reportedly investigated by local police and the Department of Children and Family Services in 2016 after posting evidence of self-harm on the Snapchat app, according to the latest US media reports.
Child services said he had planned to buy a gun, but authorities determined he was already receiving adequate support, the reports say.
The reports come after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) admitted it did not properly follow up on a tip-off about Mr Cruz last month.
The 5 January tip was not the only information the FBI received. In September, a Mississippi man reported to the law enforcement agency a disturbing comment left on a YouTube video under Mr Cruz's name.
Florida Governor Rick Scott called for FBI director Christopher Wray to resign over the failures to act.
In a late tweet on Saturday, the President rebuked the organisation for their handling of tip-offs.
"Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign."
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
d8C0fNOintd6yBoC
|
||
elections
|
National Review
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331593/why-romney-doesnt-need-poll-lead-ohio-josh-jordan
|
Why Romney Doesn’t Need a Poll Lead in Ohio
|
2012-10-25
|
Josh Jordan, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Jim Geraghty, Alexandra Desanctis, Kevin D. Williamson, Zachary Evans, John Yoo, Kyle Smith, David French
|
The race for Ohio is slowly tightening , but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average ( he is tied in two ) . Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each . Romney is chipping away at Obama ’ s poll lead , but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls . When looking at the polls in Ohio , it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls , or any lead at all .
In the past week Romney has trimmed four-tenths of a point off of his deficit in the RCP average , going from 2.5 to 2.1 , but at the same time , the average party-ID advantage for Democrats in these polls has risen from 5.5 to 6.5 . A big reason for the increase in Democrats ’ share in the polls is due to early voting . If a pollster calls someone who says they voted already , they are automatically passed through the likely-voter screen since they have , after all , voted . The problem with this can be best summed up by Gregory House : “ Everybody lies . ”
Pollsters can only work with what their respondents tell them , and this is the reason that likely-voter screens can be so tricky , though important , in polling . The preferable response is that you are going to vote or , in the case of Ohio , that you ’ ve already voted . Many respondents will say they are going to vote ( or have voted ) when in fact they may not end up doing it ( this effect is known as social-desirability bias ) . For this reason , some likely-voter screens ask about previous elections and general political enthusiasm to gauge the actual likelihood that a voter will end up in the booth on Election Day . But that is where early voting throws the screen out the window — if a voter says they voted , there is nothing a pollster can do to but assume that it ’ s true .
Enter Ohio , where the current estimates from compiling early in-person and absentee voting shows early turnout to be about 15 percent of voters . But responses in the current polls claim that 23 percent of registered voters have already voted . That means that polls are overstating early voting by eight percentage points on average . This could be in part because some voters have requested an absentee ballot and report that as voting , some have mailed in ballots that haven ’ t been counted as received yet , but some voters are also just flat out saying they voted when they haven ’ t . It ’ s impossible to know the exact reason , but it ’ s clear that more are claiming to vote than really have .
In the polls ’ early-voting results , Obama leads on average by 20 points . There are indications that the GOP has shrunk the Democratic advantage in this category significantly from 2008 , but it is unclear how much . Either way , Obama ’ s early-voting advantage gives him a lead that Romney is only scraping away at with his Election Day voter lead . But if pollsters are finding more respondents who are claiming to have already voted than what the records show , some of this early-voter advantage is illusory .
This is why it is increasingly difficult for Romney to show an lead in the Ohio polls . But even with Obama currently enjoying a 2.1 point lead , Romney is still in great shape to win Ohio on Election Day . Here are some of the reasons for the optimism coming from Boston these days :
Romney ’ s strength with independents keeps growing : Last week when Obama led the Real Clear Politics average by 2.5 points , Romney led among independents by an average of 8.7 points . Romney has since increased that lead with independents to 12.3 points , which is why he ’ s been able to cut Obama ’ s overall lead even as the polls have leaned more Democratic . In 2008 Obama beat McCain with independents by eight points . It would be almost impossible for Obama to win Ohio while suffering a 20-point swing among independents .
The polls give Democrats a better turnout advantage than they had in 2008 : As I explained in my last Ohio post , in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points . The current polls show an average of D+6.6 . A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory , while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout . Again , we know it should be very difficult for Democrats to match their 2008 turnout , let alone increase it .
History suggests late deciders will break against the incumbent : This is a rule that always receives some skepticism , but it ’ s very likely to benefit Romney at least some on Election Day . In 2004 , late deciders broke against George W. Bush heavily , even though he was a wartime president . John Kerry beat Bush by 25 points among voters who decided in the last month , 28 points among voters that decided in the three days prior to Election Day , and 22 points among day-of deciders . Those voters were 20 percent of the Ohio electorate ; while this year there are expected to be fewer late deciders , Obama can not afford to lose among by those margins and still win .
In Ohio , Republicans tend to outperform their share of the national vote : In the last nine elections , the GOP has outperformed in Ohio . With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally , it seems much more likely that Obama ’ s lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections .
Strength with crossover voters in Ohio : In addition to Romney ’ s strength with independents , in the past two elections the GOP candidate has won over more Democrat votes than he ’ s lost Republican ones . Obama ’ s Ohio win in 2008 was based entirely on his strength with independents and the wave turnout , both of which are highly unlikely to be repeated in 2012 . If Romney wins with independents by anywhere near the current average he has and takes more crossover voters than Obama does , Obama would need to exceed 2008 turnout greatly to win .
So , with less than two weeks until Election Day we will all know the results soon enough , but as more Ohio polls come in , it is important to remember that the picture for Romney in Ohio is better than many pundits would have us believe . It only takes a quick look at Romney ’ s rallies to remind us it ’ s not 2008 anymore , as Republicans have reclaimed the enthusiasm advantage that led to such sweeping 2008 victories for Democrats . That GOP enthusiasm has become contagious since the debates , and it is exactly what has Team Obama so afraid these days . All they have left to hang their hopes on is a slim lead in the polls , and even that might not be enough on Election Day .
— Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant . You can follow him on Twitter @ Numbersmuncher .
|
The race for Ohio is slowly tightening, but Mitt Romney does not hold a lead in a single poll in the current Real Clear Politics average (he is tied in two). Two polls from Time and CBS/Quinnipiac have grabbed headlines by showing Obama a five-point lead in each. Romney is chipping away at Obama’s poll lead, but the Democratic advantage in party-ID has increased across these polls. When looking at the polls in Ohio, it is becoming entirely possible that Mitt Romney should be able to win Ohio without ever showing a consistent lead in the polls, or any lead at all.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In the past week Romney has trimmed four-tenths of a point off of his deficit in the RCP average, going from 2.5 to 2.1, but at the same time, the average party-ID advantage for Democrats in these polls has risen from 5.5 to 6.5. A big reason for the increase in Democrats’ share in the polls is due to early voting. If a pollster calls someone who says they voted already, they are automatically passed through the likely-voter screen since they have, after all, voted. The problem with this can be best summed up by Gregory House: “Everybody lies.”
Pollsters can only work with what their respondents tell them, and this is the reason that likely-voter screens can be so tricky, though important, in polling. The preferable response is that you are going to vote or, in the case of Ohio, that you’ve already voted. Many respondents will say they are going to vote (or have voted) when in fact they may not end up doing it (this effect is known as social-desirability bias). For this reason, some likely-voter screens ask about previous elections and general political enthusiasm to gauge the actual likelihood that a voter will end up in the booth on Election Day. But that is where early voting throws the screen out the window — if a voter says they voted, there is nothing a pollster can do to but assume that it’s true.
Advertisement
Enter Ohio, where the current estimates from compiling early in-person and absentee voting shows early turnout to be about 15 percent of voters. But responses in the current polls claim that 23 percent of registered voters have already voted. That means that polls are overstating early voting by eight percentage points on average. This could be in part because some voters have requested an absentee ballot and report that as voting, some have mailed in ballots that haven’t been counted as received yet, but some voters are also just flat out saying they voted when they haven’t. It’s impossible to know the exact reason, but it’s clear that more are claiming to vote than really have.
In the polls’ early-voting results, Obama leads on average by 20 points. There are indications that the GOP has shrunk the Democratic advantage in this category significantly from 2008, but it is unclear how much. Either way, Obama’s early-voting advantage gives him a lead that Romney is only scraping away at with his Election Day voter lead. But if pollsters are finding more respondents who are claiming to have already voted than what the records show, some of this early-voter advantage is illusory.
Advertisement
Advertisement
This is why it is increasingly difficult for Romney to show an lead in the Ohio polls. But even with Obama currently enjoying a 2.1 point lead, Romney is still in great shape to win Ohio on Election Day. Here are some of the reasons for the optimism coming from Boston these days:
Romney’s strength with independents keeps growing: Last week when Obama led the Real Clear Politics average by 2.5 points, Romney led among independents by an average of 8.7 points. Romney has since increased that lead with independents to 12.3 points, which is why he’s been able to cut Obama’s overall lead even as the polls have leaned more Democratic. In 2008 Obama beat McCain with independents by eight points. It would be almost impossible for Obama to win Ohio while suffering a 20-point swing among independents.
The polls give Democrats a better turnout advantage than they had in 2008: As I explained in my last Ohio post, in 2008 Democrats beat Republicans in turnout by five points. The current polls show an average of D+6.6. A D+5 turnout in 2008 gave Obama a 4.5-point victory, while he is currently leading by only 2.1 points on an even greater D+6.6 turnout. Again, we know it should be very difficult for Democrats to match their 2008 turnout, let alone increase it.
Advertisement
History suggests late deciders will break against the incumbent: This is a rule that always receives some skepticism, but it’s very likely to benefit Romney at least some on Election Day. In 2004, late deciders broke against George W. Bush heavily, even though he was a wartime president. John Kerry beat Bush by 25 points among voters who decided in the last month, 28 points among voters that decided in the three days prior to Election Day, and 22 points among day-of deciders. Those voters were 20 percent of the Ohio electorate; while this year there are expected to be fewer late deciders, Obama cannot afford to lose among by those margins and still win.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In Ohio, Republicans tend to outperform their share of the national vote: In the last nine elections, the GOP has outperformed in Ohio. With Romney currently running just ahead of Obama nationally, it seems much more likely that Obama’s lead in Ohio has more to do with the higher party-ID advantage than a dramatic shift in Ohio from the past nine elections.
Advertisement
Strength with crossover voters in Ohio: In addition to Romney’s strength with independents, in the past two elections the GOP candidate has won over more Democrat votes than he’s lost Republican ones. Obama’s Ohio win in 2008 was based entirely on his strength with independents and the wave turnout, both of which are highly unlikely to be repeated in 2012. If Romney wins with independents by anywhere near the current average he has and takes more crossover voters than Obama does, Obama would need to exceed 2008 turnout greatly to win.
So, with less than two weeks until Election Day we will all know the results soon enough, but as more Ohio polls come in, it is important to remember that the picture for Romney in Ohio is better than many pundits would have us believe. It only takes a quick look at Romney’s rallies to remind us it’s not 2008 anymore, as Republicans have reclaimed the enthusiasm advantage that led to such sweeping 2008 victories for Democrats. That GOP enthusiasm has become contagious since the debates, and it is exactly what has Team Obama so afraid these days. All they have left to hang their hopes on is a slim lead in the polls, and even that might not be enough on Election Day.
Advertisement
— Josh Jordan is a small-business market-research consultant. You can follow him on Twitter @Numbersmuncher.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
dA0M75p2RtBcN3Qh
|
campaign_finance
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/11/meg-whitman-major-gop-donor-considering-clinton-en/
|
Meg Whitman, major GOP donor, considering Clinton endorsement: reports
|
2016-06-11
|
Andrew Blake
|
One of the Republican Party ’ s biggest financial backers on Friday reportedly suggested she may endorse Hillary Clinton for president instead of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump .
Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman was among those attending a closed-door summit held in Park City , Utah , by former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney , and others at the event told reporters afterwards that the billionaire businesswoman expressed reservations with regards to supporting Mr. Trump ’ s White House bid .
“ She posed the question , ‘ Is it not reasonable to support Hillary Clinton ? ’ given all the awful things Trump has said , ” said John Chachas , a GOP donor who attended Friday ’ s event , ABC News reported .
In discussing Mr. Trump further , Ms. Whitman reportedly compared the presumptive GOP nominee to both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini , attendees told Politico on condition of anonymity .
Speaking with ABC News after the event , however , Ms. Whitman fell short of full-on endorsing the presumptive Democratic nominee for president over Mr. Trump .
“ I haven ’ t made that decision . We ’ ll see , get to the conventions , see who the vice presidential picks are . And then I will make that decision , ” she told ABC News .
Ms. Whitman , 59 , served as CEO of eBay for a decade starting in 1998 before being taking on the same role at HP in 2011 . She unsuccessfully campaigned for governor of California against Democratic incumbent Jerry Brown in the interim , shattering the record for the most money ever spent by a political candidate on a single election , the Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 .
She advised Mr. Romney during his 2012 effort to prevent President Obama from being re-elected president , and supported New Jersey Governor Chris Christie before he dropped out of the GOP race earlier in the election season .
As of last June , Forbes estimated Ms. Whitman ’ s net worth to be valued at roughly $ 2.1 billion .
In a statement provided by campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks , Mr. Trump said he isn ’ t interested in garnering the businesswoman ’ s endorsement .
“ I never met Meg Whitman , but the job she is doing at Hewlett-Packard is not a very good one , ” he told CNN . “ Based on the disastrous campaign she ran in California , and the tens of millions of dollars she wasted , I have learned a lot from her . I do not want her support . ”
Corrected from earlier report which erroneously said Mr. Romney ’ s meeting was in Washington , D.C .
|
One of the Republican Party’s biggest financial backers on Friday reportedly suggested she may endorse Hillary Clinton for president instead of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman was among those attending a closed-door summit held in Park City, Utah, by former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, and others at the event told reporters afterwards that the billionaire businesswoman expressed reservations with regards to supporting Mr. Trump’s White House bid.
“She posed the question, ‘Is it not reasonable to support Hillary Clinton?’ given all the awful things Trump has said,” said John Chachas, a GOP donor who attended Friday’s event, ABC News reported.
In discussing Mr. Trump further, Ms. Whitman reportedly compared the presumptive GOP nominee to both Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, attendees told Politico on condition of anonymity.
Speaking with ABC News after the event, however, Ms. Whitman fell short of full-on endorsing the presumptive Democratic nominee for president over Mr. Trump.
“I haven’t made that decision. We’ll see, get to the conventions, see who the vice presidential picks are. And then I will make that decision,” she told ABC News.
Ms. Whitman, 59, served as CEO of eBay for a decade starting in 1998 before being taking on the same role at HP in 2011. She unsuccessfully campaigned for governor of California against Democratic incumbent Jerry Brown in the interim, shattering the record for the most money ever spent by a political candidate on a single election, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2010.
She advised Mr. Romney during his 2012 effort to prevent President Obama from being re-elected president, and supported New Jersey Governor Chris Christie before he dropped out of the GOP race earlier in the election season.
As of last June, Forbes estimated Ms. Whitman’s net worth to be valued at roughly $2.1 billion.
In a statement provided by campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump said he isn’t interested in garnering the businesswoman’s endorsement.
“I never met Meg Whitman, but the job she is doing at Hewlett-Packard is not a very good one,” he told CNN. “Based on the disastrous campaign she ran in California, and the tens of millions of dollars she wasted, I have learned a lot from her. I do not want her support.”
____
Corrected from earlier report which erroneously said Mr. Romney’s meeting was in Washington, D.C.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
iihsUhxh9sa6bVAt
|
trade
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/archives/2018/06/28/telling-the-truth-on-trade-with-china
|
Telling the Truth on Trade With China
|
2018-06-28
|
Veronique De Rugy, Jacob Sullum, Peter Suderman, Scott Shackford, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm, Eugene Volokh
|
We hear quite a bit of misleading rhetoric against China these days . Let 's grant , for argument 's sake , that the Chinese overproduce steel , dump some of that steel into Canada and Europe before it makes its way to the United States , pilfer intellectual property and have a plan to dominate the world by 2025 . It 's still not a good ███ to protect a few privileged American producers by slapping tariffs on the stuff other U.S. firms use to manufacture their goods—or for the government to restrict the supply of goods that households consume to raise their standard of living .
Since when do free market advocates believe that a communist authoritarian regime like the one in China can successfully and centrally plan and execute economic growth ? These days , newspapers are full of quotes by noted free marketeers who would usually oppose trade barriers such as those put in place by the Trump administration but nevertheless support such barriers because they worry that China 's 2025 `` plan '' will successfully lead to its domination of many industries .
It 's puzzling . George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux correctly commented on this inconsistency by writing that those on the political right who usually believe in markets `` correctly understand that the U.S. government can not out-perform the market at 'picking ' winners , but they … nevertheless believe that foreign governments , especially those governments with authoritarian histories and that currently possess authoritarian powers , are invested with uncanny abilities to improve the performance of their economies with subsidies , trade restraints , and industrial policies . ''
If these guys really believe that such a top-down government-controlled economy can work in China , why not try it here ? And if it works so well in China , why does n't it work in Venezuela or Cuba ?
Also puzzling is the constant refrain about China producing more than it needs . Even if this overcapacity were a boon for China , it would still be to the benefit of millions of American consumers . It lowers costs for thousands of small U.S. manufacturers and steel consumers . But in reality , this `` overproduction '' is a tragedy for the Chinese people because their government 's subsidization of steel production inevitably diverts resources from other areas of the Chinese economy . I do n't hear Americans and Europeans complaining about all the stuff China is n't producing because its government stupidly wants to produce a lot of steel . So the next time you encounter someone lamenting China 's overcapacity , shed a tear or two for the Chinese people and recognize that some American non-steel production might fall if ( and when ) Beijing stops diverting so many resources into Chinese steel factories .
`` But what about American steel producers ? ! '' some plead . If you think trade is the main culprit in the steel-industry woes , think again . For decades , Americans have imported between 25 and 30 percent of our steel . That leaves domestic steel with a healthy 70 to 75 percent of the market . To the extent that steel jobs were lost , the ███ is that American steel executives implemented labor-saving innovations ( read : technology ) just like the rest of the manufacturing industries . These innovations made individual steel workers more productive and raised their wages . As a reminder , steel employment in the United States actually peaked in 1956 , long before China entered in the picture .
`` But the Chinese steal intellectual property from us ! '' others say . Still , the best way to protect the property rights of some Americans—many of whom freely choose to operate in China under these conditions—is n't to impose import taxes ( tariffs ) and thereby penalize millions of American consumers . Such `` retaliation '' by the U.S. government is a policy of picking winners and losers , which is unfair and inefficient . It also puts thousands of other American jobs in jeopardy , exposes us to retaliation and causes U.S. companies ( like Harley-Davidson ) to move their production abroad . The best solutions use international organizations to challenge China 's actions and form alliances with like-minded allies .
I hope you wo n't read this piece as a defense of the Chinese regime . There 's no excuse for the way it treats its people , abuses human rights and deprives the Chinese from free market economic policies . However , many of the arguments levied against China as they relate to trade either misidentify the true victims or advocate the wrong remedies . And let 's not forget that new U.S. trade and investment restrictions wo n't make China more like us , but more government control over the U.S. economy will make us more like China .
|
We hear quite a bit of misleading rhetoric against China these days. Let's grant, for argument's sake, that the Chinese overproduce steel, dump some of that steel into Canada and Europe before it makes its way to the United States, pilfer intellectual property and have a plan to dominate the world by 2025. It's still not a good reason to protect a few privileged American producers by slapping tariffs on the stuff other U.S. firms use to manufacture their goods—or for the government to restrict the supply of goods that households consume to raise their standard of living.
Since when do free market advocates believe that a communist authoritarian regime like the one in China can successfully and centrally plan and execute economic growth? These days, newspapers are full of quotes by noted free marketeers who would usually oppose trade barriers such as those put in place by the Trump administration but nevertheless support such barriers because they worry that China's 2025 "plan" will successfully lead to its domination of many industries.
It's puzzling. George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux correctly commented on this inconsistency by writing that those on the political right who usually believe in markets "correctly understand that the U.S. government cannot out-perform the market at 'picking' winners, but they … nevertheless believe that foreign governments, especially those governments with authoritarian histories and that currently possess authoritarian powers, are invested with uncanny abilities to improve the performance of their economies with subsidies, trade restraints, and industrial policies."
If these guys really believe that such a top-down government-controlled economy can work in China, why not try it here? And if it works so well in China, why doesn't it work in Venezuela or Cuba?
Also puzzling is the constant refrain about China producing more than it needs. Even if this overcapacity were a boon for China, it would still be to the benefit of millions of American consumers. It lowers costs for thousands of small U.S. manufacturers and steel consumers. But in reality, this "overproduction" is a tragedy for the Chinese people because their government's subsidization of steel production inevitably diverts resources from other areas of the Chinese economy. I don't hear Americans and Europeans complaining about all the stuff China isn't producing because its government stupidly wants to produce a lot of steel. So the next time you encounter someone lamenting China's overcapacity, shed a tear or two for the Chinese people and recognize that some American non-steel production might fall if (and when) Beijing stops diverting so many resources into Chinese steel factories.
"But what about American steel producers?!" some plead. If you think trade is the main culprit in the steel-industry woes, think again. For decades, Americans have imported between 25 and 30 percent of our steel. That leaves domestic steel with a healthy 70 to 75 percent of the market. To the extent that steel jobs were lost, the reason is that American steel executives implemented labor-saving innovations (read: technology) just like the rest of the manufacturing industries. These innovations made individual steel workers more productive and raised their wages. As a reminder, steel employment in the United States actually peaked in 1956, long before China entered in the picture.
"But the Chinese steal intellectual property from us!" others say. Still, the best way to protect the property rights of some Americans—many of whom freely choose to operate in China under these conditions—isn't to impose import taxes (tariffs) and thereby penalize millions of American consumers. Such "retaliation" by the U.S. government is a policy of picking winners and losers, which is unfair and inefficient. It also puts thousands of other American jobs in jeopardy, exposes us to retaliation and causes U.S. companies (like Harley-Davidson) to move their production abroad. The best solutions use international organizations to challenge China's actions and form alliances with like-minded allies.
I hope you won't read this piece as a defense of the Chinese regime. There's no excuse for the way it treats its people, abuses human rights and deprives the Chinese from free market economic policies. However, many of the arguments levied against China as they relate to trade either misidentify the true victims or advocate the wrong remedies. And let's not forget that new U.S. trade and investment restrictions won't make China more like us, but more government control over the U.S. economy will make us more like China.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
P1TaZbuJ94tebjVY
|
free_speech
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/459647-count-on-trump-to-defend-free-speech-from-global-censorship
|
Count on Trump to defend free speech from global censorship
|
2019-09-02
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpAmash calls McCarthy incompetent , dishonest after '60 Minutes ' interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment '60 Minutes ' correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE deserves enormous credit for his exceptional and unwavering commitment to free speech at the recent Group of Seven summit in France . Foreign leaders , like liberal activists in the United States , are chomping at the bit to introduce more online censorship .
At the meeting of the leading democracies , European leaders introduced a new measure that would draft technology companies into the role of government censors , forcing them to police online content and remove anything that bureaucrats deem to be insensitive . Emmanuel Macron struggled in vain to conceal his disappointment as he announced the United States had refused to sign on to his crackdown on online speech , which would have institutionalized the exact same kind of discriminatory treatment that American conservatives are fighting against here at home .
By refusing to sign on to the repressive accord , President Trump took a crucial stand in defense of one of the basic tenets of democracy . The traditional conception of free speech , that governments can not prevent citizens from expressing their opinions or punish them for doing so , once reigned supreme across the Western world . From its roots in the Magna Carta , to its refinement in the works of John Locke , to its codification in the First Amendment of the Constitution , freedom of speech could be the greatest contribution Anglo Americans have made to human civilization .
In the aftermath of the totalitarian horrors of the 20th century , freedom of speech was embraced by all of the countries that now make up the G-7 . It was even enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights . Unfortunately , freedom of speech has come under siege , especially in Europe , as governments seek to eradicate “ hate ” and “ offensiveness ” at the expense of the right of their own citizens to express themselves .
In the United Kingdom , the birthplace of freedom of speech , thousands of people have been arrested and prosecuted for social media posts , often at the behest of liberal activists . In France , which embraced freedom of speech later but with much more popular enthusiasm , people have for decades faced prosecution for “ inciting hatred ” through free speech .
Now , along with the German government led by Angela Merkel , President Macron is trying to create a system of mandatory censorship by imposing an affirmative duty on social media platforms to remove speech deemed hateful or offensive . Through the mechanism of the G-7 , these very same governments sought to impose such a system on an international level .
President Trump , however , stayed true to the unshakable principles of the First Amendment , and his actions in France have positioned the United States as the last bastion of hope for liberal democracy . A lesser leader might have caved to pressures from the media and “ woke ” academic and cultural elites who share in the European goal of quashing free speech .
Americans should be grateful that President Trump rose to the occasion and ignored the hectoring . So long as he remains in the White House , the United States will stand as a resolute defender of core democratic values such as freedom of speech , even if our nation has to stand on its own .
Madison Gesiotto is an attorney and a commentator who serves with the advisory board of the Donald Trump campaign . She was an inauguration spokesperson and former Miss Ohio . She is on Twitter @ MadisonGesiotto .
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpAmash calls McCarthy incompetent, dishonest after '60 Minutes' interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment '60 Minutes' correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE deserves enormous credit for his exceptional and unwavering commitment to free speech at the recent Group of Seven summit in France. Foreign leaders, like liberal activists in the United States, are chomping at the bit to introduce more online censorship.
At the meeting of the leading democracies, European leaders introduced a new measure that would draft technology companies into the role of government censors, forcing them to police online content and remove anything that bureaucrats deem to be insensitive. Emmanuel Macron struggled in vain to conceal his disappointment as he announced the United States had refused to sign on to his crackdown on online speech, which would have institutionalized the exact same kind of discriminatory treatment that American conservatives are fighting against here at home.
By refusing to sign on to the repressive accord, President Trump took a crucial stand in defense of one of the basic tenets of democracy. The traditional conception of free speech, that governments cannot prevent citizens from expressing their opinions or punish them for doing so, once reigned supreme across the Western world. From its roots in the Magna Carta, to its refinement in the works of John Locke, to its codification in the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech could be the greatest contribution Anglo Americans have made to human civilization.
ADVERTISEMENT
In the aftermath of the totalitarian horrors of the 20th century, freedom of speech was embraced by all of the countries that now make up the G-7. It was even enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, freedom of speech has come under siege, especially in Europe, as governments seek to eradicate “hate” and “offensiveness” at the expense of the right of their own citizens to express themselves.
In the United Kingdom, the birthplace of freedom of speech, thousands of people have been arrested and prosecuted for social media posts, often at the behest of liberal activists. In France, which embraced freedom of speech later but with much more popular enthusiasm, people have for decades faced prosecution for “inciting hatred” through free speech.
Now, along with the German government led by Angela Merkel, President Macron is trying to create a system of mandatory censorship by imposing an affirmative duty on social media platforms to remove speech deemed hateful or offensive. Through the mechanism of the G-7, these very same governments sought to impose such a system on an international level.
President Trump, however, stayed true to the unshakable principles of the First Amendment, and his actions in France have positioned the United States as the last bastion of hope for liberal democracy. A lesser leader might have caved to pressures from the media and “woke” academic and cultural elites who share in the European goal of quashing free speech.
Americans should be grateful that President Trump rose to the occasion and ignored the hectoring. So long as he remains in the White House, the United States will stand as a resolute defender of core democratic values such as freedom of speech, even if our nation has to stand on its own.
Madison Gesiotto is an attorney and a commentator who serves with the advisory board of the Donald Trump campaign. She was an inauguration spokesperson and former Miss Ohio. She is on Twitter @MadisonGesiotto.
|
www.thehill.com
| 1right
|
dx4Qd4rbUbHoSKy9
|
|
environment
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/worlds-consumption-of-materials-hits-record-100bn-tonnes-a-year
|
World’s consumption of materials hits record 100bn tonnes a year
|
2020-01-22
|
Damian Carrington
|
Unsustainable use of resources is wrecking the planet but recycling is falling , report finds
The amount of material consumed by humanity has passed 100bn tonnes every year , a report has revealed , but the proportion being recycled is falling .
The climate and wildlife emergencies are driven by the unsustainable extraction of fossil fuels , metals , building materials and trees . The report ’ s authors warn that treating the world ’ s resources as limitless is leading towards global disaster .
The materials used by the global economy have quadrupled since 1970 , far faster than the population , which has doubled . In the last two years , consumption has jumped by more than 8 % but the reuse of resources has fallen from 9.1 % to 8.6 % .
The report , by the Circle Economy thinktank , was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos . It shows that , on average , every person on Earth uses more than 13 tonnes of materials per year . But the report also found that some nations are making steps towards circular economies in which renewable energy underpins systems where waste and pollution are reduced to zero .
“ We risk global disaster if we continue to treat the world ’ s resources as if they are limitless , ” said Harald Friedl , the chief executive of Circle Economy . “ Governments must urgently adopt circular economy solutions if we want to achieve a high quality of life for close to 10bn people by mid-century without destabilising critical planetary processes . ”
Marc de Wit , the report ’ s lead author , said : “ We are still fuelling our growth in population and affluence by the extraction of virgin materials . We can ’ t do this indefinitely – our hunger for virgin material needs to be halted . ”
Trump blasts 'prophets of doom ' in attack on climate activism Read more
The report found that 100.6bn tonnes of materials were consumed in 2017 , the latest year for which data is available . Half of the total is sand , clay , gravel and cement used for building , along with the other minerals quarried to produce fertiliser . Coal , oil and gas make up 15 % and metal ores 10 % . The final quarter are the plants and trees used for food and fuel .
The lion ’ s share of the materials – 40 % – is turned into housing . Other major categories include food , transport , healthcare , communications , and consumer goods such as clothes and furniture .
Almost a third of the annual materials remain in use after a year , such as buildings and vehicles . But 15 % is emitted into the atmosphere as climate-heating gases and nearly a quarter is discarded into the environment , such as plastic in waterways and oceans . A third of the materials is treated as waste , mostly going to landfill and mining spoil heaps . Just 8.6 % is recycled .
“ This report sparks an alarm for all governments , ” said Carolina Schmidt , Chile ’ s environment minister . “ We need to deploy all the policies to really catalyse this transformation [ to a circular economy ] . ”
Cristianne Close of the conservation group WWF said : “ The circular economy provides a framework for reducing our impacts , protecting ecosystems and living within the means of one planet . ”
The report said increasing recycling can make economies more competitive , improve living conditions and help to meet emissions targets and avoid deforestation . It reported that 13 European countries have adopted circular economy roadmaps , including France , Germany and Spain , and that Colombia became the first Latin American country to launch a similar policy in 2019 .
China ’ s ban on waste imports aims to encourage domestic recycling , the report said , but has also stimulated the development of circular economy strategies in Australia and other countries which previously exported their waste to China .
Janez Potočnik , a former European environment commissioner and the co-chair of the UN Environment Programme international resource panel , said the world needed to learn to do more with less and replace ownership with sharing , as is increasingly being seen with cars .
|
Unsustainable use of resources is wrecking the planet but recycling is falling, report finds
The amount of material consumed by humanity has passed 100bn tonnes every year, a report has revealed, but the proportion being recycled is falling.
The climate and wildlife emergencies are driven by the unsustainable extraction of fossil fuels, metals, building materials and trees. The report’s authors warn that treating the world’s resources as limitless is leading towards global disaster.
The materials used by the global economy have quadrupled since 1970, far faster than the population, which has doubled. In the last two years, consumption has jumped by more than 8% but the reuse of resources has fallen from 9.1% to 8.6%.
The report, by the Circle Economy thinktank, was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos. It shows that, on average, every person on Earth uses more than 13 tonnes of materials per year. But the report also found that some nations are making steps towards circular economies in which renewable energy underpins systems where waste and pollution are reduced to zero.
“We risk global disaster if we continue to treat the world’s resources as if they are limitless,” said Harald Friedl, the chief executive of Circle Economy. “Governments must urgently adopt circular economy solutions if we want to achieve a high quality of life for close to 10bn people by mid-century without destabilising critical planetary processes.”
Marc de Wit, the report’s lead author, said: “We are still fuelling our growth in population and affluence by the extraction of virgin materials. We can’t do this indefinitely – our hunger for virgin material needs to be halted.”
Trump blasts 'prophets of doom' in attack on climate activism Read more
The report found that 100.6bn tonnes of materials were consumed in 2017, the latest year for which data is available. Half of the total is sand, clay, gravel and cement used for building, along with the other minerals quarried to produce fertiliser. Coal, oil and gas make up 15% and metal ores 10%. The final quarter are the plants and trees used for food and fuel.
The lion’s share of the materials – 40% – is turned into housing. Other major categories include food, transport, healthcare, communications, and consumer goods such as clothes and furniture.
Almost a third of the annual materials remain in use after a year, such as buildings and vehicles. But 15% is emitted into the atmosphere as climate-heating gases and nearly a quarter is discarded into the environment, such as plastic in waterways and oceans. A third of the materials is treated as waste, mostly going to landfill and mining spoil heaps. Just 8.6% is recycled.
“This report sparks an alarm for all governments,” said Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s environment minister. “We need to deploy all the policies to really catalyse this transformation [to a circular economy].”
Cristianne Close of the conservation group WWF said: “The circular economy provides a framework for reducing our impacts, protecting ecosystems and living within the means of one planet.”
The report said increasing recycling can make economies more competitive, improve living conditions and help to meet emissions targets and avoid deforestation. It reported that 13 European countries have adopted circular economy roadmaps, including France, Germany and Spain, and that Colombia became the first Latin American country to launch a similar policy in 2019.
China’s ban on waste imports aims to encourage domestic recycling, the report said, but has also stimulated the development of circular economy strategies in Australia and other countries which previously exported their waste to China.
Janez Potočnik, a former European environment commissioner and the co-chair of the UN Environment Programme international resource panel, said the world needed to learn to do more with less and replace ownership with sharing, as is increasingly being seen with cars.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
5iyKmpQH4vDK928f
|
middle_east
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/barack-obama-syria-110361.html?hp=t1
|
Déjà vu for Barack Obama in Syria
|
2014-08-27
|
Jeremy Herb, Philip Ewing
|
Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis . Déjà vu for Obama in Syria
Barack Obama has a bad case of Syria déjà vu .
Nearly one year after he stood at the brink of ordering military action against Syria — but said he ’ d only step across if Congress agreed — the president finds himself in an eerily similar situation .
Then , as now , the world has been horrified by violence in the region . Then , as now , the drumbeat of increased military operations has grown louder . And then , as now , a president whose political rise was partly defined by his opposition to interventions abroad must decide whether to escalate American involvement , either on his own or with permission from Congress .
So Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis : worried about political support on Capitol Hill for a vote on intervention and held back by his own visceral resistance to unilateral military action .
The White House , for the record , says this is not the same dilemma Obama faced last Labor Day .
“ The goal of the mission from last year was aimed squarely at the [ Bashar ] Assad regime , ” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest . “ The situation a year later is markedly different . ”
Last year , the White House argues , the question was whether the U.S. should put its combat boot onto the scales of the Syrian civil war , tipping them in favor of moderate fighters in their struggle against Assad , Syria ’ s president . Now , the question is whether the U.S. should expand to Syria its current operations in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant , which Pentagon and other leaders warn is an ever-growing threat to the U.S .
“ They can be contained . Not in perpetuity , ” said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey . “ This is an organization that has an apocalyptic , end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated . … Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria ? The answer is no . That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border . ”
Already , military surveillance flights over Syria have begun , according to reports on Tuesday , enabling commanders to get a real-time picture of what ’ s happening on the ground and select potential targets if they get the order .
Members of Congress are feeling déjà vu of their own — now , like last year , they are worried about the prospect of a tough vote to authorize an attack in Syria . Defense advocates already complain that Obama has done nothing to sell his plan to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels , and even some of his own allies worry he will put in a similarly lackluster effort if he decides to order an attack sooner .
“ I urge the administration to use the next two weeks to clearly define the strategy and objectives of its mission against ISIL , then bring it to Congress for a debate and authorization vote , ” said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia . “ I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action — it is what the framers of the Constitution intended , and Congress and the executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in support of our military mission . ”
Like last year , Republican defense hawks have repeatedly urged Obama to do more militarily and have lambasted the White House for not taking strong enough action — even after Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq .
|
Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis. Déjà vu for Obama in Syria
Barack Obama has a bad case of Syria déjà vu.
Nearly one year after he stood at the brink of ordering military action against Syria — but said he’d only step across if Congress agreed — the president finds himself in an eerily similar situation.
Story Continued Below
Then, as now, the world has been horrified by violence in the region. Then, as now, the drumbeat of increased military operations has grown louder. And then, as now, a president whose political rise was partly defined by his opposition to interventions abroad must decide whether to escalate American involvement, either on his own or with permission from Congress.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama to James Foley's killers: 'America does not forget')
So Obama is once again stuck on a national security crisis: worried about political support on Capitol Hill for a vote on intervention and held back by his own visceral resistance to unilateral military action.
The White House, for the record, says this is not the same dilemma Obama faced last Labor Day.
“The goal of the mission from last year was aimed squarely at the [Bashar] Assad regime,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “The situation a year later is markedly different.”
Last year, the White House argues, the question was whether the U.S. should put its combat boot onto the scales of the Syrian civil war, tipping them in favor of moderate fighters in their struggle against Assad, Syria’s president. Now, the question is whether the U.S. should expand to Syria its current operations in Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which Pentagon and other leaders warn is an ever-growing threat to the U.S.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama vows to remove ISIL 'cancer')
“They can be contained. Not in perpetuity,” said Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. “This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated. … Can they be defeated without addressing that part of their organization which resides in Syria? The answer is no. That will have to be addressed on both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.”
Already, military surveillance flights over Syria have begun, according to reports on Tuesday, enabling commanders to get a real-time picture of what’s happening on the ground and select potential targets if they get the order.
Members of Congress are feeling déjà vu of their own — now, like last year, they are worried about the prospect of a tough vote to authorize an attack in Syria. Defense advocates already complain that Obama has done nothing to sell his plan to arm and train vetted Syrian rebels, and even some of his own allies worry he will put in a similarly lackluster effort if he decides to order an attack sooner.
( Also on POLITICO: Candidate uses Foley video in ad)
“I urge the administration to use the next two weeks to clearly define the strategy and objectives of its mission against ISIL, then bring it to Congress for a debate and authorization vote,” said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. “I have long stressed that Congress must formally approve the initiation of significant military action — it is what the framers of the Constitution intended, and Congress and the executive have a responsibility to do the hard work to build a political consensus in support of our military mission.”
Like last year, Republican defense hawks have repeatedly urged Obama to do more militarily and have lambasted the White House for not taking strong enough action — even after Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
8nUzNmxI2WCKUg7n
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/19/trump-interview-mail-voting-329307
|
‘My biggest risk’: Trump says mail-in voting could cost him reelection
|
2020-06-19
|
But Trump and his campaign argue , despite a lack of evidence , that widespread mail-in voting will benefit Democrats and invite fraud . The Republican Party is spending tens of millions of dollars on a multifront legal battle .
“ My biggest risk is that we don ’ t win lawsuits , ” Trump said . “ We have many lawsuits going all over . And if we don ’ t win those lawsuits , I think — I think it puts the election at risk . ”
Trump was asked a two-part question during the interview : Would a substantial amount of mail-in voting — which is widely expected because of coronavirus — cause him to question the legitimacy of the election ? And would he accept the results no matter what ?
“ Well , you can never answer the second question , right ? Because Hillary kept talking about she ’ s going to accept , and they never accepted it . You know . She lost too . She lost good. ” Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election .
Trump struck a firmer note last week in an interview with Fox News , when he said he would leave office peacefully if he lost .
The president ’ s rare admission of concern about his political future comes at the most precarious moment of his presidency . Polls have shown the president trailing in an array of key states — some of which haven ’ t been lost by a Republican in decades — amid criticism of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his response to the protests against police brutality .
Now , with Republicans fighting to keep their Senate majority , lawmakers running in competitive races are having to decide whether to align themselves with the president or risk his wrath by creating daylight . Trump made clear those who choose the latter will pay a heavy price .
Joined by top aides , including his son-in-law Jared Kushner , Trump put Senate Republicans on notice : Running away from him would only trigger a revolt by his loyalists .
“ If they don ’ t embrace , they ’ re going to lose , because , you know , I have a very hard base . I have the strongest base people have ever seen , ” said Trump , who met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week to discuss the party ’ s prospects in key Senate races .
Trump is keenly aware of how he stacks up against other Republicans on the ballot this fall . At one point during the interview , White House Political Director Brian Jack handed the president a document showing how he had fared better in several primaries this spring than a handful of Republican senators he shared the ballot with in their home states . Included on the chart was North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis , one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents up for reelection this November . While Tillis received 78 percent in the state 's March primary , Trump got 94 percent , it noted .
`` Wow , that ’ s great in North Carolina , huh ? '' Trump remarked as he looked over the sheet .
Senate Republicans have largely remained in lockstep with the president , but there have been a few exceptions . Maine Sen. Susan Collins , one of the party ’ s most vulnerable lawmakers , has yet to say whether she backs Trump ’ s reelection and didn ’ t appear with him when he visited her home state last week . Michigan GOP Senate candidate John James recently told black community leaders that he disagreed with Trump on “ plenty , plenty of issues . ”
███ NEWSLETTERS ███ Playbook Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics . Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .
During the interview , Trump rattled off a list of senators who lost their seats after separating themselves from him . He recalled ending the political careers of Tennessee Republican Bob Corker ( “ So , anyway , I went after him , ” he said . “ No longer a senator. ” ) and Arizona Republican Jeff Flake ( “ He went from 54 percent to 3. ” ) . Nevada Republican Dean Heller “ went down ” in the general election ( “ How did it work out for the great senator of Nevada ? Not too good. ” ) .
“ We will , on occasion , have some senators that want to be cute , ” he said . “ And they don ’ t want to embrace their president . ”
Much of the president ’ s focus , though , was on his own race . He portrayed Biden as a weaker candidate than Clinton . Clinton , Trump said , was “ obviously smarter '' than Biden . And after savaging Clinton for having `` no stamina '' in 2016 , the president indicated he thought she had more energy than the 77-year-old Biden .
`` I can tell you a lot about Hillary , '' Trump said . `` She had a lot of energy and she was smart . ''
Even as coronavirus cases are rising in many places , the president insisted the virus is on the decline . He said it is “ heading south '' — `` meaning leaving. ” Days before his first major rally during the pandemic , Trump accused Biden ’ s campaign of using coronavirus as an excuse to shield him from public scrutiny , including questions from the media .
`` We haven ’ t really seen the real Joe because they have him — they ’ re hiding him , '' Trump said . Biden and his campaign say he 's acting responsibly and heeding the advice of public health experts .
Trump was clearly fixated on the forthcoming tell-all book by former national security adviser John Bolton . He described Bolton as a “ whack job ” and a “ sick customer ” and said that “ everybody thought he was totally nuts. ” He recalled having a conversation with Bolton in which the former adviser defended his outspoken support for the Iraq War .
“ I said , ‘ John , honestly , if you believe that now — I could understand maybe at the time — but if you believe that now , there ’ s something seriously wrong with you , ’ ” Trump said .
As he was wrapping up the interview , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin entered the Oval Office to summon Trump for a meeting with the governors of Nebraska and Oklahoma . Before they headed out , Trump looked over a critical review of the Bolton book and the two reveled in the drubbing . The president appeared very pleased .
|
But Trump and his campaign argue, despite a lack of evidence, that widespread mail-in voting will benefit Democrats and invite fraud. The Republican Party is spending tens of millions of dollars on a multifront legal battle.
“My biggest risk is that we don’t win lawsuits,” Trump said. “We have many lawsuits going all over. And if we don’t win those lawsuits, I think — I think it puts the election at risk.”
Trump was asked a two-part question during the interview: Would a substantial amount of mail-in voting — which is widely expected because of coronavirus — cause him to question the legitimacy of the election? And would he accept the results no matter what?
“Well, you can never answer the second question, right? Because Hillary kept talking about she’s going to accept, and they never accepted it. You know. She lost too. She lost good.” Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election.
Trump struck a firmer note last week in an interview with Fox News, when he said he would leave office peacefully if he lost.
The president’s rare admission of concern about his political future comes at the most precarious moment of his presidency. Polls have shown the president trailing in an array of key states — some of which haven’t been lost by a Republican in decades — amid criticism of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his response to the protests against police brutality.
Now, with Republicans fighting to keep their Senate majority, lawmakers running in competitive races are having to decide whether to align themselves with the president or risk his wrath by creating daylight. Trump made clear those who choose the latter will pay a heavy price.
Joined by top aides, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump put Senate Republicans on notice: Running away from him would only trigger a revolt by his loyalists.
“If they don’t embrace, they’re going to lose, because, you know, I have a very hard base. I have the strongest base people have ever seen,” said Trump, who met with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week to discuss the party’s prospects in key Senate races.
Trump is keenly aware of how he stacks up against other Republicans on the ballot this fall. At one point during the interview, White House Political Director Brian Jack handed the president a document showing how he had fared better in several primaries this spring than a handful of Republican senators he shared the ballot with in their home states. Included on the chart was North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents up for reelection this November. While Tillis received 78 percent in the state's March primary, Trump got 94 percent, it noted.
"Wow, that’s great in North Carolina, huh?" Trump remarked as he looked over the sheet.
Senate Republicans have largely remained in lockstep with the president, but there have been a few exceptions. Maine Sen. Susan Collins, one of the party’s most vulnerable lawmakers, has yet to say whether she backs Trump’s reelection and didn’t appear with him when he visited her home state last week. Michigan GOP Senate candidate John James recently told black community leaders that he disagreed with Trump on “plenty, plenty of issues.”
POLITICO NEWSLETTERS POLITICO Playbook Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
During the interview, Trump rattled off a list of senators who lost their seats after separating themselves from him. He recalled ending the political careers of Tennessee Republican Bob Corker (“So, anyway, I went after him,” he said. “No longer a senator.”) and Arizona Republican Jeff Flake (“He went from 54 percent to 3.”). Nevada Republican Dean Heller “went down” in the general election (“How did it work out for the great senator of Nevada? Not too good.”).
“We will, on occasion, have some senators that want to be cute,” he said. “And they don’t want to embrace their president.”
Much of the president’s focus, though, was on his own race. He portrayed Biden as a weaker candidate than Clinton. Clinton, Trump said, was “obviously smarter" than Biden. And after savaging Clinton for having "no stamina" in 2016, the president indicated he thought she had more energy than the 77-year-old Biden.
"I can tell you a lot about Hillary," Trump said. "She had a lot of energy and she was smart."
Even as coronavirus cases are rising in many places, the president insisted the virus is on the decline. He said it is “heading south" — "meaning leaving.” Days before his first major rally during the pandemic, Trump accused Biden’s campaign of using coronavirus as an excuse to shield him from public scrutiny, including questions from the media.
"We haven’t really seen the real Joe because they have him — they’re hiding him," Trump said. Biden and his campaign say he's acting responsibly and heeding the advice of public health experts.
Trump was clearly fixated on the forthcoming tell-all book by former national security adviser John Bolton. He described Bolton as a “whack job” and a “sick customer” and said that “everybody thought he was totally nuts.” He recalled having a conversation with Bolton in which the former adviser defended his outspoken support for the Iraq War.
“I said, ‘John, honestly, if you believe that now — I could understand maybe at the time — but if you believe that now, there’s something seriously wrong with you,’” Trump said.
As he was wrapping up the interview, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin entered the Oval Office to summon Trump for a meeting with the governors of Nebraska and Oklahoma. Before they headed out, Trump looked over a critical review of the Bolton book and the two reveled in the drubbing. The president appeared very pleased.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
JCh0l5Dy0Ea2WbQ7
|
|
us_military
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/07/iraq-haditha-air-strikes-anbar-islamic-state/15237691/
|
U.S. military expands airstrikes in western Iraq
|
2014-09-07
|
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military launched airstrikes to protect a dam in western Iraq , the Pentagon announced Sunday , in another expansion of the air campaign against the Islamic State , the militant group that has seized territory throughout Iraq and Syria .
U.S. aircraft launched airstrikes against Islamic State targets around the Haditha Dam , a hydroelectric facility on the Euphrates River , Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby , the Pentagon press secretary , said in a statement . The military said the new strikes are in keeping with the Pentagon 's mission to support humanitarian operations and protect U.S. personnel .
`` We conducted these strikes to prevent terrorists from further threatening the security of the dam , which remains under control of Iraqi security forces , with support from Sunni tribes , '' Kirby said .
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the dam is the second-largest hydroelectric contributor to the country 's powers system .
`` Destruction of the dam or release of water would create a level of flooding that would potentially pose a catastrophic threat to thousands of Iraqis , '' she said in a statement .
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel , speaking in Georgia where he 's meeting with government and defense officials , however , rejected the suggestion that the strikes open a new front in the war against the Islamic State or that they represent an escalation of U.S. military operations , according to the Associated Press .
The announcement comes after President Obama said Friday the United States was prepared to `` take the fight '' to the militant group , which threatens to destabilize the region and could present a threat to the West .
A mix of fighters and bombers conducted four airstrikes Saturday to help defend the dam , U.S. Central Command said . The strikes destroyed five Humvees , one armed vehicle , a checkpoint and damaged a bunker , according to the command .
The new strikes represent the first shift toward targets in western Iraq , a largely Sunni region that is currently a patchwork of conflicting loyalties .
Some Sunnis have supported the Islamic State as a bulwark against the Shiite-dominated government . But tribes have taken different stands in the face of the militant offensive . Some tribes are fighting against the militants and others are supporting the Islamic State or are remaining neutral .
Tribes in the Haditha dam region have been fighting against the militants for months . The U.S. military said the dam remains in the hands of tribes working in support of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces .
The U.S. air campaign began Aug. 8 and has slowly expanded as it has taken on more missions . U.S. planes have pounded targets around the Mosul Dam , allowing a combination of Iraqi counterterrorist forces and Kurdish peshmerga fighters to take the facility back from Islamic State militants .
U.S. aircraft also targeted militants around Mount Sinjar , where a religious minority had taken refuge after militants had overrun their community . More recently , U.S. aircraft also helped break the siege of Amerli , a Shiite Turkmen town .
The U.S. military has conducted 138 airstrikes in Iraq since the air campaign began .
|
Jim Michaels
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military launched airstrikes to protect a dam in western Iraq, the Pentagon announced Sunday, in another expansion of the air campaign against the Islamic State, the militant group that has seized territory throughout Iraq and Syria.
U.S. aircraft launched airstrikes against Islamic State targets around the Haditha Dam, a hydroelectric facility on the Euphrates River, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement. The military said the new strikes are in keeping with the Pentagon's mission to support humanitarian operations and protect U.S. personnel.
"We conducted these strikes to prevent terrorists from further threatening the security of the dam, which remains under control of Iraqi security forces, with support from Sunni tribes," Kirby said.
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the dam is the second-largest hydroelectric contributor to the country's powers system.
"Destruction of the dam or release of water would create a level of flooding that would potentially pose a catastrophic threat to thousands of Iraqis," she said in a statement.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, speaking in Georgia where he's meeting with government and defense officials, however, rejected the suggestion that the strikes open a new front in the war against the Islamic State or that they represent an escalation of U.S. military operations, according to the Associated Press.
The announcement comes after President Obama said Friday the United States was prepared to "take the fight" to the militant group, which threatens to destabilize the region and could present a threat to the West.
A mix of fighters and bombers conducted four airstrikes Saturday to help defend the dam, U.S. Central Command said. The strikes destroyed five Humvees, one armed vehicle, a checkpoint and damaged a bunker, according to the command.
The new strikes represent the first shift toward targets in western Iraq, a largely Sunni region that is currently a patchwork of conflicting loyalties.
Some Sunnis have supported the Islamic State as a bulwark against the Shiite-dominated government. But tribes have taken different stands in the face of the militant offensive. Some tribes are fighting against the militants and others are supporting the Islamic State or are remaining neutral.
Tribes in the Haditha dam region have been fighting against the militants for months. The U.S. military said the dam remains in the hands of tribes working in support of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces.
The U.S. air campaign began Aug. 8 and has slowly expanded as it has taken on more missions. U.S. planes have pounded targets around the Mosul Dam, allowing a combination of Iraqi counterterrorist forces and Kurdish peshmerga fighters to take the facility back from Islamic State militants.
U.S. aircraft also targeted militants around Mount Sinjar, where a religious minority had taken refuge after militants had overrun their community. More recently, U.S. aircraft also helped break the siege of Amerli, a Shiite Turkmen town.
The U.S. military has conducted 138 airstrikes in Iraq since the air campaign began.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
yvzW8HuNjJLLA88s
|
|
elections
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/us/politics/obama-adds-a-fresh-metaphor-to-a-familiar-campaign-message.html?ref=politics
|
Adding a Fresh Metaphor to a Familiar Campaign Message
|
2012-06-14
|
Helene Cooper
|
“ I want you all to pay attention over the next five months and see if they ’ re offering a single thing that they did not try when they were in charge , because you won ’ t see it , ” Mr. Obama told the crowd on Tuesday night at a Philadelphia fund-raiser . “ It will be the same stuff . The same okey-dokey . ”
But , as the furor created last week over Mr. Obama ’ s remark that the private sector is “ doing fine ” demonstrated , the president must walk a tightrope whenever he talks about the economy .
He wants to show how the steps that he has taken over the past three years — the stimulus , the auto bailout — have helped to bring the economy out of the trough that greeted him on his inauguration . But he can not go too far in sounding optimistic — as he did with the “ doing fine ” business last week — or he sounds clueless and out of touch .
At the same time , Mr. Obama does not want to sound too grim either , lest he find himself in Jimmy Carter territory circa 1979-80 , when Mr. Carter ’ s talk of economic malaise helped sink his re-election .
So Mr. Obama ends up falling back — again and again — on the Barack Obama Defensive Offensive — which largely means , blame the Republicans . And while that strategy is not necessarily doomed to fail — polls show far more Americans still blame President George W. Bush for the economic decline than blame Mr. Obama — it also runs the danger of making Mr. Obama come across as a crybaby , not to mention opening him up to ridicule from the right .
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you 're not a robot by clicking the box . Invalid email address . Please re-enter . You must select a newsletter to subscribe to . Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times . You may opt-out at any time . You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times 's products and services . Thank you for subscribing . An error has occurred . Please try again later . View all New York Times newsletters .
Mr. Romney , for one , does not intend to let the charge go unanswered .
“ Words are cheap , and the record of an individual is the basis upon which you determine whether they should continue to hold on to their job , ” Mr. Romney told a group of business leaders in Washington on Wednesday . “ The record is that we have 23 million Americans that are out of work , or stopped looking for work , or underemployed . That is a compelling and a sad statistic . ”
Mr. Romney called Mr. Obama ’ s record “ the most anti-investment , anti-business , antijobs series of policies in modern American history , ” adding that Mr. Obama is “ not responsible for whatever improvement we might be seeing . ”
It is unclear yet whether American voters will accept Mr. Romney ’ s argument , particularly given that for all tepidness of the American economy , this country is in far better shape after the 2008-09 global economic crisis than its counterparts around the globe , particularly Europe .
“ I was there at the time , we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month , ” said Jared Bernstein , an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington who served as an adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “ It ’ s absolutely the case that job growth is too slow , ” Mr. Bernstein said , “ but it ’ s growth . ”
That is the crux of where Mr. Obama ’ s argument on the economy resides . He must remind people how things were when he took office , his advisers say . He must show that specific steps he took , like the stimulus plan , like his auto bailout , have helped to stem job loss .
And finally , since “ everyone recognizes that this election is about choice , ” said Representative Chris Van Hollen , Democrat of Maryland , Mr. Obama “ needs to draw the contrast very clearly , that on the one hand the president ’ s proposal is to continue to invest in our future , whereas the Romney plan is to turn back to the trickle-down economics of the Bush era . ”
But Mr. Obama already may have had a laboratory experiment on how well that third point works : the 2010 midterm Congressional elections . During the 2010 campaign , the Barack Obama Defensive Offensive was a similar version to the martini-steak-dinner one he used in Baltimore on Tuesday .
Except then , the metaphor was car-in-ditch . ( “ You had a group of folks who drove the economy , drove the country , drove our car into the ditch , ” the president said , at one campaign stop after another . That was usually followed by a long windup of how the Democrats pushed the car out of the ditch while the Republicans stood to the side drinking Slurpees and then asked for the keys back , leading to Mr. Obama ’ s punch line : “ Well , you can ’ t have the keys back ! You don ’ t know how to drive ! You got us into the ditch ! ” )
Like the crowd in Baltimore , most of the Democrats on the campaign stump in 2010 cheered wildly at car-in-ditch . But for Mr. Obama , the hope now is that independent and moderate American voters will cheer , too — something they did not do in 2010 .
|
“I want you all to pay attention over the next five months and see if they’re offering a single thing that they did not try when they were in charge, because you won’t see it,” Mr. Obama told the crowd on Tuesday night at a Philadelphia fund-raiser. “It will be the same stuff. The same okey-dokey.”
But, as the furor created last week over Mr. Obama’s remark that the private sector is “doing fine” demonstrated, the president must walk a tightrope whenever he talks about the economy.
He wants to show how the steps that he has taken over the past three years — the stimulus, the auto bailout — have helped to bring the economy out of the trough that greeted him on his inauguration. But he cannot go too far in sounding optimistic — as he did with the “doing fine” business last week — or he sounds clueless and out of touch.
At the same time, Mr. Obama does not want to sound too grim either, lest he find himself in Jimmy Carter territory circa 1979-80, when Mr. Carter’s talk of economic malaise helped sink his re-election.
So Mr. Obama ends up falling back — again and again — on the Barack Obama Defensive Offensive — which largely means, blame the Republicans. And while that strategy is not necessarily doomed to fail — polls show far more Americans still blame President George W. Bush for the economic decline than blame Mr. Obama — it also runs the danger of making Mr. Obama come across as a crybaby, not to mention opening him up to ridicule from the right.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
Mr. Romney, for one, does not intend to let the charge go unanswered.
“Words are cheap, and the record of an individual is the basis upon which you determine whether they should continue to hold on to their job,” Mr. Romney told a group of business leaders in Washington on Wednesday. “The record is that we have 23 million Americans that are out of work, or stopped looking for work, or underemployed. That is a compelling and a sad statistic.”
Mr. Romney called Mr. Obama’s record “the most anti-investment, anti-business, antijobs series of policies in modern American history,” adding that Mr. Obama is “not responsible for whatever improvement we might be seeing.”
It is unclear yet whether American voters will accept Mr. Romney’s argument, particularly given that for all tepidness of the American economy, this country is in far better shape after the 2008-09 global economic crisis than its counterparts around the globe, particularly Europe.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“I was there at the time, we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington who served as an adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “It’s absolutely the case that job growth is too slow,” Mr. Bernstein said, “but it’s growth.”
That is the crux of where Mr. Obama’s argument on the economy resides. He must remind people how things were when he took office, his advisers say. He must show that specific steps he took, like the stimulus plan, like his auto bailout, have helped to stem job loss.
And finally, since “everyone recognizes that this election is about choice,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, Mr. Obama “needs to draw the contrast very clearly, that on the one hand the president’s proposal is to continue to invest in our future, whereas the Romney plan is to turn back to the trickle-down economics of the Bush era.”
But Mr. Obama already may have had a laboratory experiment on how well that third point works: the 2010 midterm Congressional elections. During the 2010 campaign, the Barack Obama Defensive Offensive was a similar version to the martini-steak-dinner one he used in Baltimore on Tuesday.
Except then, the metaphor was car-in-ditch. (“You had a group of folks who drove the economy, drove the country, drove our car into the ditch,” the president said, at one campaign stop after another. That was usually followed by a long windup of how the Democrats pushed the car out of the ditch while the Republicans stood to the side drinking Slurpees and then asked for the keys back, leading to Mr. Obama’s punch line: “Well, you can’t have the keys back! You don’t know how to drive! You got us into the ditch!”)
Like the crowd in Baltimore, most of the Democrats on the campaign stump in 2010 cheered wildly at car-in-ditch. But for Mr. Obama, the hope now is that independent and moderate American voters will cheer, too — something they did not do in 2010.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
jLTrRov9RR9vy1lB
|
democratic_party
|
Daily Kos
| 00
|
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/6/1793672/-By-failing-to-get-behind-black-women-and-black-progressives-Democrats-are-missing-the-big-picture
|
By failing to get behind black women and black progressives, Democrats are missing the big picture
|
2018-09-06
|
Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Story Count, Comment Count, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags
|
With her victory in the primary race , Democrat Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts will become the state 's first ever black representative in Congress .
Though she won a major upset in the race for a House seat in Massachusetts on Tuesday night , Ayanna Pressley was not endorsed by the Democratic establishment . Nor was she endorsed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus . Now , it ’ s not entirely unusual for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ( DCCC ) or heavy hitters from the party to fail to endorse in a primary—preferring instead to wait until the general election . But this was a particularly interesting set of circumstances .
Pressley , who doesn ’ t have a Republican opponent in the general election , now becomes the first black elected official to represent Massachusetts in Congress . She went up against a 10-term incumbent , a white male who was backed by both Rep. John Lewis and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick . She was running in a year where a record number of women and people of color are on the ballot for the Democrats . She was running during a midterm election when Democrats have the opportunity to shake up the status quo and remind the country that it is diversity and equality , not white supremacy , that make America great . She was also running at a time where Democrats have recently given lip-service to the fact that black women are the party ’ s faithful base and that black voters , as a whole , should never be taken for granted .
Given these things , it ’ s curious how Democrats have fallen so short when it comes to endorsing and investing in black women as candidates . Last month , a Broadly article noted that out of 73 candidates on the DCCC ’ s Red to Blue list , which contains the names of House contenders who are likely to flip seats from red to blue this year , only 3 were black women . This means that other black women running for Congress who don ’ t have the DCCC ’ s support can lose out on funding for outreach and attention from donors . In short , it puts them in an uphill battle in their races , especially when they are running in primaries against long-serving establishment incumbents .
Though there are likely many reasons why this is happening , it ’ s hard to ignore the fact that Democrats have done a lousy job in recognizing the power of black voters and investing in black leadership , especially that of black women—as both leaders of the Democratic National Committee and as candidates . Some of this may also be attributed to the fact that a number of these candidates represent a more progressive wing of the Democratic Party . Recently , the black political left has been gaining much attention . While they ’ ve always been present in local and national politics , a number of progressive black men and women candidates have been unexpectedly winning elections in local and state races across the country .
|
With her victory in the primary race, Democrat Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts will become the state's first ever black representative in Congress.
Though she won a major upset in the race for a House seat in Massachusetts on Tuesday night, Ayanna Pressley was not endorsed by the Democratic establishment. Nor was she endorsed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Now, it’s not entirely unusual for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) or heavy hitters from the party to fail to endorse in a primary—preferring instead to wait until the general election. But this was a particularly interesting set of circumstances.
Pressley, who doesn’t have a Republican opponent in the general election, now becomes the first black elected official to represent Massachusetts in Congress. She went up against a 10-term incumbent, a white male who was backed by both Rep. John Lewis and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. She was running in a year where a record number of women and people of color are on the ballot for the Democrats. She was running during a midterm election when Democrats have the opportunity to shake up the status quo and remind the country that it is diversity and equality, not white supremacy, that make America great. She was also running at a time where Democrats have recently given lip-service to the fact that black women are the party’s faithful base and that black voters, as a whole, should never be taken for granted.
Given these things, it’s curious how Democrats have fallen so short when it comes to endorsing and investing in black women as candidates. Last month, a Broadly article noted that out of 73 candidates on the DCCC’s Red to Blue list, which contains the names of House contenders who are likely to flip seats from red to blue this year, only 3 were black women. This means that other black women running for Congress who don’t have the DCCC’s support can lose out on funding for outreach and attention from donors. In short, it puts them in an uphill battle in their races, especially when they are running in primaries against long-serving establishment incumbents.
Though there are likely many reasons why this is happening, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Democrats have done a lousy job in recognizing the power of black voters and investing in black leadership, especially that of black women—as both leaders of the Democratic National Committee and as candidates. Some of this may also be attributed to the fact that a number of these candidates represent a more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Recently, the black political left has been gaining much attention. While they’ve always been present in local and national politics, a number of progressive black men and women candidates have been unexpectedly winning elections in local and state races across the country.
|
www.dailykos.com
| 0left
|
QFwHajglxkMsGxIA
|
culture
|
Fox News Opinion
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/mike-huckabee-values-civility-hate
|
Mike Huckabee: Our values are collapsing – How can we be shocked by the decline of civility, spread of hate?
|
Mike Huckabee, On Tbn.
|
There is no doubt that America has become more divided , less cohesive , and a lot less civil over the last few decades .
It ’ s a phenomenon that commentators on both sides of the political spectrum have noticed and reflected on for years .
Conservatives often point to the proliferation of liberal indoctrination in academia or an increasingly ideological and activist news media . Those on the left , meanwhile , are apt to lay the blame on President Trump , the personification of all of their fears and anxieties .
JONATHAN MORRIS : PATRIOTISM , RELIGION , HAVING KIDS NOT SO IMPORTANT TO YOUNG PEOPLE – WHAT 'S GOING ON ?
A new poll from The Wall Street Journal and NBC News , however , paints a picture at odds with theories and in many ways , it 's more disturbing than either of these narratives . The poll , which replicates a survey from 1998 , shows a drastic drop in the number of Americans who place a high value on patriotism , belief in God , and having children .
More striking even than the overall decline is the generational divide . Those younger than 38 years old — millennials and the “ zoomers ” of Generation Z — are less than half as likely to rate religion as a “ very important ” value than Americans over 55 . Among the younger generations , fewer than half think patriotism is very important , and fewer than one-third consider having a family of their own to be an important priority .
If these figures are accurate — and the precipitous drop in church attendance suggests they are — how can we be surprised at the growing division in our public life ? How can we be shocked at the collapse of civility and the spread of hatred ?
The loss of God-consciousness must correlate directly to this sad and intensifying state of affairs . A culture that doesn ’ t see God as real can easily devalue life , become deadened to any thoughtful feeling towards others , and feel no sense of responsibility or accountability for individual actions .
When a primetime “ comedy ” host announces that he ’ s “ glad ” a political adversary is dead , that he hopes his death was “ painful , ” and is cheered on by his studio audience no less , I fear that sentiment is not an anomaly , but a reflection of the kind of culture that America is becoming . When I see so many Americans , especially the young , cite that vile sentiment with approval , I fear that the worst implications of the WSJ/NBC News poll are already upon us .
A society that isn ’ t rooted in the absolute morality of faith in God and collective belief in the sacred value of human life will always tend toward division and incivility , regardless of who is in political power or who writes our textbooks and newspapers .
These shifts in values seem to feed each other . Are we surprised that young people aren ’ t getting married and starting families ? Undoubtedly , there are financial and material factors — there always are , but they don ’ t explain the full picture .
Why have kids if you think the world will end in 12 years and you see no value in life beyond the temporal and physical ?
I fear that both sides — conservatives who believe our divisions can be healed if only the media and the universities would pipe down , as well as liberals who assume that everything will become more civil once the president they despise is out of office — are engaged in some very wishful thinking .
A society that isn ’ t rooted in the absolute morality of faith in God and collective belief in the sacred value of human life will always tend toward division and incivility , regardless of who is in political power or who writes our textbooks and newspapers .
More than a glimmer of hope exists in the public embrace of faith , pronouncements about our shared belief in one Almighty God , and steadfast defense of life in the womb that we have seen from President Trump . But the trends reflected in the WSJ/NBC News poll are greater and longer-lasting than one man ’ s service in public office , no matter how transformational his presidency may be .
I sincerely believe that this poll will disturb other Americans as much as it disturbed me . I pray it will serve as a warning that we must return to the values of faith and morality that sustained America for so long . Most importantly , I pray that all Americans heed that warning together .
|
There is no doubt that America has become more divided, less cohesive, and a lot less civil over the last few decades.
It’s a phenomenon that commentators on both sides of the political spectrum have noticed and reflected on for years.
Conservatives often point to the proliferation of liberal indoctrination in academia or an increasingly ideological and activist news media. Those on the left, meanwhile, are apt to lay the blame on President Trump, the personification of all of their fears and anxieties.
JONATHAN MORRIS: PATRIOTISM, RELIGION, HAVING KIDS NOT SO IMPORTANT TO YOUNG PEOPLE – WHAT'S GOING ON?
A new poll from The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, however, paints a picture at odds with theories and in many ways, it's more disturbing than either of these narratives. The poll, which replicates a survey from 1998, shows a drastic drop in the number of Americans who place a high value on patriotism, belief in God, and having children.
More striking even than the overall decline is the generational divide. Those younger than 38 years old — millennials and the “zoomers” of Generation Z — are less than half as likely to rate religion as a “very important” value than Americans over 55. Among the younger generations, fewer than half think patriotism is very important, and fewer than one-third consider having a family of their own to be an important priority.
If these figures are accurate — and the precipitous drop in church attendance suggests they are — how can we be surprised at the growing division in our public life? How can we be shocked at the collapse of civility and the spread of hatred?
The loss of God-consciousness must correlate directly to this sad and intensifying state of affairs. A culture that doesn’t see God as real can easily devalue life, become deadened to any thoughtful feeling towards others, and feel no sense of responsibility or accountability for individual actions.
When a primetime “comedy” host announces that he’s “glad” a political adversary is dead, that he hopes his death was “painful,” and is cheered on by his studio audience no less, I fear that sentiment is not an anomaly, but a reflection of the kind of culture that America is becoming. When I see so many Americans, especially the young, cite that vile sentiment with approval, I fear that the worst implications of the WSJ/NBC News poll are already upon us.
A society that isn’t rooted in the absolute morality of faith in God and collective belief in the sacred value of human life will always tend toward division and incivility, regardless of who is in political power or who writes our textbooks and newspapers.
These shifts in values seem to feed each other. Are we surprised that young people aren’t getting married and starting families? Undoubtedly, there are financial and material factors — there always are, but they don’t explain the full picture.
Why have kids if you think the world will end in 12 years and you see no value in life beyond the temporal and physical?
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
I fear that both sides — conservatives who believe our divisions can be healed if only the media and the universities would pipe down, as well as liberals who assume that everything will become more civil once the president they despise is out of office — are engaged in some very wishful thinking.
A society that isn’t rooted in the absolute morality of faith in God and collective belief in the sacred value of human life will always tend toward division and incivility, regardless of who is in political power or who writes our textbooks and newspapers.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
More than a glimmer of hope exists in the public embrace of faith, pronouncements about our shared belief in one Almighty God, and steadfast defense of life in the womb that we have seen from President Trump. But the trends reflected in the WSJ/NBC News poll are greater and longer-lasting than one man’s service in public office, no matter how transformational his presidency may be.
I sincerely believe that this poll will disturb other Americans as much as it disturbed me. I pray it will serve as a warning that we must return to the values of faith and morality that sustained America for so long. Most importantly, I pray that all Americans heed that warning together.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
hAog45D7UCnC3ck9
|
|
us_constitution
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/19/equal-rights-amendment-won-virginia-column/4503476002/
|
Bless Virginia for passing the Equal Rights Amendment, but blame women for taking this long
|
2020-01-19
|
Enough women — and men — have chosen political ideology over protecting gender equality , and that ’ s shameful .
Last week , Virginia became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment — which would be enough to finally ratify the amendment . But enough women and men have snubbed it for nearly five decades that now this milestone may already be legally DOA .
“ In so many areas , we still have a long way to go , ” Democratic Virginia state Sen. Jennifer McClellan said .
McClellan , one of the ERA ’ s sponsors , was referring to the plight of women in today ’ s corporate boardrooms and top political offices , but she may as well have applied those comments to the amendment itself .
The constitutional amendment , which Congress approved in 1972 , states that “ equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex . ”
Supporters say the amendment is needed to provide explicit protection against discrimination based on sex . They say federal and local laws providing that protection can easily be changed .
More than an optics problem : Trump 's white , male team is a bad look for America and bad for national security , too
So , why did it fail to be ratified in at least 38 states by Congress ’ s imposed deadlines in 1977 and , later , 1982 ?
Women alone could have made this happen but didn ’ t . Too many of them have chosen political ideology over enshrining the protection in the U.S. Constitution . There is no other way to explain the fact it took 48 years to get the 38th state to ratify the amendment — and only because Democrats took control of Virginia ’ s Legislature .
Critics , who happen to be primarily Republicans , say they don ’ t like it because the amendment would grant protections for abortion . Further , they say , it is no longer necessary because women already enjoyed “ equal protection ” under the 14th Amendment .
Under that logic , women would have no obstacles in the 21st century . But that ’ s just laughable . Women in America still make about 82 cents for every dollar men earn . Men are still kings of corporate boardrooms . No woman has ever occupied the White House . And things aren ’ t much better at the local and state level .
Nominating a woman can be a boost to Democrats : Is presidency out of reach for women ? Warren-Sanders tiff ends silence on insidious myth
There are enough women — and enough progressive men — in state legislatures to ratify this amendment and send a strong message . Arizona , Alabama , Arkansas , Florida , Georgia , Louisiana , Mississippi , Missouri , North Carolina , Oklahoma , South Carolina and Utah have not ratified it .
But don ’ t hold your breath because enough Republican women are against it , leaving it to the courts to determine whether the ERA is really dead . A legal showdown is expected over how to proceed or whether too much time has passed since the congressional deadline , forcing supporters to start from scratch .
And that ’ s just a pity and shameful , especially this year when the country celebrates the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment that gave U.S. women the right to vote .
Elvia Díaz is an editorial columnist for The Republic and azcentral , where this column originally appeared . Follow her on Twitter , @ elviadiaz1 .
|
Arizona Republic
Enough women — and men — have chosen political ideology over protecting gender equality, and that’s shameful.
Last week, Virginia became the 38th state to pass the Equal Rights Amendment — which would be enough to finally ratify the amendment. But enough women and men have snubbed it for nearly five decades that now this milestone may already be legally DOA.
“In so many areas, we still have a long way to go,” Democratic Virginia state Sen. Jennifer McClellan said.
No kidding.
Blame women for it taking this long
McClellan, one of the ERA’s sponsors, was referring to the plight of women in today’s corporate boardrooms and top political offices, but she may as well have applied those comments to the amendment itself.
The constitutional amendment, which Congress approved in 1972, states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
Supporters say the amendment is needed to provide explicit protection against discrimination based on sex. They say federal and local laws providing that protection can easily be changed.
More than an optics problem:Trump's white, male team is a bad look for America and bad for national security, too
So, why did it fail to be ratified in at least 38 states by Congress’s imposed deadlines in 1977 and, later, 1982?
Forget men, really. Blame women.
Women alone could have made this happen but didn’t. Too many of them have chosen political ideology over enshrining the protection in the U.S. Constitution. There is no other way to explain the fact it took 48 years to get the 38th state to ratify the amendment — and only because Democrats took control of Virginia’s Legislature.
Don't expect Arizona, others to jump in
Critics, who happen to be primarily Republicans, say they don’t like it because the amendment would grant protections for abortion. Further, they say, it is no longer necessary because women already enjoyed “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment.
Under that logic, women would have no obstacles in the 21st century. But that’s just laughable. Women in America still make about 82 cents for every dollar men earn. Men are still kings of corporate boardrooms. No woman has ever occupied the White House. And things aren’t much better at the local and state level.
Nominating a woman can be a boost to Democrats:Is presidency out of reach for women? Warren-Sanders tiff ends silence on insidious myth
There are enough women — and enough progressive men — in state legislatures to ratify this amendment and send a strong message. Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah have not ratified it.
But don’t hold your breath because enough Republican women are against it, leaving it to the courts to determine whether the ERA is really dead. A legal showdown is expected over how to proceed or whether too much time has passed since the congressional deadline, forcing supporters to start from scratch.
And that’s just a pity and shameful, especially this year when the country celebrates the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment that gave U.S. women the right to vote.
Elvia Díaz is an editorial columnist for The Republic and azcentral, where this column originally appeared. Follow her on Twitter, @elviadiaz1.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
aM7k98MCAyQLIaDC
|
|
white_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/census-citizenship-question/2019/07/11/id/924046/
|
Trump to Take Executive Action on Census Citizenship
|
2019-07-11
|
President Donald Trump will announce an executive action over his administration 's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census despite ongoing court challenges , two administration officials told Reuters Thursday .
Trump , a tweet , said he would hold a news conference about the census following a planned meeting on social media on Thursday afternoon . Trump 's announcement is likely to be around 5:00 p.m. in the Rose Garden or elsewhere at the White House .
The administration 's attempts to add the contentious question have been blocked in the courts because of challenges from some U.S. states and civil rights groups .
Critics say that asking about citizenship in the census discriminates against racial minorities and is aimed at giving Republicans an unfair advantage in elections . Trump and his supporters say it makes sense to know how many non-citizens are living in the country .
The administration was still ironing out the details of the action , which was likely to be an executive order , one of the officials said .
Trump and his administration 's efforts to add a question to the nation 's decennial population survey have become embroiled in a legal fight not only over plaintiffs ' opposition but also over the Department of Justice 's handling of the cases .
The case had already made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court , which last month ruled against the Republican president 's first attempt to add the question , saying the administration 's rationale was `` contrived '' but leaving the door open to its possible addition if officials could offer a new explanation .
Since then , the Justice Department has sought to shake up its legal team by replacing the lawyers handling the case . On Wednesday , a second federal judge rejected the department 's efforts , saying it had to offer detailed reasoning for the change .
Attorneys within the Trump administration have been studying the census issue and intend to keep the president 's order within the confines of the Supreme Court decision , but they are cognizant that whatever action he takes is likely to be challenged in court again .
The U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the job of overseeing the census to Congress , limiting a president 's authority , which could complicate any effort to add the question via presidential missive .
Trump is insistent that the question be added to the census despite the legal challenges . The census is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives and also affects how billions of dollars in federal funds are doled out across the country .
|
President Donald Trump will announce an executive action over his administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census despite ongoing court challenges, two administration officials told Reuters Thursday.
Trump, a tweet, said he would hold a news conference about the census following a planned meeting on social media on Thursday afternoon. Trump's announcement is likely to be around 5:00 p.m. in the Rose Garden or elsewhere at the White House.
The administration's attempts to add the contentious question have been blocked in the courts because of challenges from some U.S. states and civil rights groups.
Critics say that asking about citizenship in the census discriminates against racial minorities and is aimed at giving Republicans an unfair advantage in elections. Trump and his supporters say it makes sense to know how many non-citizens are living in the country.
The administration was still ironing out the details of the action, which was likely to be an executive order, one of the officials said.
Trump and his administration's efforts to add a question to the nation's decennial population survey have become embroiled in a legal fight not only over plaintiffs' opposition but also over the Department of Justice's handling of the cases.
The case had already made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month ruled against the Republican president's first attempt to add the question, saying the administration's rationale was "contrived" but leaving the door open to its possible addition if officials could offer a new explanation.
Since then, the Justice Department has sought to shake up its legal team by replacing the lawyers handling the case. On Wednesday, a second federal judge rejected the department's efforts, saying it had to offer detailed reasoning for the change.
Attorneys within the Trump administration have been studying the census issue and intend to keep the president's order within the confines of the Supreme Court decision, but they are cognizant that whatever action he takes is likely to be challenged in court again.
The U.S. Constitution specifically assigns the job of overseeing the census to Congress, limiting a president's authority, which could complicate any effort to add the question via presidential missive.
Trump is insistent that the question be added to the census despite the legal challenges. The census is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives and also affects how billions of dollars in federal funds are doled out across the country.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
rhpJ2RKsKq8d6car
|
|
national_security
|
Guest Writer - Left
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/opinions/mueller-option-zeldin-zelizer/index.html
|
OPINION: The option Robert Mueller didn't have
|
2019-06-03
|
Michael Zeldin, Julian Zelizer
|
Michael Zeldin , a CNN legal analyst , served as deputy independent counsel , and later as independent counsel , in the investigation into allegations that the administration of George H. W. Bush violated the privacy rights of candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential campaign . He also served as a special counsel to Robert Mueller in the Department of Justice . Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University , and author , with Kevin Kruse , of the new book `` Fault Lines : A History of the United States Since 1974 . '' The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors ; view more opinion articles on CNN .
( CNN ) At the end of independent counsel Ken Starr 's investigation of Bill Clinton , Starr submitted directly to Congress his final report , which included 11 specific bases for possible impeachment .
Given the numerous obstruction of justice findings in part two of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report , many ca n't understand why Mueller did n't do the same .
Under the independent counsel law that was in effect at the time of Starr 's report , the independent counsel was required to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment .
In reaction to what some perceived as Starr 's `` salacious '' public report , however , in 1999 , Congress allowed the independent counsel law to lapse . In its place , the Department of Justice issued the special counsel regulations . These regulations , which remain in effect today , do not permit a special counsel to submit a report to Congress . They only permit a special counsel to submit a confidential report to the Attorney General .
We believe , and Michael Zeldin has written , that this constraint on Mueller ( and other limitations in the regulations ) make it imperative for Congress to consider resurrecting the independent counsel statute or a similar law .
JUST WATCHED Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism 04:27
It would take time to pass any new legislation , however , and that would only affect future investigations . But meanwhile , Congress is struggling to figure out what to do with Mueller 's findings . Our view is that it would be sensible for Congress to consider analyzing the Mueller report 's obstruction findings under the same standard as that of independent counsels -- by asking whether Mueller would have been obligated to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment .
This would give Congress , in its oversight capacity , a workable framework for analyzing whether they believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted .
In the interest of time and to cut to the heart of the matter , Congress should primarily focus on the three key areas Mueller identified as most legally problematic . Specifically , Trump 's efforts to remove Mueller as special counsel and create a false narrative of those efforts ; Trump 's efforts to put an end to the Russia investigation ; and Trump 's firing of FBI director James Comey . ( Other acts -- for example , those relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn -- could be considered , too , if warranted by the initial inquiry . )
In each of these areas , Mueller found that all of the statutory requirements for an obstruction of justice prosecution were met . In each case , he found an obstructive act , a nexus to an official proceeding , and corrupt intent .
In his report , Mueller set forth substantial direct and corroborative evidence of obstructive conduct for each inquiry . And , as to each , Mueller refuted the constitutional and statutory defenses he anticipated would be made if charges were brought against the President .
Congress , of course , will need to make its own determination , as impeachment is a political judgment informed by , but not dependent on , violations of statutory law .
To do this , each member of Congress will need to read the full Mueller report . In addition , Congress will need to be able to obtain all the evidence underlying the Mueller report ( as was done in the Starr investigation ) that pertains to the issues under review , compel the testimony of relevant witnesses ( so that Congress and the American people can assess their credibility ) , and hear from lawyers ( including Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein ) , constitutional scholars , and historians to obtain insight into whether the specific acts of alleged obstruction as well as the overall pattern of behavior that Mueller describes meets the Constitutional threshold of `` high crimes and misdemeanors . ''
Stay up to date ... Sign up for our new newsletter . Join us on Twitter and Facebook
As articulated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 , high crimes and misdemeanors are `` offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men , or in other words , from the abuse or violation of some public trust . They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political , as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself . ''
After that , Congress , with informed input from their constituents , will be in the best position to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is warranted .
|
Michael Zeldin, a CNN legal analyst, served as deputy independent counsel, and later as independent counsel, in the investigation into allegations that the administration of George H. W. Bush violated the privacy rights of candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential campaign. He also served as a special counsel to Robert Mueller in the Department of Justice. Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, and author, with Kevin Kruse, of the new book " Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974 ." The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors; view more opinion articles on CNN.
(CNN) At the end of independent counsel Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, Starr submitted directly to Congress his final report, which included 11 specific bases for possible impeachment.
Given the numerous obstruction of justice findings in part two of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, many can't understand why Mueller didn't do the same.
The fact is, Mueller didn't have that option.
Under the independent counsel law that was in effect at the time of Starr's report, the independent counsel was required to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
In reaction to what some perceived as Starr's "salacious" public report, however, in 1999, Congress allowed the independent counsel law to lapse. In its place, the Department of Justice issued the special counsel regulations. These regulations, which remain in effect today, do not permit a special counsel to submit a report to Congress. They only permit a special counsel to submit a confidential report to the Attorney General.
We believe, and Michael Zeldin has written , that this constraint on Mueller (and other limitations in the regulations) make it imperative for Congress to consider resurrecting the independent counsel statute or a similar law.
JUST WATCHED Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism 04:27
It would take time to pass any new legislation, however, and that would only affect future investigations. But meanwhile, Congress is struggling to figure out what to do with Mueller's findings. Our view is that it would be sensible for Congress to consider analyzing the Mueller report's obstruction findings under the same standard as that of independent counsels -- by asking whether Mueller would have been obligated to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.
This would give Congress, in its oversight capacity, a workable framework for analyzing whether they believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted.
In the interest of time and to cut to the heart of the matter, Congress should primarily focus on the three key areas Mueller identified as most legally problematic. Specifically, Trump's efforts to remove Mueller as special counsel and create a false narrative of those efforts; Trump's efforts to put an end to the Russia investigation; and Trump's firing of FBI director James Comey. (Other acts -- for example, those relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn -- could be considered, too, if warranted by the initial inquiry.)
In each of these areas, Mueller found that all of the statutory requirements for an obstruction of justice prosecution were met. In each case, he found an obstructive act, a nexus to an official proceeding, and corrupt intent.
In his report, Mueller set forth substantial direct and corroborative evidence of obstructive conduct for each inquiry. And, as to each, Mueller refuted the constitutional and statutory defenses he anticipated would be made if charges were brought against the President.
Congress, of course, will need to make its own determination, as impeachment is a political judgment informed by, but not dependent on, violations of statutory law.
To do this, each member of Congress will need to read the full Mueller report. In addition, Congress will need to be able to obtain all the evidence underlying the Mueller report (as was done in the Starr investigation) that pertains to the issues under review, compel the testimony of relevant witnesses (so that Congress and the American people can assess their credibility), and hear from lawyers (including Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein), constitutional scholars, and historians to obtain insight into whether the specific acts of alleged obstruction as well as the overall pattern of behavior that Mueller describes meets the Constitutional threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Stay up to date... Sign up for our new newsletter. Join us on Twitter and Facebook
As articulated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65, high crimes and misdemeanors are "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself."
After that, Congress, with informed input from their constituents, will be in the best position to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is warranted.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
LiYQTBj0qfqMgElv
|
middle_east
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/us-world-powers-historic-deal-iran-120076.html?hp=t1_r
|
U.S., world powers reach historic deal with Iran
|
2015-07-14
|
Michael Crowley, Nahal Toosi
|
The United States and five other world powers have reached a deal with Iran that would place strict limits on Tehran ’ s nuclear program in return for ending sanctions on its economy , the culmination of years of delicate diplomacy pursued by President Barack Obama despite warnings the agreement could strengthen Iran ’ s Islamist regime and leave it dangerously close to a nuclear bomb .
The historic accord , reached by Secretary of State John Kerry and his international counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday after 18 days of intense negotiations , now faces review from a hostile Republican-led Congress , opposition from every GOP presidential candidate , from Israel ’ s government and from Sunni Arab monarchs . The deal ’ s long and complex implementation process also leaves it vulnerable to unraveling .
Speaking from the White House Tuesday morning , Obama called the deal a victory for diplomacy that would prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and avert a possible conflict with Iran .
“ No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East , ” Obama said . He reaffirmed America ’ s commitment to Israel ’ s security and Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia , while adding that the U.S. is “ open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect . ”
Obama also hinted at the possibility of a larger thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations . ” It is possible to change , ” Obama told Iranians , urging them to take a “ different path , one of tolerance , of peaceful resolution to conflict… This deal opens an opportunity to move in a new direction . We should seize it . ”
“ This is the good deal that we have sought , ” Kerry said in a statement from Vienna .
If it succeeds , the agreement could upgrade Obama ’ s checkered foreign policy legacy , as well provide a crowning achievement for Kerry ’ s 30-year political career . Analysts call it one of the modern era ’ s most important arms control agreements , in a league with the 1970 international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1994 START nuclear missile treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union .
Some believe it could begin to normalize relations between Iran and the West after three decades of cold war , although Obama and Kerry have denied that is their goal , while others predict that an emboldened Iran will seek greater dominance across the Middle East . But on Tuesday the European Union ’ s top foreign policy official , Frederica Mogherini , called the pact “ much more than a nuclear deal , ” adding : “ It can open a new chapter . ”
On Twitter , Iran ’ s president , Hassan Rouhani said that with the “ unnecessary crisis resolved , new horizons emerge with a focus on shared challenges . ”
That will hardly please Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , who tweeted : “ From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake . ”
According to a 159-page document posted online by Russia ’ s foreign ministry , which it called the final text of the deal , a U.N. resolution lifting sanctions will also express the Security Council ’ s “ desire to build a new relationship with Iran . ”
The text says also that Iran has vowed that “ under no circumstances ” will it ever “ seek , develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. ” And it describes a joint commission composed of its seven parties to monitor the deal ’ s implementation .
One issue that will draw close scrutiny from nuclear experts is Iran ’ s ability to research advanced nuclear technologies while its program is constrained by a deal . Iran now relies on 1970s-era centrifuges to enrich uranium , which are highly inefficient . The document posted by Russian foreign ministry says that after 8½ years Iran can begin testing up to 30 modern IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges . Analysts fear that , if Iran masters top-quality centrifuges , it might be capable of producing a bomb in a matter of months or weeks soon after the deal ’ s main restrictions lift in a decade .
On an issue that snagged the talks in their final days , the deal will free Iran from an arms embargo after five years , Obama said Tuesday .
Obama has made the deal a central plank of his foreign policy . Dating from early in the 2008 presidential campaign , he called for fresh thinking toward American adversaries like Iran . As president , he has argued that it is wiser to negotiate with a nemesis of more than three decades than risk a military confrontation over Iran ’ s nuclear ambitions .
But he has also insisted , in response to the many critics who called him desperate for a deal , that signing off on a weak agreement is not in his interest . “ If Iran has a nuclear weapon , it ’ s my name on this , ” the president said in May — a measure of just how keenly aware he is of the deal ’ s implications for his legacy .
The deal came 18 days after Kerry arrived in Vienna for a round of talks whose initial deadline was June 30 . As early July came and went , the talks bogged down in a handful of issues , including whether and how to lift a U.N. embargo on Iran ’ s import and export of conventional arms .
Kerry , too , was accused of wanting a deal too badly , a charge his marathon session in Vienna — all of it on crutches , as he recovers from a broken leg — may have defused .
The comprehensive deal fills in the details of a preliminary framework deal reached in April by the U.S. and its negotiating partners — France , Germany , Britain , China and Russia . A document said to be about 100 pages will be transmitted to Congress and made public , although some portions are expected to remain classified .
Obama ’ s main goal has been to impose limits on Iran ’ s fast-advancing nuclear program to ensure that Tehran can ’ t acquire a nuclear bomb faster than the U.S. and its allies can act to stop it . The deal seeks to do that by reducing Iran ’ s capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium , slowing its research and development into nuclear technology , and imposing inspections and monitoring of Iran ’ s nuclear activities to prevent cheating .
The goal is to achieve a “ breakout time ” — or the time it would take Iran to produce the nuclear material required for one bomb — of at least one year . That is long enough , U.S. officials believe , for the world community to take punitive action that could include airstrikes against Iranian facilities .
Some elements of the deal were locked in by an April 2 political framework agreement reached in Lausanne , Switzerland . They include a commitment by Iran to reduce its number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 , with only 5,060 of those enriching uranium for 10 years . Centrifuges spin gaseous uranium at supersonic speeds to increase its purity to levels suitable for a nuclear weapon .
Iran has also agreed to modify a plutonium-fueled nuclear reactor so that its fuel can not be reprocessed for use in a weapon . And it will allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency broad access to suspected nuclear sites , as well as cooperate with an IAEA investigation into its past activities , although many crucial details have yet to be released .
The comprehensive agreement will leave many powerful critics deeply dissatisfied . Netanyahu , who sees Iran as an existential threat to his country , has said repeatedly that the deal will “ pave Iran ’ s path to the bomb ” ; several Sunni Arab states , especially Saudi Arabia , worry that the end of sanctions will free up tens of billions of dollars that Iran can direct to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles from Iraq to Syria to Yemen .
The emerging outlines of the deal have also drawn withering fire for months from Capitol Hill , fueled by Republicans — and many Democrats — who agree with Netanyahu that it jeopardizes Israel ’ s security . A vote of disapproval by Congress would prevent Obama from lifting sanctions on Tehran , although administration officials believe they can maintain enough Democratic backing to sustain a presidential veto .
The nuclear talks began after years of Western worry over Iran ’ s nuclear aims , despite Tehran ’ s insistence that its program was only for scientific and energy purposes .
The 2002 revelation of Iran ’ s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a plutonium reactor at Arak — sites previously undeclared to the U.N. in violation of Iran ’ s international commitments — badly undercut Tehran ’ s claims . So did the 2009 discovery of a secret , underground enrichment facility buried in a mountain at Fordow , near the holy city of Qom .
In 2007 , an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community found that Iran had pursued a military dimension to its nuclear program — in effect , an Iranian Manhattan Project — but ceased the work in 2003 . Iran has failed to comply fully with IAEA inspectors pursuing the question , a major point of contention in the talks .
The United States , which broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the country ’ s 1979 Islamic revolution and capture of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran , has long used sanctions and other tools to punish Iran for its behavior . In recent years the sanctions vice tightened considerably as Russia and China backed harsh U.N. measures , the U.S. Congress targeted Iran ’ s financial sector , and the Obama administration persuaded growing economies like India and South Korea agreed to sharply limit their consumption of Iranian oil .
At the same time , after taking office Obama continued a Bush-era program targeting Iran ’ s nuclear infrastructure with cyberwar , in the form of the Stuxnet virus , which delayed Iran ’ s enrichment program .
The U.S. , U.N. and EU sanctions badly hurt Iran ’ s economy ; inflation soared above 40 percent in 2013 . U.S. sanctions threatening to punish foreign financial institutions for doing business with Iran landed a particularly painful blow .
In mid-2012 , after exchanging messages through the Arab state of Oman , Iranian and American officials secretly met to lay the groundwork for potential nuclear talks . This involved diplomats dispatched by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , including her close aide Jake Sullivan , now a top adviser to her presidential campaign .
Talks became possible in June 2013 , after Iranians elected as president a relatively moderate Iranian cleric , Hassan Rouhani . He offered the West a more conciliatory face than his hardline predecessor , Mahmoud Ahmadinejad .
With the apparent blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , who has the final word on all state decisions in Iran , Rouhani spoke directly via phone with Obama in September 2013 , kicking off the public phase of the nuclear talks .
Despite a willingness to bargain over its nuclear program , Iran has pursued an aggressive foreign policy elsewhere in the Middle East , alarming its neighbors .
For example , Iran is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad against Sunni groups trying to topple him . At the same time , Iranian-trained Shiite militias are indirectly helping U.S.-backed Iraqi troops trying to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq . And in Yemen , Iran has backed the Houthi rebels , whose positions are being bombed by Saudi Arabia with U.S. assistance .
Critics of the deal fear that once Iran starts to get relief from sanctions — including access to more than $ 100 billion in frozen assets — it will use the money to wreak more havoc in the region .
U.S. officials argue that Iran ’ s regional meddling costs little , and that the country is more likely to direct the influx of funds to repairing its economy and its infrastructure . At the same time , Obama has promised more military aid to Arab countries and repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to Israel ’ s security .
In many ways , the hardest part of the nuclear deal begins now , with its implementation .
Congress will review the deal , and is likely to vote to prevent Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran — a measure Obama is sure to veto . In that scenario , the votes of a few dozen Senate Democrats could become decisive in a veto override battle .
The nuclear deal will also drive the 2016 presidential campaign ’ s foreign policy debate . Several Republican contenders are already vowing to kill the deal if they win the White House .
|
The United States and five other world powers have reached a deal with Iran that would place strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in return for ending sanctions on its economy, the culmination of years of delicate diplomacy pursued by President Barack Obama despite warnings the agreement could strengthen Iran’s Islamist regime and leave it dangerously close to a nuclear bomb.
The historic accord, reached by Secretary of State John Kerry and his international counterparts in Vienna on Tuesday after 18 days of intense negotiations, now faces review from a hostile Republican-led Congress, opposition from every GOP presidential candidate, from Israel’s government and from Sunni Arab monarchs. The deal’s long and complex implementation process also leaves it vulnerable to unraveling.
Story Continued Below
Speaking from the White House Tuesday morning, Obama called the deal a victory for diplomacy that would prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and avert a possible conflict with Iran.
“No deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East,” Obama said. He reaffirmed America’s commitment to Israel’s security and Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia, while adding that the U.S. is “open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.”
Obama also hinted at the possibility of a larger thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations. ”It is possible to change,” Obama told Iranians, urging them to take a “different path, one of tolerance, of peaceful resolution to conflict… This deal opens an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it.”
“This is the good deal that we have sought,” Kerry said in a statement from Vienna.
If it succeeds, the agreement could upgrade Obama’s checkered foreign policy legacy, as well provide a crowning achievement for Kerry’s 30-year political career. Analysts call it one of the modern era’s most important arms control agreements, in a league with the 1970 international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1994 START nuclear missile treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
Some believe it could begin to normalize relations between Iran and the West after three decades of cold war, although Obama and Kerry have denied that is their goal, while others predict that an emboldened Iran will seek greater dominance across the Middle East. But on Tuesday the European Union’s top foreign policy official, Frederica Mogherini, called the pact “much more than a nuclear deal,” adding: “It can open a new chapter.”
On Twitter, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani said that with the “unnecessary crisis resolved, new horizons emerge with a focus on shared challenges.”
That will hardly please Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who tweeted: “From the initial reports we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake.”
According to a 159-page document posted online by Russia’s foreign ministry, which it called the final text of the deal, a U.N. resolution lifting sanctions will also express the Security Council’s “desire to build a new relationship with Iran.”
The text says also that Iran has vowed that “under no circumstances” will it ever “seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” And it describes a joint commission composed of its seven parties to monitor the deal’s implementation.
One issue that will draw close scrutiny from nuclear experts is Iran’s ability to research advanced nuclear technologies while its program is constrained by a deal. Iran now relies on 1970s-era centrifuges to enrich uranium, which are highly inefficient. The document posted by Russian foreign ministry says that after 8½ years Iran can begin testing up to 30 modern IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges. Analysts fear that, if Iran masters top-quality centrifuges, it might be capable of producing a bomb in a matter of months or weeks soon after the deal’s main restrictions lift in a decade.
On an issue that snagged the talks in their final days, the deal will free Iran from an arms embargo after five years, Obama said Tuesday.
Obama has made the deal a central plank of his foreign policy. Dating from early in the 2008 presidential campaign, he called for fresh thinking toward American adversaries like Iran. As president, he has argued that it is wiser to negotiate with a nemesis of more than three decades than risk a military confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
But he has also insisted, in response to the many critics who called him desperate for a deal, that signing off on a weak agreement is not in his interest. “If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” the president said in May — a measure of just how keenly aware he is of the deal’s implications for his legacy.
The deal came 18 days after Kerry arrived in Vienna for a round of talks whose initial deadline was June 30. As early July came and went, the talks bogged down in a handful of issues, including whether and how to lift a U.N. embargo on Iran’s import and export of conventional arms.
Kerry, too, was accused of wanting a deal too badly, a charge his marathon session in Vienna — all of it on crutches, as he recovers from a broken leg — may have defused.
The comprehensive deal fills in the details of a preliminary framework deal reached in April by the U.S. and its negotiating partners — France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia. A document said to be about 100 pages will be transmitted to Congress and made public, although some portions are expected to remain classified.
Obama’s main goal has been to impose limits on Iran’s fast-advancing nuclear program to ensure that Tehran can’t acquire a nuclear bomb faster than the U.S. and its allies can act to stop it. The deal seeks to do that by reducing Iran’s capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium, slowing its research and development into nuclear technology, and imposing inspections and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities to prevent cheating.
The goal is to achieve a “breakout time” — or the time it would take Iran to produce the nuclear material required for one bomb — of at least one year. That is long enough, U.S. officials believe, for the world community to take punitive action that could include airstrikes against Iranian facilities.
Some elements of the deal were locked in by an April 2 political framework agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland. They include a commitment by Iran to reduce its number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104, with only 5,060 of those enriching uranium for 10 years. Centrifuges spin gaseous uranium at supersonic speeds to increase its purity to levels suitable for a nuclear weapon.
Iran has also agreed to modify a plutonium-fueled nuclear reactor so that its fuel cannot be reprocessed for use in a weapon. And it will allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency broad access to suspected nuclear sites, as well as cooperate with an IAEA investigation into its past activities, although many crucial details have yet to be released.
The comprehensive agreement will leave many powerful critics deeply dissatisfied. Netanyahu, who sees Iran as an existential threat to his country, has said repeatedly that the deal will “pave Iran’s path to the bomb”; several Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, worry that the end of sanctions will free up tens of billions of dollars that Iran can direct to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles from Iraq to Syria to Yemen.
The emerging outlines of the deal have also drawn withering fire for months from Capitol Hill, fueled by Republicans — and many Democrats — who agree with Netanyahu that it jeopardizes Israel’s security. A vote of disapproval by Congress would prevent Obama from lifting sanctions on Tehran, although administration officials believe they can maintain enough Democratic backing to sustain a presidential veto.
The nuclear talks began after years of Western worry over Iran’s nuclear aims, despite Tehran’s insistence that its program was only for scientific and energy purposes.
The 2002 revelation of Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a plutonium reactor at Arak — sites previously undeclared to the U.N. in violation of Iran’s international commitments — badly undercut Tehran’s claims. So did the 2009 discovery of a secret, underground enrichment facility buried in a mountain at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom.
In 2007, an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community found that Iran had pursued a military dimension to its nuclear program — in effect, an Iranian Manhattan Project — but ceased the work in 2003. Iran has failed to comply fully with IAEA inspectors pursuing the question, a major point of contention in the talks.
The United States, which broke off diplomatic relations with Iran after the country’s 1979 Islamic revolution and capture of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, has long used sanctions and other tools to punish Iran for its behavior. In recent years the sanctions vice tightened considerably as Russia and China backed harsh U.N. measures, the U.S. Congress targeted Iran’s financial sector, and the Obama administration persuaded growing economies like India and South Korea agreed to sharply limit their consumption of Iranian oil.
At the same time, after taking office Obama continued a Bush-era program targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure with cyberwar, in the form of the Stuxnet virus, which delayed Iran’s enrichment program.
The U.S., U.N. and EU sanctions badly hurt Iran’s economy; inflation soared above 40 percent in 2013. U.S. sanctions threatening to punish foreign financial institutions for doing business with Iran landed a particularly painful blow.
In mid-2012, after exchanging messages through the Arab state of Oman, Iranian and American officials secretly met to lay the groundwork for potential nuclear talks. This involved diplomats dispatched by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her close aide Jake Sullivan, now a top adviser to her presidential campaign.
Talks became possible in June 2013, after Iranians elected as president a relatively moderate Iranian cleric, Hassan Rouhani. He offered the West a more conciliatory face than his hardline predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
With the apparent blessing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on all state decisions in Iran, Rouhani spoke directly via phone with Obama in September 2013, kicking off the public phase of the nuclear talks.
Despite a willingness to bargain over its nuclear program, Iran has pursued an aggressive foreign policy elsewhere in the Middle East, alarming its neighbors.
For example, Iran is backing Syrian President Bashar Assad against Sunni groups trying to topple him. At the same time, Iranian-trained Shiite militias are indirectly helping U.S.-backed Iraqi troops trying to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group in Iraq. And in Yemen, Iran has backed the Houthi rebels, whose positions are being bombed by Saudi Arabia with U.S. assistance.
Critics of the deal fear that once Iran starts to get relief from sanctions — including access to more than $100 billion in frozen assets — it will use the money to wreak more havoc in the region.
U.S. officials argue that Iran’s regional meddling costs little, and that the country is more likely to direct the influx of funds to repairing its economy and its infrastructure. At the same time, Obama has promised more military aid to Arab countries and repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to Israel’s security.
In many ways, the hardest part of the nuclear deal begins now, with its implementation.
Congress will review the deal, and is likely to vote to prevent Obama from suspending sanctions on Iran — a measure Obama is sure to veto. In that scenario, the votes of a few dozen Senate Democrats could become decisive in a veto override battle.
The nuclear deal will also drive the 2016 presidential campaign’s foreign policy debate. Several Republican contenders are already vowing to kill the deal if they win the White House.
Follow @politico
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
BeWOZswDZMa9807w
|
media_bias
|
Townhall
| 22
|
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2020/01/24/watch-media-head-over-heels-for-schiff-n2560038
|
The Media's Sick Obsession With Adam Schiff
|
2020-01-24
|
Leah Barkoukis, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Reagan Mccarthy, Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich
|
While the rest of America has likely had way too much of impeachment trial manager Rep. Adam Schiff in recent days ( if they know who he is at all , that is ) , the mainstream media can ’ t get enough .
The California Democrat was “ dazzling , ” according to CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin :
`` I thought it was dazzling . I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable . It was the second-best courtroom address , since it ’ s like a courtroom , that I ever heard , after a prosecutor named Jonathan Benedict in the Michael Skakel case in Connecticut is the best I ever heard , and it ’ s still the best , but that was — when you consider the volume of information he covered using the video , as I think Jake mentioned earlier , the — you know , the witness testimony , the documents , it ’ s very persuasive stuff . ''
Former top Mueller lawyer Andrew Weissmann likened it to a `` Spartacus moment '' on MSNBC :
`` This reminds me of the quote from — supposed to be Lincoln — who said , To sin by silence , when they should protest , Makes a coward of men . That ’ s the people who are thinking it ’ s better to stay silent and ‘ I can do better by trying to do the right thing. ’ This is really an ‘ I am Spartacus ’ moment where people really need to stand up . And I read the same thing which was that this was a speech really aimed at the better angels . And I think Adam Schiff did a really great job . ''
CNN 's Wolf Blitzer , meanwhile , called Schiff 's speech `` very powerful and forceful . ''
Thanks to Tom Elliott , founder and editor of Grabien Media , you can see how bad the obsession is in under two minutes .
Supercut : The media has a fevah and the only cure is more @ RepAdamSchiff pic.twitter.com/oKWfZKqOn5 — Tom Elliott ( @ tomselliott ) January 23 , 2020
Love is in the air ! @ RepAdamSchiff 's impeaching Trump , and media hearts are aflutter ! pic.twitter.com/oKWfZKqOn5 — Tom Elliott ( @ tomselliott ) January 23 , 2020
The adulation was enough to make President Trump 's reelection team `` sick '' :
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? https : //t.co/ux5VAKEA6z — Trump War Room -- Text LIFE to 88022 ( @ TrumpWarRoom ) January 24 , 2020
“ If they mean senatorial-esque by being long-winded and just bloviating for hours on end , then mission accomplished , ” former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz told Fox News about the media 's praise for Schiff 's opening arguments .
Cruz : God help us if we have to listen to Adam Schiff prattle on for 24 hours , non-stop — Chad Pergram ( @ ChadPergram ) January 22 , 2020
|
While the rest of America has likely had way too much of impeachment trial manager Rep. Adam Schiff in recent days (if they know who he is at all, that is), the mainstream media can’t get enough.
The California Democrat was “dazzling,” according to CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:
"I thought it was dazzling. I thought the way he wove through both the facts of the case and the historical context was really remarkable. It was the second-best courtroom address, since it’s like a courtroom, that I ever heard, after a prosecutor named Jonathan Benedict in the Michael Skakel case in Connecticut is the best I ever heard, and it’s still the best, but that was — when you consider the volume of information he covered using the video, as I think Jake mentioned earlier, the — you know, the witness testimony, the documents, it’s very persuasive stuff."
Former top Mueller lawyer Andrew Weissmann likened it to a "Spartacus moment" on MSNBC:
"This reminds me of the quote from — supposed to be Lincoln — who said, To sin by silence, when they should protest, Makes a coward of men. That’s the people who are thinking it’s better to stay silent and ‘I can do better by trying to do the right thing.’ This is really an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment where people really need to stand up. And I read the same thing which was that this was a speech really aimed at the better angels. And I think Adam Schiff did a really great job."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, meanwhile, called Schiff's speech "very powerful and forceful."
Thanks to Tom Elliott, founder and editor of Grabien Media, you can see how bad the obsession is in under two minutes.
Supercut: The media has a fevah and the only cure is more @RepAdamSchiff pic.twitter.com/oKWfZKqOn5 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 23, 2020
SUPERCUT:
Love is in the air! @RepAdamSchiff's impeaching Trump, and media hearts are aflutter! pic.twitter.com/oKWfZKqOn5 — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 23, 2020
The adulation was enough to make President Trump's reelection team "sick":
???????? https://t.co/ux5VAKEA6z — Trump War Room -- Text LIFE to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) January 24, 2020
Republicans had similar takes.
“If they mean senatorial-esque by being long-winded and just bloviating for hours on end, then mission accomplished,” former Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz told Fox News about the media's praise for Schiff's opening arguments.
Cruz: God help us if we have to listen to Adam Schiff prattle on for 24 hours, non-stop — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 22, 2020
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
sS6C7cCrofV1sAPG
|
media_bias
|
Media Matters
| 00
|
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/03/foxs-selective-amnesia-megyn-kelly-forgets-pres/199554
|
Fox's Selective Amnesia: Megyn Kelly Forgets President Bush's Negotiations With Enemies In Iraq
|
2014-06-03
|
Fox News host Megyn Kelly endorsed the canard that President George W. Bush never negotiated with terrorists , an attempt to criticize Obama for negotiations that led to the release of Army Sgt . Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity . The reality is that Obama 's negotiation is fully consistent with recent American history , including negotiations conducted by President Bush during the Iraq War .
On the June 2 edition of Fox News ' The Kelly File , host Kelly asked former Vice President Dick Cheney whether the U.S. negotiated with terrorists in order to secure the release of Sgt . Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban in an exchange for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners . Kelly used a 2008 speech from former President Bush in Israel where she claimed he “ shared this powerful history lesson on the danger of trying to deal with the devil ” :
KELLY : America does n't normally negotiate with terrorists . Did we just do that ? Back in 2008 President Bush was speaking in Israel when he shared his powerful history lesson on the danger in trying to deal with the devil .
Kelly , following the lead of many in the media , ignored the fact that Bergdahl 's release mirrors similar negotiations throughout U.S. history . In fact , Time magazine pointed out that President Bush , whom Kelly touted as having warned against negotiating with terrorists , “ cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq 's Anbar province -- working with and even paying people who had been killing American soldiers ” during the Iraq War . On June 1 , PolitiFact wrote that Mitchell Reiss , who worked under Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney , explained that “ There 's little that 's actually new here , ” “ noting Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the 'Axis of Evil . ' ”
Security expert Charles “ Cully ” Stimson told USA Today that presidents from both parties have participated in “ small scale negotiations ” in the past :
Charles “ Cully ” Stimson , a security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank , said there are even more examples of small-scale negotiations with terrorist groups that the public , and many members of Congress , just do n't know about . Under President George W. Bush , Stimson helped coordinate the Pentagon 's detainee operations in Iraq , Afghanistan , Guantanamo Bay , Cuba , and other places around the world . He said presidential administrations of both political parties routinely have been forced to deal with terrorist groups for “ information , supplies , personnel -- a lot of different topics. ” “ We have had very quiet negotiations , or discussions at least , with terrorist groups over the years on a whole host of things , ” Stimson said . “ They just have n't usually come to light . ”
Fox News continues to politicize the release of the American prisoner , calling it a distraction from the VA and using it to resurrect long debunked Benghazi smears .
The language in this post has been updated for accuracy .
|
Fox News host Megyn Kelly endorsed the canard that President George W. Bush never negotiated with terrorists, an attempt to criticize Obama for negotiations that led to the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity. The reality is that Obama's negotiation is fully consistent with recent American history, including negotiations conducted by President Bush during the Iraq War.
On the June 2 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File, host Kelly asked former Vice President Dick Cheney whether the U.S. negotiated with terrorists in order to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from the Taliban in an exchange for five Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Kelly used a 2008 speech from former President Bush in Israel where she claimed he “shared this powerful history lesson on the danger of trying to deal with the devil” :
KELLY: America doesn't normally negotiate with terrorists. Did we just do that? Back in 2008 President Bush was speaking in Israel when he shared his powerful history lesson on the danger in trying to deal with the devil.
Kelly, following the lead of many in the media, ignored the fact that Bergdahl's release mirrors similar negotiations throughout U.S. history. In fact, Time magazine pointed out that President Bush, whom Kelly touted as having warned against negotiating with terrorists, “cut deals with Sunni insurgents in Iraq's Anbar province -- working with and even paying people who had been killing American soldiers” during the Iraq War. On June 1, PolitiFact wrote that Mitchell Reiss, who worked under Bush and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, explained that “There's little that's actually new here,” “noting Bush engaged in negotiations with Iran and North Korea even after decreeing them part of the 'Axis of Evil.'”
Security expert Charles “Cully” Stimson told USA Today that presidents from both parties have participated in “small scale negotiations” in the past:
Charles “Cully” Stimson, a security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, said there are even more examples of small-scale negotiations with terrorist groups that the public, and many members of Congress, just don't know about. Under President George W. Bush, Stimson helped coordinate the Pentagon's detainee operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other places around the world. He said presidential administrations of both political parties routinely have been forced to deal with terrorist groups for “information, supplies, personnel -- a lot of different topics.” “We have had very quiet negotiations, or discussions at least, with terrorist groups over the years on a whole host of things,” Stimson said. “They just haven't usually come to light.”
Fox News continues to politicize the release of the American prisoner, calling it a distraction from the VA and using it to resurrect long debunked Benghazi smears.
The language in this post has been updated for accuracy.
|
www.mediamatters.org
| 0left
|
xqo3UdbXix8dXcYC
|
|
criminal_justice
|
ABC News
| 00
|
https://abcnews.go.com/US/sentencing-day-actress-felicity-huffman-varsity-blues-college/story?id=65563086&cid=clicksource_4380645_null_hero_hed
|
Sentencing day for actress Felicity Huffman in 'Varsity Blues' college entrance scam
|
`` Desperate Housewives '' star Felicity Huffman has been sentenced to 14 days in prison for federal crimes stemming from the massive `` Varsity Blues '' college entrance scam .
Interested in College Admissions Scandal ? Add College Admissions Scandal as an interest to stay up to date on the latest College Admissions Scandal news , video , and analysis from ███ . Add Interest
Huffman also will have to pay a $ 30,000 fine , complete 250 hours of community service and serve one year of probation .
She is due to self-report to a yet-to-be-determined Bureau of Prisons facility Oct. 25 .
Huffman , 56 , learned her fate Friday and issued a statement shortly thereafter , accepting the judge 's decision .
`` I accept the court 's decision today without reservation , '' she said in the statement . `` I have always been prepared to accept whatever punishment Judge Talwani imposed . I broke the law . I have admitted that and I pleaded guilty to this crime . There are no excuses or justifications for my actions . Period .
`` I would like to apologize again to my daughter , my husband , my family and the educational community for my actions . And I especially want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college , and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children . ''
`` I have learned a lot over the last six months about my flaws as a person , '' she added . `` My goal now is to serve the sentence that the court has given me . I look forward to doing my community service hours and making a positive impact on my community . I also plan to continue making contributions wherever I can well after those service hours are completed . I can promise you that in the months and years to come that I will try and live a more honest life , serve as a better role model for my daughters and family and continue to contribute my time and energies wherever I am needed . My hope now is that my family , my friends and my community will forgive me for my actions . ''
Before announcing her decision , Judge Indira Talwani said she was not punishing Huffman -- and won ’ t punish the other parents either -- for a flawed college admissions process . Instead , the judge focused on why there is such a sense of outrage surrounding the case , saying that it is because the system is already so distorted and that Huffman took the step of obtaining one more advantage to put her child ahead of others .
Huffman read a statement in front of the court apologizing to the judge , students and the colleges and universities . She then tearfully apologized to her two daughters and husband for betraying them .
Huffman told the court that her daughter has asked her why she didn ’ t believe in her . Tearfully , she said “ I was frightened . I was stupid and I was wrong . I have inflicted more damage than I could ever imagine . ”
`` I take full responsibility for my actions . I am prepared to take whatever sentence you give me , ” Huffman told the court .
Earlier this month , Huffman 's lawyers filed papers asking Talwani to not send the Oscar-nominated actress to prison , writing that `` nothing about her history and characteristics require a prison sentence . ''
Huffman 's lawyers had asked Talwani to impose a one-year probation term , 250 hours of community service and a $ 20,000 fine . But federal prosecutors asked the judge to sentence Huffman to one month of incarceration , followed by 12 months of supervised release and a fine of $ 20,000 .
`` She is remorseful -- indeed , deeply ashamed -- about what she did , '' Huffman 's lawyers stated in court documents .
On March 13 , a federal indictment was unsealed with charges for 50 people , including Huffman and more than 30 other wealthy parents , in the largest college cheating scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice .
The indictment alleges the parents paid bribes to William `` Rick '' Singer , a college-entrance tutor guru whom prosecutors identified as the ringleader of the nationwide scam , to get their children into elite colleges , including Stanford , the University of Southern California , Princeton and Georgetown .
Singer , 59 , who prosecutors said collected $ 25 million in bribes during the years-long scam , pleaded guilty in March to racketeering conspiracy , money laundering conspiracy , conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of justice . He 's yet to be sentenced .
Also indicted was actress Lori Loughlin -- best known as Aunt Becky on the sitcom `` Full House '' -- and her husband , fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli , who are fighting charges they paid Singer $ 500,000 to get their two daughters , Olivia Jade and Isabella , into USC as recruits for the university 's crew team , despite the fact they 'd never participated in the sport .
Huffman pleaded guilty earlier this year to charges of conspiring to commit mail fraud and honest service mail fraud and admitted that she paid Singer $ 15,000 to falsify her daughter Sophia 's SAT score .
`` I am in full acceptance of my guilt , and with deep regret and shame over what I have done . I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions , '' Huffman tearfully said as she pleaded guilty in court on May 13 .
Huffman 's lawyers presented Talwani with letters vouching for her character from the actress ' relatives , including her husband , actor William H. Macy , and former colleagues such as Eva Longoria , a fellow cast member on `` Desperate Housewives . ''
Huffman and Macy later allegedly made arrangements to pursue the scheme a second time , for their younger daughter , before deciding not to do so , according to court documents . Macy was not charged in the scam .
`` To be sure , Felicity 's relationship with her daughters exploded on March 12th and rebuilding that relationship will be a long process . But I also want you to know Felicity has raised two amazing young women , '' Macy wrote in his letter to Talwani .
Felicity Huffman ( MORE : among 14 people to plead guilty in college admissions scam )
`` After her arrest Felicity found a wonderful family therapist and we 've all been going ( in various combinations ) for the last few months , '' Macy wrote . `` There is much to be done , and some of the hurt and anger will take years to work through , but we are making progress . ''
|
"Desperate Housewives" star Felicity Huffman has been sentenced to 14 days in prison for federal crimes stemming from the massive "Varsity Blues" college entrance scam.
Interested in College Admissions Scandal? Add College Admissions Scandal as an interest to stay up to date on the latest College Admissions Scandal news, video, and analysis from ABC News. Add Interest
Huffman also will have to pay a $30,000 fine, complete 250 hours of community service and serve one year of probation.
She is due to self-report to a yet-to-be-determined Bureau of Prisons facility Oct. 25.
Huffman, 56, learned her fate Friday and issued a statement shortly thereafter, accepting the judge's decision.
"I accept the court's decision today without reservation," she said in the statement. "I have always been prepared to accept whatever punishment Judge Talwani imposed. I broke the law. I have admitted that and I pleaded guilty to this crime. There are no excuses or justifications for my actions. Period.
"I would like to apologize again to my daughter, my husband, my family and the educational community for my actions. And I especially want to apologize to the students who work hard every day to get into college, and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children."
Katherine Taylor/Reuters
"I have learned a lot over the last six months about my flaws as a person," she added. "My goal now is to serve the sentence that the court has given me. I look forward to doing my community service hours and making a positive impact on my community. I also plan to continue making contributions wherever I can well after those service hours are completed. I can promise you that in the months and years to come that I will try and live a more honest life, serve as a better role model for my daughters and family and continue to contribute my time and energies wherever I am needed. My hope now is that my family, my friends and my community will forgive me for my actions."
Before announcing her decision, Judge Indira Talwani said she was not punishing Huffman -- and won’t punish the other parents either -- for a flawed college admissions process. Instead, the judge focused on why there is such a sense of outrage surrounding the case, saying that it is because the system is already so distorted and that Huffman took the step of obtaining one more advantage to put her child ahead of others.
Huffman read a statement in front of the court apologizing to the judge, students and the colleges and universities. She then tearfully apologized to her two daughters and husband for betraying them.
Huffman told the court that her daughter has asked her why she didn’t believe in her. Tearfully, she said “I was frightened. I was stupid and I was wrong. I have inflicted more damage than I could ever imagine.”
"I take full responsibility for my actions. I am prepared to take whatever sentence you give me,” Huffman told the court.
Michael Dwyer/AP
Earlier this month, Huffman's lawyers filed papers asking Talwani to not send the Oscar-nominated actress to prison, writing that "nothing about her history and characteristics require a prison sentence."
Huffman's lawyers had asked Talwani to impose a one-year probation term, 250 hours of community service and a $20,000 fine. But federal prosecutors asked the judge to sentence Huffman to one month of incarceration, followed by 12 months of supervised release and a fine of $20,000.
"She is remorseful -- indeed, deeply ashamed -- about what she did," Huffman's lawyers stated in court documents.
On March 13, a federal indictment was unsealed with charges for 50 people, including Huffman and more than 30 other wealthy parents, in the largest college cheating scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice.
The indictment alleges the parents paid bribes to William "Rick" Singer, a college-entrance tutor guru whom prosecutors identified as the ringleader of the nationwide scam, to get their children into elite colleges, including Stanford, the University of Southern California, Princeton and Georgetown.
Singer, 59, who prosecutors said collected $25 million in bribes during the years-long scam, pleaded guilty in March to racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of justice. He's yet to be sentenced.
Also indicted was actress Lori Loughlin -- best known as Aunt Becky on the sitcom "Full House" -- and her husband, fashion designer Mossimo Giannulli, who are fighting charges they paid Singer $500,000 to get their two daughters, Olivia Jade and Isabella, into USC as recruits for the university's crew team, despite the fact they'd never participated in the sport.
Huffman pleaded guilty earlier this year to charges of conspiring to commit mail fraud and honest service mail fraud and admitted that she paid Singer $15,000 to falsify her daughter Sophia's SAT score.
"I am in full acceptance of my guilt, and with deep regret and shame over what I have done. I accept full responsibility for my actions and will accept the consequences that stem from those actions," Huffman tearfully said as she pleaded guilty in court on May 13.
Huffman's lawyers presented Talwani with letters vouching for her character from the actress' relatives, including her husband, actor William H. Macy, and former colleagues such as Eva Longoria, a fellow cast member on "Desperate Housewives."
Huffman and Macy later allegedly made arrangements to pursue the scheme a second time, for their younger daughter, before deciding not to do so, according to court documents. Macy was not charged in the scam.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
"To be sure, Felicity's relationship with her daughters exploded on March 12th and rebuilding that relationship will be a long process. But I also want you to know Felicity has raised two amazing young women," Macy wrote in his letter to Talwani.
Felicity Huffman (MORE: among 14 people to plead guilty in college admissions scam)
"After her arrest Felicity found a wonderful family therapist and we've all been going (in various combinations) for the last few months," Macy wrote. "There is much to be done, and some of the hurt and anger will take years to work through, but we are making progress."
|
www.abcnews.go.com
| 0left
|
Wl4HJIDlWBde2P9p
|
||
politics
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/colluders-washington-clinton-obama-loaylists/
|
Colluders on the Loose
|
2018-04-17
|
Victor Davis Hanson, John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Carrie Severino, Rich Lowry, Nro Contributor
|
FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , January 10 , 2017 . ( Joshua Roberts/Reuters )
Comey , McCabe , Clapper , Brennan , Lynch , Andrew Weissmann , Bruce and Nellie Ohr , Harry Reid , Samantha Power , Clinton attorney Jeannie Rhee . . .
If collusion is the twin of conspiracy , then there are lots of colluders running around Washington .
Robert Mueller was tasked to find evidence of Trump and Russia collusion that might have warped the 2016 campaign and thrown the election to Trump . After a year , his investigation has found no concrete evidence of collusion . So it has often turned to other purported Trump misadventures . Ironically , collusion of all sorts — illegal , barely legal , and simply unethical — has been the sea that Washington fish always swim in .
Christopher Steele , hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign through a series of firewall intermediaries , probably paid Russian sources for gossip and smears . If there is a crime of collusion , then Clinton-campaign contractors should be under investigation for seeking Russian help to find dirt on Trump , to spread smears around throughout the DOJ , FBI , and CIA , and to make sure that the dirt was leaked to the press in the final weeks of the campaign — for the sole “ insurance ” purposes of losing Trump the election .
Some sort of collusion likely occurred when the Obama DOJ and FBI sought FISA-court requests to surveille Carter Page and , indirectly , possibly many other members of the Trump campaign . On repeated occasions , they all made sure the FISA-court judges were not apprised that the Steele dossier , the chief basis for these requests , was paid for by the Clinton campaign , that the dossier was not verified by the FBI , that the dossier was the source of media stories that in circular fashion were used to convince the FISA judges to grant the surveillance requests , and that the FBI had severed relations with Steele on the basis of his unreliability . Such a collusion of silence was similar to James Comey ’ s admission that he apprised President Trump of every iota of lurid sexual gossip about him — except that his source was a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and written by a campaign operative hired to find dirt on Trump and who had been working with Comey ’ s FBI to get FISA approval to spy on Trump ’ s own aides .
Apparently , a number of government officials must have been in cahoots to get all their stories and agendas straight ahead of time . They certainly agreed on talking points to keep embarrassing facts from FISA judges , and they did so on a number of occasions . Does that behavior fall under the definition of some sort of colluding obstruction ?
Who set up the ruse in which an FBI director types up confidential notes of a meeting with the president and passes them to a friend to ensure a firewall conduit to the press , to publish as a “ leak ” from an “ unidentified source ” to damage the reputation of the president ? All that would require a degree of collusion to leak a classified FBI document that is so sensitive that House Intelligence Committee members with security clearances can not see what the media and a personal friend of Comey ’ s already have .
James Comey himself was quite a colluder . Somehow , he managed to mislead Congress by assuring them that he had not written his assessment of Hillary Clinton before he interviewed her and supposedly had not been the source of or approved leaks to the media . He has contradicted what both Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe have said . He has deliberately misled a FISA court by withholding information from it , vital to any evaluation of the veracity of his writ . He probably lied when he was messaging the media that Trump was under investigation while simultaneously assuring Trump in person that he was not . He has admitted that he warped an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server because he assumed she ’ d win the presidency — an admission of politicized interference into a criminal investigation , if not a blatant confession that the FBI in felonious fashion was manipulating investigatory evidence to affect the outcome of a U.S. election . For Comey to escape legal exposure from all that required some sort of colluding help in high places .
Former attorney general Loretta Lynch seems to have been involved in all sorts of collusion . Given that there are more than 5,000 airports in the United States , two jets — one carrying the attorney general , the other the ex-president and spouse of a presidential candidate of the same shared party currently under investigation by Attorney General Lynch — do not just accidentally bump into each other on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport . There was no more chance of that than of investing $ 1,000 in cattle futures and reaping a $ 100,000 profit ten months later . And after elevating the FBI director from investigator to prosecutor with the final say on whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton , why was the supposedly quasi-recused Lynch then quibbling over the vocabulary of Comey ’ s report on Clinton ?
Imagine the following possible ethical collusion . What if both ABC News and CBS News were now running mostly favorable news accounts about Donald Trump ’ s administration , rather than the media ’ s 90 percent ( on average ) negative coverage . And imagine that one of Donald Trump ’ s chief advisers and a deputy national-security adviser was the brother of the current CBS News president , while the sister of the ABC News president was another one of Trump ’ s top national- security and energy advisers .
What would the media say of such apparent incestuousness that involved two-thirds of the networks ’ nightly newscasts ? Yet that was precisely the case of the Rhodes and the Sherwood siblings during the Obama administration .
Speaking of journalistic ethics , what would the media make of a conservative JournoList that shared strategies among top reporters about how to deal with Trump critics , or a conservative WikiLeaks trove , in which journalists communicated frequently with the Trump campaign and ran their stories by it for pre-published “ fact checking ” ? Would the media dub that unethical collusion ?
How exactly did the media get wind of the scurrilous Steele dossier in the closing days of the U.S. campaign ? And who exactly knew of its contents — James Comey and his FBI hierarchy , CIA director John Brennan , Senator Harry Reid , Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — and who in government colluded with the media to disseminate such unproven data with the expressed intent of warping an ongoing U.S. election ?
If one wished to dream up a colluding investigatory team , one could have done no better than Robert Mueller ’ s special-counsel investigators and other top DOJ and FBI officials .
The public for much of 2016 was not told that the chief investigator of the Clinton email scandal , Andrew McCabe , since cited for serial untruthfulness , was the spouse of a political candidate who had earlier received nearly $ 700,000 ( 40 percent of all money raised for her campaign ) from Clinton-related campaign-funding committees .
Why didn ’ t Mueller simply tell the public when and why Lisa Page and Peter Strzok left his investigation team ?
Former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort , Trump ’ s daughter Ivanka , and Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law , had also been represented by attorneys from the legal firm WilmerHale , Mueller ’ s old firm , which supplied a number of counselors to the Mueller team . At least seven of Mueller ’ s team were known to have contributed money to the Democratic party or Hillary Clinton or both .
Andrew Weissmann , yet another former partner at WilmerHale and a Mueller investigator , had emailed applause to Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates when she had tried to block the immigration moratorium issued by her then boss , President Trump . Like others on Mueller ’ s team , Weissmann was a donor to Democratic causes and an admitted Hillary Clinton partisan . And Sally Yates co-signed one of the FISA-court requests to surveille Trump campaign associates , and she also did not disclose to the court the full provenance of the Steele dossier .
Another Obama holdover , Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G. Ohr , met with the architects of the Fusion GPS dossier . Ohr apparently did not disclose that meeting to his superiors . His wife , a Russia expert , had been hired by Fusion GPS to help find damaging information about Donald Trump . Ohr deliberately — and probably unlawfully — hid that fact on a federal disclosure form . Who thought up that trick ?
How much collusion was necessary to coordinate destroying 30,000 emails , smashing hard drives , and finding the proper Washington counsel to ensure that the now-quite-incestuous FBI never charged the perpetrators with a federal crime ?
Another Washington couple , Shailagh Murray and Neil King Jr. , were involved , respectively , in the Obama administration and the Fusion GPS opposition-research firm . Murray was an Obama-administration policy adviser who had once been deputy chief of staff and communications director for Vice President Joe Biden . She is married to Neil King Jr. , who , like the wife of Bruce Ohr , worked for Fusion GPS . Why were there so many Obama appointees with some sort of ties to Fusion GPS ?
In the small world of Washington legal and political circles , Mueller investigator Aaron Zebley was Mueller ’ s chief of staff while Mueller was FBI director , and he was yet another former partner at WilmerHale . Zebley had recently represented Justin Cooper . Cooper , remember , testified that he had set up Hillary Clinton ’ s private server and then used a hammer to destroy some of her mobile devices , leaving the FBI unable to acquire them during its investigation . Clinton ’ s email server — the domain clintonemail.com — was registered to Cooper himself while Clinton was secretary of state . How much collusion was necessary to coordinate destroying 30,000 emails , smashing hard drives , and finding the proper Washington counsel to ensure that the now-quite-incestuous FBI never charged the perpetrators with a federal crime ?
Why , after the election , did Samantha Power request surveillance of Trump campaign aides , and why was she allowed to have their names unmasked , and how did those names get leaked to the press ?
Another member of Mueller ’ s special-counsel team , Jeannie Rhee , was also a WilmerHale alumna . She was another significant donor to the Clinton-campaign effort . And she was another Mueller attorney who had represented someone deeply involved in a recent Clinton scandal . She had recently represented not only the Clinton Foundation but also Obama deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes during the investigation of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack and Clinton ’ s role in creating the conditions for that attack and then covering it up after the fact . Was Rhee representing the Clinton Foundation while some of her present associates at the DOJ and FBI were once supposedly investigating it ? What were the best criteria to get on the Mueller team ? To have worked in his law firm , to have donated to the Clinton campaign , or to have represented a Clinton concern under investigation ?
Why , after the election , did Samantha Power request surveillance of Trump campaign aides , and why was she allowed to have their names unmasked , and how did those names get leaked to the press ? Does an outgoing ambassador to the United Nations usually concern herself with the intelligence agencies ’ surveillance of a past presidential campaign ? Would she have made those requests if Trump had lost ? Who organized the various requests to view FISA-ordered surveillance , and who complied with the unmasking requests ? Did all that require some degree of collusion ?
After the defeat of Hillary Clinton , Obama holdover Evelyn Farkas , a former assistant deputy secretary of defense , spilled the collusion beans on MSNBC ’ s Morning Joe :
I was urging my former colleagues and — and frankly speaking , the people on the Hill , it was more actually aimed — aimed at telling the Hill people , “ Get as much information as you can , get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration. ” Because , I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left . So , it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks , the Trump folks , if they found out how we knew what we knew about their , the staff , the Trump staff ’ s dealing with Russians , that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence . So , I became very worried , because not enough was coming out into the open , and I knew that there was more . We have very good intelligence on Russia . So , then I had talked to some of my former colleagues , and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill .
What exactly does she mean by “ if they found out how we know what we knew about their , the staff ” ? Ms. Farkas , exactly what , how , and when did you folks find out or “ know ” about the Trump staff ?
Who told Farkas to get her “ former colleagues ” to help thwart the incoming president ?
Was Farkas part of a larger last-minute Obama-administration collusion meant to ensure that improperly gathered and unmasked intelligence was as widely disseminated as possible in the holdover government ? Why did the Obama administration wait until the very last days of its more than 2,900 days in power to vastly expand the National Security Agency ’ s ability to share information with 16 other intelligence agencies ? Like Farkas ’ s effort , was that collusion meant to ensure that anything that turned up on Trump would be widely shared and thus widely leaked ?
In sum , Washington lives by and for collusion . Always has . Until now , it was apparently just a creed , not a crime .
|
FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, January 10, 2017. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)
Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch, Andrew Weissmann, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Harry Reid, Samantha Power, Clinton attorney Jeannie Rhee . . .
If collusion is the twin of conspiracy, then there are lots of colluders running around Washington.
Robert Mueller was tasked to find evidence of Trump and Russia collusion that might have warped the 2016 campaign and thrown the election to Trump. After a year, his investigation has found no concrete evidence of collusion. So it has often turned to other purported Trump misadventures. Ironically, collusion of all sorts — illegal, barely legal, and simply unethical — has been the sea that Washington fish always swim in.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Christopher Steele, hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign through a series of firewall intermediaries, probably paid Russian sources for gossip and smears. If there is a crime of collusion, then Clinton-campaign contractors should be under investigation for seeking Russian help to find dirt on Trump, to spread smears around throughout the DOJ, FBI, and CIA, and to make sure that the dirt was leaked to the press in the final weeks of the campaign — for the sole “insurance” purposes of losing Trump the election.
Some sort of collusion likely occurred when the Obama DOJ and FBI sought FISA-court requests to surveille Carter Page and, indirectly, possibly many other members of the Trump campaign. On repeated occasions, they all made sure the FISA-court judges were not apprised that the Steele dossier, the chief basis for these requests, was paid for by the Clinton campaign, that the dossier was not verified by the FBI, that the dossier was the source of media stories that in circular fashion were used to convince the FISA judges to grant the surveillance requests, and that the FBI had severed relations with Steele on the basis of his unreliability. Such a collusion of silence was similar to James Comey’s admission that he apprised President Trump of every iota of lurid sexual gossip about him — except that his source was a dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton and written by a campaign operative hired to find dirt on Trump and who had been working with Comey’s FBI to get FISA approval to spy on Trump’s own aides.
Advertisement
Apparently, a number of government officials must have been in cahoots to get all their stories and agendas straight ahead of time. They certainly agreed on talking points to keep embarrassing facts from FISA judges, and they did so on a number of occasions. Does that behavior fall under the definition of some sort of colluding obstruction?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Who set up the ruse in which an FBI director types up confidential notes of a meeting with the president and passes them to a friend to ensure a firewall conduit to the press, to publish as a “leak” from an “unidentified source” to damage the reputation of the president? All that would require a degree of collusion to leak a classified FBI document that is so sensitive that House Intelligence Committee members with security clearances cannot see what the media and a personal friend of Comey’s already have.
James Comey himself was quite a colluder. Somehow, he managed to mislead Congress by assuring them that he had not written his assessment of Hillary Clinton before he interviewed her and supposedly had not been the source of or approved leaks to the media. He has contradicted what both Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe have said. He has deliberately misled a FISA court by withholding information from it, vital to any evaluation of the veracity of his writ. He probably lied when he was messaging the media that Trump was under investigation while simultaneously assuring Trump in person that he was not. He has admitted that he warped an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server because he assumed she’d win the presidency — an admission of politicized interference into a criminal investigation, if not a blatant confession that the FBI in felonious fashion was manipulating investigatory evidence to affect the outcome of a U.S. election. For Comey to escape legal exposure from all that required some sort of colluding help in high places.
Former attorney general Loretta Lynch seems to have been involved in all sorts of collusion. Given that there are more than 5,000 airports in the United States, two jets — one carrying the attorney general, the other the ex-president and spouse of a presidential candidate of the same shared party currently under investigation by Attorney General Lynch — do not just accidentally bump into each other on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport. There was no more chance of that than of investing $1,000 in cattle futures and reaping a $100,000 profit ten months later. And after elevating the FBI director from investigator to prosecutor with the final say on whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton, why was the supposedly quasi-recused Lynch then quibbling over the vocabulary of Comey’s report on Clinton?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Imagine the following possible ethical collusion. What if both ABC News and CBS News were now running mostly favorable news accounts about Donald Trump’s administration, rather than the media’s 90 percent (on average) negative coverage. And imagine that one of Donald Trump’s chief advisers and a deputy national-security adviser was the brother of the current CBS News president, while the sister of the ABC News president was another one of Trump’s top national- security and energy advisers.
Advertisement
What would the media say of such apparent incestuousness that involved two-thirds of the networks’ nightly newscasts? Yet that was precisely the case of the Rhodes and the Sherwood siblings during the Obama administration.
Advertisement
Speaking of journalistic ethics, what would the media make of a conservative JournoList that shared strategies among top reporters about how to deal with Trump critics, or a conservative WikiLeaks trove, in which journalists communicated frequently with the Trump campaign and ran their stories by it for pre-published “fact checking”? Would the media dub that unethical collusion?
How exactly did the media get wind of the scurrilous Steele dossier in the closing days of the U.S. campaign? And who exactly knew of its contents — James Comey and his FBI hierarchy, CIA director John Brennan, Senator Harry Reid, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — and who in government colluded with the media to disseminate such unproven data with the expressed intent of warping an ongoing U.S. election?
If one wished to dream up a colluding investigatory team, one could have done no better than Robert Mueller’s special-counsel investigators and other top DOJ and FBI officials.
Advertisement
The public for much of 2016 was not told that the chief investigator of the Clinton email scandal, Andrew McCabe, since cited for serial untruthfulness, was the spouse of a political candidate who had earlier received nearly $700,000 (40 percent of all money raised for her campaign) from Clinton-related campaign-funding committees.
Why didn’t Mueller simply tell the public when and why Lisa Page and Peter Strzok left his investigation team?
Former Trump-campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump’s daughter Ivanka, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, had also been represented by attorneys from the legal firm WilmerHale, Mueller’s old firm, which supplied a number of counselors to the Mueller team. At least seven of Mueller’s team were known to have contributed money to the Democratic party or Hillary Clinton or both.
Andrew Weissmann, yet another former partner at WilmerHale and a Mueller investigator, had emailed applause to Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates when she had tried to block the immigration moratorium issued by her then boss, President Trump. Like others on Mueller’s team, Weissmann was a donor to Democratic causes and an admitted Hillary Clinton partisan. And Sally Yates co-signed one of the FISA-court requests to surveille Trump campaign associates, and she also did not disclose to the court the full provenance of the Steele dossier.
Another Obama holdover, Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G. Ohr, met with the architects of the Fusion GPS dossier. Ohr apparently did not disclose that meeting to his superiors. His wife, a Russia expert, had been hired by Fusion GPS to help find damaging information about Donald Trump. Ohr deliberately — and probably unlawfully — hid that fact on a federal disclosure form. Who thought up that trick?
How much collusion was necessary to coordinate destroying 30,000 emails, smashing hard drives, and finding the proper Washington counsel to ensure that the now-quite-incestuous FBI never charged the perpetrators with a federal crime?
Another Washington couple, Shailagh Murray and Neil King Jr., were involved, respectively, in the Obama administration and the Fusion GPS opposition-research firm. Murray was an Obama-administration policy adviser who had once been deputy chief of staff and communications director for Vice President Joe Biden. She is married to Neil King Jr., who, like the wife of Bruce Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS. Why were there so many Obama appointees with some sort of ties to Fusion GPS?
In the small world of Washington legal and political circles, Mueller investigator Aaron Zebley was Mueller’s chief of staff while Mueller was FBI director, and he was yet another former partner at WilmerHale. Zebley had recently represented Justin Cooper. Cooper, remember, testified that he had set up Hillary Clinton’s private server and then used a hammer to destroy some of her mobile devices, leaving the FBI unable to acquire them during its investigation. Clinton’s email server — the domain clintonemail.com — was registered to Cooper himself while Clinton was secretary of state. How much collusion was necessary to coordinate destroying 30,000 emails, smashing hard drives, and finding the proper Washington counsel to ensure that the now-quite-incestuous FBI never charged the perpetrators with a federal crime?
Why, after the election, did Samantha Power request surveillance of Trump campaign aides, and why was she allowed to have their names unmasked, and how did those names get leaked to the press?
Another member of Mueller’s special-counsel team, Jeannie Rhee, was also a WilmerHale alumna. She was another significant donor to the Clinton-campaign effort. And she was another Mueller attorney who had represented someone deeply involved in a recent Clinton scandal. She had recently represented not only the Clinton Foundation but also Obama deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes during the investigation of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack and Clinton’s role in creating the conditions for that attack and then covering it up after the fact. Was Rhee representing the Clinton Foundation while some of her present associates at the DOJ and FBI were once supposedly investigating it? What were the best criteria to get on the Mueller team? To have worked in his law firm, to have donated to the Clinton campaign, or to have represented a Clinton concern under investigation?
Why, after the election, did Samantha Power request surveillance of Trump campaign aides, and why was she allowed to have their names unmasked, and how did those names get leaked to the press? Does an outgoing ambassador to the United Nations usually concern herself with the intelligence agencies’ surveillance of a past presidential campaign? Would she have made those requests if Trump had lost? Who organized the various requests to view FISA-ordered surveillance, and who complied with the unmasking requests? Did all that require some degree of collusion?
After the defeat of Hillary Clinton, Obama holdover Evelyn Farkas, a former assistant deputy secretary of defense, spilled the collusion beans on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:
I was urging my former colleagues and — and frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed — aimed at telling the Hill people, “Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.” Because, I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left. So, it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks, the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So, I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So, then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
What exactly does she mean by “if they found out how we know what we knew about their, the staff”? Ms. Farkas, exactly what, how, and when did you folks find out or “know” about the Trump staff?
Who told Farkas to get her “former colleagues” to help thwart the incoming president?
Was Farkas part of a larger last-minute Obama-administration collusion meant to ensure that improperly gathered and unmasked intelligence was as widely disseminated as possible in the holdover government? Why did the Obama administration wait until the very last days of its more than 2,900 days in power to vastly expand the National Security Agency’s ability to share information with 16 other intelligence agencies? Like Farkas’s effort, was that collusion meant to ensure that anything that turned up on Trump would be widely shared and thus widely leaked?
In sum, Washington lives by and for collusion. Always has. Until now, it was apparently just a creed, not a crime.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
nxendFn1Vyidt8nE
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/universal-background-checks-promises-pitfalls/
|
The Promise and Pitfalls of Universal Background Checks
|
2019-08-13
|
Robert Verbruggen, Kyle Smith, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Jordan Sillars, Luke Thompson, Jay Nordlinger, David French, Kevin D. Williamson, Victor Davis Hanson
|
This is one of the better gun-control proposals around , even if that ’ s not saying much .
Much as we did after Sandy Hook , we find ourselves debating background checks in the wake of killings that would not have been prevented by one . More than 60,000 Americans died by gun homicide between 2013 and 2017 , but our attention is drawn only to the rarest , most spectacular , and most unusual incidents , those where a half-day or so ’ s worth of fatalities happen all in one place — and in those , it is usually the case that the deranged killer bought his guns legally or took them from someone else who did .
But then again , now is as good a time as any to talk about measures that could affect the killings where that is not the case . And as far as gun-control proposals go , universal background checks are among the better ones : They are politically feasible , might actually reduce gun violence on the margins , and would not unduly burden law-abiding gun owners . There are countless reasons to be less trigger-happy about them than their most ardent supporters are , but if political pressure forces Republicans to give ground on something big , this might be the best way to go .
Most murders are committed by people who are not legally allowed to have firearms , whether because they have disqualifying criminal records or because they are too young . Obviously , though , they don ’ t pay much attention to the laws barring them from gun possession . The idea behind background checks is to leverage the law-abiding nature of other people who might stop guns from falling into these folks ’ hands .
Under federal law , licensed gun dealers have long been required to conduct background checks on all buyers and store the resulting records for two decades ( so that each gun can be traced to its original buyer via its serial number ) . However , this rule does not apply to private individuals who sell guns from their personal collections . Much ink has been spilled arguing over exactly what percentage of gun sales are completed without a background check , but frankly the overall number is irrelevant . What matters is simply whether private sales are common enough to be easily accessible to the small fraction of gun buyers with criminal intentions , which they are .
In addition , the current system makes it hard to trace guns that have changed hands many times , and hard to prosecute someone who sold a gun to a criminal . In effect , you have to show that the seller knew the buyer wasn ’ t allowed to have the gun . It ’ s not enough to show that he transferred a gun to a complete stranger with no questions asked .
The individual criminals roaming the streets with guns typically get their weapons informally , through friends and black-market sellers who are not likely to comply with a background-check law . But since just about every gun in the U.S. begins its life with a legal sale from a gun store , it ’ s clear that each crime gun must transition from the legal market to the illegal one at some point . Unfortunately , precise data on this process are hard to come by : The ATF has numbers on where traced crime guns were bought and where they ended up , which reveal a flow of guns from states with liberal gun laws to states with strict ones , but the steps in between are hard to nail down without a thorough investigation of each individual case . Often the crossover point takes the form of theft , but trafficking is a problem as well — where individuals procure guns through legal sales and then divert them to the illegal market .
At least in theory , universal checks could stop private sellers from inadvertently selling their guns to traffickers with criminal records . And greater documentation of private sales could deter traffickers from getting guns this way even if they could pass the checks .
Some states have already passed laws like this , but unfortunately , state-level background-check laws are destined to be limited in their effectiveness — for the simple reason that it ’ s easy enough to cross state lines with a bunch of guns in the trunk . Research on their effects is inconclusive . ( I ’ ve discussed studies on both sides here and here . )
But there ’ s at least a decent logical case that universal checks could make a difference , especially on the federal level , which is more than we can say for a lot of other anti-gun policies . And let ’ s face it : “ Please make sure the person buying your gun is not a felon ” is really not that much to ask .
That ’ s the promise . There are also pitfalls . Here I ’ ll reproduce and update a list of questions about how to structure a background-check law that I first wrote in 2015 .
How are we going to enforce this ? One recent study looked at the effects of background-check laws in Washington , Colorado , and Delaware . The stunning result : In the first two of those states , a background-check law didn ’ t even measurably increase background checks . Obviously , if you pass a background-check law and everyone ignores it , it won ’ t make a difference . For this law to work it would need to be enforced , including in areas of the country where neither the population nor local law enforcement has any interest in doing so . Is the federal government going to do sting operations trying to buy guns via private sales throughout the U.S. ? Will it aggressively pursue those whose guns wind up at crime scenes and make an example of them ? Will we also require gun owners to report thefts , so they can ’ t wait until the ATF is at their door to claim their weapon was stolen ?
Which gun transfers require checks ? Manchin-Toomey , the bipartisan background-check bill that came to the fore after Sandy Hook and is being bandied about once again today , is limited to sales that took place at gun shows or were advertised publicly . A requirement of background checks in a broader swath of transfers , while difficult to enforce in real time and harder to sell politically , would aid the prosecution of those who transfer guns to criminals . Other tricky issues include how to permit inheritances , gifts , and the temporary borrowing of guns among family and friends without creating loopholes or making criminals of innocent people . ( For a detailed discussion of how this might be achieved , see David Kopel ’ s “ Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans : Law , History , and Policy . ” )
Are records kept ? Under Manchin-Toomey , gun dealers conducting checks on behalf of private sellers would keep records the same way they do when selling their own inventory . Without records of these sales , police would have less of a paper trail to follow . The objection to keeping such records is that they constitute a de facto gun registry , albeit a scattered one , that the government could use to track down and confiscate legally purchased firearms . This seems rather unlikely , but , in fairness , gun confiscation has happened in other modern Anglosphere nations : Australia , the U.K. , and Canada .
Who keeps the records ? Currently , records are spread through countless gun stores , and getting to them involves tracing the gun through manufacturers , importers , and wholesalers . When stores go out of business , their records are transferred to the federal government , which must not organize them into a searchable database because doing so would create a registry ( which would be illegal under current federal law ) . All this would become even more complicated with private sales in the mix — different sales of a gun would be documented at different stores , and the gun ’ s various owners would need to point police to each new dealer . One solution would be to have gun manufacturers , rather than stores , keep track of who has purchased their guns : If the gun is a Ruger , Ruger has its records . Another would be for stores to report the serial numbers of the guns they ’ ve sold , but not the buyers ’ information , to a searchable federal database . This would quickly point investigators to the correct gun store without compromising the privacy of those not under investigation . Of course , these approaches would heighten concerns about a registry .
Who pays ? Manchin-Toomey allows those conducting the checks to charge fees . If the government decides to require these checks of people exercising a constitutional right , it should pick up the tab .
I ’ ve long described myself as a “ squish ” on background checks : You ’ ll pry my 15-round magazines and semiautomatic handguns from my cold , dead hands , but I won ’ t lose much sleep over something like this . Before enacting them , though , we should think hard about the details and the tradeoffs we ’ re striking .
The last time around , Manchin-Toomey was watered down substantially and still couldn ’ t pass . If the political will for this still isn ’ t there , and it ’ s not at all clear to me it is , it ’ s better to focus on something smaller than to botch universal background checks . ( Red-flag laws are one option ; another is to expand and fund voluntary checks on private sales . ) Perhaps this is the kind of policy Republicans should accede to when they are powerless to resist , rather than something they should pass when they control both the Senate and the White House .
Something to Consider If you enjoyed this article , we have a proposition for you : Join NRPLUS . Members get all of our content ( including the magazine ) , no paywalls or content meters , an advertising-minimal experience , and unique access to our writers and editors ( conference calls , social-media groups , etc. ) . And importantly , NRPLUS members help keep NR going . Consider it ? If you enjoyed this article , and were stimulated by its contents , we have a proposition for you : Join NRPLUS . LEARN MORE
|
(Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)
This is one of the better gun-control proposals around, even if that’s not saying much.
Much as we did after Sandy Hook, we find ourselves debating background checks in the wake of killings that would not have been prevented by one. More than 60,000 Americans died by gun homicide between 2013 and 2017, but our attention is drawn only to the rarest, most spectacular, and most unusual incidents, those where a half-day or so’s worth of fatalities happen all in one place — and in those, it is usually the case that the deranged killer bought his guns legally or took them from someone else who did.
Advertisement
Advertisement
But then again, now is as good a time as any to talk about measures that could affect the killings where that is not the case. And as far as gun-control proposals go, universal background checks are among the better ones: They are politically feasible, might actually reduce gun violence on the margins, and would not unduly burden law-abiding gun owners. There are countless reasons to be less trigger-happy about them than their most ardent supporters are, but if political pressure forces Republicans to give ground on something big, this might be the best way to go.
* * *
Most murders are committed by people who are not legally allowed to have firearms, whether because they have disqualifying criminal records or because they are too young. Obviously, though, they don’t pay much attention to the laws barring them from gun possession. The idea behind background checks is to leverage the law-abiding nature of other people who might stop guns from falling into these folks’ hands.
Under federal law, licensed gun dealers have long been required to conduct background checks on all buyers and store the resulting records for two decades (so that each gun can be traced to its original buyer via its serial number). However, this rule does not apply to private individuals who sell guns from their personal collections. Much ink has been spilled arguing over exactly what percentage of gun sales are completed without a background check, but frankly the overall number is irrelevant. What matters is simply whether private sales are common enough to be easily accessible to the small fraction of gun buyers with criminal intentions, which they are.
Advertisement
In addition, the current system makes it hard to trace guns that have changed hands many times, and hard to prosecute someone who sold a gun to a criminal. In effect, you have to show that the seller knew the buyer wasn’t allowed to have the gun. It’s not enough to show that he transferred a gun to a complete stranger with no questions asked.
The individual criminals roaming the streets with guns typically get their weapons informally, through friends and black-market sellers who are not likely to comply with a background-check law. But since just about every gun in the U.S. begins its life with a legal sale from a gun store, it’s clear that each crime gun must transition from the legal market to the illegal one at some point. Unfortunately, precise data on this process are hard to come by: The ATF has numbers on where traced crime guns were bought and where they ended up, which reveal a flow of guns from states with liberal gun laws to states with strict ones, but the steps in between are hard to nail down without a thorough investigation of each individual case. Often the crossover point takes the form of theft, but trafficking is a problem as well — where individuals procure guns through legal sales and then divert them to the illegal market.
Advertisement
Advertisement
At least in theory, universal checks could stop private sellers from inadvertently selling their guns to traffickers with criminal records. And greater documentation of private sales could deter traffickers from getting guns this way even if they could pass the checks.
Advertisement
Some states have already passed laws like this, but unfortunately, state-level background-check laws are destined to be limited in their effectiveness — for the simple reason that it’s easy enough to cross state lines with a bunch of guns in the trunk. Research on their effects is inconclusive. (I’ve discussed studies on both sides here and here.)
But there’s at least a decent logical case that universal checks could make a difference, especially on the federal level, which is more than we can say for a lot of other anti-gun policies. And let’s face it: “Please make sure the person buying your gun is not a felon” is really not that much to ask.
* * *
That’s the promise. There are also pitfalls. Here I’ll reproduce and update a list of questions about how to structure a background-check law that I first wrote in 2015.
How are we going to enforce this? One recent study looked at the effects of background-check laws in Washington, Colorado, and Delaware. The stunning result: In the first two of those states, a background-check law didn’t even measurably increase background checks. Obviously, if you pass a background-check law and everyone ignores it, it won’t make a difference. For this law to work it would need to be enforced, including in areas of the country where neither the population nor local law enforcement has any interest in doing so. Is the federal government going to do sting operations trying to buy guns via private sales throughout the U.S.? Will it aggressively pursue those whose guns wind up at crime scenes and make an example of them? Will we also require gun owners to report thefts, so they can’t wait until the ATF is at their door to claim their weapon was stolen?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Which gun transfers require checks? Manchin-Toomey, the bipartisan background-check bill that came to the fore after Sandy Hook and is being bandied about once again today, is limited to sales that took place at gun shows or were advertised publicly. A requirement of background checks in a broader swath of transfers, while difficult to enforce in real time and harder to sell politically, would aid the prosecution of those who transfer guns to criminals. Other tricky issues include how to permit inheritances, gifts, and the temporary borrowing of guns among family and friends without creating loopholes or making criminals of innocent people. (For a detailed discussion of how this might be achieved, see David Kopel’s “Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy.”)
Advertisement
Advertisement
Are records kept? Under Manchin-Toomey, gun dealers conducting checks on behalf of private sellers would keep records the same way they do when selling their own inventory. Without records of these sales, police would have less of a paper trail to follow. The objection to keeping such records is that they constitute a de facto gun registry, albeit a scattered one, that the government could use to track down and confiscate legally purchased firearms. This seems rather unlikely, but, in fairness, gun confiscation has happened in other modern Anglosphere nations: Australia, the U.K., and Canada.
Who keeps the records? Currently, records are spread through countless gun stores, and getting to them involves tracing the gun through manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers. When stores go out of business, their records are transferred to the federal government, which must not organize them into a searchable database because doing so would create a registry (which would be illegal under current federal law). All this would become even more complicated with private sales in the mix — different sales of a gun would be documented at different stores, and the gun’s various owners would need to point police to each new dealer. One solution would be to have gun manufacturers, rather than stores, keep track of who has purchased their guns: If the gun is a Ruger, Ruger has its records. Another would be for stores to report the serial numbers of the guns they’ve sold, but not the buyers’ information, to a searchable federal database. This would quickly point investigators to the correct gun store without compromising the privacy of those not under investigation. Of course, these approaches would heighten concerns about a registry.
Who pays? Manchin-Toomey allows those conducting the checks to charge fees. If the government decides to require these checks of people exercising a constitutional right, it should pick up the tab.
* * *
I’ve long described myself as a “squish” on background checks: You’ll pry my 15-round magazines and semiautomatic handguns from my cold, dead hands, but I won’t lose much sleep over something like this. Before enacting them, though, we should think hard about the details and the tradeoffs we’re striking.
The last time around, Manchin-Toomey was watered down substantially and still couldn’t pass. If the political will for this still isn’t there, and it’s not at all clear to me it is, it’s better to focus on something smaller than to botch universal background checks. (Red-flag laws are one option; another is to expand and fund voluntary checks on private sales.) Perhaps this is the kind of policy Republicans should accede to when they are powerless to resist, rather than something they should pass when they control both the Senate and the White House.
Something to Consider If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it? If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. LEARN MORE
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
luEoRx1lyYIpiet1
|
us_congress
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47191959
|
US shutdown looms as border talks stall ahead of deadline
|
US congressional talks over a border security deal have stalled , raising the chances of another government shutdown .
Negotiators were hoping for a deal by Monday to give Congress time to pass legislation by Friday , when the federal funding agreement runs out .
They remain divided on how many undocumented immigrants can be detained and funding for President Trump 's promised border wall with Mexico .
The previous shutdown , lasting 35 days , was the longest in US history .
Hundreds of thousands of workers were furloughed while others in essential services , such as hospital care , air traffic control and law enforcement , worked without pay .
The cost to the US economy was estimated at $ 11bn ( £8.5bn ) .
It was unclear how the negotiators would try to reach a deal , but a meeting has been scheduled for later on Monday , congressional aides said .
The 17 Republican and Democratic negotiators from the Senate and the House have been holding talks to reach a border security agreement that can be accepted by Congress .
The latest impasse seems to be centred on a Democratic demand to limit the number of undocumented migrants already in the US who can be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) .
Democrats planned to cap the number of beds at detention centres reserved for those cases at 16,500 .
By doing that , they hoped to force ICE to focus on detaining irregular migrants with criminal records instead of those who have overstayed their visas and , Democrats say , are productive and offer no threat .
They were also looking at between $ 1.3bn and $ 2bn in funding for Mr Trump 's proposed border wall , a long way off the $ 5.7bn the president has been demanding .
In a series of tweets on Monday , President Trump said that Democrats needed to `` loosen up '' , adding that their latest demand relating to the detention of migrants was `` crazy '' .
The president had earlier said the Democrats were `` behaving , all of a sudden , irrationally '' .
Lead Republican negotiator Sen Richard Shelby told Fox News : `` I 'll say 50-50 we get a deal ... The spectre of a shutdown is always out there . ''
However , one of the Democratic negotiators , Jon Tester , said there was still hope that a deal could be reached in time . Also speaking to Fox News , he said : `` Negotiations seldom go smooth all the way through . ''
As wall discussions labour on , Mr Trump plans on sending over 3,700 active troops to the US-Mexico border to help agents with security efforts this month . With over 2,000 troops already at the border , the new deployment would top November 's election-time numbers of 5,900 .
Meanwhile , pushing back against the Trump administration 's call for border states to help with security , California 's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom says he will recall hundreds of the state 's national guard from the border .
Gov Newsom 's move follows his Democratic colleague , Gov Michelle Grisham of New Mexico , who pulled her state 's troops from the border last week .
Both governors have cited the withdrawal as a retaliation against Mr Trump 's `` fear-mongering '' .
On 25 January , President Trump agreed to a three-week spending deal to end the shutdown and allow Congress to reach an agreement .
That funding ends at midnight on Friday . Another short-term deal could prevent a new shutdown , according to the New York Times .
Mr Trump - who has suggested the talks are a `` waste of time '' - made building a wall on the border with Mexico one of his key promises in the 2016 campaign .
The president has backed away from his calls to make Mexico pay for a concrete wall but during his State of the Union speech last Tuesday - delayed because of the previous shutdown - he insisted on a `` smart , strategic , see-through steel barrier '' .
He has previously threatened to declare a national emergency and fund the wall without Congress . But this idea is disliked even by some fellow Republicans and Democrats are likely to challenge it in courts .
Mr Trump said on Saturday the wall would `` get built one way or the other ! '' He is set to hold a rally in the border city of El Paso , in Texas , later on Monday to gather support for his wall .
Ahead of his visit , local officials denounced the president 's remarks that a fence built there more than a decade ago reduced criminality .
Federal agencies including the departments of Homeland Security , State , Agriculture and Commerce could lose access to money and begin to close down again , affecting about 800,000 federal employees , who would go unpaid .
During a shutdown , essential services continue to operate , with workers being required to show up . Last time , some employees continued to work unpaid but many others called in sick .
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nick Kwek toured the border dividing the US state of Arizona and Mexico's Sonora
US congressional talks over a border security deal have stalled, raising the chances of another government shutdown.
Negotiators were hoping for a deal by Monday to give Congress time to pass legislation by Friday, when the federal funding agreement runs out.
They remain divided on how many undocumented immigrants can be detained and funding for President Trump's promised border wall with Mexico.
The previous shutdown, lasting 35 days, was the longest in US history.
Hundreds of thousands of workers were furloughed while others in essential services, such as hospital care, air traffic control and law enforcement, worked without pay.
The cost to the US economy was estimated at $11bn (£8.5bn).
It was unclear how the negotiators would try to reach a deal, but a meeting has been scheduled for later on Monday, congressional aides said.
What is the latest impasse about?
The 17 Republican and Democratic negotiators from the Senate and the House have been holding talks to reach a border security agreement that can be accepted by Congress.
The latest impasse seems to be centred on a Democratic demand to limit the number of undocumented migrants already in the US who can be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Democrats planned to cap the number of beds at detention centres reserved for those cases at 16,500.
By doing that, they hoped to force ICE to focus on detaining irregular migrants with criminal records instead of those who have overstayed their visas and, Democrats say, are productive and offer no threat.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Other presidents got money for a border barrier - why not Trump?
They were also looking at between $1.3bn and $2bn in funding for Mr Trump's proposed border wall, a long way off the $5.7bn the president has been demanding.
In a series of tweets on Monday, President Trump said that Democrats needed to "loosen up", adding that their latest demand relating to the detention of migrants was "crazy".
The president had earlier said the Democrats were "behaving, all of a sudden, irrationally".
Lead Republican negotiator Sen Richard Shelby told Fox News: "I'll say 50-50 we get a deal... The spectre of a shutdown is always out there."
However, one of the Democratic negotiators, Jon Tester, said there was still hope that a deal could be reached in time. Also speaking to Fox News, he said: "Negotiations seldom go smooth all the way through."
As wall discussions labour on, Mr Trump plans on sending over 3,700 active troops to the US-Mexico border to help agents with security efforts this month. With over 2,000 troops already at the border, the new deployment would top November's election-time numbers of 5,900.
Meanwhile, pushing back against the Trump administration's call for border states to help with security, California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom says he will recall hundreds of the state's national guard from the border.
Gov Newsom's move follows his Democratic colleague, Gov Michelle Grisham of New Mexico, who pulled her state's troops from the border last week.
Both governors have cited the withdrawal as a retaliation against Mr Trump's "fear-mongering".
Why is there a risk of another shutdown?
On 25 January, President Trump agreed to a three-week spending deal to end the shutdown and allow Congress to reach an agreement.
That funding ends at midnight on Friday. Another short-term deal could prevent a new shutdown, according to the New York Times.
Mr Trump - who has suggested the talks are a "waste of time" - made building a wall on the border with Mexico one of his key promises in the 2016 campaign.
The president has backed away from his calls to make Mexico pay for a concrete wall but during his State of the Union speech last Tuesday - delayed because of the previous shutdown - he insisted on a "smart, strategic, see-through steel barrier".
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Just why has the US government partially shut down?
He has previously threatened to declare a national emergency and fund the wall without Congress. But this idea is disliked even by some fellow Republicans and Democrats are likely to challenge it in courts.
Mr Trump said on Saturday the wall would "get built one way or the other!" He is set to hold a rally in the border city of El Paso, in Texas, later on Monday to gather support for his wall.
Ahead of his visit, local officials denounced the president's remarks that a fence built there more than a decade ago reduced criminality.
What would happen in a shutdown?
Federal agencies including the departments of Homeland Security, State, Agriculture and Commerce could lose access to money and begin to close down again, affecting about 800,000 federal employees, who would go unpaid.
During a shutdown, essential services continue to operate, with workers being required to show up. Last time, some employees continued to work unpaid but many others called in sick.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
RJN3ALHoQJdbqByJ
|
||
environment
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/21/united-states-bird-population-declining-how-we-can-save-column/4228247002/
|
Our bird populations are dying off. Here's how we can save them.
|
2019-11-21
|
Sen. John Boozman , Sen. Martin Heinrich , Rep. Mike Thompson and Rep . Rob Wittman
The report “ Decline of North American avifauna ” published in the journal Science highlighted serious , ongoing concerns about the sustainability of bird populations in North America . As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission , we work with each other , as well as leaders of state and federal agencies , to conserve critical habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife across North America .
The findings of the report indicate that America ’ s bird populations have declined 29 % ( 3 billion birds ) since 1970 . These are concerning numbers , especially for future generations of wildlife enthusiasts . Although the report does not examine the causes of declining bird populations , we know that loss of habitat is a critical factor .
At the same time , the report is not all bad news and provides us with a path to recovering declining species and delivering conservation for birds and other wildlife .
For many years , groups such as Ducks Unlimited , Pheasants Forever , the National Audubon Society and the California Waterfowl Association have worked to build public support for waterfowl habitat conservation , raising funds and partnering with federal , state and local governments to restore and conserve wetlands and other waterfowl habitat . As a result of their work , the report found that waterfowl populations , despite continuing threats , have thrived in recent decades and are stable at a time when many other species are in decline .
This partnership-based approach to conservation provides a road map for success , and programs like the Federal Duck Stamp provide us with the tools we need to ensure the enjoyment of migratory birds for future generations . The Duck Stamp provides funds for the Department of the Interior to conserve and enhance habitat through voluntary and perpetual conservation easements . In fact , these voluntary easements are some of the most important and impactful conservation tools landowners can use to protect habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife for generations .
Our farmers and ranchers are some of the greatest stewards of our land and water , and voluntary conservation programs for private and working lands help producers implement more environmentally friendly agricultural practices . Programs , like those funded through the Farm Bill , provide private landowners with the tools they need to implement more sustainable practices on their land . These practices improve the sustainability of their operations and protect and enhance habitat for wildlife while improving their bottom lines .
Congress can take an important step to restore and promote even more habitat for birds by reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act . The measure provides grants to increase bird populations and wetland habitat , while supporting local economies and American traditions such as hunting , fishing , bird watching , family farming and ranching . These easements also provide all Americans with other benefits , such as flood mitigation , cleaner water and cleaner air .
Conservationists and policymakers concerned about the most recent report on our declining bird populations can look to the gains made in waterfowl and wetlands conservation as an example of the good we can do . By working together with farmers , ranchers , conservationists and other stakeholders , we will ensure the enjoyment of all birds for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts — just like we have with waterfowl .
Sen. John Boozman is a Republican from Arkansas ; Sen. Martin Heinrich is a Democrat from New Mexico ; Rep. Mike Thompson , a Democrat , represents California 's 5th Congressional District ; and Rep . Rob Wittman , a Republican , represents Virginia 's 1st Congressional District .
|
Sen. John Boozman, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Rep. Mike Thompson and Rep. Rob Wittman
Opinion contributors
The report “Decline of North American avifauna” published in the journal Science highlighted serious, ongoing concerns about the sustainability of bird populations in North America. As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, we work with each other, as well as leaders of state and federal agencies, to conserve critical habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife across North America.
The findings of the report indicate that America’s bird populations have declined 29% (3 billion birds) since 1970. These are concerning numbers, especially for future generations of wildlife enthusiasts. Although the report does not examine the causes of declining bird populations, we know that loss of habitat is a critical factor.
At the same time, the report is not all bad news and provides us with a path to recovering declining species and delivering conservation for birds and other wildlife.
For many years, groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, the National Audubon Society and the California Waterfowl Association have worked to build public support for waterfowl habitat conservation, raising funds and partnering with federal, state and local governments to restore and conserve wetlands and other waterfowl habitat. As a result of their work, the report found that waterfowl populations, despite continuing threats, have thrived in recent decades and are stable at a time when many other species are in decline.
This partnership-based approach to conservation provides a road map for success, and programs like the Federal Duck Stamp provide us with the tools we need to ensure the enjoyment of migratory birds for future generations. The Duck Stamp provides funds for the Department of the Interior to conserve and enhance habitat through voluntary and perpetual conservation easements. In fact, these voluntary easements are some of the most important and impactful conservation tools landowners can use to protect habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife for generations.
Farmers, ranchers are great stewards
Our farmers and ranchers are some of the greatest stewards of our land and water, and voluntary conservation programs for private and working lands help producers implement more environmentally friendly agricultural practices. Programs, like those funded through the Farm Bill, provide private landowners with the tools they need to implement more sustainable practices on their land. These practices improve the sustainability of their operations and protect and enhance habitat for wildlife while improving their bottom lines.
Congress can take an important step to restore and promote even more habitat for birds by reauthorizing the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. The measure provides grants to increase bird populations and wetland habitat, while supporting local economies and American traditions such as hunting, fishing, bird watching, family farming and ranching. These easements also provide all Americans with other benefits, such as flood mitigation, cleaner water and cleaner air.
Conservationists and policymakers concerned about the most recent report on our declining bird populations can look to the gains made in waterfowl and wetlands conservation as an example of the good we can do. By working together with farmers, ranchers, conservationists and other stakeholders, we will ensure the enjoyment of all birds for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts — just like we have with waterfowl.
Sen. John Boozman is a Republican from Arkansas; Sen. Martin Heinrich is a Democrat from New Mexico; Rep. Mike Thompson, a Democrat, represents California's 5th Congressional District; and Rep. Rob Wittman, a Republican, represents Virginia's 1st Congressional District.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
JMQHU95WoGLFMKGF
|
|
world
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/obama-shakes-hands-cubas-raul-castro-mandela/
|
Obama shakes hands with Cuba's Raul Castro at Nelson Mandela?s funeral
|
2013-12-10
|
Dave Boyer
|
President Obama shook hands with Cuban President Raul Castro Tuesday at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela , who died on Thursday at age 95 .
The handshake between the leaders of the two Cold War adversaries came as Mr. Obama was greeting a line of world leaders attending the memorial in Johannesburg for South Africa ’ s first black president .
The U.S. and Cuba have not had diplomatic relations for more than 50 years , since the Cuban revolution turned its government into a communist regime led by Mr. Castro ’ s brother , Fidel .
Mr. Obama in 2011 eased some of the economic and travel restrictions that had been enforced by former President George W. Bush , but relations between the two nations still are tense . For example , Cuba has been holding Alan Gross , a U.S. citizen , in jail since 2009 on charges of attempting to destabilize the Cuban government .
Just last week , family and friends of the former U.S. government contractor urged Mr. Obama to secure his release .
“ I am requesting that President Obama , the leader of this great nation , get personally involved and to do whatever it takes to bring Alan home , ” said Mr. Gross ’ s wife , Judy , at a vigil outside the White House . “ Mr . President , please don ’ t leave Alan to die in Cuba . ”
Mr . Gross was arrested while working on a U.S. Agency for International Development project to increase Internet access for small Jewish communities in Cuba . He was sentenced to 15 years in prison for “ acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the state . ”
Mr. Obama ’ s handshake with Mr. Castro was not the first between U.S.-Cuban leaders . In 2000 , at the United Nations , former President Bill Clinton shook hands with Fidel Castro , although Mr. Clinton denied it at first and no picture of the handshake exists .
Mr. Obama also shook hands with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff , who canceled a state dinner at the White House over her anger with revelations that the National Security Agency had spied on her .
|
President Obama shook hands with Cuban President Raul Castro Tuesday at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela, who died on Thursday at age 95.
The handshake between the leaders of the two Cold War adversaries came as Mr. Obama was greeting a line of world leaders attending the memorial in Johannesburg for South Africa’s first black president.
The U.S. and Cuba have not had diplomatic relations for more than 50 years, since the Cuban revolution turned its government into a communist regime led by Mr. Castro’s brother, Fidel.
Mr. Obama in 2011 eased some of the economic and travel restrictions that had been enforced by former President George W. Bush, but relations between the two nations still are tense. For example, Cuba has been holding Alan Gross, a U.S. citizen, in jail since 2009 on charges of attempting to destabilize the Cuban government.
Just last week, family and friends of the former U.S. government contractor urged Mr. Obama to secure his release.
“I am requesting that President Obama, the leader of this great nation, get personally involved and to do whatever it takes to bring Alan home,” said Mr. Gross’s wife, Judy, at a vigil outside the White House. “Mr. President, please don’t leave Alan to die in Cuba.”
Mr. Gross was arrested while working on a U.S. Agency for International Development project to increase Internet access for small Jewish communities in Cuba. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison for “acts against the independence or territorial integrity of the state.”
Mr. Obama’s handshake with Mr. Castro was not the first between U.S.-Cuban leaders. In 2000, at the United Nations, former President Bill Clinton shook hands with Fidel Castro, although Mr. Clinton denied it at first and no picture of the handshake exists.
Mr. Obama also shook hands with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who canceled a state dinner at the White House over her anger with revelations that the National Security Agency had spied on her.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
PODMhxAgoDk57hDR
|
justice_department
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-whitaker/acting-u-s-attorney-general-wont-discuss-communications-with-trump-idUSKCN1PX1LD
|
Acting U.S. attorney general won't discuss communications with Trump
|
2019-02-09
|
Andy Sullivan
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker snapped back on Friday at newly emboldened Democrats in Congress who are pushing for information on the special counsel ’ s Russia probe as they try to put President Donald Trump ’ s administration under greater scrutiny .
In a combative congressional hearing , Whitaker said he had not talked to Trump about the probe into whether Moscow tried to tip the 2016 presidential election , or “ interfered in any way ” in the investigation since taking his role in November .
Democrats , who took over the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee after last year ’ s midterm elections , accused Whitaker of being evasive in front of the panel and frequently clashed with him .
The hearing room erupted in gasps when Whitaker pushed back strongly against a question from Chairman Jerrold Nadler , a Democrat , about whether he had ever been asked to approve any action requested by Mueller .
“ Mr . Chairman , I see that your five minutes is up , ” Whitaker said , in a bold challenge to the head of the committee . “ I am here voluntarily . We have agreed to five-minute rounds , ” he added .
“ How the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice ? ” Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries later railed at Whitaker .
Trump ’ s naming of Whitaker as acting attorney general caused controversy in part because it meant that the president ’ s appointee oversees the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether Moscow meddled in the election and colluded with Trump ’ s campaign .
Related Coverage Whitaker says did not previously discuss Russia probe with Trump , associates
Whitaker had publicly criticized the investigation before joining the Justice Department in 2017 but said on Friday he had not discussed it with Trump .
“ I have not talked to the president of the United States about the special counsel ’ s investigation , ” Whitaker said .
Democrats repeatedly accused Whitaker of running out the clock by giving them evasive or rambling answers in the hearing .
In one case , he refused to answer Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee ’ s questions with a yes or no , and made a flippant remark about whether the time she had lost on the clock had been restored before he answered her questions .
“ Mr . Attorney General , we are not joking here and your humor is not acceptable , ” she said .
Whitaker testified he had never spoken with members of Trump ’ s inner circle about his views on the probe as a private citizen before he joined the Justice Department .
Trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia and has called Mueller ’ s investigation a witch hunt .
Political drama erupted on Thursday when Democrats threatened to serve Whitaker a subpoena if he failed to answer certain questions at the hearing .
Nadler later agreed to drop the threat , after Whitaker said he would back out from testifying if the subpoena was served .
Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington , U.S. , February 8 , 2019 . ███/Jonathan Ernst
During the hearing on Friday , Nadler threatened to force Whitaker to go back in front of the committee for a deposition .
Congressman Doug Collins , the top Republican on the committee , accused Democrats of staging political drama .
“ Bring your popcorn , ” he said . Collins repeatedly tried to cut Democrats off from asking questions unrelated to Whitaker ’ s current role at the department .
Justice Department ethics officials had recommended Whitaker recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation , a step he chose not to take .
“ When career officials at the department recommended that you take steps to mitigate your apparent conflicts of interest , ... you ignored them , ” Nadler said .
“ Ultimately , the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision . ”
When pressed on whether he trusted Mueller , he told lawmakers he has respect for the former FBI Director .
“ I have been on the record about my respect for Bob Mueller , ” Whitaker said . “ I have no reason to believe he is not honest . ”
Whitaker also denied media reports that Trump lashed out at him after learning his former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen was pleading guilty for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow .
Friday was likely the first and last time that Whitaker will testify as acting attorney general .
Trump ’ s nominee for attorney general , William Barr , is expected to face a Senate confirmation vote next week .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker snapped back on Friday at newly emboldened Democrats in Congress who are pushing for information on the special counsel’s Russia probe as they try to put President Donald Trump’s administration under greater scrutiny.
In a combative congressional hearing, Whitaker said he had not talked to Trump about the probe into whether Moscow tried to tip the 2016 presidential election, or “interfered in any way” in the investigation since taking his role in November.
Democrats, who took over the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee after last year’s midterm elections, accused Whitaker of being evasive in front of the panel and frequently clashed with him.
The hearing room erupted in gasps when Whitaker pushed back strongly against a question from Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, about whether he had ever been asked to approve any action requested by Mueller.
“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up,” Whitaker said, in a bold challenge to the head of the committee. “I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to five-minute rounds,” he added.
“Answer the question please,” Nadler replied.
“How the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice?” Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries later railed at Whitaker.
‘NOT JOKING’
Trump’s naming of Whitaker as acting attorney general caused controversy in part because it meant that the president’s appointee oversees the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether Moscow meddled in the election and colluded with Trump’s campaign.
Related Coverage Whitaker says did not previously discuss Russia probe with Trump, associates
Whitaker had publicly criticized the investigation before joining the Justice Department in 2017 but said on Friday he had not discussed it with Trump.
“I have not talked to the president of the United States about the special counsel’s investigation,” Whitaker said.
Democrats repeatedly accused Whitaker of running out the clock by giving them evasive or rambling answers in the hearing.
In one case, he refused to answer Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee’s questions with a yes or no, and made a flippant remark about whether the time she had lost on the clock had been restored before he answered her questions.
“Mr. Attorney General, we are not joking here and your humor is not acceptable,” she said.
Whitaker testified he had never spoken with members of Trump’s inner circle about his views on the probe as a private citizen before he joined the Justice Department.
Trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia and has called Mueller’s investigation a witch hunt.
Political drama erupted on Thursday when Democrats threatened to serve Whitaker a subpoena if he failed to answer certain questions at the hearing.
Nadler later agreed to drop the threat, after Whitaker said he would back out from testifying if the subpoena was served.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
During the hearing on Friday, Nadler threatened to force Whitaker to go back in front of the committee for a deposition.
Congressman Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, accused Democrats of staging political drama.
“Bring your popcorn,” he said. Collins repeatedly tried to cut Democrats off from asking questions unrelated to Whitaker’s current role at the department.
Justice Department ethics officials had recommended Whitaker recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation, a step he chose not to take.
“When career officials at the department recommended that you take steps to mitigate your apparent conflicts of interest, ... you ignored them,” Nadler said.
Whitaker defended his decision.
“I had no conflict of interest,” he insisted.
“Ultimately, the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision.”
When pressed on whether he trusted Mueller, he told lawmakers he has respect for the former FBI Director.
“I have been on the record about my respect for Bob Mueller,” Whitaker said. “I have no reason to believe he is not honest.”
Slideshow (15 Images)
Whitaker also denied media reports that Trump lashed out at him after learning his former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen was pleading guilty for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow.
Friday was likely the first and last time that Whitaker will testify as acting attorney general.
Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr, is expected to face a Senate confirmation vote next week.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
wz9WoNnHokSUXk6r
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/opinion/stanley-christie-scandal/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
Christie's rising star now a target
|
2014-01-08
|
Timothy Stanley
|
Story highlights Timothy Stanley : With bridge scandal , Chris Christie 's rising star is tarnished
E-mails between Christie operatives paint lane closures as political payback
He says voters may well see Christie as bullying kingpin using government power to hurt them
Stanley : Dems , conservatives who want Christie to lose now have stick to beat him with
Politics is a cruel road . One minute you 're sailing along the open highway , winning elections , keynoting political conventions . Next minute you 're accused of something politically dirty and you 're stuck in the gridlock of scandal .
Let 's consider New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie , who in November was `` the GOP 's lone superstar . '' That was how I described him after he won re-election by 22 points . But , I added , his `` mixed record in office may come back to haunt the governor and be used against him . '' Two months later , and in a slightly different context than I would have expected , this appears to be coming true .
But e-mails obtained on Wednesday morning confirm that it was n't so funny , and the closure actually appears to have been an act of retribution against a local Democratic mayor . `` Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee , '' wrote Bridget Anne Kelly , a deputy on Christie 's senior staff , in an e-mail to David Wildstein , a Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey , which operates the bridge .
This led to long traffic jams and safety hazards , none of which apparently bothered Wildstein . In one exchange , a person whose name has been redacted from the e-mails and text messages wrote to Wildstein that he was worried about children on school buses , and Wildstein replied , `` They are the children of Buono voters , '' a reference to Barbara Buono , Christie 's opponent in his last election . What an ugly mind Wildstein must have .
Christie does n't appear to be personally , directly linked to the decision to close the lanes , but the story hurts him anyway . The involvement of his staff contradicts his claims that they were innocent , and voters are only going to see this as an affirmation of certain prejudices that they might hold against the New Jersey kingpin .
The Garden State has a reputation for hardball machine politics ( it was the state of the l egendary Democratic boss , Frank Hague ) , colored by TV portrayals of corruption and crime ( `` The Sopranos , '' `` Boardwalk Empire '' ) . And Christie has an image of being a bit of a bully , of laughing down opponents .
JUST WATCHED N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie ( Part 1 ) Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie ( Part 1 ) 08:11
JUST WATCHED N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie ( Part 2 ) Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie ( Part 2 ) 05:20
JUST WATCHED Did Christie know about traffic scandal ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Did Christie know about traffic scandal ? 06:12
Jonathan Chait , in New York Magazine , writes `` The bridge story itself , while small in nature , reveals a political culture around Christie of people who have no business holding power . '' He has a point . Democrats have alleged that Wildstein was paid $ 150,000 a year for a job that , mysteriously , had no job description and for which he has failed to release his resume .
But the real reason why the scandal resonates for so many is that it involves sitting in traffic . That 's something all Americans do far too much of , so they can immediately put themselves in the seats of those poor saps stuck on the road . Incidentally , there is evidence that ambulances were slowed down , too . In at least two cases , response times were doubled .
Are Christie 's presidential ambitions dashed ? Not necessarily . He 's a resourceful politician and it 's still many months before campaigning starts in earnest . But now his opponents have a stick to beat him with . Best of all , it 's an anti-government stick . If Republicans stand for anything right now , it 's opposing the ability of government to mess with the individual 's life -- and here we have a classic example of politicians taking revenge on each other at the expense of the average citizen .
Even if Christie deflected the criticism of GOP candidates like Marco Rubio or Rand Paul ( and he remains a popular man who won a big blue state ) , he would still have to face Democrats in November 2016 empowered by this story to say to the electorate , `` He 's not the nice guy next door . He 's a bad man whose staff slowed down ambulances . '' As Andrew Sullivan put it , `` He has been revealed as a deeply petty man , willing to sacrifice the public good to pursue narrow political vendettas -- not exactly a qualification for a president . But he has also repeatedly denied all of this . Is he a bully ? Or a liar ? Or both ? ''
Whatever the answer , the bridge to nowhere story has put a puncture in Christie 's tire . Liberals who fear him and conservatives who do n't trust him will take pleasure in that .
|
Story highlights Timothy Stanley: With bridge scandal, Chris Christie's rising star is tarnished
E-mails between Christie operatives paint lane closures as political payback
He says voters may well see Christie as bullying kingpin using government power to hurt them
Stanley: Dems, conservatives who want Christie to lose now have stick to beat him with
Politics is a cruel road. One minute you're sailing along the open highway, winning elections, keynoting political conventions. Next minute you're accused of something politically dirty and you're stuck in the gridlock of scandal.
Let's consider New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who in November was "the GOP's lone superstar." That was how I described him after he won re-election by 22 points. But, I added, his "mixed record in office may come back to haunt the governor and be used against him." Two months later, and in a slightly different context than I would have expected, this appears to be coming true.
But e-mails obtained on Wednesday morning confirm that it wasn't so funny, and the closure actually appears to have been an act of retribution against a local Democratic mayor. "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee," wrote Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy on Christie's senior staff, in an e-mail to David Wildstein, a Christie appointee at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the bridge.
Timothy Stanley
This led to long traffic jams and safety hazards, none of which apparently bothered Wildstein. In one exchange, a person whose name has been redacted from the e-mails and text messages wrote to Wildstein that he was worried about children on school buses, and Wildstein replied, "They are the children of Buono voters," a reference to Barbara Buono, Christie's opponent in his last election. What an ugly mind Wildstein must have.
Christie doesn't appear to be personally, directly linked to the decision to close the lanes, but the story hurts him anyway. The involvement of his staff contradicts his claims that they were innocent, and voters are only going to see this as an affirmation of certain prejudices that they might hold against the New Jersey kingpin.
The Garden State has a reputation for hardball machine politics (it was the state of the l egendary Democratic boss, Frank Hague ), colored by TV portrayals of corruption and crime ("The Sopranos," "Boardwalk Empire"). And Christie has an image of being a bit of a bully, of laughing down opponents.
JUST WATCHED N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie (Part 1) Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie (Part 1) 08:11
JUST WATCHED N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie (Part 2) Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH N.J. Mayor rips Chris Christie (Part 2) 05:20
JUST WATCHED Did Christie know about traffic scandal? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Did Christie know about traffic scandal? 06:12
Jonathan Chait, in New York Magazine, writes "The bridge story itself, while small in nature, reveals a political culture around Christie of people who have no business holding power." He has a point. Democrats have alleged that Wildstein was paid $150,000 a year for a job that, mysteriously, had no job description and for which he has failed to release his resume.
But the real reason why the scandal resonates for so many is that it involves sitting in traffic. That's something all Americans do far too much of, so they can immediately put themselves in the seats of those poor saps stuck on the road. Incidentally, there is evidence that ambulances were slowed down, too. In at least two cases, response times were doubled.
Are Christie's presidential ambitions dashed? Not necessarily. He's a resourceful politician and it's still many months before campaigning starts in earnest. But now his opponents have a stick to beat him with. Best of all, it's an anti-government stick. If Republicans stand for anything right now, it's opposing the ability of government to mess with the individual's life -- and here we have a classic example of politicians taking revenge on each other at the expense of the average citizen.
Even if Christie deflected the criticism of GOP candidates like Marco Rubio or Rand Paul (and he remains a popular man who won a big blue state), he would still have to face Democrats in November 2016 empowered by this story to say to the electorate, "He's not the nice guy next door. He's a bad man whose staff slowed down ambulances." As Andrew Sullivan put it , "He has been revealed as a deeply petty man, willing to sacrifice the public good to pursue narrow political vendettas -- not exactly a qualification for a president. But he has also repeatedly denied all of this. Is he a bully? Or a liar? Or both?"
Whatever the answer, the bridge to nowhere story has put a puncture in Christie's tire. Liberals who fear him and conservatives who don't trust him will take pleasure in that.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
NqnDByQnGaZjcRaD
|
democratic_party
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/398137-dem-leaders-fend-off-calls-to-impeach-trump
|
Dem leaders fend off calls to impeach Trump
|
2018-07-22
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump faces high stakes in meeting with Erdoğan amid impeachment drama Democrats worry they do n't have right candidate to beat Trump Trump threatening to fire Mulvaney : report MORE 's performance this past week aside Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki sparked outrage among congressional Democrats in all ways but one : There 's been no surge in support for impeachment .
Instead , Democratic leaders have tamped down the impeachment push in the name of political pragmatism , fending off — for now — an effort by animated caucus liberals to escalate their oust-Trump campaign following his broadly maligned joint press conference with Putin in the Finnish capital on Monday .
Not only is impeachment highly unlikely under a GOP-controlled Congress , the leaders argue , but it could undermine the chances of Democrats winning back the House in November , when they 'll need to flip seats in conservative-leaning districts where voters may be put off by an aggressive offensive to topple the president .
“ At this point in time it would be a distraction . There will be time for that , ” said Rep. Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton HoyerCongress hunts for path out of spending stalemate ███ 's 12:30 Report : Washington braces for public impeachment hearings This week : House kicks off public phase of impeachment inquiry MORE ( Md . ) , the Democratic whip , who had moments before told reporters on Tuesday that Trump ’ s actions were “ treasonous . ”
“ We need to get through this election ; we need to deal with the economic issues ; we need to deal with the health-care issues of the American people , ” Hoyer said .
The post-summit debate has highlighted long-standing tensions between liberal impeachment champions giving voice to the Democrats ' anti-Trump base and party leaders warning that future efforts to check the president will be lost if Republicans keep the Speaker 's gavel next year .
The divide has been fueled by liberal outside groups wary that Democrats have been too soft on the bombastic president and are at risk of deflating their core supporters — an argument underlined by last month ’ s stunning primary defeat of Rep. Joseph Crowley ( D-N.Y. ) to an unapologetic activist , 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez calls for Stephen Miller to resign over leaked emails Ocasio-Cortez meets Sasha Velour following DC performance Sanders 'very concerned about what appears to be a coup ' in Bolivia MORE , who backs impeachment .
“ Shouldn ’ t we put our democracy before party ? ” asked Rep. Luis Gutiérrez ( D-Ill. ) , who ’ s calling for impeachment . “ Shouldn ’ t we put our country before machinations we have about how this could affect [ elections ? ] ”
In the eyes of Trump ’ s sharpest liberal critics , the president ’ s remarks in Helsinki — where he appeared to side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies regarding Moscow ’ s interference in the 2016 elections — were a pivotal moment reinforcing their belief that Trump is simply unfit to hold the office . And several Democrats delivered fiery speeches on the House floor to rally support for their ongoing impeachment campaign .
“ I rise today to say to my colleagues : We have to act , ” said Rep. Al Green Alexander ( Al ) N. GreenWhy fear should not blind us to the promise of AI : A healthy dose of optimism Trump at rally says impeachment an 'attack on democracy itself ' Democrats raise stakes with impeachment vote MORE ( Texas ) , who endorsed an early impeachment resolution more than a year ago . “ Yes , we can talk about all of the atrocities imposed upon our society by this president , but that is not enough . At some point , we have to act , and more and more people are starting to say what that action is . ”
Gutiérrez , who has endorsed a separate impeachment resolution sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen Stephen ( Steve ) Ira CohenImpeachment week : Trump probe hits crucial point Boeing CEO gives up bonus over 737 Max crashes Democrat says he voted to recognize Armenian genocide because 'Turkey does n't seem to respect ' US MORE ( D-Tenn. ) , said he ’ s looking for ways to expand that proposal to include Trump ’ s “ betrayal ” in Helsinki .
“ As a body , we must take action to relieve the president of his duties , ” Gutiérrez said .
The calls for removing Trump from office began even before the president was sworn in . They were lonely at first , but grew louder in subsequent months , particularly following Trump ’ s equivocal response to August ’ s deadly white nationalist march in Charlottesville , Va. , and again in January after the president debased Haiti , El Salvador and African countries as “ shitholes . ”
There ’ s now evidence that the Helsinki summit is another decisive moment in the recruitment efforts of impeachment enthusiasts .
Cohen said a number of congressional Democrats approached him this past week about endorsing his resolution , which accuses Trump of obstructing justice and profiting from the presidency , among other charges . Cohen predicted “ three or four ” lawmakers would add their names to the bill this month .
Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke , a Texas Democrat running to unseat GOP Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael ( Ted ) Edward CruzTrump circuit court nominee in jeopardy amid GOP opposition Trump has officially appointed one in four circuit court judges On The Money : Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments | Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight | Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war MORE ( Texas ) , also said last week that he ’ d vote for impeachment if given the chance .
Still , the support has come in drips . Cohen ’ s resolution , introduced in November , has 17 co-sponsors within the Democrats ’ liberal-heavy , 193-member caucus . Only one , Rep. Dwight Evans Dwight ( Dewey ) EvansOvernight Health Care — Presented by National Taxpayers Union — Buttigieg targets Warren , Sanders on health care ahead of debate | Judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections | Poll sees support drop for 'Medicare for All ' A dozen House Democrats call on EU ambassador to resign amid Ukraine scandal House Democrats blur lines on support for impeachment MORE ( D-Pa. ) , has added his name since Monday ’ s Helsinki summit .
The tepid support is some indication that rank-and-file Democrats , despite their virtually unanimous misgivings with Trump , are heeding the call of party leaders to channel their frustrations into less aggressive strategies for confronting the White House .
The more tempered approach was on display last week , as Democrats sought to increase funding for election security , force votes rebuking Trump ’ s performance in Helsinki and subpoena his interpreter from the one-on-one portion of his summit with Putin . Democrats also introduced a package of bills designed to check Russian aggression across the globe .
“ In the Congress , we want to stay focused on honoring our oath of office to protect the and defend the Constitution and our country , ” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiGiuliani pens op-ed slamming 'unprecedented ' impeachment inquiry Brindisi , Lamb recommended for Armed Services , Transportation Committees Overnight Health Care : Top health official defends contract payments to Trump allies | Vaping advocates confident Trump will turn from flavor ban | Sanders gets endorsement from nurses union MORE ( D-Calif. ) said last week , dismissing the impeachment effort . “ That ’ s our fight . ”
Gutiérrez said he “ fully ” understands the balance party leaders are seeking .
“ Two opposing positions can live together in the same caucus , ” he said .
Still , impeachment supporters say they ’ re not going away . Gutiérrez said he ’ s huddling with like-minded liberals such as Cohen and Rep. Maxine Waters Maxine Moore WatersDivides over China , fossil fuels threaten House deal to reboot Ex-Im Bank Hillicon Valley : Lawmakers unleash on Zuckerberg | House passes third election interference bill | Online extremism legislation advances in House | Google claims quantum computing breakthrough On The Money : Lawmakers hammer Zuckerberg over Facebook controversies | GOP chair expects another funding stopgap | Senate rejects Dem measure on SALT deduction cap workarounds MORE ( D-Calif. ) with designs to make “ a more robust public pronouncement ” on the issue this week .
“ We should be gathering more steam , ” he said . “ I took an oath to defend this democracy . … If we don ’ t fulfill our oath , America ’ s just going to go down the drain . ”
Waters , echoing that message , said Helsinki should be a tipping point to end all doubts about Trump ’ s fitness to serve .
“ He is dangerous and … he is aligned with Putin and the Kremlin — for whatever reasons we don ’ t know , ” she said . “ I ’ m hopeful that this will be clearer to some folks who may have thought that some of us who were accusing him of all of these things were not just making it up . ”
|
President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump faces high stakes in meeting with Erdoğan amid impeachment drama Democrats worry they don't have right candidate to beat Trump Trump threatening to fire Mulvaney: report MORE's performance this past week aside Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki sparked outrage among congressional Democrats in all ways but one: There's been no surge in support for impeachment.
Instead, Democratic leaders have tamped down the impeachment push in the name of political pragmatism, fending off — for now — an effort by animated caucus liberals to escalate their oust-Trump campaign following his broadly maligned joint press conference with Putin in the Finnish capital on Monday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Not only is impeachment highly unlikely under a GOP-controlled Congress, the leaders argue, but it could undermine the chances of Democrats winning back the House in November, when they'll need to flip seats in conservative-leaning districts where voters may be put off by an aggressive offensive to topple the president.
“At this point in time it would be a distraction. There will be time for that,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton HoyerCongress hunts for path out of spending stalemate The Hill's 12:30 Report: Washington braces for public impeachment hearings This week: House kicks off public phase of impeachment inquiry MORE (Md.), the Democratic whip, who had moments before told reporters on Tuesday that Trump’s actions were “treasonous.”
“We need to get through this election; we need to deal with the economic issues; we need to deal with the health-care issues of the American people,” Hoyer said.
The post-summit debate has highlighted long-standing tensions between liberal impeachment champions giving voice to the Democrats' anti-Trump base and party leaders warning that future efforts to check the president will be lost if Republicans keep the Speaker's gavel next year.
The divide has been fueled by liberal outside groups wary that Democrats have been too soft on the bombastic president and are at risk of deflating their core supporters — an argument underlined by last month’s stunning primary defeat of Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) to an unapologetic activist, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alexandria Ocasio-CortezOcasio-Cortez calls for Stephen Miller to resign over leaked emails Ocasio-Cortez meets Sasha Velour following DC performance Sanders 'very concerned about what appears to be a coup' in Bolivia MORE, who backs impeachment.
“Shouldn’t we put our democracy before party?” asked Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), who’s calling for impeachment. “Shouldn’t we put our country before machinations we have about how this could affect [elections?]”
In the eyes of Trump’s sharpest liberal critics, the president’s remarks in Helsinki — where he appeared to side with Putin over his own intelligence agencies regarding Moscow’s interference in the 2016 elections — were a pivotal moment reinforcing their belief that Trump is simply unfit to hold the office. And several Democrats delivered fiery speeches on the House floor to rally support for their ongoing impeachment campaign.
“I rise today to say to my colleagues: We have to act,” said Rep. Al Green Alexander (Al) N. GreenWhy fear should not blind us to the promise of AI: A healthy dose of optimism Trump at rally says impeachment an 'attack on democracy itself' Democrats raise stakes with impeachment vote MORE (Texas), who endorsed an early impeachment resolution more than a year ago. “Yes, we can talk about all of the atrocities imposed upon our society by this president, but that is not enough. At some point, we have to act, and more and more people are starting to say what that action is.”
Gutiérrez, who has endorsed a separate impeachment resolution sponsored by Rep. Steve Cohen Stephen (Steve) Ira CohenImpeachment week: Trump probe hits crucial point Boeing CEO gives up bonus over 737 Max crashes Democrat says he voted to recognize Armenian genocide because 'Turkey doesn't seem to respect' US MORE (D-Tenn.), said he’s looking for ways to expand that proposal to include Trump’s “betrayal” in Helsinki.
“As a body, we must take action to relieve the president of his duties,” Gutiérrez said.
The calls for removing Trump from office began even before the president was sworn in. They were lonely at first, but grew louder in subsequent months, particularly following Trump’s equivocal response to August’s deadly white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Va., and again in January after the president debased Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as “shitholes.”
There’s now evidence that the Helsinki summit is another decisive moment in the recruitment efforts of impeachment enthusiasts.
Cohen said a number of congressional Democrats approached him this past week about endorsing his resolution, which accuses Trump of obstructing justice and profiting from the presidency, among other charges. Cohen predicted “three or four” lawmakers would add their names to the bill this month.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Texas Democrat running to unseat GOP Sen. Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzTrump circuit court nominee in jeopardy amid GOP opposition Trump has officially appointed one in four circuit court judges On The Money: Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments | Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight | Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war MORE (Texas), also said last week that he’d vote for impeachment if given the chance.
Still, the support has come in drips. Cohen’s resolution, introduced in November, has 17 co-sponsors within the Democrats’ liberal-heavy, 193-member caucus. Only one, Rep. Dwight Evans Dwight (Dewey) EvansOvernight Health Care — Presented by National Taxpayers Union — Buttigieg targets Warren, Sanders on health care ahead of debate | Judge overturns ObamaCare transgender protections | Poll sees support drop for 'Medicare for All' A dozen House Democrats call on EU ambassador to resign amid Ukraine scandal House Democrats blur lines on support for impeachment MORE (D-Pa.), has added his name since Monday’s Helsinki summit.
The tepid support is some indication that rank-and-file Democrats, despite their virtually unanimous misgivings with Trump, are heeding the call of party leaders to channel their frustrations into less aggressive strategies for confronting the White House.
The more tempered approach was on display last week, as Democrats sought to increase funding for election security, force votes rebuking Trump’s performance in Helsinki and subpoena his interpreter from the one-on-one portion of his summit with Putin. Democrats also introduced a package of bills designed to check Russian aggression across the globe.
“In the Congress, we want to stay focused on honoring our oath of office to protect the and defend the Constitution and our country,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiGiuliani pens op-ed slamming 'unprecedented' impeachment inquiry Brindisi, Lamb recommended for Armed Services, Transportation Committees Overnight Health Care: Top health official defends contract payments to Trump allies | Vaping advocates confident Trump will turn from flavor ban | Sanders gets endorsement from nurses union MORE (D-Calif.) said last week, dismissing the impeachment effort. “That’s our fight.”
Gutiérrez said he “fully” understands the balance party leaders are seeking.
“Two opposing positions can live together in the same caucus,” he said.
Still, impeachment supporters say they’re not going away. Gutiérrez said he’s huddling with like-minded liberals such as Cohen and Rep. Maxine Waters Maxine Moore WatersDivides over China, fossil fuels threaten House deal to reboot Ex-Im Bank Hillicon Valley: Lawmakers unleash on Zuckerberg | House passes third election interference bill | Online extremism legislation advances in House | Google claims quantum computing breakthrough On The Money: Lawmakers hammer Zuckerberg over Facebook controversies | GOP chair expects another funding stopgap | Senate rejects Dem measure on SALT deduction cap workarounds MORE (D-Calif.) with designs to make “a more robust public pronouncement” on the issue this week.
“We should be gathering more steam,” he said. “I took an oath to defend this democracy. … If we don’t fulfill our oath, America’s just going to go down the drain.”
Waters, echoing that message, said Helsinki should be a tipping point to end all doubts about Trump’s fitness to serve.
“He is dangerous and … he is aligned with Putin and the Kremlin — for whatever reasons we don’t know,” she said. “I’m hopeful that this will be clearer to some folks who may have thought that some of us who were accusing him of all of these things were not just making it up.”
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
z1KSAaquhf6twNOO
|
|
foreign_policy
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/19/789821202/bolton-trump-administration-could-be-making-big-mistake-on-north-korea
|
Bolton: Trump Administration Could Be Making 'Big Mistake' On North Korea
|
2019-12-19
|
Colin Dwyer, Steve Inskeep
|
Bolton : Trump Administration Could Be Making 'Big Mistake ' On North Korea
John Bolton is not particularly concerned about receiving a present from North Korea this holiday season .
In an exclusive interview with NPR , the former U.S. ambassador dismissed the country 's recent threat that it could deliver a `` Christmas gift '' if the U.S. does not meet an end-of-year deadline to offer better terms in nuclear negotiations . Bolton , who has avoided interviews since President Trump fired him as national security adviser in September , instead suggested that the Trump administration take the threat with a `` grain of salt . ''
World What 's Behind North Korea 's 'Christmas Gift ' Threat What 's Behind North Korea 's 'Christmas Gift ' Threat Listen · 6:01 6:01
`` I think part of this may be bluff on their part . They think the president 's desperate for a deal , and if they put an artificial time constraint on it , they may think they 're going to get a better deal . We 'll just have to wait and see , '' he said .
`` But this is all part of the North Korean playbook . They 've successfully jived the three prior American administrations , and they plan to do the same with this one . ''
And he thinks the administration is making a `` big mistake '' if — as reported by The New York Times — it stymied attempts by the United Nations Security Council to hold a discussion on North Korea 's human rights abuses , for fear of upsetting North Korea and thereby derailing nuclear negotiations .
`` It 's been the pattern as we 've watched it for over three decades now : The North Koreans are very happy to declare that they 're going to give up their nuclear weapons program , particularly when it 's in exchange for tangible economic benefits , but they never get around to doing it , '' said Bolton .
`` And I think the inescapable conclusion is that they 're happy to sell that same bridge over and over again , but there 's no serious chance they will ever voluntarily give it up . ''
Bolton 's comments represent a stark break — but not a surprising one — with the administration he served before his ouster three months ago . The foreign policy hawk and the president had butted heads repeatedly over the direction of the administration 's national security policy .
Now , Bolton has found himself at the center of the political maelstrom over the impeachment of the president , with Democratic lawmakers seeking — and so far failing — to obtain his testimony about Trump 's decision to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine .
As for their differences on North Korea , Trump has actively pursued a deal with the nuclear state throughout much of his time in office — though that diplomatic pursuit has fallen on tough times lately .
The promise of talks and a landmark agreement , seemingly so close when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met Trump for the first time last year , has devolved into an exchange of bellicose rhetoric .
A good place to start is a more hopeful moment , during one of Trump 's subsequent meetings with Kim , in Hanoi , Vietnam , in February . Despite a hopeful start , they did not reach an agreement to end North Korea 's nuclear weapons program . `` Sometimes you have to walk , '' Trump explained then , `` and this was just one of those times . ''
The decision to walk started a chain of events featuring increasingly hostile rhetoric . Jenny Town , who follows North Korea for 38 North , took note of a speech Kim delivered to the country 's People 's Assembly in April .
`` Kim Jong Un basically said that he would give the U.S. until the end of the year for the U.S. and North Korea to make progress and to come to some kind of agreement on how they move forward , '' she told NPR . `` I think this was a sign of frustration with the process . ''
It was that deadline that a North Korean official was referring to in his `` Christmas gift '' threat . And that deadline has become a time bomb of sorts .
`` They 're going to have to do something now , '' Town explained .
Negotiators from the U.S. and North Korea have met in recent months , but they have made no progress . A U.S. official familiar with the talks describes North Korean negotiators as `` professional '' but `` afraid . '' For their own safety , they want Kim to decide on any deal North Korea makes , but he 's not in the room .
Now , the holiday deadline approaches , and satellite images suggest that North Korea has been firing off rocket engines as if preparing for some kind of long-range-missile test . Is it possible , then , that North Korea is on its way to some dramatic nuclear confrontation by mistake ?
`` The key is 'by mistake ' — we have a situation now where it 's unclear if there are red lines or what those red lines would be , '' Town said .
Ever since Trump began meeting and exchanging letters with Kim , North Korea has refrained from nuclear and long-range-missile tests . Nobody knows what Trump would do if North Korea resumes .
The U.S. is doing one thing as the deadline nears , according to an official : trying to deliver a `` constant message '' of `` reassurance '' to Kim .
Kelly Craft , the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations , sounded a note of disappointment during a U.N. Security Council session on North Korea 's threat earlier this month , observing that the country `` has continued to advance its prohibited programs . ''
`` We have not asked North Korea to do everything before we do anything , '' Craft said .
As for what that statement means , Joseph Yun , a former State Department negotiator , explains that the U.S. used to emphasize that North Korea must start any deal by giving up its entire program .
`` All of that must happen before the U.S. will begin to normalize relations , '' Yun said . `` In other words : 'You guys , you go first and then we make sure what you 've done is acceptable . And then we will do our end . ' ``
In various statements this year , the U.S. has said something a little different . It still wants a halt to all of North Korea 's nuclear weapons program , but the two sides might take smaller steps first .
`` What Ambassador Craft is saying is that , no , it 's not completely the case that North Koreans have to do everything before the U.S. does any reciprocal steps , '' he said . `` We could do what 's called 'step-by-step ' or 'incremental ' measures , as it 's sometimes called . ''
A U.S. official says that American negotiators are willing to discuss early measures . Maybe each country could put a liaison office in the other 's capital , for instance , since neither has an embassy in the other right now .
But what North Korea really wants is relief from global economic sanctions without giving up all its weapons , and its deadline is nearing .
That threat could challenge the unpredictable U.S. president , just as Trump begins an election year . In other words , as Town warned : `` There 's a lot of room for miscalculation right now . ''
For his part , Bolton noted that whatever impression North Korean officials have given with their approaching deadline , he believes time remains on Pyongyang 's side .
`` The more time they have , the more they can overcome all the technological and scientific difficulties to perfecting a deliverable nuclear weapons capability , '' he said .
`` So the fact that they 're not doing anything today and they did n't do anything yesterday , that we can see , is not a good sign . It probably just means we 're not seeing it . But the longer time goes on , the greater their capability will become . ''
|
Bolton: Trump Administration Could Be Making 'Big Mistake' On North Korea
Enlarge this image toggle caption Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images Sergei Gapon/AFP via Getty Images
John Bolton is not particularly concerned about receiving a present from North Korea this holiday season.
In an exclusive interview with NPR, the former U.S. ambassador dismissed the country's recent threat that it could deliver a "Christmas gift" if the U.S. does not meet an end-of-year deadline to offer better terms in nuclear negotiations. Bolton, who has avoided interviews since President Trump fired him as national security adviser in September, instead suggested that the Trump administration take the threat with a "grain of salt."
World What's Behind North Korea's 'Christmas Gift' Threat What's Behind North Korea's 'Christmas Gift' Threat Listen · 6:01 6:01
"I think part of this may be bluff on their part. They think the president's desperate for a deal, and if they put an artificial time constraint on it, they may think they're going to get a better deal. We'll just have to wait and see," he said.
"But this is all part of the North Korean playbook. They've successfully jived the three prior American administrations, and they plan to do the same with this one."
And he thinks the administration is making a "big mistake" if — as reported by The New York Times — it stymied attempts by the United Nations Security Council to hold a discussion on North Korea's human rights abuses, for fear of upsetting North Korea and thereby derailing nuclear negotiations.
"It's been the pattern as we've watched it for over three decades now: The North Koreans are very happy to declare that they're going to give up their nuclear weapons program, particularly when it's in exchange for tangible economic benefits, but they never get around to doing it," said Bolton.
"And I think the inescapable conclusion is that they're happy to sell that same bridge over and over again, but there's no serious chance they will ever voluntarily give it up."
Bolton's comments represent a stark break — but not a surprising one — with the administration he served before his ouster three months ago. The foreign policy hawk and the president had butted heads repeatedly over the direction of the administration's national security policy.
Now, Bolton has found himself at the center of the political maelstrom over the impeachment of the president, with Democratic lawmakers seeking — and so far failing — to obtain his testimony about Trump's decision to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
As for their differences on North Korea, Trump has actively pursued a deal with the nuclear state throughout much of his time in office — though that diplomatic pursuit has fallen on tough times lately.
The promise of talks and a landmark agreement, seemingly so close when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met Trump for the first time last year, has devolved into an exchange of bellicose rhetoric.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jung Yeon-je/AFP via Getty Images Jung Yeon-je/AFP via Getty Images
How did we get here?
A good place to start is a more hopeful moment, during one of Trump's subsequent meetings with Kim, in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February. Despite a hopeful start, they did not reach an agreement to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program. "Sometimes you have to walk," Trump explained then, "and this was just one of those times."
The decision to walk started a chain of events featuring increasingly hostile rhetoric. Jenny Town, who follows North Korea for 38 North, took note of a speech Kim delivered to the country's People's Assembly in April.
"Kim Jong Un basically said that he would give the U.S. until the end of the year for the U.S. and North Korea to make progress and to come to some kind of agreement on how they move forward," she told NPR. "I think this was a sign of frustration with the process."
It was that deadline that a North Korean official was referring to in his "Christmas gift" threat. And that deadline has become a time bomb of sorts.
"They're going to have to do something now," Town explained.
Negotiators from the U.S. and North Korea have met in recent months, but they have made no progress. A U.S. official familiar with the talks describes North Korean negotiators as "professional" but "afraid." For their own safety, they want Kim to decide on any deal North Korea makes, but he's not in the room.
Now, the holiday deadline approaches, and satellite images suggest that North Korea has been firing off rocket engines as if preparing for some kind of long-range-missile test. Is it possible, then, that North Korea is on its way to some dramatic nuclear confrontation by mistake?
"The key is 'by mistake' — we have a situation now where it's unclear if there are red lines or what those red lines would be," Town said.
Ever since Trump began meeting and exchanging letters with Kim, North Korea has refrained from nuclear and long-range-missile tests. Nobody knows what Trump would do if North Korea resumes.
The U.S. is doing one thing as the deadline nears, according to an official: trying to deliver a "constant message" of "reassurance" to Kim.
Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, sounded a note of disappointment during a U.N. Security Council session on North Korea's threat earlier this month, observing that the country "has continued to advance its prohibited programs."
But she also portrayed U.S. negotatiors' conditions as reasonable.
"We have not asked North Korea to do everything before we do anything," Craft said.
As for what that statement means, Joseph Yun, a former State Department negotiator, explains that the U.S. used to emphasize that North Korea must start any deal by giving up its entire program.
"All of that must happen before the U.S. will begin to normalize relations," Yun said. "In other words: 'You guys, you go first and then we make sure what you've done is acceptable. And then we will do our end.' "
In various statements this year, the U.S. has said something a little different. It still wants a halt to all of North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but the two sides might take smaller steps first.
"What Ambassador Craft is saying is that, no, it's not completely the case that North Koreans have to do everything before the U.S. does any reciprocal steps," he said. "We could do what's called 'step-by-step' or 'incremental' measures, as it's sometimes called."
A U.S. official says that American negotiators are willing to discuss early measures. Maybe each country could put a liaison office in the other's capital, for instance, since neither has an embassy in the other right now.
But what North Korea really wants is relief from global economic sanctions without giving up all its weapons, and its deadline is nearing.
That threat could challenge the unpredictable U.S. president, just as Trump begins an election year. In other words, as Town warned: "There's a lot of room for miscalculation right now."
For his part, Bolton noted that whatever impression North Korean officials have given with their approaching deadline, he believes time remains on Pyongyang's side.
"The more time they have, the more they can overcome all the technological and scientific difficulties to perfecting a deliverable nuclear weapons capability," he said.
"So the fact that they're not doing anything today and they didn't do anything yesterday, that we can see, is not a good sign. It probably just means we're not seeing it. But the longer time goes on, the greater their capability will become."
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
xenI7KrW91d2iydN
|
abortion
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/09/16/gao-report-obamacare-subsidizes-abortions-n1892255
|
GAO Report Confirms Obamacare Subsidizes Abortion
|
2014-09-16
|
Katie Pavlich, Matt Vespa, Julio Rosas, "Cortney OBrien", Reagan Mccarthy
|
For years pro-life activists have raised concerns about President Obama 's healthcare overhaul and the way it forces taxpayers to subsidize abortion . The administration has long assured Americans Obamacare does not subsidize abortion services , despite the White House 's close ties to abortion giant Planned Parenthood . President Obama promised repeatedly that not a dime of taxpayer money would go toward funding abortions through Obamacare .
`` Under our plan , no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions , '' Obama promised in 2009 .
Further , Obamacare received its final and necessary 60th vote from former Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson based on the promise abortion subsidies would n't be included in the bill .
Now , a new report from the Government Accountability Office shows that Obamacare does in fact force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion services by simply ignoring strict regulations and laws put in place to prohibit subsidization . The report shows more than 1000 Obamacare insurance plans in different states do not separate funding for abortion services from coverage as required by law .
`` We provided a draft of this report to HHS , for CMS , and to OPM for comment . In its written comments , reproduced in enclosure III , HHS stated that , in addition to issuing a regulation governing the provision of health insurance coverage by QHPs , CMS also had answered individual questions from issuers and provided limited guidance to help ensure that stakeholders , including states and issuers , understand and follow the rules relating to coverage of abortion services in QHPs . However , HHS stated that , based upon our findings , additional clarification may be needed and CMS will use our findings to address issues of concern to better ensure that stakeholders understand the laws and regulations governing the provision of non-excepted abortion services coverage , '' GAO recommended after its findings .
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser is outraged , but has been warning about abortion subsidies for years .
`` Today ’ s report is confirmation that ObamaCare is a massive expansion of abortion on demand , paid for by the taxpayers , ” Dannenfelser said in a statement . “ ObamaCare breaks from the long tradition of the Hyde Amendment , which has prevented taxpayer funding of abortion with broad public support , and was not included in the law . ”
“ Shame on Senators like Mary Landrieu , Mark Pryor , and Kay Hagan – all of whom come from strong pro-life states and voted for taxpayer funding of abortion in ObamaCare , ” Dannenfelser continued . “ The GAO report is damning evidence that they betrayed their constituents in casting a vote for the largest expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion on demand since Roe . The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act gives these Senators a prime opportunity to right a grave wrong , but they continue to stand with Harry Reid and the abortion lobby instead of their constituents by blocking a vote on it . ”
The GAO puts Obamacare back on the map just ahead of the 2014 midterm elections and just ahead of open-enrollment , when consumers are expected to see massive increases in their healthcare premiums .
|
For years pro-life activists have raised concerns about President Obama's healthcare overhaul and the way it forces taxpayers to subsidize abortion. The administration has long assured Americans Obamacare does not subsidize abortion services, despite the White House's close ties to abortion giant Planned Parenthood. President Obama promised repeatedly that not a dime of taxpayer money would go toward funding abortions through Obamacare.
"Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," Obama promised in 2009.
Further, Obamacare received its final and necessary 60th vote from former Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson based on the promise abortion subsidies wouldn't be included in the bill.
Now, a new report from the Government Accountability Office shows that Obamacare does in fact force taxpayers to foot the bill for abortion services by simply ignoring strict regulations and laws put in place to prohibit subsidization. The report shows more than 1000 Obamacare insurance plans in different states do not separate funding for abortion services from coverage as required by law.
"We provided a draft of this report to HHS, for CMS, and to OPM for comment. In its written comments, reproduced in enclosure III, HHS stated that, in addition to issuing a regulation governing the provision of health insurance coverage by QHPs, CMS also had answered individual questions from issuers and provided limited guidance to help ensure that stakeholders, including states and issuers, understand and follow the rules relating to coverage of abortion services in QHPs. However, HHS stated that, based upon our findings, additional clarification may be needed and CMS will use our findings to address issues of concern to better ensure that stakeholders understand the laws and regulations governing the provision of non-excepted abortion services coverage," GAO recommended after its findings.
Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser is outraged, but has been warning about abortion subsidies for years.
"Today’s report is confirmation that ObamaCare is a massive expansion of abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayers,” Dannenfelser said in a statement. “ObamaCare breaks from the long tradition of the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented taxpayer funding of abortion with broad public support, and was not included in the law.”
“Shame on Senators like Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Kay Hagan – all of whom come from strong pro-life states and voted for taxpayer funding of abortion in ObamaCare,” Dannenfelser continued. “The GAO report is damning evidence that they betrayed their constituents in casting a vote for the largest expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion on demand since Roe. The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act gives these Senators a prime opportunity to right a grave wrong, but they continue to stand with Harry Reid and the abortion lobby instead of their constituents by blocking a vote on it.”
The GAO puts Obamacare back on the map just ahead of the 2014 midterm elections and just ahead of open-enrollment, when consumers are expected to see massive increases in their healthcare premiums.
H/T POLITICO
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
TcZGNKzvR3QzyBpm
|
us_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/5/republicans-weigh-coup-against-john-boehner-lieute/
|
House Republicans weigh coup against Boehner after series of political defeats
|
2015-03-05
|
S.A. Miller
|
Rank-and-file Republicans are openly contemplating a coup against House Speaker John A. Boehner and his top lieutenants after a series of self-inflicted legislative fumbles and political defeats in the first weeks of the congressional session .
This week ’ s retreat from the standoff over Homeland Security Department funding and President Obama ’ s deportation amnesty was only the latest embarrassment for Republican leaders , who also have had to yank bills on abortion , border security and education after rebellions within their own party .
Rep. Andy Harris , Maryland Republican , conceded that running the conference was like “ herding cats ” but said that is not an excuse for failure .
“ I ’ m still optimistic that leadership can herd the cats . But if they can ’ t , then I think there will be consideration about whether a new leadership team needs to be put in place , ” Mr. Harris said .
The leaders have acknowledged stumbles at the opening of the congressional session , when Republicans took control of the Senate as well as the House and members had high expectations for advancing a conservative agenda . But leaders have insisted that they don ’ t need dramatic changes in how they run the conference , a Republican aide said .
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , California Republican , prides himself on having an open-door policy and listening to members , but conservative lawmakers say the leadership team hasn ’ t been listening to them or their constituents .
“ I don ’ t think they are listening to all the members , ” said Rep. John Fleming , a member of a small band of lawmakers who formed the conservative Freedom Caucus and have been at the center of rebellions against the leadership .
He said the party leaders haven ’ t kept up with an increasingly conservative Republican base that is electing lawmakers who are more conservative .
“ The problem is we are used to being in this moderate lane and the people , our constituents who are sending us here , are trying to move us over into the more conservative lane , ” said the Louisiana Republican . “ I think the struggle is that leadership has not yet picked up the trim line that they need to put out more conservative legislation to get better results . ”
Supporters of the leadership team blame the dysfunction on conservatives such as Mr. Fleming , who they say sabotage good legislation by demanding perfect bills and ideological purity .
“ Our problem isn ’ t leadership around here ; it ’ s followership , ” said Rep. Tom Cole , an Oklahoma Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Boehner .
“ We have a group of people who , frankly , think they are always right and their leaders and the conference collectively are usually wrong , ” he said . “ It ’ s actually a fairly small group . ”
Rep. Peter T. King , New York Republican , put it more bluntly : “ I don ’ t consider them conservatives . I consider them anarchists .
“ The whole party is going to suffer , not just the leadership , all of us are going to suffer if we can ’ t get more organized . But I don ’ t know if that group of about 35 wants to be organized . It ’ s almost as if they sit by themselves in the floor there — like a separate party , like in France or Italy where you have the rump parties out there , ” Mr. King said .
Not all of the leadership ’ s dust-ups have been with conservatives .
The first blunder occurred with a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy , with an exception for cases of reported rape , incest or danger to the mother ’ s life . The leaders pulled the bill Jan. 21 to head off a revolt by some of the conference ’ s female and moderate members .
“ We ’ re continuing to listen to everybody , ” Mr. McCarthy said at the time . “ We ’ re still planning on moving forward with the bill . ”
A week later , a border security bill was pulled amid complaints from conservatives that it was too weak . The legislation is expected to return combined with other bills that beef up interior enforcement of immigration laws .
The third bill pulled off the floor would have rolled back parts of the No Child Left Behind Act , but conservatives balked that it didn ’ t do enough to get the federal government out of education .
Mr. Fleming said the education bill underscored the disconnect between Republican congressional leaders and voters .
“ That ’ s the reason why there is frustration out there , ” he said . “ Time and time again , our constituents are telling us , ‘ No , we don ’ t want federal mandating on school education . We want that left to the states. ’ And yet somehow there are people who are making decisions up here who think that , ‘ No , we just need to have just a little less federal control but not hand it over to the states . ’ ”
Still , Mr. Cole said the Republican conference isn ’ t going to oust its leadership team .
“ People really recognize that the problem is in the culture of the conference ; it ’ s not with the leadership of the conference . So we have to work through this as a family and get to a point where we all — or at least 218 of us — are willing to work together , ” he said . “ If you can ’ t do that , you ’ re going to have a hard time accomplishing the things you said you wanted to do when you came here . ”
|
Rank-and-file Republicans are openly contemplating a coup against House Speaker John A. Boehner and his top lieutenants after a series of self-inflicted legislative fumbles and political defeats in the first weeks of the congressional session.
This week’s retreat from the standoff over Homeland Security Department funding and President Obama’s deportation amnesty was only the latest embarrassment for Republican leaders, who also have had to yank bills on abortion, border security and education after rebellions within their own party.
Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland Republican, conceded that running the conference was like “herding cats” but said that is not an excuse for failure.
“I’m still optimistic that leadership can herd the cats. But if they can’t, then I think there will be consideration about whether a new leadership team needs to be put in place,” Mr. Harris said.
The leaders have acknowledged stumbles at the opening of the congressional session, when Republicans took control of the Senate as well as the House and members had high expectations for advancing a conservative agenda. But leaders have insisted that they don’t need dramatic changes in how they run the conference, a Republican aide said.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, prides himself on having an open-door policy and listening to members, but conservative lawmakers say the leadership team hasn’t been listening to them or their constituents.
“I don’t think they are listening to all the members,” said Rep. John Fleming, a member of a small band of lawmakers who formed the conservative Freedom Caucus and have been at the center of rebellions against the leadership.
He said the party leaders haven’t kept up with an increasingly conservative Republican base that is electing lawmakers who are more conservative.
“The problem is we are used to being in this moderate lane and the people, our constituents who are sending us here, are trying to move us over into the more conservative lane,” said the Louisiana Republican. “I think the struggle is that leadership has not yet picked up the trim line that they need to put out more conservative legislation to get better results.”
Supporters of the leadership team blame the dysfunction on conservatives such as Mr. Fleming, who they say sabotage good legislation by demanding perfect bills and ideological purity.
“Our problem isn’t leadership around here; it’s followership,” said Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Boehner.
“We have a group of people who, frankly, think they are always right and their leaders and the conference collectively are usually wrong,” he said. “It’s actually a fairly small group.”
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, put it more bluntly: “I don’t consider them conservatives. I consider them anarchists.
“The whole party is going to suffer, not just the leadership, all of us are going to suffer if we can’t get more organized. But I don’t know if that group of about 35 wants to be organized. It’s almost as if they sit by themselves in the floor there — like a separate party, like in France or Italy where you have the rump parties out there,” Mr. King said.
Not all of the leadership’s dust-ups have been with conservatives.
The first blunder occurred with a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception for cases of reported rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. The leaders pulled the bill Jan. 21 to head off a revolt by some of the conference’s female and moderate members.
“We’re continuing to listen to everybody,” Mr. McCarthy said at the time. “We’re still planning on moving forward with the bill.”
The bill has yet to return.
A week later, a border security bill was pulled amid complaints from conservatives that it was too weak. The legislation is expected to return combined with other bills that beef up interior enforcement of immigration laws.
The third bill pulled off the floor would have rolled back parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, but conservatives balked that it didn’t do enough to get the federal government out of education.
Mr. Fleming said the education bill underscored the disconnect between Republican congressional leaders and voters.
“That’s the reason why there is frustration out there,” he said. “Time and time again, our constituents are telling us, ‘No, we don’t want federal mandating on school education. We want that left to the states.’ And yet somehow there are people who are making decisions up here who think that, ‘No, we just need to have just a little less federal control but not hand it over to the states.’”
Still, Mr. Cole said the Republican conference isn’t going to oust its leadership team.
“People really recognize that the problem is in the culture of the conference; it’s not with the leadership of the conference. So we have to work through this as a family and get to a point where we all — or at least 218 of us — are willing to work together,” he said. “If you can’t do that, you’re going to have a hard time accomplishing the things you said you wanted to do when you came here.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
q3pfvmZp2Daimd8N
|
terrorism
|
The Boston Globe
| 00
|
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/18/mit-police-officer-hit-gunfire-cambridge-police-dispatcher-says/4UeCClOVeLr8PHLvDa99zK/story.html
|
Bombing suspect in custody after standoff in Watertown
|
2013-04-18
|
“ We are eternally grateful for the outcome here tonight . We have a suspect in custody , ” said Colonel Timothy Alben , commander of the State Police . “ We ’ re so grateful to bring justice and closure to this case . ”
Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev of Cambridge was pulled from his hiding place in a boat parked behind a house on Franklin Street shortly before 8:45 p.m. in this community just outside Boston .
WATERTOWN — Four days after two deadly explosions turned the finish line of the Boston Marathon into a scene of bloody chaos , the 19-year-old college student believed to be responsible for placing the bombs was taken into custody tonight , bringing a sense of relief and justice to a shaken region .
“ It ’ s a night where I think we ’ re all going to rest easy , ” Governor Deval Patrick said at a news conference in Watertown .
With the second suspect in the case , Tsarnaev ’ s brother , Tamerlan Tsarnaev , 26 , fatally shot in a gun battle with police early this morning , Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said , citizens “ can be confident that the threat has been removed . ”
President Obama , speaking at the White House tonight , said , “ We ’ ve closed an important chapter in this tragedy. ” But he also said there were “ still many unanswered questions ” and said the FBI would thoroughly investigate .
Dzohkhar Tsarnaev , who exchanged gunfire with police from the boat , was rushed to a local hospital , where he was in serious condition , Davis said .
Police had approached him cautiously , worried that he might be wearing a suicide bomb vest .
“ We got him , ” Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino tweeted immediately afterwards . He took to the police radio to thank officers personally , telling them , “ Good job , guys ! ”
The apprehension of Tsarnaev was the latest stunning development in a day of mayhem that had shocked the city , even as it was still reeling from Monday ’ s Marathon attacks . An MIT police officer was killed , “ assassinated , ” Thursday night in Cambridge . Then a carjacking was reported . Officers pursued the car , which turned out to contain the two Tsarnaevs , who threw explosives at them .
The elder brother was shot by police early Friday in a gun battle in Watertown , in which fficials said they wielded improvised explosive devices and homemade grenades . Dzhokhan Tsarnaev was so desperate to escape he ran over his brother as he lay wounded . He later abandoned the car in Watertown and fled on foot , disappearing from sight .
Law enforcement mobilized , sending legions of heavily-armed police officers to search a 20-block area of the community . At the same time , Governor Deval Patrick took an unprecedented security step , asking people in Boston , Watertown , and several other nearby communities — totaling a million people — to “ shelter in place ” — stay at home behind locked doors and open up only to police officers with proper identification .
Government and business offices closed as police cars zoomed on mysterious errands on deserted streets . The Red Sox and Bruins games were canceled , as well as the Big Apple Circus . Amtrak was shut down from Boston to Providence , as well as the MBTA , the Boston area ’ s public transit system . The region came to a standstill .
Then , at 6 p.m. , officials held another news conference to say that despite the massive manhunt , they had come up empty . The suspect had slipped outside their perimeter . Officials said they remained determined to find him , however , and that they believed he was somewhere still in Massachusetts . Patrick dropped his request for people to shelter in place and ordered the MBTA to resume service .
The dramatic finale came less than an hour after the news conference was over . A resident of Watertown came out of his house and noticed blood on his boat and that the tarp covering it was ripped . He lifted the tarp and saw a bloody form . He called police , who raced to the scene and exchanged gunfire with Tsarnaev , said Davis , the Boston commissioner
Police surrounded the boat and there was a standoff for about an hour and a half . A State Police helicopter peeked at him from above , using a special infrared camera . Police deployed “ flash bang ” grenades to stun and distract him , Davis said . Police were cautious in their approach , concerned that Tsarnaev could be wearing a suicide bomb vest .
A Globe photographer at the scene could hear police calling , “ We know you ’ re in there . Come out on your own terms . Come out with your hands up . ”
An FBI hostage rescue team was eventually able to pull him out .
In yet another twist in the story , New Bedford police said this evening that three people had been taken into custody in their city as part of the bombing investigation .
New Bedford Police Lieutenant Robert Richard said his department assisted federal investigators in executing a search warrant at a home on Carriage Drive , about 10 minutes from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth , where Tsarnaev was a student .
MIT Police Officer Sean Collier , 26 , of Somerville , who was fatally shot while sitting in his cruiser near Main and Vassar streets in Cambridge , in what Davis called an “ assassination , ” was remembered as a brave and devoted officer .
MBTA Transit Police Officer Richard H. Donahue Jr. , 33 , who was shot as officers pursued the Tsarnaevs into Watertown , was in critical but stable condition at Mt . Auburn Hospital .
|
“We are eternally grateful for the outcome here tonight. We have a suspect in custody,” said Colonel Timothy Alben, commander of the State Police. “We’re so grateful to bring justice and closure to this case.”
Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev of Cambridge was pulled from his hiding place in a boat parked behind a house on Franklin Street shortly before 8:45 p.m. in this community just outside Boston.
WATERTOWN — Four days after two deadly explosions turned the finish line of the Boston Marathon into a scene of bloody chaos, the 19-year-old college student believed to be responsible for placing the bombs was taken into custody tonight, bringing a sense of relief and justice to a shaken region.
Advertisement
“It’s a night where I think we’re all going to rest easy,” Governor Deval Patrick said at a news conference in Watertown.
With the second suspect in the case, Tsarnaev’s brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, fatally shot in a gun battle with police early this morning, Boston Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis said, citizens “can be confident that the threat has been removed.”
President Obama, speaking at the White House tonight, said, “We’ve closed an important chapter in this tragedy.” But he also said there were “still many unanswered questions” and said the FBI would thoroughly investigate.
Dzohkhar Tsarnaev, who exchanged gunfire with police from the boat, was rushed to a local hospital, where he was in serious condition, Davis said.
Police had approached him cautiously, worried that he might be wearing a suicide bomb vest.
“We got him,” Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino tweeted immediately afterwards. He took to the police radio to thank officers personally, telling them, “Good job, guys!”
The apprehension of Tsarnaev was the latest stunning development in a day of mayhem that had shocked the city, even as it was still reeling from Monday’s Marathon attacks. An MIT police officer was killed, “assassinated,” Thursday night in Cambridge. Then a carjacking was reported. Officers pursued the car, which turned out to contain the two Tsarnaevs, who threw explosives at them.
Advertisement
The elder brother was shot by police early Friday in a gun battle in Watertown, in which fficials said they wielded improvised explosive devices and homemade grenades. Dzhokhan Tsarnaev was so desperate to escape he ran over his brother as he lay wounded. He later abandoned the car in Watertown and fled on foot, disappearing from sight.
Law enforcement mobilized, sending legions of heavily-armed police officers to search a 20-block area of the community. At the same time, Governor Deval Patrick took an unprecedented security step, asking people in Boston, Watertown, and several other nearby communities — totaling a million people — to “shelter in place” — stay at home behind locked doors and open up only to police officers with proper identification.
Government and business offices closed as police cars zoomed on mysterious errands on deserted streets. The Red Sox and Bruins games were canceled, as well as the Big Apple Circus. Amtrak was shut down from Boston to Providence, as well as the MBTA, the Boston area’s public transit system. The region came to a standstill.
Then, at 6 p.m., officials held another news conference to say that despite the massive manhunt, they had come up empty. The suspect had slipped outside their perimeter. Officials said they remained determined to find him, however, and that they believed he was somewhere still in Massachusetts. Patrick dropped his request for people to shelter in place and ordered the MBTA to resume service.
Advertisement
The dramatic finale came less than an hour after the news conference was over. A resident of Watertown came out of his house and noticed blood on his boat and that the tarp covering it was ripped. He lifted the tarp and saw a bloody form. He called police, who raced to the scene and exchanged gunfire with Tsarnaev, said Davis, the Boston commissioner
Police surrounded the boat and there was a standoff for about an hour and a half. A State Police helicopter peeked at him from above, using a special infrared camera. Police deployed “flash bang” grenades to stun and distract him, Davis said. Police were cautious in their approach, concerned that Tsarnaev could be wearing a suicide bomb vest.
A Globe photographer at the scene could hear police calling, “We know you’re in there. Come out on your own terms. Come out with your hands up.”
An FBI hostage rescue team was eventually able to pull him out.
In yet another twist in the story, New Bedford police said this evening that three people had been taken into custody in their city as part of the bombing investigation.
New Bedford Police Lieutenant Robert Richard said his department assisted federal investigators in executing a search warrant at a home on Carriage Drive, about 10 minutes from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, where Tsarnaev was a student.
Advertisement
MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 26, of Somerville, who was fatally shot while sitting in his cruiser near Main and Vassar streets in Cambridge, in what Davis called an “assassination,” was remembered as a brave and devoted officer.
MBTA Transit Police Officer Richard H. Donahue Jr., 33, who was shot as officers pursued the Tsarnaevs into Watertown, was in critical but stable condition at Mt. Auburn Hospital.
Scott Helman, Marcella Bombardieri, Brian MacQuarrie, Martine Powers, and Maria Sacchetti of the Globe staff and Globe correspondents Todd Feathers, Lauren Dezenski, Jeremy C. Fox, Haven Orecchio-Egresitz, Jaclyn Reiss, and Gal Tziperman Lotan contributed to this report.
|
www.bostonglobe.com
| 0left
|
k5N1xDON0DxGY4NY
|
|
education
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/nyregion/groups-that-back-bloombergs-education-agenda-enjoy-success-in-albany.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
|
Groups That Back Bloomberg’s Education Agenda Enjoy Success in Albany
|
2015-07-30
|
Kate Taylor
|
Mr. Loeb hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Cuomo this month at his home in East Hampton , N.Y . He and his wife have contributed $ 139,367 to Mr. Cuomo over the past five years , according to New York State Board of Elections records . In the same period , Mr. Jones and his wife have contributed $ 75,000 , and another board member , Carl C. Icahn , has contributed $ 50,000 to the governor .
Mr. Klein , who is now the chief executive of Amplify , Rupert Murdoch ’ s education-technology company , is still a board member of StudentsFirstNY . Neither he nor most of the group ’ s major donors would comment on their support , though Mr. Jones said in a statement , “ Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable , and that ’ s why StudentsFirstNY and others are fighting for reforms that can give parents more choices , ensure that only the best teachers are in the classroom and make sure that the best interests of the children in the system are put first . ”
Making teacher evaluations more dependent on test scores , reforming tenure and adding charter schools in the city were all priorities of StudentsFirstNY and became significant pieces of the governor ’ s agenda for the 2015 legislative session , which he announced in his State of the State speech on Jan. 21 .
Emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Law , as well as interviews , show that Mr. Cuomo and his senior education advisers were in close touch , by email and telephone , with Ms. Sedlis and her board members in the weeks after the governor ’ s re-election last November .
On Dec. 9 , for example , the governor met with Ms. Sedlis and several of her board members at the Harvard Club to discuss education policy issues , a spokesman for StudentsFirstNY said .
“ Improving the state ’ s education system has been one of the governor ’ s top priorities since taking office , ” Jim Malatras , the governor ’ s director of state operations , said through a spokeswoman , “ and throughout that process , he has always partnered with groups , stakeholders , experts and other allies willing to fight for better futures for New York ’ s students . ”
The governor ’ s proposals , particularly one that would base 50 percent of teachers ’ evaluations on their students ’ test scores , stirred fierce opposition from state and local teachers ’ unions , as well as many principals and parents .
|
Mr. Loeb hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Cuomo this month at his home in East Hampton, N.Y. He and his wife have contributed $139,367 to Mr. Cuomo over the past five years, according to New York State Board of Elections records. In the same period, Mr. Jones and his wife have contributed $75,000, and another board member, Carl C. Icahn, has contributed $50,000 to the governor.
Mr. Klein, who is now the chief executive of Amplify, Rupert Murdoch’s education-technology company, is still a board member of StudentsFirstNY. Neither he nor most of the group’s major donors would comment on their support, though Mr. Jones said in a statement, “Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable, and that’s why StudentsFirstNY and others are fighting for reforms that can give parents more choices, ensure that only the best teachers are in the classroom and make sure that the best interests of the children in the system are put first.”
Making teacher evaluations more dependent on test scores, reforming tenure and adding charter schools in the city were all priorities of StudentsFirstNY and became significant pieces of the governor’s agenda for the 2015 legislative session, which he announced in his State of the State speech on Jan. 21.
Emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Law, as well as interviews, show that Mr. Cuomo and his senior education advisers were in close touch, by email and telephone, with Ms. Sedlis and her board members in the weeks after the governor’s re-election last November.
On Dec. 9, for example, the governor met with Ms. Sedlis and several of her board members at the Harvard Club to discuss education policy issues, a spokesman for StudentsFirstNY said.
“Improving the state’s education system has been one of the governor’s top priorities since taking office,” Jim Malatras, the governor’s director of state operations, said through a spokeswoman, “and throughout that process, he has always partnered with groups, stakeholders, experts and other allies willing to fight for better futures for New York’s students.”
The governor’s proposals, particularly one that would base 50 percent of teachers’ evaluations on their students’ test scores, stirred fierce opposition from state and local teachers’ unions, as well as many principals and parents.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
sJicAMeCQnhPxd24
|
north_korea
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/20/donald-trump-put-north-korea-terrorist-list/
|
Trump to put North Korea on terrorist list: ‘A murderous regime’
|
2017-11-20
|
S.A. Miller
|
President Trump put North Korea back on the U.S. government ’ s list of state sponsors of terrorism Monday , as the administration increased pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs .
The designation will be followed by new economic sanctions against the already heavily sanctioned communist country , said Mr. Trump , who has made confronting dictator Kim Jong-un a top foreign policy priority .
“ It should have happened a long time ago . It should have happened years ago , ” the president said when announcing the terrorist designation for Mr. Kim ’ s “ murderous regime . ”
“ The North Korean regime must be lawful , ” he said . “ It must end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile development , and cease all support for international terrorism — which it is not doing . ”
North Korea is one of four countries currently slapped with the State Department ’ s terror designation , joining Iran , Sudan and Syria .
The Treasury is scheduled to announce the new sanctions Tuesday . The president , who just returned from a tour of East Asian capitals seeking to put new pressure on Pyongyang over its military programs , described those measures as the “ highest level ” yet imposed on North Korea .
North Korea was designated a sponsor of terrorism for two decades after it was implicated in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner that killed 115 people . President George W. Bush removed North Korea from the list in 2008 as part of an aid-for-disarmament deal .
“ That obviously failed because we can see where we are today , ” Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson told reporters in a briefing at the White House hours after Mr. Trump announced the policy shift .
Mr. Tillerson acknowledged that the designation was mostly symbolic because of the strong sanctions that the U.S. previously led the United Nations to impose on Pyongyang . But he said the new measure would close “ some of the loopholes . ”
Putting North Korea on the list has bipartisan support in Congress .
But Jon Rainwater , executive director of the activist group Peace Action , said the designation failed to address the problem and could even make it more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement with the North short of military action .
“ Piling on sanctions , which have yet to deter or slow North Korea ’ s progress on its nuclear weapons program , is not the answer . We need focused , unconditional negotiations that seek to freeze and roll back North Korea ’ s nuclear weapons program , ” he said . “ This designation makes getting to the negotiating table , let alone securing an agreement , all the more difficult . ”
Mr. Trump spent nearly two weeks this month traveling in Asia and building support for confronting the nuclear threat from North Korea .
The rogue regime has test fired several missiles , including lobbing missiles over Japan . North Korea has successfully launched intercontinental ballistic missiles that are now believed capable of carrying nuclear warheads to much of the U.S. mainland .
In making the announcement , Mr. Trump cited the regime ’ s assassination of Mr. Kim ’ s half brother , a political rival who in February was poisoned with VX nerve agent at an airport in Malaysia .
The president also mentioned Otto Warmbier , a University of Virginia student held in North Korea for 17 months after being convicted of stealing a political poster . When he was returned to the U.S. in June , he had suffered severe brain damage and died a short time later . He was 22 years old .
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce applauded the president ’ s move .
“ Over the past year alone , Kim Jong-un and his regime brazenly assassinated his brother with a chemical weapon and brutally tortured Otto Warmbier , leading directly to his tragic death , ” said the California Republican . “ These aren ’ t isolated incidents , but are examples of a consistent pattern of terror . ”
He said the designation “ rightly exposes the Kim regime ’ s utter disregard for human life and is an important step in our efforts to apply maximum diplomatic and financial pressure on Kim Jong-un . ”
Separately , a top Chinese Communist Party official wrapped up a four-day trip to North Korea on Monday after meeting with top officials and discussing the tense state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula and other issues , The Associated Press reported .
Song Tao , the most senior Chinese official to visit Pyongyang , North Korea ’ s capital , in two years , was officially tasked with briefing the government on China ’ s recent party congress , but his trip came almost immediately after President Trump visited Beijing for extensive talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping , in which Mr. Trump urged Beijing to take a tougher line against its neighbor .
|
President Trump put North Korea back on the U.S. government’s list of state sponsors of terrorism Monday, as the administration increased pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons and long-range missile programs.
The designation will be followed by new economic sanctions against the already heavily sanctioned communist country, said Mr. Trump, who has made confronting dictator Kim Jong-un a top foreign policy priority.
“It should have happened a long time ago. It should have happened years ago,” the president said when announcing the terrorist designation for Mr. Kim’s “murderous regime.”
“The North Korean regime must be lawful,” he said. “It must end its unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile development, and cease all support for international terrorism — which it is not doing.”
North Korea is one of four countries currently slapped with the State Department’s terror designation, joining Iran, Sudan and Syria.
The Treasury is scheduled to announce the new sanctions Tuesday. The president, who just returned from a tour of East Asian capitals seeking to put new pressure on Pyongyang over its military programs, described those measures as the “highest level” yet imposed on North Korea.
North Korea was designated a sponsor of terrorism for two decades after it was implicated in the 1987 bombing of a South Korean airliner that killed 115 people. President George W. Bush removed North Korea from the list in 2008 as part of an aid-for-disarmament deal.
“That obviously failed because we can see where we are today,” Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson told reporters in a briefing at the White House hours after Mr. Trump announced the policy shift.
Mr. Tillerson acknowledged that the designation was mostly symbolic because of the strong sanctions that the U.S. previously led the United Nations to impose on Pyongyang. But he said the new measure would close “some of the loopholes.”
Putting North Korea on the list has bipartisan support in Congress.
But Jon Rainwater, executive director of the activist group Peace Action, said the designation failed to address the problem and could even make it more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement with the North short of military action.
“Piling on sanctions, which have yet to deter or slow North Korea’s progress on its nuclear weapons program, is not the answer. We need focused, unconditional negotiations that seek to freeze and roll back North Korea’s nuclear weapons program,” he said. “This designation makes getting to the negotiating table, let alone securing an agreement, all the more difficult.”
Trump trip
Mr. Trump spent nearly two weeks this month traveling in Asia and building support for confronting the nuclear threat from North Korea.
The rogue regime has test fired several missiles, including lobbing missiles over Japan. North Korea has successfully launched intercontinental ballistic missiles that are now believed capable of carrying nuclear warheads to much of the U.S. mainland.
In making the announcement, Mr. Trump cited the regime’s assassination of Mr. Kim’s half brother, a political rival who in February was poisoned with VX nerve agent at an airport in Malaysia.
The president also mentioned Otto Warmbier, a University of Virginia student held in North Korea for 17 months after being convicted of stealing a political poster. When he was returned to the U.S. in June, he had suffered severe brain damage and died a short time later. He was 22 years old.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce applauded the president’s move.
“Over the past year alone, Kim Jong-un and his regime brazenly assassinated his brother with a chemical weapon and brutally tortured Otto Warmbier, leading directly to his tragic death,” said the California Republican. “These aren’t isolated incidents, but are examples of a consistent pattern of terror.”
He said the designation “rightly exposes the Kim regime’s utter disregard for human life and is an important step in our efforts to apply maximum diplomatic and financial pressure on Kim Jong-un.”
Separately, a top Chinese Communist Party official wrapped up a four-day trip to North Korea on Monday after meeting with top officials and discussing the tense state of affairs on the Korean Peninsula and other issues, The Associated Press reported.
Song Tao, the most senior Chinese official to visit Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, in two years, was officially tasked with briefing the government on China’s recent party congress, but his trip came almost immediately after President Trump visited Beijing for extensive talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in which Mr. Trump urged Beijing to take a tougher line against its neighbor.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
lBqo5VmD5fnvz8Dd
|
fbi
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/09/fbi-raid-michael-cohen-donald-trump-robert-mueller-217841
|
The FBI Raids on Trump’s Attorney Are Bad News for Trump
|
2018-04-09
|
Alexandra Glorioso, Norman Eisen, Noah Bookbinder, Conor Shaw
|
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo Law And Order The FBI Raids on Trump ’ s Attorney Are Bad News for Trump Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not do this lightly .
Norman Eisen , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution , was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014 . Noah Bookbinder is executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) and is a former federal prosecutor who handled public corruption cases and Senate . Conor Shaw is counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) .
Monday ’ s FBI raids on Michael Cohen ’ s office , home and hotel room are the clearest sign yet that the president ’ s longtime attorney is in serious legal jeopardy . They also represent yet another threatening development facing Donald Trump after more than a year of investigations into his campaign and presidency—perhaps the most direct danger yet .
No wonder he ’ s lashing out wildly—calling the raids “ a disgraceful situation ” and , absurdly , “ an attack on our country . ”
The evidence sought by investigators reportedly relates to bank fraud and campaign finance violations , both of which primarily point to one thing . Cohen apparently used a home equity credit line to borrow the $ 130,000 he paid Stormy Daniels for her silence just weeks before the 2016 election . If Cohen lied to obtain credit from a federally insured financial institution , that is a felony punishable by up to 30 years ’ imprisonment . And because the payment was likely an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign , it could constitute a willful violation of campaign contribution limits , a separate felony punishable by up to five years ’ imprisonment .
That the investigation of Cohen was apparently referred by special counsel Robert Mueller to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York—a Trump appointee—is an early indication that at this point , the matter is not directly related to the Russia investigation . But that doesn ’ t mean Trump ’ s exposure is any less serious . Cohen knows where the LLCs are hidden . He ’ s been at the center of Trump ’ s financial universe for decades . If he is as exposed as he seems on the Daniels payment , one wonders what information he might be able to offer prosecutors—including Mueller—in exchange for a deal .
In addition , while the guilty pleas of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , deputy campaign chair Rick Gates , and former national security adviser Michael Flynn were all significant , none of them directly jeopardized the president the way a Cohen deal would . If the FBI seized evidence showing that Trump directed Cohen ’ s payment to Daniels , Trump may also have committed a felony violation of campaign finance law . If Cohen and Trump worked together to come up with the scheme , they might also both be guilty of conspiring to commit a campaign finance violation . And if Trump ( notwithstanding his recent denial ) actually knew that he was the beneficiary of the nondisclosure agreement , he might be guilty of a separate offense—failing to report that asset on his personal financial disclosure form .
The president seemed to recognize the seriousness of the development immediately . He launched one of his most predictable and worrying tirades yet . In addition to blaming the Cohen raids on his political opponents and berating Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his recusal from the Russia investigation , Trump floated the possibility of firing Mueller ( who ironically acted exactly as Trump would have wanted him to and referred allegations potentially outside of his scope to another prosecutor rather than expanding the scope of his own investigation ) .
We of course know that this possibility is not just theoretical . Recall that last June , according to The New York Times , Trump ordered that Mueller be fired before backing off when White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the command . Trump has also previously secured the resignation of Attorney General Sessions , only to be persuaded to undo it by former chief of staff Reince Priebus .
That the president of the United States is one file cabinet of seized evidence away from possible exposure to a felony charge is a remarkable thing . That the facts giving rise to such a possibility have nothing to do with obstruction of justice or the various crimes that might fall under the “ collusion ” umbrella is even more noteworthy given the dizzying speed at which Mueller has proceeded . If Mueller referred this matter , one wonders whether he caught Cohen in any Russia-related malfeasance and whether Trump was involved .
For Trump , then , the trouble is that even if he is able to weather this particular storm , the roof shielding him may be blown away in the process .
|
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo Law And Order The FBI Raids on Trump’s Attorney Are Bad News for Trump Special Counsel Robert Mueller would not do this lightly.
Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014. Noah Bookbinder is executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and is a former federal prosecutor who handled public corruption cases and Senate. Conor Shaw is counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Monday’s FBI raids on Michael Cohen’s office, home and hotel room are the clearest sign yet that the president’s longtime attorney is in serious legal jeopardy. They also represent yet another threatening development facing Donald Trump after more than a year of investigations into his campaign and presidency—perhaps the most direct danger yet.
No wonder he’s lashing out wildly—calling the raids “a disgraceful situation” and, absurdly, “an attack on our country.”
Story Continued Below
The evidence sought by investigators reportedly relates to bank fraud and campaign finance violations, both of which primarily point to one thing. Cohen apparently used a home equity credit line to borrow the $130,000 he paid Stormy Daniels for her silence just weeks before the 2016 election. If Cohen lied to obtain credit from a federally insured financial institution, that is a felony punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment. And because the payment was likely an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign, it could constitute a willful violation of campaign contribution limits, a separate felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
That the investigation of Cohen was apparently referred by special counsel Robert Mueller to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York—a Trump appointee—is an early indication that at this point, the matter is not directly related to the Russia investigation. But that doesn’t mean Trump’s exposure is any less serious. Cohen knows where the LLCs are hidden. He’s been at the center of Trump’s financial universe for decades. If he is as exposed as he seems on the Daniels payment, one wonders what information he might be able to offer prosecutors—including Mueller—in exchange for a deal.
In addition, while the guilty pleas of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, deputy campaign chair Rick Gates, and former national security adviser Michael Flynn were all significant, none of them directly jeopardized the president the way a Cohen deal would. If the FBI seized evidence showing that Trump directed Cohen’s payment to Daniels, Trump may also have committed a felony violation of campaign finance law. If Cohen and Trump worked together to come up with the scheme, they might also both be guilty of conspiring to commit a campaign finance violation. And if Trump (notwithstanding his recent denial) actually knew that he was the beneficiary of the nondisclosure agreement, he might be guilty of a separate offense—failing to report that asset on his personal financial disclosure form.
The president seemed to recognize the seriousness of the development immediately. He launched one of his most predictable and worrying tirades yet. In addition to blaming the Cohen raids on his political opponents and berating Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his recusal from the Russia investigation, Trump floated the possibility of firing Mueller (who ironically acted exactly as Trump would have wanted him to and referred allegations potentially outside of his scope to another prosecutor rather than expanding the scope of his own investigation).
We of course know that this possibility is not just theoretical. Recall that last June, according to The New York Times, Trump ordered that Mueller be fired before backing off when White House counsel Don McGahn refused to carry out the command. Trump has also previously secured the resignation of Attorney General Sessions, only to be persuaded to undo it by former chief of staff Reince Priebus.
That the president of the United States is one file cabinet of seized evidence away from possible exposure to a felony charge is a remarkable thing. That the facts giving rise to such a possibility have nothing to do with obstruction of justice or the various crimes that might fall under the “collusion” umbrella is even more noteworthy given the dizzying speed at which Mueller has proceeded. If Mueller referred this matter, one wonders whether he caught Cohen in any Russia-related malfeasance and whether Trump was involved.
For Trump, then, the trouble is that even if he is able to weather this particular storm, the roof shielding him may be blown away in the process.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
sGGoV2bEkNViMG8C
|
media_bias
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/welcome-to-americas-cultural-revolution/
|
Welcome to America’s Cultural Revolution
|
2020-06-09
|
David Harsanyi, Kevin D. Williamson, John Fund, Barry Latzer, Tobias Hoonhout, Jim Geraghty, John Hirschauer, Kyle Smith, Zachary Evans
|
The New York Times Building in New York City . ( Brendan McDermid/Reuters )
Even in the opinion section , only approved thought is permitted .
We ’ re in the dawn of a high-tech , bloodless Cultural Revolution ; one that relies on intimidation , public shaming , and economic ruin to dictate what words and ideas are permissible in the public square .
“ Words are violence ” has always been an illiberal notion meant to stifle speech and open discourse . Popularized by a generation of coddled and brittle college students , it now guides policy on editorial pages at newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer , the New York Times , and most major news outlets .
The Times can claim that a harsh tone and a small factual error in Senator Tom Cotton ’ s recent op-ed was the reason the entire paper had a meltdown , but the staffers who revolted initially claimed that Cotton ’ s argument for bringing the National Guard into cities put black lives in “ danger . ”
Cotton ’ s critics are correct that not every dumb or radical idea deserves a debate or a place in the country ’ s biggest newspapers — although some of us believe editors should make room for contrarian and unpopular arguments . But this insistence masks their real objection : That Cotton ’ s column , which tonally and philosophically was well within the parameters of traditional editorial writing , might have found an audience . At root , our cultural revolutionaries are frightened of ideas . Do we honestly believe that had another paper published it , the same people wouldn ’ t have deemed that inappropriate , too ?
None of the Times ’ editors , all of whom are apparently comfortable with running fabulist histories or odes to Communist tyrannies , pushed back against the caustic notion that engaging in debate was act of violence . They bowed to the internal mob and pleaded for forgiveness .
What editor at a major newspaper is going to stand up for ideals of open and free debate if doing so means putting “ black lives in danger ” and ends his career ? Few , if any .
Michael Kinsley once wrote — back in the days when liberals were running our journalistic institutions — that “ if no one or almost no one disagrees , it also is probably not a good subject for an editorial. ” By contrast , the new Times opinion editor , Kathleen Kingsbury , reportedly told the staff , “ Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism , headlines , social posts , photos — you name it — that gives you the slightest pause , please call or text me immediately . ”
The Times has been cleansed of reactionary elements . The paper is in the hands of The People . Others will follow .
You may also have noticed another progressive slogan gaining popularity these days : “ Silence is violence. ” It ’ s no longer enough not to peddle wrongthink in the op-ed pages of the local paper , but now you must also actively champion woke progressive positions or you too are tacitly engaged in violence and racism .
This is a neat trick : To speak out in the wrong way is violence . Not to speak out is violence . Not to speak out in the way progressives dictate is violence . This is why your apolitical local lawn-care company is sending out emails promising to dedicate themselves to Black Lives Matter . No one wants to be accused of harboring counterrevolutionary sympathies .
That doesn ’ t leave much room for dissent , does it ? Virtually anyone in the public square who doesn ’ t conform ( save those who work for conservative political journals , perhaps ) risks being humiliated and ruined .
Social media have finally given our “ little generals ” the tools to ferret out suspicious characters and drag them in front of the digital tribunal . By my count , there have been around a dozen struggle sessions for crimes against Black Lives Matter or related issues since last week .
“ Dee Nguyen has been fired from MTV sports reality show , ‘ The Challenge , ’ after making insensitive comments about the Black Lives Matter movement , ” reads one story .
Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear , who ’ s been calling games since 1988 , was forced to resign after saying the words “ all lives matter . ”
Refinery29 editor Christene Barberich was pushed out for alleged “ racist aggressions ” ( even the wording of the accusations has a mildly Communist flavor ) . Bon Appétit editor Adam Rapoport was booted for the same , but only after “ insensitive ” photos of him wearing a costume emerged .
In not one of these cases , as far as I can tell , did friends and co-workers rise to defend those whose careers may have been ruined over a bad joke , errant comment , or stupid costume . No , they participate in the ritual shaming along with everyone else .
And while these struggle sessions are primarily about public humiliation and intimidation , they are also ostensibly about self-criticism . Hoping to salvage his future , for example , Rapoport has confessed that he had “ not championed an inclusive vision ” — and who can blame him ?
By the time you read this , Saints quarterback Drew Brees will probably be on his tenth round of ritual public self-flagellation — his wife having already apologized as well — for saying the words : “ I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country . ”
Without an apology , we ’ re told , Brees would have been unable to work with teammates who are offended because there is no room for dissent on this issue . Brees promises to “ listen. ” Brees implores all of America to “ listen. ” “ Listen ” is a euphemism for groupthink .
Of course everyone should genuinely listen . They should hear out Tom Cotton as well . Black Lives Matter is a group that is not only home to an inspirational sentiment and good people but also various hard left-wing groups and sentiments that some of us reject . It should not get a dispensation from the rules every other movement lives by . In a free and healthy nation , no issue should be above criticism or debate . We once called that liberalism .
|
The New York Times Building in New York City. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)
Even in the opinion section, only approved thought is permitted.
We’re in the dawn of a high-tech, bloodless Cultural Revolution; one that relies on intimidation, public shaming, and economic ruin to dictate what words and ideas are permissible in the public square.
“Words are violence” has always been an illiberal notion meant to stifle speech and open discourse. Popularized by a generation of coddled and brittle college students, it now guides policy on editorial pages at newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Times, and most major news outlets.
Advertisement
The Times can claim that a harsh tone and a small factual error in Senator Tom Cotton’s recent op-ed was the reason the entire paper had a meltdown, but the staffers who revolted initially claimed that Cotton’s argument for bringing the National Guard into cities put black lives in “danger.”
Cotton’s critics are correct that not every dumb or radical idea deserves a debate or a place in the country’s biggest newspapers — although some of us believe editors should make room for contrarian and unpopular arguments. But this insistence masks their real objection: That Cotton’s column, which tonally and philosophically was well within the parameters of traditional editorial writing, might have found an audience. At root, our cultural revolutionaries are frightened of ideas. Do we honestly believe that had another paper published it, the same people wouldn’t have deemed that inappropriate, too?
None of the Times’ editors, all of whom are apparently comfortable with running fabulist histories or odes to Communist tyrannies, pushed back against the caustic notion that engaging in debate was act of violence. They bowed to the internal mob and pleaded for forgiveness.
Advertisement
Advertisement
What editor at a major newspaper is going to stand up for ideals of open and free debate if doing so means putting “black lives in danger” and ends his career? Few, if any.
Michael Kinsley once wrote — back in the days when liberals were running our journalistic institutions — that “if no one or almost no one disagrees, it also is probably not a good subject for an editorial.” By contrast, the new Times opinion editor, Kathleen Kingsbury, reportedly told the staff, “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos — you name it — that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
The Times has been cleansed of reactionary elements. The paper is in the hands of The People. Others will follow.
Advertisement
You may also have noticed another progressive slogan gaining popularity these days: “Silence is violence.” It’s no longer enough not to peddle wrongthink in the op-ed pages of the local paper, but now you must also actively champion woke progressive positions or you too are tacitly engaged in violence and racism.
This is a neat trick: To speak out in the wrong way is violence. Not to speak out is violence. Not to speak out in the way progressives dictate is violence. This is why your apolitical local lawn-care company is sending out emails promising to dedicate themselves to Black Lives Matter. No one wants to be accused of harboring counterrevolutionary sympathies.
Advertisement
That doesn’t leave much room for dissent, does it? Virtually anyone in the public square who doesn’t conform (save those who work for conservative political journals, perhaps) risks being humiliated and ruined.
Social media have finally given our “little generals” the tools to ferret out suspicious characters and drag them in front of the digital tribunal. By my count, there have been around a dozen struggle sessions for crimes against Black Lives Matter or related issues since last week.
Advertisement
“Dee Nguyen has been fired from MTV sports reality show, ‘The Challenge,’ after making insensitive comments about the Black Lives Matter movement,” reads one story.
Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear, who’s been calling games since 1988, was forced to resign after saying the words “all lives matter.”
Refinery29 editor Christene Barberich was pushed out for alleged “racist aggressions” (even the wording of the accusations has a mildly Communist flavor). Bon Appétit editor Adam Rapoport was booted for the same, but only after “insensitive” photos of him wearing a costume emerged.
In not one of these cases, as far as I can tell, did friends and co-workers rise to defend those whose careers may have been ruined over a bad joke, errant comment, or stupid costume. No, they participate in the ritual shaming along with everyone else.
And while these struggle sessions are primarily about public humiliation and intimidation, they are also ostensibly about self-criticism. Hoping to salvage his future, for example, Rapoport has confessed that he had “not championed an inclusive vision” — and who can blame him?
Advertisement
By the time you read this, Saints quarterback Drew Brees will probably be on his tenth round of ritual public self-flagellation — his wife having already apologized as well — for saying the words: “I will never agree with anybody disrespecting the flag of the United States of America or our country.”
Advertisement
Without an apology, we’re told, Brees would have been unable to work with teammates who are offended because there is no room for dissent on this issue. Brees promises to “listen.” Brees implores all of America to “listen.” “Listen” is a euphemism for groupthink.
Of course everyone should genuinely listen. They should hear out Tom Cotton as well. Black Lives Matter is a group that is not only home to an inspirational sentiment and good people but also various hard left-wing groups and sentiments that some of us reject. It should not get a dispensation from the rules every other movement lives by. In a free and healthy nation, no issue should be above criticism or debate. We once called that liberalism.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
QTBZyuqWkLXkDRdF
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/11/02/164131510/romneys-baffling-claim-about-medicare-pay-cuts-for-doctors
|
Romney's Baffling Claim About Medicare Pay Cuts For Doctors
|
2012-11-02
|
Julie Rovner
|
Romney 's Baffling Claim About Medicare Pay Cuts For Doctors Listen · 3:16 3:16
Health care in general — and Medicare , in particular — have been big parts of this year 's presidential campaign .
But over the last couple of weeks , Republican Mitt Romney has been making a new claim that does n't quite clear the accuracy bar .
It has to do with $ 716 billion in Medicare reductions over 10 years included in the federal health law , the Affordable Care Act . And it 's become a standard part of Romney 's stump speech .
Here 's how he put it last week in his big economic speech in Ames , Iowa :
It matters to the senior who needs to get an appointment with a medical specialist , but is told by one receptionist after another that the doctor is n't taking any new Medicare patients ; because Medicare has been slashed to pay for Obamacare .
`` Not true , '' says Harold Pollack , a professor of public health policy at the University of Chicago . `` I 'm honestly rather baffled at the arguments that Governor Romney is making . ''
Now it is true that the law envisions reductions in Medicare . And some of that money will help pay for the rest of the law . And there are problems in some places with doctors not being willing to accept Medicare patients . But those two things are n't actually connected .
The problem with Medicare pay for doctors actually predates passage of the health law by more than a decade — it 's a preexisting condition , if you will , Pollack says . `` And every year , Congress has to go through the song and dance with something called the doctor fix to prevent Medicare fees from a fairly catastrophic reduction . That has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act . Health reform does not cut physician fees . ''
In fact , the nation 's doctors were furious when the health law passed in 2010 that it did n't fix the doctor fee problem . It turned out that would have been too expensive . That 's why Congress is still grappling with the problem today .
The law did , however , take a few steps to boost some payments for some doctors , says Pollack , including `` improving reimbursement for primary care providers '' in both Medicare as well as the Medicaid program , where the shortage of doctors has been even more acute .
A campaign email pointed to a 2010 survey of doctors by the Physicians Foundation , in which 30 percent said the law would prompt them to close their practices to new Medicare patients . But the survey had a response rate of only 2.4 % , and more than two-thirds of those who responded started out with a self-described negative view of the law .
|
Romney's Baffling Claim About Medicare Pay Cuts For Doctors
Romney's Baffling Claim About Medicare Pay Cuts For Doctors Listen · 3:16 3:16
Enlarge this image toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Evan Vucci/AP
Health care in general — and Medicare, in particular — have been big parts of this year's presidential campaign.
But over the last couple of weeks, Republican Mitt Romney has been making a new claim that doesn't quite clear the accuracy bar.
It has to do with $716 billion in Medicare reductions over 10 years included in the federal health law, the Affordable Care Act. And it's become a standard part of Romney's stump speech.
Here's how he put it last week in his big economic speech in Ames, Iowa:
It matters to the senior who needs to get an appointment with a medical specialist, but is told by one receptionist after another that the doctor isn't taking any new Medicare patients; because Medicare has been slashed to pay for Obamacare.
"Not true," says Harold Pollack, a professor of public health policy at the University of Chicago. "I'm honestly rather baffled at the arguments that Governor Romney is making."
Now it is true that the law envisions reductions in Medicare. And some of that money will help pay for the rest of the law. And there are problems in some places with doctors not being willing to accept Medicare patients. But those two things aren't actually connected.
The problem with Medicare pay for doctors actually predates passage of the health law by more than a decade — it's a preexisting condition, if you will, Pollack says. "And every year, Congress has to go through the song and dance with something called the doctor fix to prevent Medicare fees from a fairly catastrophic reduction. That has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. Health reform does not cut physician fees."
In fact, the nation's doctors were furious when the health law passed in 2010 that it didn't fix the doctor fee problem. It turned out that would have been too expensive. That's why Congress is still grappling with the problem today.
The law did, however, take a few steps to boost some payments for some doctors, says Pollack, including "improving reimbursement for primary care providers" in both Medicare as well as the Medicaid program, where the shortage of doctors has been even more acute.
So how does Gov. Romney back his claim?
A campaign email pointed to a 2010 survey of doctors by the Physicians Foundation, in which 30 percent said the law would prompt them to close their practices to new Medicare patients. But the survey had a response rate of only 2.4%, and more than two-thirds of those who responded started out with a self-described negative view of the law.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
QHIaFMJBHmlVY47m
|
middle_east
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/05/world/meast/egypt-coup/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
|
African Union suspends Egypt
|
2013-07-05
|
Chelsea J. Carter
|
Story highlights At least 26 people were killed in post-coup violence , state media reports
Gunshots and birdshot fired in clashes near Cairo University , witness says
Egyptian soldiers stop CNN 's Ben Wedeman from reporting , seize camera
Fighting erupted Friday across Egypt between supporters of Mohamed Morsy and their opponents , leaving more than two dozen people dead and hundreds more injured while raising fears of widening violence after the military ousted the country 's first democratically elected president .
The violence came as Morsy 's supporters held massive protests across the country , calling for his reinstatement , a counter to huge demonstrations among those celebrating his ouster .
At least 26 people were killed and more than 850 were injured in clashes across the country that at times pitted Morsy supporters against his opponents and the military , state-run media reported , citing the Ministry of Health and medical officials .
Among those killed were five Morsy supporters who were shot by the army in front of the headquarters of the Republican Guard headquarters , where Morsy was said to be detained , the Muslim Brotherhood 's political wing -- the Freedom and Justice Party -- said .
The health ministry reported that at least two people were killed and 65 injured in clashes there . It did not detail the injuries that led to the deaths of the two .
JUST WATCHED Clashes in Egypt turn deadly Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clashes in Egypt turn deadly 02:58
JUST WATCHED Egyptian military takes CNN camera Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Egyptian military takes CNN camera 01:27
JUST WATCHED Violence in streets of Cairo after coup Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Violence in streets of Cairo after coup 04:48
JUST WATCHED Pro-Morsy protesters hit with tear gas Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pro-Morsy protesters hit with tear gas 03:33
State broadcaster Nile TV , citing an unnamed security source , said live ammunition had not been used against demonstrators and no one was hurt or killed .
The fighting broke out when Morsy supporters tried to storm the building , Nile TV said .
CNN 's Reza Sayah , reporting from outside the building , said he had seen one body around which scores of Morsy supporters were huddled , some of them crying .
A few feet away , demonstrators faced off across a barbed-wire barricade behind which stood a line of soldiers who detonated flash grenades and fired tear gas in an apparent attempt to get the demonstrators to move away .
Many of them did just that , though thousands of others remained in defiance . Demonstrators could be seen carrying away a wounded man . Some demonstrators waved flags and held pictures of Morsy and vowed not to leave until the military returns Morsy to office .
By nightfall , clashes on a bridge near Tahrir Square began after a standoff that saw anti-Morsy demonstrators advance on his supporters , with both sides throwing rocks and shooting fireworks at each other as hundreds of people ran , according to video footage .
About 100 soldiers , backed by armored personnel carriers , rolled on to the bridge to separate the two sides and break up the fighting .
CNN 's Ben Wedeman was reporting live near the bridge when soldiers unplugged his crew 's camera and confiscated the equipment . Wedeman said an agreement subsequently was reached that the camera would be returned -- without the video footage .
The violence was the latest fallout following Wednesday 's move by the nation 's powerful military to remove Morsy .
Morsy had become the nation 's first democratically elected president a year ago , but failed to fix the nation 's ailing economy or improve its crime problems and was seen by many as increasingly autocratic .
Human Rights Watch has said he had continued abusive practices established by Hosni Mubarak , who was pushed out in a popular uprising in 2011 after three decades of iron rule supported by the U.S. government .
`` Numerous journalists , political activists , and others were prosecuted on charges of 'insulting ' officials or institutions and 'spreading false information , ' '' the rights group said .
Throngs of protesters filled Egyptian streets for days , calling for him to step down .
The president 's supporters turned out at massive counter demonstrations . At times , the two sides clashed with deadly consequences .
On Monday , the army gave Morsy 48 hours to agree to share power or be pushed aside .
On Wednesday , the military rejected Morsy 's conciliatory gestures as insufficient and announced its `` road map '' to stability and new elections .
Morsy and a number of leaders of the Brotherhood were arrested and may face charges over the deaths of protesters during clashes with Morsy 's supporters , many of whom also died .
Adly Mansour , head of the country 's Supreme Constitutional Court , was sworn in Thursday as interim president .
He immediately dissolved Egypt 's upper house of parliament , the Shura Council , and appointed a new head of intelligence , state TV said Friday .
The moves sparked outrage among Egyptians who saw them as counter to what their fledgling democracy was supposed to have been all about .
Mohamed Badie , the Brotherhood 's spiritual leader , exhorted the thousands of people who packed the area around the Rabaa Adawiya mosque in Cairo to fight back .
`` The coup is illegal and we will never accept its results , '' said Badie , whose title is supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood . `` We sacrificed so dearly to reach this point , and we will never return to the past again . ''
Badie challenged the Egyptian army to `` return to the arms of the nation . ''
The furor appeared to escalate during the day . By nightfall , a car was burning on the 6th of October Bridge , which commemorates the 1973 Arab-Israeli war , and leads to Tahrir Square , a focal point for anti-Morsy demonstrators .
In Haram , a neighborhood of Giza in greater Cairo , one person was killed and seven were injured when a group of armed men attacked a police station , a spokesman for the health ministry said .
At least 10 people were injured in clashes between supporters of Morsy and residents in the city of Damanhour , about 160 kilometers ( 100 miles ) northwest of Cairo , Nile TV said .
State television showed pictures from Alexandria of security forces firing tear gas at pro-Morsy demonstrators .
Outside Cairo University , throngs of pro-Morsy demonstrators formed human chains while others participating in a sit-in shouted , `` Police are thugs ! ''
Mohamed Ismail was among those protesting near the university when he said he heard gunfire and saw `` thugs '' appear .
`` I saw scores of people falling from the gunshots , '' he said . `` But I do not know how many people were killed and injured . ''
Gunshots and birdshot were used in the clashes between the two sides , the state-run Al-Ahram news agency reported .
Egypt 's armed forces said they would guarantee the rights of protesters as long the protests resulted in neither violence nor destruction of property .
In a move likely to spark further unrest among Morsy supporters , Egyptian authorities arrested the Muslim Brotherhood 's deputy supreme leader , Khairat el-Shater , and Salafi politician Hazem Salah Abu Ismail , on Friday in Cairo .
Abu Ismail was being held on allegations of inciting the killing of protesters in front of the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo , according to a statement released by the prosecutor 's office .
El-Shater , who was the Muslim Brotherhood 's first presidential candidate before being replaced by eventual president Morsey , was being held in connection with accusations he incited the killing of protesters in recent days , state-run TV reported .
The detention of the two men , who are wildly popular among their followers , has raised fears it could spur more supporters into the streets .
Police , meanwhile , were seeking hundreds of other Brotherhood members , state media reported .
A spokesman for the Freedom and Justice Party said Thursday the coup had turned into `` very , very questionable attempts by the military to dismantle the Brotherhood . ''
The Freedom and Justice Party chief , Saad el-Katatni , and the party deputy , Rashad Al-Bayoumi , who were arrested Thursday , had been released , Nile TV , said Friday .
The Tamarod , or `` Rebellion , '' movement , which had sought Morsy 's ouster , has nominated Mohamed ElBaradei , an opposition leader , to become prime minister .
ElBaradei , the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency , described Morsy 's ouster as a `` correction of the uprising of 2011 . ''
Other opposition leaders and protesters have objected to the use of `` coup '' to describe the military 's removal of the elected president via non-democratic means .
President Barack Obama said the United States was `` deeply concerned '' about the move , but did not use the word `` coup . ''
Washington has supplied Egypt 's military with tens of billions of dollars in support and equipment for more than 30 years . Under U.S. law , that support could be cut off after a coup .
The United States on Friday condemned the deadly violence following Morsy 's ouster .
`` We call on all Egyptian leaders to condemn the use of force and to prevent further violence among their supporters , '' State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said .
`` As President Obama said , we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptians are protected , including the right to peaceful assembly , and we call on all who are protesting to do so peacefully . ''
Meanwhile , the African Union announced Friday that it suspended Egypt from its ranks of member countries .
The AU 's Peace and Security Council also said it was sending a team to Egypt to work toward restoring constitutional order .
Of the 22 people killed Friday , state-run media reported 12 died in clashes in the northern Egyptian city of Alexandria , where Morsy 's supporters and opponents have reportedly clashed for days .
Elsewhere , Islamist gunmen attacked Egyptian police stations and checkpoints in the Sinai , killing at least one soldier , agencies reported .
A senior intelligence officer who would not agree to being identified said two police officers were killed in the northern Sinai city of Arish when a group of men drove by the police station and shot them .
The assaults may have nothing to do with extremist threats to avenge Morsy 's overthrow .
The desert peninsula next to Israel and Gaza has long eluded the control of Egyptian security forces , leaving extremists plenty of room to establish themselves .
The army said it was on high alert , a level below maximum alert , in the Sinai and Suez provinces . The military was enforcing a curfew until 6 a.m. local time Saturday in the northern Sinai Peninsula .
Egypt is the largest Arab country in the world and a close ally of the United States , which gives it $ 1.5 billion per year for military and civilian programs .
It controls the Suez Canal , a crucial sea route through which more than 4 % of the world 's oil and 8 % of its seaborne trade travel .
With Jordan , it is one of two Arab countries that has made peace with Israel .
|
Story highlights At least 26 people were killed in post-coup violence, state media reports
Gunshots and birdshot fired in clashes near Cairo University, witness says
Egypt military arrests the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy supreme leader
Egyptian soldiers stop CNN's Ben Wedeman from reporting, seize camera
Fighting erupted Friday across Egypt between supporters of Mohamed Morsy and their opponents, leaving more than two dozen people dead and hundreds more injured while raising fears of widening violence after the military ousted the country's first democratically elected president.
The violence came as Morsy's supporters held massive protests across the country, calling for his reinstatement, a counter to huge demonstrations among those celebrating his ouster.
At least 26 people were killed and more than 850 were injured in clashes across the country that at times pitted Morsy supporters against his opponents and the military, state-run media reported, citing the Ministry of Health and medical officials.
Among those killed were five Morsy supporters who were shot by the army in front of the headquarters of the Republican Guard headquarters, where Morsy was said to be detained, the Muslim Brotherhood's political wing -- the Freedom and Justice Party -- said.
The health ministry reported that at least two people were killed and 65 injured in clashes there. It did not detail the injuries that led to the deaths of the two.
JUST WATCHED Clashes in Egypt turn deadly Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clashes in Egypt turn deadly 02:58
JUST WATCHED Egyptian military takes CNN camera Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Egyptian military takes CNN camera 01:27
JUST WATCHED Violence in streets of Cairo after coup Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Violence in streets of Cairo after coup 04:48
JUST WATCHED Pro-Morsy protesters hit with tear gas Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Pro-Morsy protesters hit with tear gas 03:33
State broadcaster Nile TV, citing an unnamed security source, said live ammunition had not been used against demonstrators and no one was hurt or killed.
The fighting broke out when Morsy supporters tried to storm the building, Nile TV said.
CNN's Reza Sayah, reporting from outside the building, said he had seen one body around which scores of Morsy supporters were huddled, some of them crying.
A few feet away, demonstrators faced off across a barbed-wire barricade behind which stood a line of soldiers who detonated flash grenades and fired tear gas in an apparent attempt to get the demonstrators to move away.
Many of them did just that, though thousands of others remained in defiance. Demonstrators could be seen carrying away a wounded man. Some demonstrators waved flags and held pictures of Morsy and vowed not to leave until the military returns Morsy to office.
By nightfall, clashes on a bridge near Tahrir Square began after a standoff that saw anti-Morsy demonstrators advance on his supporters, with both sides throwing rocks and shooting fireworks at each other as hundreds of people ran, according to video footage.
About 100 soldiers, backed by armored personnel carriers, rolled on to the bridge to separate the two sides and break up the fighting.
CNN's Ben Wedeman was reporting live near the bridge when soldiers unplugged his crew's camera and confiscated the equipment. Wedeman said an agreement subsequently was reached that the camera would be returned -- without the video footage.
The violence was the latest fallout following Wednesday's move by the nation's powerful military to remove Morsy.
Morsy had become the nation's first democratically elected president a year ago, but failed to fix the nation's ailing economy or improve its crime problems and was seen by many as increasingly autocratic.
Human Rights Watch has said he had continued abusive practices established by Hosni Mubarak, who was pushed out in a popular uprising in 2011 after three decades of iron rule supported by the U.S. government.
"Numerous journalists, political activists, and others were prosecuted on charges of 'insulting' officials or institutions and 'spreading false information,'" the rights group said.
Throngs of protesters filled Egyptian streets for days, calling for him to step down.
The president's supporters turned out at massive counter demonstrations. At times, the two sides clashed with deadly consequences.
On Monday, the army gave Morsy 48 hours to agree to share power or be pushed aside.
On Wednesday, the military rejected Morsy's conciliatory gestures as insufficient and announced its "road map" to stability and new elections.
Morsy and a number of leaders of the Brotherhood were arrested and may face charges over the deaths of protesters during clashes with Morsy's supporters, many of whom also died.
Moves spark outrage
Adly Mansour, head of the country's Supreme Constitutional Court, was sworn in Thursday as interim president.
He immediately dissolved Egypt's upper house of parliament, the Shura Council, and appointed a new head of intelligence, state TV said Friday.
The moves sparked outrage among Egyptians who saw them as counter to what their fledgling democracy was supposed to have been all about.
Mohamed Badie, the Brotherhood's spiritual leader, exhorted the thousands of people who packed the area around the Rabaa Adawiya mosque in Cairo to fight back.
"The coup is illegal and we will never accept its results," said Badie, whose title is supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood. "We sacrificed so dearly to reach this point, and we will never return to the past again."
Badie challenged the Egyptian army to "return to the arms of the nation."
The furor appeared to escalate during the day. By nightfall, a car was burning on the 6th of October Bridge, which commemorates the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and leads to Tahrir Square, a focal point for anti-Morsy demonstrators.
In Haram, a neighborhood of Giza in greater Cairo, one person was killed and seven were injured when a group of armed men attacked a police station, a spokesman for the health ministry said.
At least 10 people were injured in clashes between supporters of Morsy and residents in the city of Damanhour, about 160 kilometers (100 miles) northwest of Cairo, Nile TV said.
State television showed pictures from Alexandria of security forces firing tear gas at pro-Morsy demonstrators.
Outside Cairo University, throngs of pro-Morsy demonstrators formed human chains while others participating in a sit-in shouted, "Police are thugs!"
Mohamed Ismail was among those protesting near the university when he said he heard gunfire and saw "thugs" appear.
They carried guns and knives, he told CNN.
"I saw scores of people falling from the gunshots," he said. "But I do not know how many people were killed and injured."
Gunshots and birdshot were used in the clashes between the two sides, the state-run Al-Ahram news agency reported.
Egypt's armed forces said they would guarantee the rights of protesters as long the protests resulted in neither violence nor destruction of property.
Dismantling the Brotherhood?
In a move likely to spark further unrest among Morsy supporters, Egyptian authorities arrested the Muslim Brotherhood's deputy supreme leader, Khairat el-Shater, and Salafi politician Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, on Friday in Cairo.
Abu Ismail was being held on allegations of inciting the killing of protesters in front of the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo, according to a statement released by the prosecutor's office.
El-Shater, who was the Muslim Brotherhood's first presidential candidate before being replaced by eventual president Morsey, was being held in connection with accusations he incited the killing of protesters in recent days, state-run TV reported.
The detention of the two men, who are wildly popular among their followers, has raised fears it could spur more supporters into the streets.
Police, meanwhile, were seeking hundreds of other Brotherhood members, state media reported.
A spokesman for the Freedom and Justice Party said Thursday the coup had turned into "very, very questionable attempts by the military to dismantle the Brotherhood."
The Freedom and Justice Party chief, Saad el-Katatni, and the party deputy, Rashad Al-Bayoumi, who were arrested Thursday, had been released, Nile TV, said Friday.
The Tamarod, or "Rebellion," movement, which had sought Morsy's ouster, has nominated Mohamed ElBaradei, an opposition leader, to become prime minister.
ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, described Morsy's ouster as a "correction of the uprising of 2011."
Other opposition leaders and protesters have objected to the use of "coup" to describe the military's removal of the elected president via non-democratic means.
President Barack Obama said the United States was "deeply concerned" about the move, but did not use the word "coup."
Washington has supplied Egypt's military with tens of billions of dollars in support and equipment for more than 30 years. Under U.S. law, that support could be cut off after a coup.
The United States on Friday condemned the deadly violence following Morsy's ouster.
"We call on all Egyptian leaders to condemn the use of force and to prevent further violence among their supporters," State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said.
"As President Obama said, we expect the military to ensure that the rights of all Egyptians are protected, including the right to peaceful assembly, and we call on all who are protesting to do so peacefully."
Meanwhile, the African Union announced Friday that it suspended Egypt from its ranks of member countries.
The AU's Peace and Security Council also said it was sending a team to Egypt to work toward restoring constitutional order.
More violence, more deaths
Of the 22 people killed Friday, state-run media reported 12 died in clashes in the northern Egyptian city of Alexandria, where Morsy's supporters and opponents have reportedly clashed for days.
Elsewhere, Islamist gunmen attacked Egyptian police stations and checkpoints in the Sinai, killing at least one soldier, agencies reported.
A senior intelligence officer who would not agree to being identified said two police officers were killed in the northern Sinai city of Arish when a group of men drove by the police station and shot them.
The assaults may have nothing to do with extremist threats to avenge Morsy's overthrow.
The desert peninsula next to Israel and Gaza has long eluded the control of Egyptian security forces, leaving extremists plenty of room to establish themselves.
The army said it was on high alert, a level below maximum alert, in the Sinai and Suez provinces. The military was enforcing a curfew until 6 a.m. local time Saturday in the northern Sinai Peninsula.
Egypt is the largest Arab country in the world and a close ally of the United States, which gives it $1.5 billion per year for military and civilian programs.
It controls the Suez Canal, a crucial sea route through which more than 4% of the world's oil and 8% of its seaborne trade travel.
With Jordan, it is one of two Arab countries that has made peace with Israel.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
7i7Y1bdpbvvBrvJi
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/01/critics-say-trump-doesnt-care-about-losing-house-really.html
|
Critics say Trump doesn't care about losing the House. Really?
|
2018-08-01
|
Howard Kurtz
|
President Trump makes so much news that I could write a half-dozen columns today just on his latest comments and tweets—any one of which would lead the news in ordinary times .
Trump says he 's willing to meet with the leader of Iran , despite having abandoned the nuclear deal . I 'll put that in the category of Not Happening , not least because the Iranians ( unlike Kim Jong-un ) say they have no interest in sitting down with the president who 's squeezing their country with economic sanctions .
Trump says the Koch brothers and their network are a `` total joke '' and `` globalist '' and `` highly overrated . '' This is a response to criticism from Charles Koch and some of his donors that the president ’ s rhetoric is divisive and they don ’ t back him on tariffs and immigration . But the Kochs were never big Trump fans and didn ’ t endorse him .
Trump tweeted yesterday that `` the Fake News Media is going CRAZY ! They are totally unhinged and in many ways , after witnessing first hand the damage they do to so many innocent and decent people , I enjoy watching . '' `` Crazy '' and `` unhinged '' are very strong words , but the president pretty much goes off on the press every day now .
I was not terribly excited when Trump said he would be willing to shut down the government if the Democrats do n't give him funding for border security , including the wall . I view this as a negotiating tactic to pressure the other party on a hot-button issue in the midterms . After all , the last government shutdown lasted , what , a few hours ?
But it led to a fascinating Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday that questioned whether Trump really cares if Republicans lose the House in November . The brinkmanship , favored by Steve Bannon , might hurt red-state Senate Democrats , but could boomerang in the House , the Journal says .
The editorial argues that the president `` might not fear '' a Democratic House as long as the GOP keeps the Senate : `` Mr. Trump always needs a foil , and Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be from central political casting . ''
Sure , a Pelosi-run House `` would mean the end of most of Mr. Trump 's agenda . '' But he could cut deals with House Democrats on paid family leave , public-works spending and trade protectionism .
And here 's the zinger : Even if the House Dems move ahead with impeachment , says the Journal , there would never be a two-thirds Senate majority for conviction . And that could help Trump win reelection if Republicans and independents `` conclude he 's the only barrier to a left-wing government led by a President Elizabeth Warren . ''
There are plenty of political assumptions baked into this speculation , of course . But the Journal ( owned by Rupert Murdoch ) is very much running counter to such former Republicans as George Will and Steve Schmidt urging people to vote Democratic this fall to provide a check on a president they despise .
It 's true that Bill Clinton thrived ( and won reelection ) after the Newt Gingrich Republicans captured the House in 1994 . And it 's true that Trump is at odds with conservative House Republicans on a number of key issues .
But in the end I do n't believe that Trump is willing to lose the House in a Machiavellian scheme to propel himself to a second term . House Democrats , even if they 're smart enough to avoid impeachment , would make Trump 's life miserable with endless hearings , subpoenas and investigations . And they 'd play to their base by blocking nearly everything he wants to do .
The president will almost certainly avoid a government shutdown and try to save his House majority , because it would be even harder to win reelection after two years of getting nothing done .
|
President Trump makes so much news that I could write a half-dozen columns today just on his latest comments and tweets—any one of which would lead the news in ordinary times.
Trump says he's willing to meet with the leader of Iran, despite having abandoned the nuclear deal. I'll put that in the category of Not Happening, not least because the Iranians (unlike Kim Jong-un) say they have no interest in sitting down with the president who's squeezing their country with economic sanctions.
Trump says the Koch brothers and their network are a "total joke" and "globalist" and "highly overrated." This is a response to criticism from Charles Koch and some of his donors that the president’s rhetoric is divisive and they don’t back him on tariffs and immigration. But the Kochs were never big Trump fans and didn’t endorse him.
Trump tweeted yesterday that "the Fake News Media is going CRAZY! They are totally unhinged and in many ways, after witnessing first hand the damage they do to so many innocent and decent people, I enjoy watching." "Crazy" and "unhinged" are very strong words, but the president pretty much goes off on the press every day now.
I was not terribly excited when Trump said he would be willing to shut down the government if the Democrats don't give him funding for border security, including the wall. I view this as a negotiating tactic to pressure the other party on a hot-button issue in the midterms. After all, the last government shutdown lasted, what, a few hours?
But it led to a fascinating Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday that questioned whether Trump really cares if Republicans lose the House in November. The brinkmanship, favored by Steve Bannon, might hurt red-state Senate Democrats, but could boomerang in the House, the Journal says.
The editorial argues that the president "might not fear" a Democratic House as long as the GOP keeps the Senate: "Mr. Trump always needs a foil, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be from central political casting."
Sure, a Pelosi-run House "would mean the end of most of Mr. Trump's agenda." But he could cut deals with House Democrats on paid family leave, public-works spending and trade protectionism.
And here's the zinger: Even if the House Dems move ahead with impeachment, says the Journal, there would never be a two-thirds Senate majority for conviction. And that could help Trump win reelection if Republicans and independents "conclude he's the only barrier to a left-wing government led by a President Elizabeth Warren."
There are plenty of political assumptions baked into this speculation, of course. But the Journal (owned by Rupert Murdoch) is very much running counter to such former Republicans as George Will and Steve Schmidt urging people to vote Democratic this fall to provide a check on a president they despise.
It's true that Bill Clinton thrived (and won reelection) after the Newt Gingrich Republicans captured the House in 1994. And it's true that Trump is at odds with conservative House Republicans on a number of key issues.
But in the end I don't believe that Trump is willing to lose the House in a Machiavellian scheme to propel himself to a second term. House Democrats, even if they're smart enough to avoid impeachment, would make Trump's life miserable with endless hearings, subpoenas and investigations. And they'd play to their base by blocking nearly everything he wants to do.
The president will almost certainly avoid a government shutdown and try to save his House majority, because it would be even harder to win reelection after two years of getting nothing done.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
mat7Wb8R2JJk3WOB
|
us_congress
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/archives/2018/03/29/the-spending-bill-brings-us-closer-to-na
|
The Spending Bill Brings Us Closer to National Bankruptcy
|
2018-03-29
|
Steve Chapman, Zuri Davis, Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon
|
Someday , elderly Americans will reminisce about the days when the federal budget was in surplus , and their grandchildren will laugh in disbelief . `` Sure—and you walked 5 miles in the snow to school , uphill both ways , '' they will reply .
It was not so long ago—2001 , to be exact—but the achievement now seems like a relic of an ancient civilization whose strange customs we have long abandoned . We are about as likely to see another balanced budget as we are to see another dodo .
In the past 17 years , the federal government has spent about $ 15 trillion more than it has taken in . Publicly held federal debt equaled 31 percent of gross domestic product in 2001 . Today , it 's nearly 79 percent .
The blame is bipartisan . Deficits emerged and grew under George W. Bush . They eventually declined but persisted under Barack Obama . Because of the policies adopted by Donald Trump and the current Congress , budget deficits will only mushroom .
The crucial step in this development was the December enactment of a tax `` reform '' plan . Its main consequence was to add at least $ 1 trillion in deficits over the coming decade—on top of the $ 10 trillion that was already in the pipeline .
Republicans who voted for the proposal insist it will spur so much economic growth that it will pay for itself . Whether they believe that or do n't care is open to debate , but the claim has no basis in reality .
A poll of 38 economists by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found only one who agreed the tax plan will have a substantial positive effect on economic growth . All agreed it will enlarge the debt .
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that in 2028 , the debt will amount to 93 percent of GDP . That means the real burden on future taxpayers will be triple what it was in 2001 .
Now would be the ideal time to close the fiscal gap . The economy is growing , corporations are profitable , and unemployment is low—factors that boost revenue . If deficits are inevitable and possibly useful during recessions , they serve no good purpose in the ninth year of an expansion . Surpluses would serve a good purpose , by reducing the debt burden and providing room to adapt policy to changing circumstances .
The movement of the baby boom generation from the labor force to the retirement rolls means that outlays are fated to grow , thanks to Social Security and Medicare . Absent significant ( and politically dangerous ) cuts in benefits , revenues will have to grow just to keep up with obligations .
Instead , Congress and the president are deliberately reducing Washington 's income while upping its outlays . It 's the equivalent of buying a more expensive house and then quitting your job—a formula for bankruptcy .
We have gotten used to a tide of red ink flowing over the dam . But we do n't see that anymore—not because the red ink has stopped flowing but because the dam has disintegrated . The conventions that once served to check budgetary excess are suddenly gone .
When Congress approved and Trump signed a $ 1.3 trillion omnibus spending measure last week , they agreed that they did n't know what was in the 2,232-page bill . But we do n't need to know the actual contents to see that it represents a historic disaster , any more than we need to know how many gallons of water Hurricane Harvey dumped on Texas .
It was a bit incongruous to hear Trump demand that Congress give him a line-item veto . But then , Bush asked for one , and so did Obama . What all three have in common is an unwillingness to seriously attack the deficit . Asking for a line-item veto is a hollow gesture .
Because our leaders have chosen to go on spending without taxing Americans to cover the full costs , revenues will increasingly be used not to pay for actual programs but to service the debt . `` Under current law , the federal government will spend more on interest than it does on Medicaid by 2021 and more than it does on defense by 2024 , '' says the CRFB .
Once the tax bill passed , the argument for spending restraint collapsed . Why contain outlays if the federal debt is going to explode regardless ? The spending bill merely confirms , loudly , that neither party has any use for fiscal responsibility .
Our leaders realize that eventually , someone will pay a price for this irresponsibility . And they know it wo n't be them .
|
Someday, elderly Americans will reminisce about the days when the federal budget was in surplus, and their grandchildren will laugh in disbelief. "Sure—and you walked 5 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways," they will reply.
It was not so long ago—2001, to be exact—but the achievement now seems like a relic of an ancient civilization whose strange customs we have long abandoned. We are about as likely to see another balanced budget as we are to see another dodo.
In the past 17 years, the federal government has spent about $15 trillion more than it has taken in. Publicly held federal debt equaled 31 percent of gross domestic product in 2001. Today, it's nearly 79 percent.
The blame is bipartisan. Deficits emerged and grew under George W. Bush. They eventually declined but persisted under Barack Obama. Because of the policies adopted by Donald Trump and the current Congress, budget deficits will only mushroom.
The crucial step in this development was the December enactment of a tax "reform" plan. Its main consequence was to add at least $1 trillion in deficits over the coming decade—on top of the $10 trillion that was already in the pipeline.
Republicans who voted for the proposal insist it will spur so much economic growth that it will pay for itself. Whether they believe that or don't care is open to debate, but the claim has no basis in reality.
A poll of 38 economists by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business found only one who agreed the tax plan will have a substantial positive effect on economic growth. All agreed it will enlarge the debt.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that in 2028, the debt will amount to 93 percent of GDP. That means the real burden on future taxpayers will be triple what it was in 2001.
Now would be the ideal time to close the fiscal gap. The economy is growing, corporations are profitable, and unemployment is low—factors that boost revenue. If deficits are inevitable and possibly useful during recessions, they serve no good purpose in the ninth year of an expansion. Surpluses would serve a good purpose, by reducing the debt burden and providing room to adapt policy to changing circumstances.
The movement of the baby boom generation from the labor force to the retirement rolls means that outlays are fated to grow, thanks to Social Security and Medicare. Absent significant (and politically dangerous) cuts in benefits, revenues will have to grow just to keep up with obligations.
Instead, Congress and the president are deliberately reducing Washington's income while upping its outlays. It's the equivalent of buying a more expensive house and then quitting your job—a formula for bankruptcy.
We have gotten used to a tide of red ink flowing over the dam. But we don't see that anymore—not because the red ink has stopped flowing but because the dam has disintegrated. The conventions that once served to check budgetary excess are suddenly gone.
When Congress approved and Trump signed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending measure last week, they agreed that they didn't know what was in the 2,232-page bill. But we don't need to know the actual contents to see that it represents a historic disaster, any more than we need to know how many gallons of water Hurricane Harvey dumped on Texas.
It was a bit incongruous to hear Trump demand that Congress give him a line-item veto. But then, Bush asked for one, and so did Obama. What all three have in common is an unwillingness to seriously attack the deficit. Asking for a line-item veto is a hollow gesture.
Because our leaders have chosen to go on spending without taxing Americans to cover the full costs, revenues will increasingly be used not to pay for actual programs but to service the debt. "Under current law, the federal government will spend more on interest than it does on Medicaid by 2021 and more than it does on defense by 2024," says the CRFB.
Once the tax bill passed, the argument for spending restraint collapsed. Why contain outlays if the federal debt is going to explode regardless? The spending bill merely confirms, loudly, that neither party has any use for fiscal responsibility.
Our leaders realize that eventually, someone will pay a price for this irresponsibility. And they know it won't be them.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
OjlyDJTFHh3ZU08s
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/30/472394248/why-donald-trump-reversed-his-pledge-to-support-the-gop-nominee
|
Why Donald Trump Reversed His Pledge To Support The GOP Nominee
|
2016-03-30
|
Domenico Montanaro
|
Why Donald Trump Reversed His Pledge To Support The GOP Nominee
If someone tells you the same thing five times , you probably should believe he means it .
Back in August , Donald Trump and all the other Republican candidates were given the chance to say they would pledge support to whomever the Republican nominee would be — and not wage an independent bid for the presidency if he or she did n't win .
Trump raised his hand , the only one on stage to do so , to say he would not make that pledge . He was pressed and pushed , the question was rephrased , the audience grumbled , and five times , within a span of a minute and a half , he refused to change his mind .
`` I fully understand , '' Trump said then of the implications of his decision .
After meeting with the Republican National Committee chairman , Reince Priebus , Trump emerged at his gilded Trump Tower holding up a Sharpie-signed 62-word pledge `` totally pledging '' to support the GOP nominee `` regardless of who it is . ''
On Tuesday night , Trump changed his mind again . `` No , I do n't anymore , '' Trump told CNN 's Anderson Cooper when asked if he would continue to support whoever the GOP nominee is . `` We 'll see who it is , '' Trump added . `` I have been treated very unfairly . '' He pointed to the `` RNC '' and the `` Republican Party establishment . ''
It was just 27 days ago that all of the Republican candidates were pledging to support the eventual nominee , even if it was Trump . Now , none of them is pledging to support anyone . After bitterness with Trump , stemming from personal attacks about their wives , Ted Cruz also backed away from the pledge Tuesday night . So did John Kasich , who has been moving that direction over the past few weeks after the violent protests at a Trump rally in Chicago — and Trump 's response to them .
Two words are key here : `` fairness '' and `` leverage . '' Trump , as he has been saying all along , has threatened to bolt if he 's not treated `` fairly . '' Now , he believes he has n't been because of the possibility of a brokered convention and delegate allocation rules . ( We get into more on why below . )
In that original hand-raising debate , Trump said , `` I am discussing it with everybody , but I 'm , you know , talking about a lot of leverage . '' Threatening to run third party is the biggest piece of leverage Trump has . Republicans believe an independent Trump bid would ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency , because Trump , like George Wallace in 1968 , could win lots of states in the South outside of the party structure . In today 's electoral map , that would imperil the GOP nominee .
Why did Trump change his mind ? And what about fairness ?
With the finish line in sight , Trump also sees a great big hurdle being erected . There 's an active stop-Trump , or # NeverTrump , effort that is determined to try to keep Trump below the 1,237 delegates needed to become the GOP nominee . If they can do that , they would try to nominate someone else on the second ballot at the Republican National Convention this summer . It 's not clear it would work , but Trump does n't like what he sees and thinks it 's not fair . It 's as simple as this in his view : He 's got the most votes , so he should be the nominee .
That 's not how it works . The rules of the game are — and have been since the process left the smoke-filled rooms — whoever has a majority of delegates will be the nominee . At a debate March 10 , Trump called 1,237 a `` very random number . '' It 's not . It 's 50 percent , plus one , of the total number of voting delegates to the Republican National Convention this summer — 2,472 .
Trump this week also threatened to sue over not getting the most delegates out of Louisiana even though he won the most votes in the primary . Again , that 's not inherent unfairness , that 's a lack of understanding about how the process works and having an on-the-ground organization . It may seem unfair , but those are the rules these candidates sign up for . Each state does things differently , and that 's why it 's so hard and so expensive to win , because you need to have a team in place that understands the rules in each state .
These are n't new or unfair rules created for Trump . But for someone who 's an outsider , who does n't like the system and is fueled by support from people who also do n't thoroughly understand , like or accept the system , he thinks they 're unfair .
The point here is that Trump has a strong and devoted following among a significant chunk of GOP primary voters . This is Trump 's biggest piece of leverage . Remember last year when Trump was saying Mexicans were `` rapists , '' and RNC officials started to delicately criticize him , saying on TV that it was n't the tone the party needed ?
Trump thought that was unfair , and he started to float the idea of running as a third-party candidate . Leverage . The RNC backed off .
Now , as Trump sees this effort by Washington insiders take real shape to stop him , and he continues to hear rumblings that even if he has the most votes , he might not be the nominee , Trump is using what he 's got in hopes they back off again .
So , it 's not really about Trump supporting anyone , it 's about him not running third party in the fall , and hobbling the party 's chances at the White House . Some party loyalists , though , are willing to take that chance , because they believe Trump as the standard-bearer of their party would be even worse . ( By the way , a Trump third-party bid may prove more complicated than Trump thinks because of complex , state-by-state ballot access rules , but if you 're someone who does n't know or care about the rules , who knows ? He could run a write-in campaign — and everyone knows how to spell `` Trump . '' )
Does this make Trump seem indecisive , or is he making the most convenient decision at the time , like all politicians ?
It 's certainly a risk for Trump to look like he 's inconsistent . But one man 's inconsistent , indecisive or even calculating is another man 's unpredictable , powerful and smart .
In other words , for people who did n't like him , they 'll continue to think the worst .
And for his supporters , they 'll think more power to him , because they 're there for him — not for the Republican Party .
|
Why Donald Trump Reversed His Pledge To Support The GOP Nominee
Enlarge this image toggle caption Darren Hauck/Getty Images Darren Hauck/Getty Images
If someone tells you the same thing five times, you probably should believe he means it.
Back in August, Donald Trump and all the other Republican candidates were given the chance to say they would pledge support to whomever the Republican nominee would be — and not wage an independent bid for the presidency if he or she didn't win.
Trump raised his hand, the only one on stage to do so, to say he would not make that pledge. He was pressed and pushed, the question was rephrased, the audience grumbled, and five times, within a span of a minute and a half, he refused to change his mind.
"I fully understand," Trump said then of the implications of his decision.
Everything seemed to change a month later.
After meeting with the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, Trump emerged at his gilded Trump Tower holding up a Sharpie-signed 62-word pledge "totally pledging" to support the GOP nominee "regardless of who it is."
On Tuesday night, Trump changed his mind again. "No, I don't anymore," Trump told CNN's Anderson Cooper when asked if he would continue to support whoever the GOP nominee is. "We'll see who it is," Trump added. "I have been treated very unfairly." He pointed to the "RNC" and the "Republican Party establishment."
It was just 27 days ago that all of the Republican candidates were pledging to support the eventual nominee, even if it was Trump. Now, none of them is pledging to support anyone. After bitterness with Trump, stemming from personal attacks about their wives, Ted Cruz also backed away from the pledge Tuesday night. So did John Kasich, who has been moving that direction over the past few weeks after the violent protests at a Trump rally in Chicago — and Trump's response to them.
Two words are key here: "fairness" and "leverage." Trump, as he has been saying all along, has threatened to bolt if he's not treated "fairly." Now, he believes he hasn't been because of the possibility of a brokered convention and delegate allocation rules. (We get into more on why below.)
In that original hand-raising debate, Trump said, "I am discussing it with everybody, but I'm, you know, talking about a lot of leverage." Threatening to run third party is the biggest piece of leverage Trump has. Republicans believe an independent Trump bid would ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency, because Trump, like George Wallace in 1968, could win lots of states in the South outside of the party structure. In today's electoral map, that would imperil the GOP nominee.
Why did Trump change his mind? And what about fairness?
With the finish line in sight, Trump also sees a great big hurdle being erected. There's an active stop-Trump, or #NeverTrump, effort that is determined to try to keep Trump below the 1,237 delegates needed to become the GOP nominee. If they can do that, they would try to nominate someone else on the second ballot at the Republican National Convention this summer. It's not clear it would work, but Trump doesn't like what he sees and thinks it's not fair. It's as simple as this in his view: He's got the most votes, so he should be the nominee.
That's not how it works. The rules of the game are — and have been since the process left the smoke-filled rooms — whoever has a majority of delegates will be the nominee. At a debate March 10, Trump called 1,237 a "very random number." It's not. It's 50 percent, plus one, of the total number of voting delegates to the Republican National Convention this summer — 2,472.
Trump this week also threatened to sue over not getting the most delegates out of Louisiana even though he won the most votes in the primary. Again, that's not inherent unfairness, that's a lack of understanding about how the process works and having an on-the-ground organization. It may seem unfair, but those are the rules these candidates sign up for. Each state does things differently, and that's why it's so hard and so expensive to win, because you need to have a team in place that understands the rules in each state.
These aren't new or unfair rules created for Trump. But for someone who's an outsider, who doesn't like the system and is fueled by support from people who also don't thoroughly understand, like or accept the system, he thinks they're unfair.
Does it matter whom Trump supports?
The point here is that Trump has a strong and devoted following among a significant chunk of GOP primary voters. This is Trump's biggest piece of leverage. Remember last year when Trump was saying Mexicans were "rapists," and RNC officials started to delicately criticize him, saying on TV that it wasn't the tone the party needed?
Trump thought that was unfair, and he started to float the idea of running as a third-party candidate. Leverage. The RNC backed off.
Now, as Trump sees this effort by Washington insiders take real shape to stop him, and he continues to hear rumblings that even if he has the most votes, he might not be the nominee, Trump is using what he's got in hopes they back off again.
So, it's not really about Trump supporting anyone, it's about him not running third party in the fall, and hobbling the party's chances at the White House. Some party loyalists, though, are willing to take that chance, because they believe Trump as the standard-bearer of their party would be even worse. (By the way, a Trump third-party bid may prove more complicated than Trump thinks because of complex, state-by-state ballot access rules, but if you're someone who doesn't know or care about the rules, who knows? He could run a write-in campaign — and everyone knows how to spell "Trump.")
Does this make Trump seem indecisive, or is he making the most convenient decision at the time, like all politicians?
It's certainly a risk for Trump to look like he's inconsistent. But one man's inconsistent, indecisive or even calculating is another man's unpredictable, powerful and smart.
In other words, for people who didn't like him, they'll continue to think the worst.
And for his supporters, they'll think more power to him, because they're there for him — not for the Republican Party.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
R05OPY0C89bexR8b
|
us_congress
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/30/461388614/8-things-congress-actually-did-this-year
|
8 Things Congress Actually Did This Year
|
2015-12-30
|
Ailsa Chang
|
When Republicans took over both chambers of Congress in January , party leaders vowed they would prove to the country that Republicans could govern . They promised to stop with the self-made crises , such as government shutdowns , and rack up legislative accomplishments . So in the first year of a GOP-controlled Congress in nearly a decade , how well did Republicans prove they can govern ?
First , there were no government shutdowns or defaults on the national debt . Immediately after the midterm election in 2014 , both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner promised there would n't be any shutdowns or defaults on their watch . Turns out they made good on that promise this year .
But Democrats are n't exactly congratulating them for it . `` That 's like saying , 'You know , they did n't blow the top off the Capitol , so clearly Republican leadership is in touch with America . ' No , it takes more than that , '' said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois .
Nonetheless , it is fair to say that the widely held assumption Congress gets nothing done does n't exactly fit this year . There was an uptick in bipartisan activity in this Republican-controlled Congress in 2015 , but if you ask Democrats why that was , they 'll say it 's because they were a more cooperative minority than Republicans were when Democrats controlled the Senate — and that they cooperated on legislation that bolstered Democratic goals .
Whether or not keeping the government open counts as an accomplishment , here are eight legislative matters Congress did address in 2015 — and some issues that remain unresolved :
Trillion-Dollar Government Funding Bill : Right before they split for the holidays , lawmakers passed a trillion-dollar spending bill that will keep the government open until the end of next September . The measure also beefed up cybersecurity and renewed a health care program for Sept. 11 first responders . It also made changes to the visa waiver program so people who have traveled to Iraq , Iran , Syria and Sudan in the past five years will face greater scrutiny if they wish to enter the U.S .
Tax Extenders : Paired with the government spending bill was a measure containing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks . Year after year , Congress has had to extend dozens of tax breaks that expire . In this measure , lawmakers made permanent the most popular tax breaks , such as the $ 1,000 child tax credit , the earned income tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers , and the research and development tax credit .
Two-Year Budget Agreement : Right before Boehner left office , he managed to reach a two-year budget deal with the White House and other congressional leaders . The agreement suspends the debt ceiling through March 2017 and increases spending by $ 80 billion over the next two years — an increase that 's split evenly between defense and domestic programs .
No Child Left Behind Rewrite : Congress easily passed legislation to rewrite the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act . Federally mandated math and reading tests will continue , but the new law cedes greater authority to states , rather than the federal government , to figure out how to use the test results in evaluating schools .
Five-Year Transportation Bill : Congress passed its first long-term bill in a decade to fund roads , bridges and mass transit systems . The measure does not raise the gas tax , currently at 18.4 cents per gallon , but found other sources of funding — such as changing customs fees and dipping into funds from the Federal Reserve .
Ended The NSA 's Bulk Surveillance Program : Lawmakers passed the USA Freedom Act , which ended the government 's bulk collection of phone records . Passage of the measure came after Republican senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky forced a two-day shutdown of the bulk collection program .
Trade Promotion Authority : Congress approved a measure to give the president expedited authority to enter a trade deal with 11 other Pacific Rim countries . Attention now turns to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement , which Congress is expected to consider next year — possibly after the election is over .
Medicare Reform : Known as the `` Doc Fix '' bill , this measure permanently ended automatic Medicare payment cuts to physicians . Under a law from the late 1990s , Medicare payments to doctors would be cut to keep the program 's budget in check . Since then , Congress had failed every year to figure out a long-term solution to the problem .
Still , so many issues remain unresolved — not because lawmakers think they 're unimportant but because partisan divisions on these ideological issues are so deep , they ca n't find common ground . Congress seems happy to take these issues to the voters in 2016 .
Guns : After a spate of gun-related tragedies in 2015 , Democrats vowed to push for gun control legislation , such as measures to expand background checks and prohibit individuals whose names are on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms . Both measures failed in the Senate in 2015 , as in past years .
Immigration : The Senate managed to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul package in 2013 , but attempts to move the legislation through the House failed . Efforts to resurrect immigration legislation have since languished .
Tax Reform : After the midterm election , corporate tax reform was seen as a possible area Republicans and Democrats could work together on . But at his year-end news conference , McConnell expressed pessimism about getting any tax reform accomplished with a Democrat in the White House , saying that any tax changes need to be revenue-neutral and he doubted the president would go for that .
|
8 Things Congress Actually Did This Year
Enlarge this image toggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
When Republicans took over both chambers of Congress in January, party leaders vowed they would prove to the country that Republicans could govern. They promised to stop with the self-made crises, such as government shutdowns, and rack up legislative accomplishments. So in the first year of a GOP-controlled Congress in nearly a decade, how well did Republicans prove they can govern?
First, there were no government shutdowns or defaults on the national debt. Immediately after the midterm election in 2014, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner promised there wouldn't be any shutdowns or defaults on their watch. Turns out they made good on that promise this year.
But Democrats aren't exactly congratulating them for it. "That's like saying, 'You know, they didn't blow the top off the Capitol, so clearly Republican leadership is in touch with America.' No, it takes more than that," said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
Nonetheless, it is fair to say that the widely held assumption Congress gets nothing done doesn't exactly fit this year. There was an uptick in bipartisan activity in this Republican-controlled Congress in 2015, but if you ask Democrats why that was, they'll say it's because they were a more cooperative minority than Republicans were when Democrats controlled the Senate — and that they cooperated on legislation that bolstered Democratic goals.
Whether or not keeping the government open counts as an accomplishment, here are eight legislative matters Congress did address in 2015 — and some issues that remain unresolved:
Bipartisan Legislative Accomplishments
Trillion-Dollar Government Funding Bill: Right before they split for the holidays, lawmakers passed a trillion-dollar spending bill that will keep the government open until the end of next September. The measure also beefed up cybersecurity and renewed a health care program for Sept. 11 first responders. It also made changes to the visa waiver program so people who have traveled to Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan in the past five years will face greater scrutiny if they wish to enter the U.S.
Tax Extenders: Paired with the government spending bill was a measure containing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. Year after year, Congress has had to extend dozens of tax breaks that expire. In this measure, lawmakers made permanent the most popular tax breaks, such as the $1,000 child tax credit, the earned income tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers, and the research and development tax credit.
Two-Year Budget Agreement: Right before Boehner left office, he managed to reach a two-year budget deal with the White House and other congressional leaders. The agreement suspends the debt ceiling through March 2017 and increases spending by $80 billion over the next two years — an increase that's split evenly between defense and domestic programs.
No Child Left Behind Rewrite: Congress easily passed legislation to rewrite the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Federally mandated math and reading tests will continue, but the new law cedes greater authority to states, rather than the federal government, to figure out how to use the test results in evaluating schools.
Five-Year Transportation Bill: Congress passed its first long-term bill in a decade to fund roads, bridges and mass transit systems. The measure does not raise the gas tax, currently at 18.4 cents per gallon, but found other sources of funding — such as changing customs fees and dipping into funds from the Federal Reserve.
Ended The NSA's Bulk Surveillance Program: Lawmakers passed the USA Freedom Act, which ended the government's bulk collection of phone records. Passage of the measure came after Republican senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky forced a two-day shutdown of the bulk collection program.
Trade Promotion Authority: Congress approved a measure to give the president expedited authority to enter a trade deal with 11 other Pacific Rim countries. Attention now turns to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which Congress is expected to consider next year — possibly after the election is over.
Medicare Reform: Known as the "Doc Fix" bill, this measure permanently ended automatic Medicare payment cuts to physicians. Under a law from the late 1990s, Medicare payments to doctors would be cut to keep the program's budget in check. Since then, Congress had failed every year to figure out a long-term solution to the problem.
Unresolved Issues
Still, so many issues remain unresolved — not because lawmakers think they're unimportant but because partisan divisions on these ideological issues are so deep, they can't find common ground. Congress seems happy to take these issues to the voters in 2016.
Guns: After a spate of gun-related tragedies in 2015, Democrats vowed to push for gun control legislation, such as measures to expand background checks and prohibit individuals whose names are on terrorist watch lists from purchasing firearms. Both measures failed in the Senate in 2015, as in past years.
Immigration: The Senate managed to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul package in 2013, but attempts to move the legislation through the House failed. Efforts to resurrect immigration legislation have since languished.
Tax Reform: After the midterm election, corporate tax reform was seen as a possible area Republicans and Democrats could work together on. But at his year-end news conference, McConnell expressed pessimism about getting any tax reform accomplished with a Democrat in the White House, saying that any tax changes need to be revenue-neutral and he doubted the president would go for that.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
K9bg6ZBNOmP5aBvQ
|
treasury
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0923/Why-retirement-of-Lois-Lerner-doesn-t-end-IRS-tea-party-scandal-video
|
Why retirement of Lois Lerner doesn't end IRS tea party scandal (+video)
|
2013-09-23
|
Linda Feldmann
|
Lois Lerner , the Internal Revenue Service official under fire for her department ’ s targeting of tea party groups , has retired effective Monday , according to the IRS .
But that development does not end the scandal that burst into the open last May , when Ms. Lerner revealed that tea party groups were undergoing extra scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption . Lerner , who was director of the IRS ’ s section on tax-exempt organizations , had been placed on paid administrative leave , and remains under subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , which is investigating the scandal .
“ Lois Lerner ’ s exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee ’ s interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs , ” Rep. Darrell Issa ( R ) of California , chairman of the committee , said in a statement .
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah , the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee , also signaled his continued interest in the IRS targeting scandal .
“ Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over , ” Senator Hatch said in a statement . “ Far from it . In fact , there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth . ”
The brouhaha has been a political boon to conservatives , who had long suspected they were being targeted by the government in an effort to undermine their activities . The issue is likely to figure in efforts to energize conservatives for the 2014 midterms . Republicans already control the House , but have a shot at taking over the Senate .
Lerner emerged early as a key figure in the targeting scandal . In fact , it was she who brought the practice to light in public on May 10 , when she responded to an audience question – later revealed to be planted – at a legal conference . She stated that the targeting was “ absolutely incorrect , ” “ insensitive , ” and “ inappropriate , ” and that “ the IRS would like to apologize for that . ”
At a congressional hearing on May 22 , Lerner said she was proud of her government service , and had done nothing wrong . Then she refused to testify , citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination .
Starting in 2010 , the IRS began subjecting groups with names that contained conservative keywords , such as “ tea party ” and “ patriot , ” to additional scrutiny in their requests for tax exemption , which delayed their applications . It was later revealed that some progressive groups , such as those associated with the Occupy movement , had undergone similar targeting , but not nearly as many as the tea party groups .
A report by the Treasury Department ’ s inspector general for tax administration ( TIGTA ) released on May 14 found that inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review , and that Lerner herself had been briefed on the targeting in June 2011 .
Bloomberg News reported Monday that an internal IRS board was going to propose starting the process of firing Lerner , though it had not concluded that she had acted with political bias or willful misconduct . The report also indicated her pension would not have been different had she been fired .
In a statement Monday confirming Lerner ’ s retirement , the IRS sought to reassure the public that the agency had reformed its procedures .
“ The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the EO [ exempt organizations ] area identified by TIGTA , ” the statement said . “ Our goal is to restore the public ’ s faith and trust in the tax system . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
The statement continued : “ We have sent nearly 400,000 pages of documents to Congress and facilitated dozens of employee interviews . We look forward to continuing to cooperate with Congress and other investigations . ”
Public faith in the IRS is especially critical as the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) is about to go into effect . It will be the IRS ’ s responsibility to determine whether individuals have health insurance , as mandated under the ACA .
|
Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service official under fire for her department’s targeting of tea party groups, has retired effective Monday, according to the IRS.
But that development does not end the scandal that burst into the open last May, when Ms. Lerner revealed that tea party groups were undergoing extra scrutiny in their applications for tax exemption. Lerner, who was director of the IRS’s section on tax-exempt organizations, had been placed on paid administrative leave, and remains under subpoena by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the scandal.
“Lois Lerner’s exit from the IRS does not alter the Oversight Committee’s interest in understanding why applicants for tax exempt status were targeted and inappropriately treated because of their political beliefs,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, chairman of the committee, said in a statement.
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, also signaled his continued interest in the IRS targeting scandal.
“Just because Lois Lerner is retiring from the IRS does not mean the investigation is over,” Senator Hatch said in a statement. “Far from it. In fact, there are many serious unanswered questions that must be addressed so we can get to the truth.”
The brouhaha has been a political boon to conservatives, who had long suspected they were being targeted by the government in an effort to undermine their activities. The issue is likely to figure in efforts to energize conservatives for the 2014 midterms. Republicans already control the House, but have a shot at taking over the Senate.
Lerner emerged early as a key figure in the targeting scandal. In fact, it was she who brought the practice to light in public on May 10, when she responded to an audience question – later revealed to be planted – at a legal conference. She stated that the targeting was “absolutely incorrect,” “insensitive,” and “inappropriate,” and that “the IRS would like to apologize for that.”
At a congressional hearing on May 22, Lerner said she was proud of her government service, and had done nothing wrong. Then she refused to testify, citing her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Starting in 2010, the IRS began subjecting groups with names that contained conservative keywords, such as “tea party” and “patriot,” to additional scrutiny in their requests for tax exemption, which delayed their applications. It was later revealed that some progressive groups, such as those associated with the Occupy movement, had undergone similar targeting, but not nearly as many as the tea party groups.
A report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) released on May 14 found that inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax-exempt applications for review, and that Lerner herself had been briefed on the targeting in June 2011.
Bloomberg News reported Monday that an internal IRS board was going to propose starting the process of firing Lerner, though it had not concluded that she had acted with political bias or willful misconduct. The report also indicated her pension would not have been different had she been fired.
In a statement Monday confirming Lerner’s retirement, the IRS sought to reassure the public that the agency had reformed its procedures.
“The IRS is making important progress on fixing the underlying management and organizational deficiencies in the EO [exempt organizations] area identified by TIGTA,” the statement said. “Our goal is to restore the public’s faith and trust in the tax system.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
The statement continued: “We have sent nearly 400,000 pages of documents to Congress and facilitated dozens of employee interviews. We look forward to continuing to cooperate with Congress and other investigations.”
Public faith in the IRS is especially critical as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is about to go into effect. It will be the IRS’s responsibility to determine whether individuals have health insurance, as mandated under the ACA.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
xtr7oA49KLDsAMWx
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/18/immigration-back-on-the-front-burner-for-obama/
|
Immigration back on the front burner for Obama; raises eyebrows with DHS pick
|
2013-10-18
|
Dave Boyer, Stephen Dinan
|
President Obama said early Thursday that he wants to make a major push to have Congress pass immigration legislation this year — but by late in the day the White House was confirming he will nominate someone with little immigration experience to head the Department of Homeland Security .
Administration and congressional officials said Mr. Obama will turn to Jeh Johnson , who was the top lawyer at the Pentagon , to run the agency that oversees the Secret Service , the Transportation Security Administration , the Federal Emergency Management Agency and all three immigration services .
“ The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders , having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world , ” a White House aide said .
A nomination could come Friday for the job , which many observers say is the toughest in Washington , getting battered from all sides on issues of privacy and security , and on how strenuously the department is enforcing immigration laws .
With the end of the government shutdown , Mr. Obama has elevated immigration to the top of his legislative agenda , saying Thursday that he will pressure House Republicans to pass a bill , following the lead of the Senate which passed one in June .
“ This can and should get done by the end of this year , ” he said , adding that he expected it to be an area of cooperation with the GOP .
SEE ALSO : Obama scolds Congress for ‘ unnecessary damage ’ upon government ’ s reopening
Some key Republicans , though , said judging by the way the president refused to negotiate with them during the spending and debt fights , he ’ s squandered any chance to work with them now .
“ I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with him on immigration , and I ’ m a proponent of immigration reform , ” Rep. Raul R. Labrador , Idaho Republican , said Wednesday . “ He ’ s trying to destroy the Republican Party , and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind , which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy . ”
Where the Senate passed a broad bill combining more spending on border security with a revamp of the legal immigration system and a legalization program for those in the country illegally , House Republican leaders have said they will tackle the issue in pieces .
Speaking alongside Mr. Labrador at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday , Rep. Matt Salmon , Arizona Republican , said he had been promised by House Speaker John A. Boehner that the House will not go to conference committee to work out differences with the Senate on a big bill , only on the small pieces .
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said the speaker was reiterating “ his long-standing support for a step-by-step process to fix our broken immigration system . ”
Key to the House GOP ’ s efforts will be a bill to legalize younger illegal immigrants , known as Dreamers . House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is trying to write that bill along with Rep. Bob Goodlatte , Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee .
Mr. Johnson ’ s nomination will help renew the immigration debate — though his experience with the issue seems limited .
“ There doesn ’ t seem to be any indication that he has any experience at all in immigration , ” said Rosemary Jenks , chief lobbyist for NumbersUSA , which advocates for stricter immigration limits .
Indeed , reaction from either side of the immigration debate was muted as everyone tried to figure out what to make of Mr. Johnson .
One tantalizing tidbit appeared in a short Crain ’ s New York Business profile in the 1990s , noting that during his time as a young Justice Department lawyer he prosecuted “ corrupt politicians , cops and immigration agents . ”
That might not sit well with immigration agents already bristling at what many argue is an administration that has chosen to turn an eye on illegal immigration while prosecuting Border Patrol agents for excessive violence .
Sen. Jeff Sessions , an Alabama Republican who fought the Senate ’ s immigration bill , questioned whether Mr. Johnson is the right man to reform the immigration services .
“ It would appear that the president plans to nominate a loyalist and fundraiser to this post . This is deeply concerning , ” he said . “ This huge department must have a proven manager with strong relevant law enforcement experience , recognized independence and integrity , who can restore this department to its full capability . ”
But Mr. Johnson earned words of encouragement from several key lawmakers , including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael T. McCaul , Texas Republican , and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Thomas R. Carper , Delaware Democrat .
“ Mr . Johnson brings a wealth of experience from the Department of Defense , and I am eager to meet with him and discuss his vision , ” Mr. Carper said .
Even if Mr. Johnson is confirmed , it will still leave major gaps at the department , and in the three immigration services in particular .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement , the two immigration law-enforcement branches , are without chiefs . Meanwhile , the head of U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services , which administers immigration benefits , has been tapped to be the Homeland Security department ’ s deputy secretary — but his nomination has been tied to a political scandal involving Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe .
With the growing threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa , Mr. Johnson ’ s nomination could get some pushback from Senate Republicans for his views that the terrorist network is rapidly deteriorating .
“ I do believe that on the present course , there will come a tipping point , ” Mr. Johnson said in a speech at Oxford University late last year . “ A tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured such that al Qaeda as we know it , the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001 , has been effectively destroyed . ”
|
President Obama said early Thursday that he wants to make a major push to have Congress pass immigration legislation this year — but by late in the day the White House was confirming he will nominate someone with little immigration experience to head the Department of Homeland Security.
Administration and congressional officials said Mr. Obama will turn to Jeh Johnson, who was the top lawyer at the Pentagon, to run the agency that oversees the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and all three immigration services.
“The president is selecting Johnson because he is one the most highly qualified and respected national security leaders, having served as the senior lawyer for the largest government agency in the world,” a White House aide said.
A nomination could come Friday for the job, which many observers say is the toughest in Washington, getting battered from all sides on issues of privacy and security, and on how strenuously the department is enforcing immigration laws.
With the end of the government shutdown, Mr. Obama has elevated immigration to the top of his legislative agenda, saying Thursday that he will pressure House Republicans to pass a bill, following the lead of the Senate which passed one in June.
“This can and should get done by the end of this year,” he said, adding that he expected it to be an area of cooperation with the GOP.
SEE ALSO: Obama scolds Congress for ‘unnecessary damage’ upon government’s reopening
Some key Republicans, though, said judging by the way the president refused to negotiate with them during the spending and debt fights, he’s squandered any chance to work with them now.
“I think it would be crazy for the House Republican leadership to enter into negotiations with him on immigration, and I’m a proponent of immigration reform,” Rep. Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Republican, said Wednesday. “He’s trying to destroy the Republican Party, and I think that anything that we do right now with the president on immigration will be with that same goal in mind, which is to destroy the Republican Party and not to get good policy.”
Where the Senate passed a broad bill combining more spending on border security with a revamp of the legal immigration system and a legalization program for those in the country illegally, House Republican leaders have said they will tackle the issue in pieces.
Speaking alongside Mr. Labrador at the Heritage Foundation on Wednesday, Rep. Matt Salmon, Arizona Republican, said he had been promised by House Speaker John A. Boehner that the House will not go to conference committee to work out differences with the Senate on a big bill, only on the small pieces.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said the speaker was reiterating “his long-standing support for a step-by-step process to fix our broken immigration system.”
Key to the House GOP’s efforts will be a bill to legalize younger illegal immigrants, known as Dreamers. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia is trying to write that bill along with Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Johnson’s nomination will help renew the immigration debate — though his experience with the issue seems limited.
“There doesn’t seem to be any indication that he has any experience at all in immigration,” said Rosemary Jenks, chief lobbyist for NumbersUSA, which advocates for stricter immigration limits.
Indeed, reaction from either side of the immigration debate was muted as everyone tried to figure out what to make of Mr. Johnson.
One tantalizing tidbit appeared in a short Crain’s New York Business profile in the 1990s, noting that during his time as a young Justice Department lawyer he prosecuted “corrupt politicians, cops and immigration agents.”
That might not sit well with immigration agents already bristling at what many argue is an administration that has chosen to turn an eye on illegal immigration while prosecuting Border Patrol agents for excessive violence.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who fought the Senate’s immigration bill, questioned whether Mr. Johnson is the right man to reform the immigration services.
“It would appear that the president plans to nominate a loyalist and fundraiser to this post. This is deeply concerning,” he said. “This huge department must have a proven manager with strong relevant law enforcement experience, recognized independence and integrity, who can restore this department to its full capability.”
But Mr. Johnson earned words of encouragement from several key lawmakers, including House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican, and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Thomas R. Carper, Delaware Democrat.
“Mr. Johnson brings a wealth of experience from the Department of Defense, and I am eager to meet with him and discuss his vision,” Mr. Carper said.
Even if Mr. Johnson is confirmed, it will still leave major gaps at the department, and in the three immigration services in particular.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the two immigration law-enforcement branches, are without chiefs. Meanwhile, the head of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers immigration benefits, has been tapped to be the Homeland Security department’s deputy secretary — but his nomination has been tied to a political scandal involving Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe.
With the growing threat of al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Africa, Mr. Johnson’s nomination could get some pushback from Senate Republicans for his views that the terrorist network is rapidly deteriorating.
“I do believe that on the present course, there will come a tipping point,” Mr. Johnson said in a speech at Oxford University late last year. “A tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al Qaeda and its affiliates have been killed or captured such that al Qaeda as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
VDG2luRw9vTCq21L
|
healthcare
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/30/president-ignores-obamacare-horror-stories-as-human-financial-costs-pile-up/
|
President ignores ObamaCare horror stories as human, financial costs pile up
|
2014-01-30
|
As predicted , the Obama administration and many in the Democratic Party are trying to peddle the story that ObamaCare is now working because the healthcare.gov website is functioning better .
But despite the questionable claims of easier access and more people enrolling in the ObamaCare exchanges , the ugly truth is the horror stories are piling up and , sooner or later , ObamaCare ’ s cheerleaders will have to confront the overwhelming evidence indicting them for repeatedly lying to the American people .
As expected , President Obama used his State of the Union speech Tuesday to extol the virtues of ObamaCare , and also as expected , retold the story of one person positively affected by the program . But for each success there are countless failures .
People ’ s Exhibit A : Josie Gracchi has breast cancer . Up until January 1st of this year she had insurance and was scheduled for a January 3rd biopsy and follow-up treatment at one the largest private cancer treatment centers in the world : Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York .
But once 2014 arrived , her insurance was rolled into an ObamaCare health exchange .
She now has no access to the surgeons she was working with , her biopsy and treatment have been postponed and she can ’ t find comparable doctors and surgeons through the ObamaCare website .
She pleaded on television for help from the president , but has yet to receive an answer .
People ’ s Exhibit B : Whitney Johnson of Texas is a new mom at 26 and suffers from Multiple Sclerosis . Her treatments were expensive , $ 40,000 every five weeks , but her insurance was paying for those treatments .
Then came January 1 , 2014 when the insurance was canceled ; her insurance company is actually leaving the state of Texas because her plan no longer complies with ObamaCare .
Whitney liked her plan , which President Obama and a cast of countless Democrats told her she ’ d be able to keep . She doesn ’ t know what she ’ ll do now .
People ’ s Exhibit C : Gloria Cantor of Florida was told her insurance was being dropped because of ObamaCare . She has five brain tumors as well as tumors in her bones . Her insurance company told her that it can offer a different plan , but it will be more expensive . Another reason why “ if you like your plan you can keep it ” was labeled the “ lie of the year ” for 2013 .
People ’ s Exhibit D : Joan Carrico is a 60 year old registered nurse in Michigan suffering from cancer , now going on six years .
She liked her insurance which was expensive but affordable . Then she was told by her insurance company that her best bet under ObamaCare would be a plan that would increase her premium anywhere from $ 4,500 to $ 6,500 per year , as well as a 10 percent federal tax .
Remember when Obama told us families would save $ 2,500 a year under ObamaCare ? Complete fiction .
Question : What could be worse than being kicked off the health care plan you prefer when you need it most – when you ’ re suffering from a serious medical condition or debilitating disease ?
Answer : Having the government come after you in the form of the IRS following your decision to go public about your dire situation .
People ’ s Exhibit E : Bill Elliot of South Carolina has stage four cancer and had insurance that covered most of his treatments . Then it was canceled because of ObamaCare .
His doctor told him he is in full remission , his treatments have been working .
He voted for Obama , in part because he believed the president ’ s words when he said “ if you like your plan you can keep it. ” But the new policy under ObamaCare would cost him $ 1,500 per month along with a $ 13,000 deductible , and it won ’ t even cover medicine or medical devices .
Elliot went public about his dilemma , doing media interviews to bring attention to his situation . All of a sudden he received a letter from the IRS telling him they would be auditing him for tax year 2009 .
Moody ’ s Investor Service just downgraded its outlook for the U.S. health insurance industry from stable to negative because of serious concerns with the implementation of ObamaCare .
Moody ’ s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said : `` While we 've had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while , the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change . ”
The cost of the empty promises and outright lies is enormous both in human and financial terms . What these people are experiencing is exactly what Moody ’ s Investor Service is so concerned about . ObamaCare is really NobamaCare .
|
As predicted, the Obama administration and many in the Democratic Party are trying to peddle the story that ObamaCare is now working because the healthcare.gov website is functioning better.
But despite the questionable claims of easier access and more people enrolling in the ObamaCare exchanges, the ugly truth is the horror stories are piling up and, sooner or later, ObamaCare’s cheerleaders will have to confront the overwhelming evidence indicting them for repeatedly lying to the American people.
As expected, President Obama used his State of the Union speech Tuesday to extol the virtues of ObamaCare, and also as expected, retold the story of one person positively affected by the program. But for each success there are countless failures.
[pullquote]
People’s Exhibit A: Josie Gracchi has breast cancer. Up until January 1st of this year she had insurance and was scheduled for a January 3rd biopsy and follow-up treatment at one the largest private cancer treatment centers in the world: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
More On This...
But once 2014 arrived, her insurance was rolled into an ObamaCare health exchange.
She now has no access to the surgeons she was working with, her biopsy and treatment have been postponed and she can’t find comparable doctors and surgeons through the ObamaCare website.
She pleaded on television for help from the president, but has yet to receive an answer.
People’s Exhibit B: Whitney Johnson of Texas is a new mom at 26 and suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. Her treatments were expensive, $40,000 every five weeks, but her insurance was paying for those treatments.
Then came January 1, 2014 when the insurance was canceled; her insurance company is actually leaving the state of Texas because her plan no longer complies with ObamaCare.
Whitney liked her plan, which President Obama and a cast of countless Democrats told her she’d be able to keep. She doesn’t know what she’ll do now.
People’s Exhibit C: Gloria Cantor of Florida was told her insurance was being dropped because of ObamaCare. She has five brain tumors as well as tumors in her bones. Her insurance company told her that it can offer a different plan, but it will be more expensive. Another reason why “if you like your plan you can keep it” was labeled the “lie of the year” for 2013.
People’s Exhibit D: Joan Carrico is a 60 year old registered nurse in Michigan suffering from cancer, now going on six years.
She liked her insurance which was expensive but affordable. Then she was told by her insurance company that her best bet under ObamaCare would be a plan that would increase her premium anywhere from $4,500 to $6,500 per year, as well as a 10 percent federal tax.
Remember when Obama told us families would save $2,500 a year under ObamaCare? Complete fiction.
Question: What could be worse than being kicked off the health care plan you prefer when you need it most – when you’re suffering from a serious medical condition or debilitating disease?
Answer: Having the government come after you in the form of the IRS following your decision to go public about your dire situation.
People’s Exhibit E: Bill Elliot of South Carolina has stage four cancer and had insurance that covered most of his treatments. Then it was canceled because of ObamaCare.
His doctor told him he is in full remission, his treatments have been working.
He voted for Obama, in part because he believed the president’s words when he said “if you like your plan you can keep it.” But the new policy under ObamaCare would cost him $1,500 per month along with a $13,000 deductible, and it won’t even cover medicine or medical devices.
Elliot went public about his dilemma, doing media interviews to bring attention to his situation. All of a sudden he received a letter from the IRS telling him they would be auditing him for tax year 2009.
Moody’s Investor Service just downgraded its outlook for the U.S. health insurance industry from stable to negative because of serious concerns with the implementation of ObamaCare.
Moody’s Senior Vice President Stephen Zaharuk said: "While we've had industry risks from regulatory changes on our radar for a while, the ongoing unstable and evolving environment is a key factor for our outlook change.”
The cost of the empty promises and outright lies is enormous both in human and financial terms. What these people are experiencing is exactly what Moody’s Investor Service is so concerned about. ObamaCare is really NobamaCare.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
uYPgt9HnE3Y5x10k
|
|
mexico
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/459316-ice-rule-change-on-u-visas-sparks-outrage
|
ICE rule change on U visas sparks outrage
|
2019-08-30
|
The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations , allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas .
The change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes , say immigration attorneys , who argue it also reflects the Trump administration ’ s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States .
“ This is going to have a chilling effect , ” Eileen Blessinger , a Falls Church , Va.-based immigration attorney , told ███ , because “ by applying , you ’ re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there ’ s a risk that ICE might pick you up . ”
The change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) directive released on Aug. 2 .
The directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas , which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations . But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion .
Applications for U visas can take up to four years . The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21 .
The directive reserves the right for the agency to “ review the totality of the circumstances , including any favorable or adverse factors , and any federal interest ( s ) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate . ”
ICE adds in the directive that it will “ exercise its discretion ” in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests , but cautions that the agency “ no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement . ”
In a statement to ███ , an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications .
“ As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased , this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn ’ t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement , '' the spokesperson said .
Blessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago , when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants . This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas .
While the application itself does not cost any money , applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $ 585 fee to apply for a waiver .
Blessinger told ███ that her firm , Blessinger Legal , had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation .
The man was able to file for a U visa , which was eventually approved , and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation .
If he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive , however , he could have been deported .
Another of her clients , Blessinger said , is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P . Hill , Va. , after failing to appear in court in El Paso , Texas , after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing ’ s date or time .
“ She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied , but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation , ” Blessinger told ███ .
“ She ’ s not a criminal , she ’ s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet , ” added Blessinger .
“ The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes : one , to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity , and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection , ” Cecelia Friedman Levin , senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance , told ███ .
“ What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for , ” she added .
Complicating the process further , Friedman Levin said , ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy .
“ It ’ s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they ’ re actually supposed to do , ” she said , calling the change “ just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection . ”
Kristian Ramos , communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American , told ███ the change was indicative of the administration ’ s general handling of long-standing immigration policy .
“ This administration ’ s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties , ” Ramos told ███ .
The client “ came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it ’ s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help , ” he added .
|
The Trump administration has quietly altered its handling of visas granted to immigrants who cooperate with criminal investigations, allowing people to be deported even while they are waiting for their visas.
The change to U visas will make immigrants far less likely to report serious crimes, say immigration attorneys, who argue it also reflects the Trump administration’s efforts to deport as many immigrants as they can from the United States.
“This is going to have a chilling effect,” Eileen Blessinger, a Falls Church, Va.-based immigration attorney, told The Hill, because “by applying, you’re essentially reporting yourself to ICE but now there’s a risk that ICE might pick you up.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The change was announced in a revised Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directive released on Aug. 2.
The directive allows ICE to give permission for people to stay in the country as they await their U visas, which is a class of visa given to people who are cooperating with criminal investigations. But it also allows ICE to deport pending U visa applicants at their discretion.
Applications for U visas can take up to four years. The government issues 10,000 per year but puts no limit on the number of visas that can be issued to spouses and children of applicants or to parents of applicants who are themselves under 21.
The directive reserves the right for the agency to “review the totality of the circumstances, including any favorable or adverse factors, and any federal interest(s) implicated and decide whether a Stay of Removal or terminating proceedings is appropriate.”
ICE adds in the directive that it will “exercise its discretion” in determining whether to grant stay of removal requests, but cautions that the agency “no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”
In a statement to The Hill, an ICE spokesperson defended the change as necessary due to the volume of applications.
“As the number of U visa petitions submitted increased, this process became burdensome on both agencies and such determinations didn’t reflect a qualitative assessment of any assistance provided to law enforcement," the spokesperson said.
Blessinger said the new directive piggybacks on another policy change that began about a year ago, when United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ended its practice of waiving fees for U visa applicants. This change cut down the number of people who could even seek out U visas.
ADVERTISEMENT
While the application itself does not cost any money, applicants with past criminal or immigration violations must pay a $585 fee to apply for a waiver.
Blessinger told The Hill that her firm, Blessinger Legal, had a client who had been deported twice before whose daughter was a victim of child sexual abuse and who had cooperated with the investigation.
The man was able to file for a U visa, which was eventually approved, and will be able to stay in the United States and continue to cooperate with the sexual abuse investigation.
If he had applied for the U visa under the terms of the new ICE directive, however, he could have been deported.
Another of her clients, Blessinger said, is a Salvadoran immigrant and victim of domestic violence who came to the U.S. in 2004 and has been detained in Caroline Detention Facility in Fort A.P. Hill, Va., after failing to appear in court in El Paso, Texas, after receiving a notice to appear that Blessinger said did not include her hearing’s date or time.
“She missed the court hearing and got a deportation order and the motion to reopen was denied, but while it was pending we were able to get U visa certification signed off saying she was a victim of domestic violence and cooperated with the investigation,” Blessinger told The Hill.
“She’s not a criminal, she’s someone that in the past would be released on an ankle bracelet,” added Blessinger.
“The U visa was created in 2000 by a bipartisan majority in Congress with two important purposes: one, to be a tool for law enforcement to investigate or prosecute criminal activity, and the other is to provide protection for immigrant survivors in coming forward and seeking protection,” Cecelia Friedman Levin, senior policy counsel at ASISTA Immigration Assistance, told The Hill.
“What we see here with new ICE policies that impact the U visa program is that some of these changes really contravene the purpose that Congress created these protections for,” she added.
Complicating the process further, Friedman Levin said, ICE has yet to publicly issue the full guidance for the new U visa policy.
“It’s leaving everyone in the dark in terms of what they’re actually supposed to do,” she said, calling the change “just another way of just continued and deliberate erosion of access to protection.”
Kristian Ramos, communications director at the immigrant advocacy group Define American, told The Hill the change was indicative of the administration’s general handling of long-standing immigration policy.
“This administration’s reckless changing of long-standing laws has very human casualties,” Ramos told The Hill.
The client “came forward under the auspices that the law would protect her from deportation and it’s incredibly unfair to literally just change the rules on someone who is just trying to get help,” he added.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
vWeRDs4w1KpD88tQ
|
|
us_senate
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/senate-democrats-break-from-obama-103004.html?hp=t3_3
|
Senate Democrats break from Obama
|
2014-02-02
|
Burgess Everett
|
Harry Reid didn ’ t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals . Senate Dems break from Obama
President Barack Obama is counting on Senate Democrats to help approve his legislative agenda during his final years in office . And though they are his staunchest allies on most economic issues , many Democratic senators are breaking with him on key issues in very public ways .
From trade to Iran sanctions , the Keystone XL pipeline , Obamacare , the National Security Agency and energy policy , Senate Democrats seem unusually comfortable criticizing the president , with only minimal concerns about repercussions from the White House .
Even Obama ’ s steadfast ally , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada , didn ’ t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals that is strongly backed by the White House , working against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana , a Senate colleague who has been tapped to be the president ’ s ambassador to China .
“ You had two or three Democrats in the Senate who made statements after the president ’ s State of the Union speech that wouldn ’ t have been written any different if they had been written by the [ National ] Republican Senatorial Committee , ” said Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-Mo . ) , referring to the Senate GOP campaign arm ’ s aggressive anti-Obama messaging .
Blunt was referring to discontented Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia , who insists that Obama misspoke during his State of the Union speech when he told Congress that he will work with lawmakers when he can — and go around them if he can ’ t .
“ I don ’ t think that ’ s what he meant . I swear to God I don ’ t , ” Manchin said in an interview . “ Could he have picked these words better ? I would have thought he could have , I would have hoped he would have . But it came out offensive to a lot of people . ”
For some lawmakers , the criticism is predictable : Democrats from energy-producing states are likely to whack the administration ’ s energy policies and red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 are worried about Obamacare fallout . In some instances , the contrasts between vulnerable Senate Democrats and the White House appear to be orchestrated to counter Obama ’ s low approval rates in red states where incumbents will face voters this fall , congressional aides in both parties suggest .
But not all the criticism is coming from expected quarters .
Liberal Democrats have decried NSA surveillance programs , and Democrats not up for reelection for years seem perfectly at ease clashing with the White House .
“ I think the framers did an incredible job of finding the right balance , so , we ’ ve gotten away from that . And when we get back to that , my outspokenness will diminish , ” said freshman Sen. Martin Heinrich ( D-N.M. ) , a persistent critic of the White House on NSA policy .
The rifts might represent nothing more than bad message coordination and a White House that doesn ’ t do enough to keep Capitol Hill in the loop . President Barack Obama does not have terribly close personal relationships with most Democratic lawmakers , and his legislative affairs shop was riddled with Capitol Hill criticism until the recent addition of longtime Hill staffer Katie Beirne Fallon .
“ This White House has been very , how shall I say , it ’ s not their strong suit to give anybody a heads-up on anything , ” said Sen. Mary Landrieu ( D-La . ) of Obama ’ s outreach to Democratic senators .
Landrieu — who is up for reelection this year — was angered recently by a surprise Statement of Administration Policy ripping her flood insurance bill , which would ease rate increases that would disproportionately hit flood-prone Louisiana . Obama ’ s aides indicated the bill is not sound fiscal policy , though they notably did not threaten a veto of her bill .
“ I believe in many of the principles of the Democratic Party . But I stay focused on the issues that are important to Louisiana . And when the president is for Louisiana , I ’ m for the president . When he ’ s not , I ’ m not , ” Landrieu said . “ That statement from them was unsolicited , it was unexpected and it was misguided . ”
|
Harry Reid didn’t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals. Senate Dems break from Obama
President Barack Obama is counting on Senate Democrats to help approve his legislative agenda during his final years in office. And though they are his staunchest allies on most economic issues, many Democratic senators are breaking with him on key issues in very public ways.
From trade to Iran sanctions, the Keystone XL pipeline, Obamacare, the National Security Agency and energy policy, Senate Democrats seem unusually comfortable criticizing the president, with only minimal concerns about repercussions from the White House.
Story Continued Below
Even Obama’s steadfast ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, didn’t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals that is strongly backed by the White House, working against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Senate colleague who has been tapped to be the president’s ambassador to China.
Even some Republicans are noticing.
( PHOTOS: 12 Democrats criticizing the Obamacare rollout)
“You had two or three Democrats in the Senate who made statements after the president’s State of the Union speech that wouldn’t have been written any different if they had been written by the [National] Republican Senatorial Committee,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), referring to the Senate GOP campaign arm’s aggressive anti-Obama messaging.
Blunt was referring to discontented Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who insists that Obama misspoke during his State of the Union speech when he told Congress that he will work with lawmakers when he can — and go around them if he can’t.
“I don’t think that’s what he meant. I swear to God I don’t,” Manchin said in an interview. “Could he have picked these words better? I would have thought he could have, I would have hoped he would have. But it came out offensive to a lot of people.”
For some lawmakers, the criticism is predictable: Democrats from energy-producing states are likely to whack the administration’s energy policies and red-state Democrats up for reelection in 2014 are worried about Obamacare fallout. In some instances, the contrasts between vulnerable Senate Democrats and the White House appear to be orchestrated to counter Obama’s low approval rates in red states where incumbents will face voters this fall, congressional aides in both parties suggest.
( Also on POLITICO: Rove: Obama trampling on the law)
But not all the criticism is coming from expected quarters.
Liberal Democrats have decried NSA surveillance programs, and Democrats not up for reelection for years seem perfectly at ease clashing with the White House.
“I think the framers did an incredible job of finding the right balance, so, we’ve gotten away from that. And when we get back to that, my outspokenness will diminish,” said freshman Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a persistent critic of the White House on NSA policy.
The rifts might represent nothing more than bad message coordination and a White House that doesn’t do enough to keep Capitol Hill in the loop. President Barack Obama does not have terribly close personal relationships with most Democratic lawmakers, and his legislative affairs shop was riddled with Capitol Hill criticism until the recent addition of longtime Hill staffer Katie Beirne Fallon.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama faces executive power backlash)
“This White House has been very, how shall I say, it’s not their strong suit to give anybody a heads-up on anything,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) of Obama’s outreach to Democratic senators.
Landrieu — who is up for reelection this year — was angered recently by a surprise Statement of Administration Policy ripping her flood insurance bill, which would ease rate increases that would disproportionately hit flood-prone Louisiana. Obama’s aides indicated the bill is not sound fiscal policy, though they notably did not threaten a veto of her bill.
“I believe in many of the principles of the Democratic Party. But I stay focused on the issues that are important to Louisiana. And when the president is for Louisiana, I’m for the president. When he’s not, I’m not,” Landrieu said. “That statement from them was unsolicited, it was unexpected and it was misguided.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
3ukf8DENFtguXztp
|
terrorism
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/politics/benghazi-hearing/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
Doomed Libya ambassador: 'We're under attack'
|
2013-05-08
|
Alan Silverleib, Cnn Congressional Producer
|
Story highlights State Department official says he never believed the attack was a protest
Rep. Elijah Cummings accuses GOP of trying to `` smear '' officials
Another hearing witness said it was `` inexplicable '' attack review ignored key points
Late on the night of last September 11 , U.S . Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens spoke to his deputy for the final time from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi , Libya .
Within hours , Stevens and three other Americans were dead , victims of an armed terrorist assault that has since become a political and foreign policy flashpoint in Washington 's partisan wars .
The dramatic narrative recounted by Hicks at a six-hour Republican-led House hearing on Wednesday reflected the knowledge of a high-level insider who was in Libya that long night and was deeply involved in trying to react to events .
His efforts to determine the circumstances of the attack and muster help for those under siege in eastern Libya were later praised by his superiors and by President Barack Obama .
JUST WATCHED Benghazi officer : Man ran in yelling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Benghazi officer : Man ran in yelling 03:27
JUST WATCHED Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya 02:00
JUST WATCHED Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack 02:16
The step-by-step account riveted the Oversight Committee proceeding that was also marked by sharp partisan exchanges over the merits of continued congressional inquiries over the attack .
Republicans once again accused the Obama administration of trying to cover up the fact that it was a well-orchestrated assault by militants , failing to adequately explain events to the public , and then refusing to cooperate with congressional investigators .
Democrats once again accused Republicans of using tragedy for political gain .
Hicks -- praised by Republicans as a `` whistleblower '' but who says he has since been effectively demoted -- was joined at the witness table by Eric Nordstrom , a former regional security officer in Libya , and Mark Thompson , the State Department 's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism .
Our goal `` is to get answers , declared committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa , R-California . `` The administration , however , has not been cooperative . ''
Hicks described in personal detail how he missed Stevens ' initial call and then reached him by cell phone as the attack unfolded in phases .
`` I got the ambassador on the other end and he said , 'Greg , we 're under attack . ' ''
He recounted the efforts of a security response team on site that drove back the attackers , and `` repeated attempts '' by those on the ground to enter the burning compound to try and rescue Stevens and others .
He then said that Stevens was at a hospital that was controlled by a group that he said Twitter feeds identified as leading the attack . Was it a trap to lure more Americans ?
`` I received a call from the prime minister of Libya . I think it 's the saddest phone call I 've ever had in my life . He told me that Ambassador Stevens had passed away , '' Hicks said .
Oversight committee Republicans continued to go after televised remarks by U.N . Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack . In them , she insisted it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam film that turned violent .
GOP critics believe Rice was shielding Obama at the height of his re-election campaign during which there were times that he trumpeted U.S. successes in combating terrorism , including the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011 .
Administration officials say Rice was using official talking points that relied on the best available information at the time .
JUST WATCHED Americans killed in Benghazi : Why ? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Americans killed in Benghazi : Why ? 03:16
JUST WATCHED State Department missed Benghazi danger Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH State Department missed Benghazi danger 07:18
Rep. Patrick McHenry , R-North Carolina , asked Hicks if there was any evidence early on that the attack was a protest .
`` No , there was none , '' Hicks said . `` I 'm confident Ambassador Stevens would have reported a protest immediately if one appeared on his door . ''
Hicks also said an inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube video initially cited as a cause of the alleged protest was `` a non-event in Libya . ''
He previously insisted administration officials immediately knew the culprit was al Qaeda .
`` I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning , '' Hicks told investigators in interviews before the hearings .
In fact , Hicks said during the hearing that he was told by the Libyan president soon afterward that elements with possible terror links were thought to be behind the assault .
The veteran diplomat said his `` jaw dropped '' and he was both `` stunned '' and `` embarrassed '' when Rice said the attack was a response to the YouTube video .
Hicks also argued the U.S. military could have blunted the attack by scrambling intimidating military aircraft from Italy 's Aviano Air Base -- an assertion denied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey when he testified before Congress in February .
Dempsey told Congress it would take up to 20 hours to scramble the aircraft to get to Benghazi ; Hicks said he believed it would take two to three hours .
`` I was speaking from my perspective ... on the ground in Tripoli based on what the defense attache told me , '' Hicks said when asked by
Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland , the top Democrat on the Oversight panel , asked Hicks if he had any reason to question Dempsey 's assertion .
Finally , Hicks claimed four members of the military were ready to board a plane from Tripoli to Benghazi , but were prevented from doing so by their superiors .
`` How did the personnel react at being told to stand down ? '' asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz , R-Utah .
`` They were furious , '' said Hicks . `` I can only say , well , I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson who said , 'This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military . ' ''
Pentagon officials insist the members of the military in question were told not to go to Benghazi because they were not equipped for combat , and were needed in Tripoli to care for wounded headed their way .
Nordstrom said in written testimony it was `` inexplicable '' that a followup internal State Department review ignored `` the role senior department leadership played before , during , and after '' the attack .
In the run-up to the hearing , Issa trickled out testimony from the witnesses in an apparent attempt to build anticipation for the session , one of several that have occurred in Congress focusing on security at the compound and the administration 's response .
Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a `` smear '' campaign .
`` What we have seen ... is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way but rather a launch of unfounded accusations to smear public officials , '' Cummings said .
White House spokesman Jay Carney also weighed in , telling reporters that the Benghazi attack `` is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans . ''
He defended defended the administration has `` made extraordinary efforts to work with '' Congress on multiple investigations .
For its part , the State Department also accused House Republicans of playing politics with the tragedy .
`` This is not sort of a collaborative process where the committee is working directly with us in trying to establish facts that would help , you know , as we look to keep our people safe overseas in a very complex environment , '' State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said on Monday .
Wednesday 's hearing is another chapter in what has become an epic back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on Benghazi , partly stemming from Rice 's televised comments . The comments are widely believed to have cost her a likely nomination to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state .
Some congressional Republicans previously sharply questioned Clinton over the administration 's explanation of events and the state of security at the compound at the time of the attack .
Clinton has said that she accepted responsibility for the deaths , declaring that as secretary of state , she was `` in charge of the State Department 's 60,000-plus people all over the world . ''
In January , Clinton testified for more than five hours before the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees . In her testimony , she acknowledged a `` systematic breakdown '' on Benghazi and said her department was taking additional steps to increase U.S. security at diplomatic posts .
At one point at that hearing , Clinton barely controlled her anger as she responded to a lawmaker who pressed her on the administration 's post-attack storyline .
Critics have questioned the validity of continued congressional scrutiny , especially Democrats , who say Republicans are only interested in discrediting the administration and hurting Clinton 's chances if she were to run for president in 2016 .
One Republican congressman , Ohio 's Jim Jordan , used the hearing to criticize top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills .
Hicks said he received a call from Mills , who he added was not happy that a State Department lawyer -- described by Republicans as a minder -- was excluded from a briefing on Benghazi in Libya with Hicks , a Republican congressman and others .
Hicks has been `` praised by everybody who counts , the president , the secretary , everyone above him , '' Jordan said . `` And yet now , they 're obstructing -- because he wo n't -- he wo n't help them cover this up . ''
But former Clinton aide Philppe Reines disputed that characterization , saying the State Department took a cooperative approach with Congress . He said in a written statement that Mills had , in fact , called Hicks to support him .
`` She wanted ( people on the ground in Libya ) to know that no matter how far away they were from home , they were n't alone , '' Reines said . `` She was with them , and most importantly ( Secretary Clinton ) was with them . ''
|
Story highlights State Department official says he never believed the attack was a protest
Key lawmaker says administration is not cooperating with investigation
Rep. Elijah Cummings accuses GOP of trying to "smear" officials
Another hearing witness said it was "inexplicable" attack review ignored key points
Late on the night of last September 11, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens spoke to his deputy for the final time from the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.
"Greg, we're under attack," Stevens told Gregory Hicks.
Within hours, Stevens and three other Americans were dead, victims of an armed terrorist assault that has since become a political and foreign policy flashpoint in Washington's partisan wars.
The dramatic narrative recounted by Hicks at a six-hour Republican-led House hearing on Wednesday reflected the knowledge of a high-level insider who was in Libya that long night and was deeply involved in trying to react to events.
His efforts to determine the circumstances of the attack and muster help for those under siege in eastern Libya were later praised by his superiors and by President Barack Obama.
Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Gregory Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, arrives for a House committee hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, May 8. State Department employees testified about the terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. View photos of the attack. Hide Caption 1 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – From left, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Counterterrorism Mark Thompson; Hicks; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya, are sworn in before the hearing. The three are testifying at the hearing investigating into whether the State Department misled the public about the assault. Hide Caption 2 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Nordstrom testifies on May 8. He said in written testimony it was "inexplicable" that a followup internal State Department review ignored "the role senior department leadership played before, during, and after" the attack. Hide Caption 3 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Dorothy Narvaez-Woods, center, listens as Hicks testifies. She is the widow of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the attack. Hide Caption 4 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, left, speaks as Chairman Darrell Issa, R-California, listens. Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a "smear" campaign. Hide Caption 5 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Nordstrom listens to Hicks testify. Hicks has been praised by Republicans as a "whistleblower." He has expressed concern that more could have been done by the military to protect those being attacked last year at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Hide Caption 6 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Thompson testifies on May 8. He is the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism. Hide Caption 7 of 8 Photos: Photos: Benghazi attack hearing Benghazi attack hearing – Ray Smith, left, and Pat Smith listen as Thompson testifies. Their son Sean was one of the four Americans killed in the terror attack. Hide Caption 8 of 8
JUST WATCHED Benghazi officer: Man ran in yelling Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Benghazi officer: Man ran in yelling 03:27
JUST WATCHED Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Diplomat disagrees with Clinton on Libya 02:00
JUST WATCHED Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Clash on the hill over Benghazi attack 02:16
The step-by-step account riveted the Oversight Committee proceeding that was also marked by sharp partisan exchanges over the merits of continued congressional inquiries over the attack.
Republicans once again accused the Obama administration of trying to cover up the fact that it was a well-orchestrated assault by militants, failing to adequately explain events to the public, and then refusing to cooperate with congressional investigators.
Democrats once again accused Republicans of using tragedy for political gain.
Hicks -- praised by Republicans as a "whistleblower" but who says he has since been effectively demoted -- was joined at the witness table by Eric Nordstrom, a former regional security officer in Libya, and Mark Thompson, the State Department's acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism.
Our goal "is to get answers, declared committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California. "The administration, however, has not been cooperative."
Hicks described in personal detail how he missed Stevens' initial call and then reached him by cell phone as the attack unfolded in phases.
"I got the ambassador on the other end and he said, 'Greg, we're under attack.'"
He recounted the efforts of a security response team on site that drove back the attackers, and "repeated attempts" by those on the ground to enter the burning compound to try and rescue Stevens and others.
He then said that Stevens was at a hospital that was controlled by a group that he said Twitter feeds identified as leading the attack. Was it a trap to lure more Americans?
Then the worst news about his boss.
"I received a call from the prime minister of Libya. I think it's the saddest phone call I've ever had in my life. He told me that Ambassador Stevens had passed away," Hicks said.
A slow-to-evolve explanation
Oversight committee Republicans continued to go after televised remarks by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice five days after the attack. In them, she insisted it was the result of a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam film that turned violent.
GOP critics believe Rice was shielding Obama at the height of his re-election campaign during which there were times that he trumpeted U.S. successes in combating terrorism, including the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011.
Administration officials say Rice was using official talking points that relied on the best available information at the time.
JUST WATCHED Americans killed in Benghazi: Why? Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Americans killed in Benghazi: Why? 03:16
JUST WATCHED State Department missed Benghazi danger Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH State Department missed Benghazi danger 07:18
Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-North Carolina, asked Hicks if there was any evidence early on that the attack was a protest.
"No, there was none," Hicks said. "I'm confident Ambassador Stevens would have reported a protest immediately if one appeared on his door."
Hicks also said an inflammatory anti-Muslim YouTube video initially cited as a cause of the alleged protest was "a non-event in Libya."
He previously insisted administration officials immediately knew the culprit was al Qaeda.
"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Hicks told investigators in interviews before the hearings.
In fact, Hicks said during the hearing that he was told by the Libyan president soon afterward that elements with possible terror links were thought to be behind the assault.
The veteran diplomat said his "jaw dropped" and he was both "stunned" and "embarrassed" when Rice said the attack was a response to the YouTube video.
Hicks also argued the U.S. military could have blunted the attack by scrambling intimidating military aircraft from Italy's Aviano Air Base -- an assertion denied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey when he testified before Congress in February.
Dempsey told Congress it would take up to 20 hours to scramble the aircraft to get to Benghazi; Hicks said he believed it would take two to three hours.
"I was speaking from my perspective ... on the ground in Tripoli based on what the defense attache told me," Hicks said when asked by
Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, asked Hicks if he had any reason to question Dempsey's assertion.
Finally, Hicks claimed four members of the military were ready to board a plane from Tripoli to Benghazi, but were prevented from doing so by their superiors.
"How did the personnel react at being told to stand down?" asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.
"They were furious," said Hicks. "I can only say, well, I will quote Lieutenant Colonel Gibson who said, 'This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.'"
Pentagon officials insist the members of the military in question were told not to go to Benghazi because they were not equipped for combat, and were needed in Tripoli to care for wounded headed their way.
Nordstrom said in written testimony it was "inexplicable" that a followup internal State Department review ignored "the role senior department leadership played before, during, and after" the attack.
In the run-up to the hearing, Issa trickled out testimony from the witnesses in an apparent attempt to build anticipation for the session, one of several that have occurred in Congress focusing on security at the compound and the administration's response.
Committee Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in a "smear" campaign.
"What we have seen ... is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way but rather a launch of unfounded accusations to smear public officials," Cummings said.
White House spokesman Jay Carney also weighed in, telling reporters that the Benghazi attack "is a subject that has from its beginning been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans."
He defended defended the administration has "made extraordinary efforts to work with" Congress on multiple investigations.
Accusation of playing politics
For its part, the State Department also accused House Republicans of playing politics with the tragedy.
"This is not sort of a collaborative process where the committee is working directly with us in trying to establish facts that would help, you know, as we look to keep our people safe overseas in a very complex environment," State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said on Monday.
Wednesday's hearing is another chapter in what has become an epic back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on Benghazi, partly stemming from Rice's televised comments. The comments are widely believed to have cost her a likely nomination to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Some congressional Republicans previously sharply questioned Clinton over the administration's explanation of events and the state of security at the compound at the time of the attack.
Clinton has said that she accepted responsibility for the deaths, declaring that as secretary of state, she was "in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world."
In January, Clinton testified for more than five hours before the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees. In her testimony, she acknowledged a "systematic breakdown" on Benghazi and said her department was taking additional steps to increase U.S. security at diplomatic posts.
At one point at that hearing, Clinton barely controlled her anger as she responded to a lawmaker who pressed her on the administration's post-attack storyline.
Critics have questioned the validity of continued congressional scrutiny, especially Democrats, who say Republicans are only interested in discrediting the administration and hurting Clinton's chances if she were to run for president in 2016.
One Republican congressman, Ohio's Jim Jordan, used the hearing to criticize top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills.
Hicks said he received a call from Mills, who he added was not happy that a State Department lawyer -- described by Republicans as a minder -- was excluded from a briefing on Benghazi in Libya with Hicks, a Republican congressman and others.
Hicks has been "praised by everybody who counts, the president, the secretary, everyone above him," Jordan said. "And yet now, they're obstructing -- because he won't -- he won't help them cover this up."
But former Clinton aide Philppe Reines disputed that characterization, saying the State Department took a cooperative approach with Congress. He said in a written statement that Mills had, in fact, called Hicks to support him.
"She wanted (people on the ground in Libya) to know that no matter how far away they were from home, they weren't alone," Reines said. "She was with them, and most importantly (Secretary Clinton) was with them."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
wSPgk2EaL7zYaxSI
|
healthcare
|
National Review
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453184/john-kasich-obamacare-defender
|
John Kasich Leans into the Role of Pro-Obamacare Republican
|
2017-10-27
|
Jason Hart, Kyle Smith, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Luke Thompson, Jordan Sillars, Jay Nordlinger, David French, Kevin D. Williamson, Julie Gunlock
|
He fought every attempt to repeal the law ; now he wants to ‘ stabilize ’ it .
Ohio governor John Kasich , the most vocal Republican critic of Obamacare-repeal efforts this year , is pleading with Congress to pass the health-care bill proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander ( R. , Tenn. ) and Senator Patty Murray ( D. , Wash. ) .
The Alexander–Murray bill follows a template that Kasich and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper , a Democrat , began promoting in August : Obamacare ’ s mandates , regulations , and Medicaid expansion would all remain in place , and Congress would authorize spending to “ stabilize ” the exchanges .
In particular , Alexander–Murray would reimburse insurers for “ cost-sharing reductions ” Obamacare requires them to provide to certain low-income enrollees . Congress has thus far refused to appropriate money for these payments ; President Obama paid the subsidies illegally anyway , but President Trump recently halted them .
“ This should be a no-brainer . Get Alexander-Murray passed & signed , ” Kasich wrote in a Twitter update Monday after Trump endorsed — and then unendorsed — the bill . “ Then we take on the big reforms necessary to get American families the coverage they need . ”
Kasich ’ s ideas for reform amount to managing an increasingly vast federal health-care bureaucracy more efficiently . While conservative Republicans have prodded Senate moderates to enact modest free-market reforms , Kasich has attacked all of their proposals from the left .
When Alexander–Murray was introduced , Kasich ’ s band of ten pro-Obamacare governors — only two of whom , including Kasich , are Republicans — fired off a letter to House and Senate leaders imploring them to “ quickly pass legislation to stabilize our private health insurance markets and make quality health insurance more available and affordable . ”
Kasich latched on to the Congressional Budget Office ’ s estimate that Alexander–Murray would reduce federal deficits by $ 3.8 billion over ten years , posting a video statement on Twitter the day CBO ’ s report was released .
“ The Congressional Budget Office says that we can actually reduce the deficit modestly but also not have anybody removed from health care under Alexander-Murray . It is a great thing to be for : stabilize our market , save peoples ’ health care , and move on to controlling health-care costs , ” Kasich said .
“ With the positive CBO score in hand , passage of Alexander-Murray is a must , ” he wrote in the accompanying tweet .
But past Obamacare-related cost estimates have proven remarkably unreliable . Kasich projected that expanding Medicaid would cost $ 13 billion by 2020 , but it has already cost taxpayers more than $ 15 billion . Other states have seen similarly unsustainable welfare-spending increases since expanding Medicaid , and the CBO sharply underestimated Medicaid-expansion costs , too .
Kasich was less concerned about deficit spending when he was pushing the Ohio General Assembly to expand Medicaid .
“ There really is not a legitimate argument against it , ” he told newspaper reporters in 2013 . “ What it is , is , ‘ Well , you know , we ’ re ringing up the federal debt ’ – I mean , what ? You think by turning this down you ’ re gon na solve the federal debt ? ”
And listening to Kasich lobby for greater Obamacare funding now , it would be easy to forget that last year he was promising to repeal and replace Obamacare if elected president . The year before that , Kasich scoffed at CNN host Jake Tapper when Tapper questioned his embrace of Obamacare ’ s Medicaid expansion .
“ I don ’ t support Obamacare ; I want to repeal it , but I did expand Medicaid because I was able to bring Ohio money back home to treat the mentally ill , the drug-addicted , and to help the working poor get health care , ” Kasich insisted in that May 2015 interview .
Perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare work as intended .
When Kasich decided to implement Obamacare ’ s expansion of Medicaid to working-age adults with no kids and no disabilities , it was not to “ bring Ohio money back home , ” but rather to accept a blank check for new federal deficit spending . “ If a state doesn ’ t implement the ACA Medicaid expansion , the federal funds that would have been used for that state ’ s expansion are not being sent to another state , ” the Congressional Research Service clarified in a 2015 memo .
In a New York Times op-ed this July , Kasich acknowledged that states “ can not expect the federal government to continue paying 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs given our nation ’ s historic debt , ” but since then he has continued working tirelessly to delay changes to the Medicaid expansion until after he hits his term limit in January 2019 .
Kasich tried for several years to argue that Medicaid expansion was not really part of Obamacare , even though most of the Obamacare spending increases and coverage gains in Ohio and nationwide result from the law ’ s Medicaid expansion . With Republicans in Congress seemingly unable to deliver on years of repeal promises , Kasich is leaning into the role of pro-Obamacare Republican .
If Barack Obama ’ s biggest domestic-policy achievement remains in place , perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare ’ s mandates , subsidies , penalties , and regulations work together as intended .
|
(Reuters photo: Aaron Josefczyk)
He fought every attempt to repeal the law; now he wants to ‘stabilize’ it.
Ohio governor John Kasich, the most vocal Republican critic of Obamacare-repeal efforts this year, is pleading with Congress to pass the health-care bill proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.) and Senator Patty Murray (D., Wash.).
The Alexander–Murray bill follows a template that Kasich and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, began promoting in August: Obamacare’s mandates, regulations, and Medicaid expansion would all remain in place, and Congress would authorize spending to “stabilize” the exchanges.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In particular, Alexander–Murray would reimburse insurers for “cost-sharing reductions” Obamacare requires them to provide to certain low-income enrollees. Congress has thus far refused to appropriate money for these payments; President Obama paid the subsidies illegally anyway, but President Trump recently halted them.
“This should be a no-brainer. Get Alexander-Murray passed & signed,” Kasich wrote in a Twitter update Monday after Trump endorsed — and then unendorsed — the bill. “Then we take on the big reforms necessary to get American families the coverage they need.”
Kasich’s ideas for reform amount to managing an increasingly vast federal health-care bureaucracy more efficiently. While conservative Republicans have prodded Senate moderates to enact modest free-market reforms, Kasich has attacked all of their proposals from the left.
Advertisement
When Alexander–Murray was introduced, Kasich’s band of ten pro-Obamacare governors — only two of whom, including Kasich, are Republicans — fired off a letter to House and Senate leaders imploring them to “quickly pass legislation to stabilize our private health insurance markets and make quality health insurance more available and affordable.”
Advertisement
Kasich latched on to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that Alexander–Murray would reduce federal deficits by $3.8 billion over ten years, posting a video statement on Twitter the day CBO’s report was released.
“The Congressional Budget Office says that we can actually reduce the deficit modestly but also not have anybody removed from health care under Alexander-Murray. It is a great thing to be for: stabilize our market, save peoples’ health care, and move on to controlling health-care costs,” Kasich said.
“With the positive CBO score in hand, passage of Alexander-Murray is a must,” he wrote in the accompanying tweet.
Advertisement
But past Obamacare-related cost estimates have proven remarkably unreliable. Kasich projected that expanding Medicaid would cost $13 billion by 2020, but it has already cost taxpayers more than $15 billion. Other states have seen similarly unsustainable welfare-spending increases since expanding Medicaid, and the CBO sharply underestimated Medicaid-expansion costs, too.
Advertisement
Kasich was less concerned about deficit spending when he was pushing the Ohio General Assembly to expand Medicaid.
“There really is not a legitimate argument against it,” he told newspaper reporters in 2013. “What it is, is, ‘Well, you know, we’re ringing up the federal debt’ – I mean, what? You think by turning this down you’re gonna solve the federal debt?”
And listening to Kasich lobby for greater Obamacare funding now, it would be easy to forget that last year he was promising to repeal and replace Obamacare if elected president. The year before that, Kasich scoffed at CNN host Jake Tapper when Tapper questioned his embrace of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
“I don’t support Obamacare; I want to repeal it, but I did expand Medicaid because I was able to bring Ohio money back home to treat the mentally ill, the drug-addicted, and to help the working poor get health care,” Kasich insisted in that May 2015 interview.
Perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare work as intended.
When Kasich decided to implement Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to working-age adults with no kids and no disabilities, it was not to “bring Ohio money back home,” but rather to accept a blank check for new federal deficit spending. “If a state doesn’t implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, the federal funds that would have been used for that state’s expansion are not being sent to another state,” the Congressional Research Service clarified in a 2015 memo.
Advertisement
In a New York Times op-ed this July, Kasich acknowledged that states “cannot expect the federal government to continue paying 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs given our nation’s historic debt,” but since then he has continued working tirelessly to delay changes to the Medicaid expansion until after he hits his term limit in January 2019.
Kasich tried for several years to argue that Medicaid expansion was not really part of Obamacare, even though most of the Obamacare spending increases and coverage gains in Ohio and nationwide result from the law’s Medicaid expansion. With Republicans in Congress seemingly unable to deliver on years of repeal promises, Kasich is leaning into the role of pro-Obamacare Republican.
If Barack Obama’s biggest domestic-policy achievement remains in place, perhaps Kasich can run for president in 2020 as the pragmatic central planner who can make Obamacare’s mandates, subsidies, penalties, and regulations work together as intended.
Advertisement
Advertisement
READ MORE:
The Constitution Finally Takes Precedence over Obamacare
Should the House Accept the Alexander-Murray Deal?
Republicans Should Reject ‘Bipartisan’ Solution for Obamacare
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
ix1iMToO9gF7apzo
|
race_and_racism
|
Al Jazeera
| 00
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/india-sri-lanka-coronavirus-stigmatise-muslims-200519134939934.html
|
Like India, Sri Lanka is using coronavirus to stigmatise Muslims
|
Omar Suleiman
|
The world is going through a period of unprecedented instability , distress and uncertainty . The novel coronavirus pandemic , and the threat posed by it to the socioeconomic fabric of nations , pushed many governments around the world into an existential crisis and forced them to switch to survival mode . Populist politicians in these countries , who failed to respond to this public health crisis swiftly and efficiently , resorted to scapegoating minority communities , especially Muslims , to justify their shortcomings .
This has put millions of people , who were subjected to discrimination , abuse and oppression even before the start of the pandemic , in a bind . In many countries around the world underprivileged Muslims are now facing not only a pandemic that is threatening their lives and livelihoods , but also a spike in institutionalised Islamophobia .
In India , since the emergence of COVID-19 , members of the country 's 200 million-strong Muslim community have repeatedly been accused of being `` super spreaders '' of coronavirus both by the media and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) .
In late March , after a Muslim religious gathering in New Delhi allegedly led to a rise in the number of coronavirus cases in the city , a politician from the BJP dubbed the gathering `` corona terrorism '' , and called for Muslims who attend mosques amid the pandemic to be `` punished like terrorists '' . As a result , `` corona jihad '' became a trending topic on social media and many Muslims , including volunteers distributing relief material , faced physical and verbal attacks . A BJP legislator from the state of Uttar Pradesh , meanwhile , called for a boycott of Muslim vendors , accusing them of `` infecting vegetables with saliva '' .
The Indian media also contributed to the stigmatisation of Muslims during the pandemic . As politicians continued their efforts to blame the rapid spread of the virus in the country on Muslims , pro-government media organisations ran shows and published reports that support this unfounded accusation . As a result , Muslims who had only a few months ago survived a pogrom in New Delhi found themselves with an even bigger target on their backs .
India 's government treated the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to double down on its existing Islamophobic policies . Since the start of this public health emergency , it not only used Muslims as a scapegoat to divert attention from the shortcomings of its coronavirus response , but also managed to deepen the Hindu majority 's existing prejudices about this community .
In neighbouring Sri Lanka , the government chose to use the pandemic as an excuse to stigmatise Muslims and pander to Islamophobia .
Sri Lanka is an island nation with a vibrant multireligious and multi-ethnic heritage . But Islamophobic propaganda persistently spread by the media and politicians over the years , coupled with attacks by radical Muslim groups in Sri Lanka and the mainstreaming of Islamophobia across the world , led to the marginalisation of Muslims in the country . Muslims faced waves of violence at the hands of nationalists . The government was accused of not doing enough to protect this minority community and bring those who attack them to justice .
So , unsurprisingly , when COVID-19 reached Sri Lanka , some prominent media organisations and nationalists who are close to the current government were quick to blame Muslims , who form nearly 10 percent of the population , for the spread of the virus . Just like in India , Muslim religious practices were singled out as `` super spreader events '' and Sri Lankans who belong to the Buddhist majority were warned not to buy food items from Muslim vendors .
In April , the government made cremations compulsory for coronavirus victims , which goes against the Islamic tradition of burying the dead . The measure not only deprived Muslims of a basic religious right , but it contributed to the widespread perception that Muslim religious practices aid the spread of the virus .
Islam has at its heart the sanctity of life and honouring the dead is an extension of that sanctity . There are four duties that Muslims are obligated to perform upon the passing away of a fellow Muslim ; they are to wash the body , shroud it with clean sheets , perform the funeral prayer even if only with a few people , and provide a dignified burial .
When called on to take all the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus , the majority of Muslim communities , in Sri Lanka and elsewhere , agreed to adjust their burial practices accordingly , especially in regards to the first two duties .
There is no scientific basis to the claim that burying bodies of victims contributes to the spread of the coronavirus . Countries across the world , from Europe to Africa and North America , are burying coronavirus victims , according to the detailed guidelines issued by their governments , and without causing any risk to public health .
The Sri Lankan government 's decision to make cremation mandatory for all victims of COVID-19 is thus not a public health measure but a blatant act of institutionalised Islamophobia . It speaks to the larger fears that amid the coronavirus pandemic the Indian model of disenfranchisement is being tested in Sri Lanka as well .
India and Sri Lanka are not the only countries in which Muslims face increased risks , abuse and discrimination due to the coronavirus crisis .
In China , Uighurs and other Turkic-Muslim minorities are still subjected to the most unimaginable forms of abuse at the hands of the government . According to the UN , about one million Uighurs are being held within so-called `` re-education camps '' in unhygenic and cramped conditions . As I wrote at the very beginning of this crisis , this puts them at an increased risk of contracting the novel coronavirus . It is also not known whether they have immediate access to healthcare .
The suffering of Rohingya Muslims , who in 2017 faced a military offensive in Myanmar for which the government is facing genocide charges at the UN 's top court , has also increased due to the pandemic.Today , hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees are living in densely populated camps in neighbouring Bangladesh . A COVID-19 outbreak in the overcrowded camps is almost certain to come - and when it does , experts say , the damage could be severe . A Rohingya refugee in the camps already tested positive for the virus last week .
The governments of both China and Myanmar are using the coronavirus pandemic to divert attention from the crimes they committed , and continue to commit , against Muslim minorities in their countries . Political leaders across the world are using racism , xenophobia and Islamophobia as potent tools for short-term gains during this pandemic .
The world must act immediately and decisively to hold these leaders and governments to account to ensure we do not let the rise of COVID-19 contribute to the rise of fascism .
The views expressed in this article are the author 's own and do not necessarily reflect ███ 's editorial stance .
|
The world is going through a period of unprecedented instability, distress and uncertainty. The novel coronavirus pandemic, and the threat posed by it to the socioeconomic fabric of nations, pushed many governments around the world into an existential crisis and forced them to switch to survival mode. Populist politicians in these countries, who failed to respond to this public health crisis swiftly and efficiently, resorted to scapegoating minority communities, especially Muslims, to justify their shortcomings.
This has put millions of people, who were subjected to discrimination, abuse and oppression even before the start of the pandemic, in a bind. In many countries around the world underprivileged Muslims are now facing not only a pandemic that is threatening their lives and livelihoods, but also a spike in institutionalised Islamophobia.
In India, since the emergence of COVID-19, members of the country's 200 million-strong Muslim community have repeatedly been accused of being "super spreaders" of coronavirus both by the media and the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In late March, after a Muslim religious gathering in New Delhi allegedly led to a rise in the number of coronavirus cases in the city, a politician from the BJP dubbed the gathering "corona terrorism", and called for Muslims who attend mosques amid the pandemic to be "punished like terrorists". As a result, "corona jihad" became a trending topic on social media and many Muslims, including volunteers distributing relief material, faced physical and verbal attacks. A BJP legislator from the state of Uttar Pradesh, meanwhile, called for a boycott of Muslim vendors, accusing them of "infecting vegetables with saliva".
The Indian media also contributed to the stigmatisation of Muslims during the pandemic. As politicians continued their efforts to blame the rapid spread of the virus in the country on Muslims, pro-government media organisations ran shows and published reports that support this unfounded accusation. As a result, Muslims who had only a few months ago survived a pogrom in New Delhi found themselves with an even bigger target on their backs.
India's government treated the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to double down on its existing Islamophobic policies. Since the start of this public health emergency, it not only used Muslims as a scapegoat to divert attention from the shortcomings of its coronavirus response, but also managed to deepen the Hindu majority's existing prejudices about this community.
In neighbouring Sri Lanka, the government chose to use the pandemic as an excuse to stigmatise Muslims and pander to Islamophobia.
Sri Lanka is an island nation with a vibrant multireligious and multi-ethnic heritage. But Islamophobic propaganda persistently spread by the media and politicians over the years, coupled with attacks by radical Muslim groups in Sri Lanka and the mainstreaming of Islamophobia across the world, led to the marginalisation of Muslims in the country. Muslims faced waves of violence at the hands of nationalists. The government was accused of not doing enough to protect this minority community and bring those who attack them to justice.
So, unsurprisingly, when COVID-19 reached Sri Lanka, some prominent media organisations and nationalists who are close to the current government were quick to blame Muslims, who form nearly 10 percent of the population, for the spread of the virus. Just like in India, Muslim religious practices were singled out as "super spreader events" and Sri Lankans who belong to the Buddhist majority were warned not to buy food items from Muslim vendors.
In April, the government made cremations compulsory for coronavirus victims, which goes against the Islamic tradition of burying the dead. The measure not only deprived Muslims of a basic religious right, but it contributed to the widespread perception that Muslim religious practices aid the spread of the virus.
Islam has at its heart the sanctity of life and honouring the dead is an extension of that sanctity. There are four duties that Muslims are obligated to perform upon the passing away of a fellow Muslim; they are to wash the body, shroud it with clean sheets, perform the funeral prayer even if only with a few people, and provide a dignified burial.
When called on to take all the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus, the majority of Muslim communities, in Sri Lanka and elsewhere, agreed to adjust their burial practices accordingly, especially in regards to the first two duties.
There is no scientific basis to the claim that burying bodies of victims contributes to the spread of the coronavirus. Countries across the world, from Europe to Africa and North America, are burying coronavirus victims, according to the detailed guidelines issued by their governments, and without causing any risk to public health.
The Sri Lankan government's decision to make cremation mandatory for all victims of COVID-19 is thus not a public health measure but a blatant act of institutionalised Islamophobia. It speaks to the larger fears that amid the coronavirus pandemic the Indian model of disenfranchisement is being tested in Sri Lanka as well.
India and Sri Lanka are not the only countries in which Muslims face increased risks, abuse and discrimination due to the coronavirus crisis.
In China, Uighurs and other Turkic-Muslim minorities are still subjected to the most unimaginable forms of abuse at the hands of the government. According to the UN, about one million Uighurs are being held within so-called "re-education camps" in unhygenic and cramped conditions. As I wrote at the very beginning of this crisis, this puts them at an increased risk of contracting the novel coronavirus. It is also not known whether they have immediate access to healthcare.
The suffering of Rohingya Muslims, who in 2017 faced a military offensive in Myanmar for which the government is facing genocide charges at the UN's top court, has also increased due to the pandemic.Today, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees are living in densely populated camps in neighbouring Bangladesh. A COVID-19 outbreak in the overcrowded camps is almost certain to come - and when it does, experts say, the damage could be severe. A Rohingya refugee in the camps already tested positive for the virus last week.
The governments of both China and Myanmar are using the coronavirus pandemic to divert attention from the crimes they committed, and continue to commit, against Muslim minorities in their countries. Political leaders across the world are using racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia as potent tools for short-term gains during this pandemic.
The world must act immediately and decisively to hold these leaders and governments to account to ensure we do not let the rise of COVID-19 contribute to the rise of fascism.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
|
www.aljazeera.com
| 0left
|
gvCaUI3ieWdwFsNQ
|
|
politics
|
RealClearPolitics
| 11
|
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/30/priebus_wh_will_respond_to_evelyn_farkas_story_incredible_raises_many_questions.html
|
Priebus: WH Will Look Into Evelyn Farkas Story; Almost Too Incredible To Be True
|
2017-03-30
|
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus joins Hugh Hewitt for a Thursday morning interview .
One of the subjects touched on is the story of Evelyn Farkas , formerly the Defense Department 's top Russia expert under President Obama who is now calling for an independent investigation of the president 's ties to Moscow .
This week , conservative media has noticed an interview she did on MSNBC 's 'Morning Joe ' on March 2nd , 2017 where Farkas appears to happily admit that she was repsonsible for leaking sensitive information about what parts of the government might have spied on President-elect Trump and his Trump Tower . Fox News ran a story on this titled : Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team
The Farkas statement in question : `` I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [ Obama ] people who left , so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence . ''
Terrible ! Just found out that Obama had my `` wires tapped '' in Trump Tower just before the victory . Nothing found . This is McCarthyism ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 4 , 2017
HUGH HEWITT : A news story came up last night , Mr. Priebus . Evelyn Farkas , former assistant deputy secretary of Defense a few days ago was on with Morning Joe , and talking to Mika about the end game during the Obama years . She said this , the 30 second clip :
EVELYN FARKAS : …that the Trump folks , if they found out how we knew what we knew about their , the staff , the Trump staff ’ s dealing with Russians , that they would try to compromise those sources and methods , meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence . So I became very worried , because not enough was coming out into the open , and I knew that there was more . We have very good intelligence on Russia . So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues , and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill .
RP : Well , I mean , I heard it late last night , so I mean I honestly , I talked to Sean a little bit about it late last night , Spicer , and then we ’ re going to be meeting on it this morning . It ’ s just an incredible statement , you know , and how , what it means and what she meant by that , and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day . But it certainly is an incredible comment , although I don ’ t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement .
HH : Now I want to ask you about a personal reaction to it , though . It suggests that incidental collection of American conversation in intelligence , perhaps even in Russian to Russian conversation , was pushed out by Team Obama for the purposes of cornering you guys ? I don ’ t know what , but…
RP : Yeah , I mean , a personal reaction is it ’ s , it ’ s almost , it ’ s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she ’ s talking about . I mean , you know what I ’ m saying ?
RP : It ’ s sort of like one of these things it ’ s so much in your face that it makes you wonder what she means .
HH : Now do you think Director Comey will be interested in that statement ?
RP : ( laughing ) Well , I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested in all of these things . And the one thing I will tell you is that we want , we want this thing done thoroughly , and I will tell you that because we have got nothing to hide . I mean , there ’ s just nothing there . I ’ ve said it many times on television and elsewhere . There is no collusion . The issues in regard to contacts with Russia as outlined in the New York Times article about a month ago is total garbage , and we just , we would rather this move forward and be thorough and get on with it , because we ’ ve got nothing to hide . It ’ s ridiculous .
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus responded Thursday morning : `` That ’ s incredible . `` `` It certainly is an incredible comment , although I don ’ t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement ... It ’ s just an incredible statement , you know , and how , what it means and what she meant by that , and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day . `` `` I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested , '' he also said.Radio hosts Sean Hannity ...... and Mark Levin both mentioned the story Wednesday afternoon ... The original clip from MSNBC 's 'Morning Joe ' : '' That 's why you have the leaking ! '' Farkas says in the clip . `` A personal reaction is it ’ s , it ’ s almost , it ’ s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she ’ s talking about . I mean , you know what I ’ m saying ? '' Priebus added.Transcript of the Priebus interview , courtesy of the Hugh Hewitt Show
|
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus joins Hugh Hewitt for a Thursday morning interview.
One of the subjects touched on is the story of Evelyn Farkas, formerly the Defense Department's top Russia expert under President Obama who is now calling for an independent investigation of the president's ties to Moscow.
This week, conservative media has noticed an interview she did on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' on March 2nd, 2017 where Farkas appears to happily admit that she was repsonsible for leaking sensitive information about what parts of the government might have spied on President-elect Trump and his Trump Tower. Fox News ran a story on this titled: Former Obama official discloses rush to get intelligence on Trump team
The Farkas statement in question: "I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy ... that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their ... the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence."
Note: The Farkas clip originally aired on March 2. President Trump's infamous 'wiretap' tweet came two days later:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017
HUGH HEWITT: A news story came up last night, Mr. Priebus. Evelyn Farkas, former assistant deputy secretary of Defense a few days ago was on with Morning Joe, and talking to Mika about the end game during the Obama years. She said this, the 30 second clip:
EVELYN FARKAS: …that the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff’s dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia. So then I had talked to some of my former colleagues, and I knew that they were trying to also help get information to the Hill.
HH: So Mr. Priebus, I put two clips together.
REINCE PRIEBUS, TRUMP ADMIN: That’s incredible.
HH: React to that for me, would you?
RP: Well, I mean, I heard it late last night, so I mean I honestly, I talked to Sean a little bit about it late last night, Spicer, and then we’re going to be meeting on it this morning. It’s just an incredible statement, you know, and how, what it means and what she meant by that, and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day. But it certainly is an incredible comment, although I don’t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement.
HH: Now I want to ask you about a personal reaction to it, though. It suggests that incidental collection of American conversation in intelligence, perhaps even in Russian to Russian conversation, was pushed out by Team Obama for the purposes of cornering you guys? I don’t know what, but…
RP: Yeah, I mean, a personal reaction is it’s, it’s almost, it’s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she’s talking about. I mean, you know what I’m saying?
HH: Yeah.
RP: It’s sort of like one of these things it’s so much in your face that it makes you wonder what she means.
HH: Now do you think Director Comey will be interested in that statement?
RP: (laughing) Well, I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested in all of these things. And the one thing I will tell you is that we want, we want this thing done thoroughly, and I will tell you that because we have got nothing to hide. I mean, there’s just nothing there. I’ve said it many times on television and elsewhere. There is no collusion. The issues in regard to contacts with Russia as outlined in the New York Times article about a month ago is total garbage, and we just, we would rather this move forward and be thorough and get on with it, because we’ve got nothing to hide. It’s ridiculous.
HH: Okay, to a substantive question.
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus responded Thursday morning: "That’s incredible.""It certainly is an incredible comment, although I don’t want to add too much into it right now until I have an opportunity to sort of dig into it and figure out the scope of such a statement... It’s just an incredible statement, you know, and how, what it means and what she meant by that, and whether that has anything to do with the issues in regard to surveillance of Trump transition team members is something that we need to figure out this morning and throughout the day.""I hope that the intelligence committees and agencies are interested," he also said.Radio hosts Sean Hannity......and Mark Levin both mentioned the story Wednesday afternoon...The original clip from MSNBC's 'Morning Joe':"That's why you have the leaking!" Farkas says in the clip."A personal reaction is it’s, it’s almost, it’s so cavalier and unbelievable that I just wonder whether this person knows what the heck she’s talking about. I mean, you know what I’m saying?" Priebus added.Transcript of the Priebus interview, courtesy of the Hugh Hewitt Show
|
www.realclearpolitics.com
| 2center
|
3tQm4L5zvSsV8k8T
|
|
federal_budget
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-blame/index.html?hpt=po_c1
|
CNN Poll: GOP would bear the brunt of shutdown blame
|
2013-09-30
|
Paul Steinhauser
|
Story highlights CNN/ORC International poll : Six in 10 say they want budget deal to avoid shutdown
In poll , 46 % would blame congressional Republicans and 36 % would blame the president
Poll says 57 % oppose the Affordable Care Act ; 803 people participated in the two-day poll
If the federal government shuts down starting Tuesday because of a bitter partisan battle over the new health care law , more people say congressional Republicans rather than President Barack Obama would be responsible , according to a new national survey .
A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday morning , hours before funding for the government is scheduled to run out , also indicates that most Americans think Republicans in Congress are acting like spoiled children in this fiscal fight , with the public divided on whether the president is acting like a spoiled child or a responsible adult .
And six in 10 questioned in the survey say they want Congress to approve a budget agreement to avoid a government shutdown , and if it happens , most people say a shutdown would be a bad thing for the country .
The poll 's release comes one day after the GOP-dominated House of Representatives approved a spending plan to fund the government that would delay the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare , for a year , and repeal its tax on medical devices .
JUST WATCHED House vote makes shutdown likely Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH House vote makes shutdown likely 02:09
JUST WATCHED Memorable moments from House debate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Memorable moments from House debate 01:13
That measure now heads back to Senate later Monday , where the Democratic majority has said any changes to the health care law would be a deal-killer . If no deal is reached on a temporary funding measure , a government shutdown would kick in at 12:01 a.m . ET Tuesday .
According to the poll , which was conducted Friday through Sunday , 46 % say they would blame congressional Republicans for a government shutdown , with 36 % saying the president would be more responsible and 13 % pointing fingers at both the GOP in Congress and Obama .
`` The number who would hold congressional Republicans responsible has gone down by 5 points since early September , and the number who would blame Obama is up 3 points in that same time , '' said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland . `` Those changes came among most demographic groups . ''
The CNN poll is similar to a CBS News/New York Times survey released late last week that indicated 44 % blaming congressional Republicans and 35 % pointing fingers at the president . Two other polls conducted in the past week and a half , from Pew Research Center and United Technologies/National Journal , showed a much closer margin but their questions mentioned Republicans in general rather than the GOP in Congress .
While most Democrats questioned in the CNN poll would predictably blame congressional Republicans and most Republicans questioned would point fingers at the president , independents were divided on which side they would blame .
In a separate question , 49 % of all people in the poll say that Obama is acting like a responsible adult in this budget battle , with 47 % describing him as a spoiled child . While that 's nothing to brag about , it 's better than Congress .
According to the poll , 58 % say congressional Democrats are acting like spoiled children , with that number rising to 69 % for the GOP in Congress . Only one in four say congressional Republicans are acting like responsible adults .
Some 68 % say a shutdown for a few days would be a bad thing for the country , with that number rising to nearly eight in 10 for a shutdown lasting a few weeks .
Six in 10 questioned in the CNN survey say that it is more important for Congress to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the new health care law , with only a third saying it is more important for lawmakers to prevent major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them .
The drive to overthrow the health care law , which was passed in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress , is being fueled by GOP lawmakers voted into office the past two elections with the strong support of tea party activists and other grassroots conservatives .
`` A majority of Republicans think that blocking Obamacare is more important than approving a budget agreement , '' said Holland . `` So do tea party supporters , regardless of their partisan affiliation . ''
`` Who 's driving this strategy : 40 to 50 of the most conservative members of the House , and four or five of the most conservative members of the Senate , '' says CNN Chief National Correspondent John King . `` Fifty-six percent of tea party supporters say it 's a good thing to shut down the government . These are the folks those most conservative members of Congress are listening to . Those lawmakers think back home they 're on safe ground even though nationally shutting down the government is a non-starter . ''
The poll indicates that Obamacare is not popular , with 57 % saying they oppose the law , up 3 points from May , and 38 % saying they support the measure , down five points from May .
But only about four in 10 oppose it because it is too liberal , with about one in 10 saying they do n't like the law because it is not liberal enough .
If you add the 38 % who favor the law to the 11 % to oppose the law because it 's not liberal enough , you get 49 % , compared with the 39 % who say they oppose the law because it 's too liberal .
The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International September 27-29 , with 803 adults nationwide questioned by telephone . The survey 's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points .
Where do you stand ? Add your thoughts in the comments below :
QUESTION : If the federal government shuts down , do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for that ?
QUESTION : Do you think Barack Obama has acted mostly like a responsible adult or mostly like a spoiled child during the recent debate over the federal budget ?
QUESTION : Do you think the Republicans in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget ?
QUESTION : Do you think the Democrats in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget ?
|
Story highlights CNN/ORC International poll: Six in 10 say they want budget deal to avoid shutdown
In poll, 46% would blame congressional Republicans and 36% would blame the president
Poll says 57% oppose the Affordable Care Act; 803 people participated in the two-day poll
If the federal government shuts down starting Tuesday because of a bitter partisan battle over the new health care law, more people say congressional Republicans rather than President Barack Obama would be responsible, according to a new national survey.
A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday morning, hours before funding for the government is scheduled to run out, also indicates that most Americans think Republicans in Congress are acting like spoiled children in this fiscal fight, with the public divided on whether the president is acting like a spoiled child or a responsible adult.
And six in 10 questioned in the survey say they want Congress to approve a budget agreement to avoid a government shutdown, and if it happens, most people say a shutdown would be a bad thing for the country.
The poll's release comes one day after the GOP-dominated House of Representatives approved a spending plan to fund the government that would delay the Affordable Care Act , better known as Obamacare, for a year, and repeal its tax on medical devices.
JUST WATCHED House vote makes shutdown likely Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH House vote makes shutdown likely 02:09
JUST WATCHED Memorable moments from House debate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Memorable moments from House debate 01:13
Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – The game is the same, but many of the players have changed. Congress and the president are facing off in another supreme spending showdown. This last happened in 2011, when Congress avoided a shutdown by passing a spending measure shortly after the midnight deadline hit. Who controls what happens this time? Take a look at the key players who will determine how this fight ends.
-- From CNN Capitol Hill Reporter Lisa Desjardins. CNN's Deirdre Walsh and Ted Barrett contributed to this report. Hide Caption 1 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Mark Meadows, R-North Carolina -- The architect. During Congress' August recess, the tea party-backed freshman wrote to Republican leaders suggesting that they tie dismantling Obamacare to the funding bill. Though initially rejected by GOP leadership, 79 of Meadows' House colleagues signed on to the letter, which quoted James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers, "the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon ... for obtaining a redress of every grievance." --The architect. During Congress' August recess, the tea party-backed freshman wrote to Republican leaders suggesting that they tie dismantling Obamacare to the funding bill. Though initially rejected by GOP leadership, 79 of Meadows' House colleagues signed on to the letter, which quoted James Madison writing in the Federalist Papers, "the power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon ... for obtaining a redress of every grievance." Hide Caption 2 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- The coach. He'll make the key play call. The top Republican leader in the land may be the most important player in the days immediately before a possible shutdown. Boehner could decide whether to push through the Senate's version of a spending bill and keep government running, or he could float a third version with some other Republican wish list items in it. If he takes the second option, Boehner could risk a shutdown but could also force the Senate into a tough position: give House Republicans something or send federal workers home. Timing on all this will be critical. Hide Caption 3 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas -- The revolutionary or rabble rouser, depending on your viewpoint. The tea party firebrand could lead a long filibuster on the Senate floor, delaying passage of a spending bill until just one day before the deadline on Monday, September 30. Cruz has stoked the anti-Obamacare flames all summer, but recently angered fellow Republicans by openly saying that the Senate does not have the votes to repeal the health care law. Hide Caption 4 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida -- Senator to watch. The potential presidential candidate has been one of three senators (Cruz and Mike Lee, R-Utah, being the others) pushing to use the government shutdown debate as a way to repeal or defund Obamacare. But watch his actions and language as a shutdown nears to see if he digs in or if downshifts at all. Hide Caption 5 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada -- The man steering the ship in the Senate. Master at using Senate procedure to his advantage, Reid is the main force in controlling the voting process in the chamber and ensuring that an attempted filibuster by tea party-types fails. The majority leader will be a primary negotiator if we reach phase three, if the House does not accept the Senate spending bill. Hide Caption 6 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky -- If Reid steers the ship, McConnell controls the headwinds. Which is good news for Reid, at least initially. The Republican leader and several of his members say they will vote against Cruz's filibuster and in favor of a spending bill with no limits on Obamacare. Meaning, in favor of a bill that just funds government. McConnell generally has been leery of running into a shutdown or default. In fact, one legislative method for avoiding default is named after him. Hide Caption 7 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington -- The consigliore. Murray, center, does not seek the outside limelight, but the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman is a major fiscal force behind the scenes on Capitol Hill. Known by fellow Democrats as a straight shooter, she is also an experienced negotiator, having co-chaired the laborious, somewhat torturous and unsuccessful Super Committee. Hide Caption 8 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Tom Graves, R-Georgia -- The new militia leader. The freshman congressman from Georgia, second from right, is one reason the debate has reached this point. Graves led the charge that blocked the original proposal by House Republican leaders. That would have kept government funded and had a detachable portion on Obamacare. Instead Graves and other conservatives forced their leaders to pass a spending bill with a mandatory defunding of Obamacare. Hide Caption 9 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Peter King, R-New York -- The blunt statesman. King is outspoken against many tea party tactics, calling the move to tie Obamacare to the must-pass spending bill essentially a suicide mission and Cruz "a fraud." He is pushing for Republicans to accept a more "clean" spending bill that can pass the Senate and avoid a shutdown. Hide Caption 10 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- The heavy. Donohue is known for his deep connections and his aggressive lobbying on behalf of business. He and the Chamber are urging Republican lawmakers to avoid a shutdown. The Chamber is an important political backer for conservatives, but has had mixed success with the current Congress, locking in firm anti-tax positions but unable to push through immigration reform so far. Hide Caption 11 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Michael Needham, president of Heritage Action -- The driving force. Needham runs the political offshoot of the conservative Heritage Foundation and has been unrelenting in urging lawmakers to repeal Obamacare. He has told Republicans not to fear a potential shutdown, saying they would suffer more politically from allowing Obamacare to continue. Hide Caption 12 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – President Barack Obama -- The campaigner and CEO. Expect the president to use his podium more as a shutdown nears, aiming at public opinion as Democrats in Congress position themselves. If House Republicans send back a new proposal close to the September 30 deadline, the president and Democrats will have to decide what move to make next. Hide Caption 13 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia -- The powerful lieutenant. Cantor, the House Republican No. 2, is much more closely allied with conservatives and tea party members in the House than is Speaker Boehner. The two have not always agreed on every strategy during potential shutdown debates, but have been in public lockstep during the current go-around. Hide Caption 14 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland -- Players on deck. The top two House Democrats are mostly watching and waiting. But they will play a critical role once Boehner decides his next move. They could either bring Democratic votes on board a deal or be the loudest voices against a new Republican alternative. Hoyer will be interesting to watch; he has strongly opposed both the House and Senate plans as cutting too much in spending. Hide Caption 15 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California -- The numbers guy. McCarthy, the House whip, has the tricky job of assessing exactly where Republican members stand and getting the 217 votes it takes to pass a bill in the chamber. He is known for his outreach to and connection with many of the freshmen House members who align with the tea party. Hide Caption 16 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin -- Member to watch. The vote of the House budget chairman and former vice presidential nominee is an important signal both within Republican ranks and to the public at large. Ryan has voted against some funding measures in the past, including the emergency aid for Superstorm Sandy recovery. But he was a "yes" on the last extension of the debt ceiling. Hide Caption 17 of 18 Photos: Photos: Key players in the shutdown debate Key players in the shutdown debate – Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida -- Another member to watch. A former committee chairwoman (Republican rules have term limits for committee chairs), Ros-Lehtinen knows House politics and procedure inside out. Depending on the issue, she has been described as a conservative or moderate, and occasionally as a libertarian. Hide Caption 18 of 18
Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A Park Service police officer stands guard in front of the Lincoln Memorial during a partial shutdown of the federal government in November 1995. Many government services and agencies were closed at the end of 1995 and beginning of 1996 as President Bill Clinton battled a Republican-led Congress over spending levels. Hide Caption 1 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – An employee hangs a sign on the door of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington on November 14, 1995, marking the start of the government shutdown. Hide Caption 2 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A tourist peers out a ferry window at the Statue of Liberty on November 14, 1995, as a small group of visitors wait on the dock to board the vessel. No passengers were allowed off the boat as both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island were closed after federal workers were sent home. Hide Caption 3 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Sen. Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee holds up a chart showing the differences between Republican and Democratic budgets as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, left, and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole stand by during a press conference on Capitol Hill. Hide Caption 4 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A police officer walks through the empty Statuary Hall in the Capitol on November 15, 1995. Hide Caption 5 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – The national debt clock in New York is stopped during the government shutdown in November. Hide Caption 6 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – President Clinton speaks about the federal budget impasse from the Oval Office on November 16, 1995. The first part of the budget shutdown ended on November 19 when a temporary spending bill was enacted. But Congress failed to come to an agreement on the federal budget, leading to a second shutdown starting December 16. Hide Caption 7 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – UPS workers deliver letters to members of Congress on November 28, 1995. The letters were written and sent by members of the Coalition For Change, a nonpartisan organization devoted to balancing the budget. Hide Caption 8 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A speaks to demonstrators at the Capitol Rotunda on December 7, 1995. Evangelical leaders from around the country held a prayer session to call on legislators to treat the poor justly during welfare reform and budget negotiations. Hide Caption 9 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Livingston, right, holds a "closed" sign outside the National Gallery of Art in Washington on December 18, 1995. Hide Caption 10 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – A security guard informs people that the passport office is closed at the Federal Building in Los Angeles on December 18, 1995. Hide Caption 11 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Rep. John Boehner dumps out coal, which he called a Christmas gift to President Clinton, during a news conference about the federal budget on December 21, 1995. Hide Caption 12 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Karen Bishop chains herself to colleagues during a rally at the Federal Building in San Francisco on January 3, 1996. The workers claimed they were in servitude to the government as hundreds of thousands of federal employees were either furloughed or had to work without pay. Hide Caption 13 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Food service employees at the Veterans Hospital in Miami line up to receive food rations on January 3, 1996. Many federal employees faced financial hardships during the shutdown. Hide Caption 14 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Tourists line up outside the National Gallery of Art in Washington on January 5, 1996. It was one of the few government buildings open during the shutdown thanks to the assistance of private funds. Hide Caption 15 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – People trying to apply for visas at the U.S. consulate in Paris on January 5, 1996, are told that the building is closed because of the U.S. budget crisis. Hide Caption 16 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Rep. Thomas Davis III, R-Virginia, attends a rally in Washington on January 5, 1996, urging the end of the government shutdown. Hide Caption 17 of 18 Photos: Photos: The last government shutdown The last government shutdown – Tourists view Yosemite National Park in California after it re-opened on January 6, 1996. Early that morning, President Clinton signed Republican-crafted legislation to restore jobs and provide retroactive pay to government workers while he and Congress continued negotiating how to balance the federal budget. Hide Caption 18 of 18
That measure now heads back to Senate later Monday, where the Democratic majority has said any changes to the health care law would be a deal-killer. If no deal is reached on a temporary funding measure, a government shutdown would kick in at 12:01 a.m. ET Tuesday.
According to the poll, which was conducted Friday through Sunday, 46% say they would blame congressional Republicans for a government shutdown, with 36% saying the president would be more responsible and 13% pointing fingers at both the GOP in Congress and Obama.
"The number who would hold congressional Republicans responsible has gone down by 5 points since early September, and the number who would blame Obama is up 3 points in that same time," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Those changes came among most demographic groups."
The CNN poll is similar to a CBS News/New York Times survey released late last week that indicated 44% blaming congressional Republicans and 35% pointing fingers at the president. Two other polls conducted in the past week and a half, from Pew Research Center and United Technologies/National Journal, showed a much closer margin but their questions mentioned Republicans in general rather than the GOP in Congress.
While most Democrats questioned in the CNN poll would predictably blame congressional Republicans and most Republicans questioned would point fingers at the president, independents were divided on which side they would blame.
In a separate question, 49% of all people in the poll say that Obama is acting like a responsible adult in this budget battle, with 47% describing him as a spoiled child. While that's nothing to brag about, it's better than Congress.
According to the poll, 58% say congressional Democrats are acting like spoiled children, with that number rising to 69% for the GOP in Congress. Only one in four say congressional Republicans are acting like responsible adults.
Some 68% say a shutdown for a few days would be a bad thing for the country, with that number rising to nearly eight in 10 for a shutdown lasting a few weeks.
Six in 10 questioned in the CNN survey say that it is more important for Congress to avoid a shutdown than to make major changes to the new health care law, with only a third saying it is more important for lawmakers to prevent major provisions in the new health care law from taking effect by cutting the funds needed to implement them.
(Note: When CNN began interviews for this poll on Friday evening, the Senate had just stripped out of its bill the House Republican measure to defund the health care law. What the House passed this weekend doesn't specifically call for a defunding of Obamacare -- instead it delays its implementation for a year -- but the repeal on medical devices would cut key funding for the law.)
The drive to overthrow the health care law, which was passed in 2010 when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, is being fueled by GOP lawmakers voted into office the past two elections with the strong support of tea party activists and other grassroots conservatives.
"A majority of Republicans think that blocking Obamacare is more important than approving a budget agreement," said Holland. "So do tea party supporters, regardless of their partisan affiliation."
"Who's driving this strategy: 40 to 50 of the most conservative members of the House, and four or five of the most conservative members of the Senate," says CNN Chief National Correspondent John King. "Fifty-six percent of tea party supporters say it's a good thing to shut down the government. These are the folks those most conservative members of Congress are listening to. Those lawmakers think back home they're on safe ground even though nationally shutting down the government is a non-starter."
The poll indicates that Obamacare is not popular, with 57% saying they oppose the law, up 3 points from May, and 38% saying they support the measure, down five points from May.
But only about four in 10 oppose it because it is too liberal, with about one in 10 saying they don't like the law because it is not liberal enough.
If you add the 38% who favor the law to the 11% to oppose the law because it's not liberal enough, you get 49%, compared with the 39% who say they oppose the law because it's too liberal.
The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International September 27-29, with 803 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
THE QUESTIONS
Where do you stand? Add your thoughts in the comments below:
QUESTION: If the federal government shuts down, do you think that Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress would be more responsible for that?
QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama has acted mostly like a responsible adult or mostly like a spoiled child during the recent debate over the federal budget?
QUESTION: Do you think the Republicans in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget?
QUESTION: Do you think the Democrats in Congress have acted mostly like responsible adults or mostly like spoiled children during the recent debate over the federal budget?
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
nWexooWGypXhLvNl
|
abortion
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-editorial-board-covers-for-planned-parenthood/
|
New York Times Editorial Board Covers For Planned Parenthood
|
2019-08-20
|
Alexandra Desanctis, Mairead Mcardle, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Carrie Severino, John Fund, Tobias Hoonhout, Kevin D. Williamson, Bill Corsair, Jason Richwine
|
Outside the New York Times building in New York City ( Brendan McDermid/Reuters )
Planned Parenthood might as well stop wasting money on public-relations officials and marketing campaigns , because media outlets are only too willing to do their dirty work for free .
In the wake of Planned Parenthood ’ s choice to withdraw from the Title X family planning program over a Trump-administration rule prohibiting providers from performing or referring for abortions , the New York Times editorial board rushed to the group ’ s defense .
“ It Just Got Harder to Get Birth Control in America , ” declares the headline , and the subhead is hardly more accurate : “ Title X made sure poor women could have access to health care . The Trump administration has compromised that . ”
This is precisely the myth that Planned Parenthood and its activist allies have propagated in the wake of the Protect Life rule . As the Times editorial puts it , the Trump administration “ has quietly been working to gut the Title X family planning program . ”
In reality , the Trump administration hasn ’ t reduced federal funding for the Title X program by a cent . Instead , the rule forces providers to choose between federal funding and the profits that come from performing abortions . Planned Parenthood has made its decision .
The Trump administration isn ’ t targeting the abortion provider , nor did it force the group to stop giving out contraception . In fact , there ’ s no evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood ’ s departure from Title X will affect the group ’ s ability to provide birth control at all . ( According to its own records , Planned Parenthood clinics provided 80,000 fewer contraceptives last year than the year before , making the supposed consternation over this particular issue even less sincere . )
Even if contraception access were to decline , it would be evidence not that the Trump administration has gutted Title X but that Planned Parenthood has gutted its own ability to provide health care in order to keep performing abortions . If the group ’ s executives were serious about women ’ s health , they would ’ ve chosen to maintain federal funding , adapting to the rule and financially distinguishing abortion procedures from the rest of the group ’ s work .
That they did not is proof of Planned Parenthood ’ s preeminent commitment to its abortion business — and its ability to continue operating that business smoothly without any federal money at all . It is shameful that our nation ’ s newspaper of record would promote abortion-industry lies in order to obscure that reality .
|
Outside the New York Times building in New York City (Brendan McDermid/Reuters)
Planned Parenthood might as well stop wasting money on public-relations officials and marketing campaigns, because media outlets are only too willing to do their dirty work for free.
In the wake of Planned Parenthood’s choice to withdraw from the Title X family planning program over a Trump-administration rule prohibiting providers from performing or referring for abortions, the New York Times editorial board rushed to the group’s defense.
Advertisement
Advertisement
“It Just Got Harder to Get Birth Control in America,” declares the headline, and the subhead is hardly more accurate: “Title X made sure poor women could have access to health care. The Trump administration has compromised that.”
This is precisely the myth that Planned Parenthood and its activist allies have propagated in the wake of the Protect Life rule. As the Times editorial puts it, the Trump administration “has quietly been working to gut the Title X family planning program.”
In reality, the Trump administration hasn’t reduced federal funding for the Title X program by a cent. Instead, the rule forces providers to choose between federal funding and the profits that come from performing abortions. Planned Parenthood has made its decision.
Advertisement
The Trump administration isn’t targeting the abortion provider, nor did it force the group to stop giving out contraception. In fact, there’s no evidence whatsoever that Planned Parenthood’s departure from Title X will affect the group’s ability to provide birth control at all. (According to its own records, Planned Parenthood clinics provided 80,000 fewer contraceptives last year than the year before, making the supposed consternation over this particular issue even less sincere.)
Advertisement
Even if contraception access were to decline, it would be evidence not that the Trump administration has gutted Title X but that Planned Parenthood has gutted its own ability to provide health care in order to keep performing abortions. If the group’s executives were serious about women’s health, they would’ve chosen to maintain federal funding, adapting to the rule and financially distinguishing abortion procedures from the rest of the group’s work.
That they did not is proof of Planned Parenthood’s preeminent commitment to its abortion business — and its ability to continue operating that business smoothly without any federal money at all. It is shameful that our nation’s newspaper of record would promote abortion-industry lies in order to obscure that reality.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
vEfAYf3HY8YTdrWX
|
taxes
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/12/13/how-liberals-argue-obamacare-taxes-n1466021
|
How Liberals Argue: Obamacare Taxes
|
2012-12-13
|
Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, "Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Matt Vespa
|
Last night , I joined CNBC 's The Kudlow Report to discuss the recent news that 18 Senate Democrats have signed a letter urging the postponement or repeal of Obamacare 's destructive medical device tax . Conservatives have warned for years that the tax would kill jobs and undermine innovation in the field , a conclusion that some Democrats have finally embraced as implementation looms . The Left has recognized this problem all along , of course , but they needed to squeeze as much on-paper revenue as possible into the Obamacare CBO score back in 2010 in order to attract those final few votes from `` fiscally conservative '' Democrats . Now that Obamacare 's on the books , they can systematically abandon their pay-fors -- a process that 's well underway . My sparring partner in this discussion was Igor Volsky , a staffer at George Soros ' Think Progress . Larry asked him why Democrats will admit that higher taxes kill jobs in some cases , but not others . See if you can locate a concrete answer anywhere in here :
Volsky fascinatingly set up ideological shop several steps to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken . That alone is a noteworthy feat . But the point I tried to underscore in the segment was the bizarre certitude he projected that this medical device tax will not stifle innovation or threaten jobs . The industry will emerge unscathed by the tax increase , he argued , because it 's `` narrowly tailored '' and `` fair . '' Without explicitly saying so , he 's basically accusing America 's medical innovators of lying about how the new policy will affect their companies . And implicitly , by extension , he 's suggesting that these Democrats are either gullible or corrupt for believing the lies . Apparently we 're supposed to believe that the crew over at Think Progress has more expertise on the intricacies of healthcare business models than the industry 's actual businesses do . Incidentally , MKH pieced together a useful rundown of just a handful of the tangible consequences of this Obamacare tax over the summer . Some highlights :
( 1 ) An Indiana-based company is severely scaling back expansion plans , likely costing the US economy hundreds of jobs at five Midwestern plants that wo n't exist because of the tax . Cook Medical anticipates the device tax will cost them $ 20 million annually . ( 2 ) It took Massachusetts ' Abiomed three decades to become profitable . The new tax would have wiped out all of its 2012 profits , plunging the company $ 1.4 million into the red . ( 3 ) Medtronic expects an increased tax bill of up to $ 60 million next year , an outcome that would curtail investments and research . ( 4 ) A prosthetics manufacturer in Michigan has announced across-the-board layoffs tied directly to this tax .
But remember , Obamacare 's medical device tax is narrowly targeted and fair , so it 's all good . The above examples must be part of a grand conspiracy of greed , or whatever . Volsky opposes unraveling current policy , but if Senate Democrats eventually succumb to the industry 's fictional grievances , he urges Democrats to find `` new revenues '' to fund the law . Democrats and new revenues ? Should n't be a problem .
|
Last night, I joined CNBC's The Kudlow Report to discuss the recent news that 18 Senate Democrats have signed a letter urging the postponement or repeal of Obamacare's destructive medical device tax. Conservatives have warned for years that the tax would kill jobs and undermine innovation in the field, a conclusion that some Democrats have finally embraced as implementation looms. The Left has recognized this problem all along, of course, but they needed to squeeze as much on-paper revenue as possible into the Obamacare CBO score back in 2010 in order to attract those final few votes from "fiscally conservative" Democrats. Now that Obamacare's on the books, they can systematically abandon their pay-fors -- a process that's well underway. My sparring partner in this discussion was Igor Volsky, a staffer at George Soros' Think Progress. Larry asked him why Democrats will admit that higher taxes kill jobs in some cases, but not others. See if you can locate a concrete answer anywhere in here:
Volsky fascinatingly set up ideological shop several steps to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. That alone is a noteworthy feat. But the point I tried to underscore in the segment was the bizarre certitude he projected that this medical device tax will not stifle innovation or threaten jobs. The industry will emerge unscathed by the tax increase, he argued, because it's "narrowly tailored" and "fair." Without explicitly saying so, he's basically accusing America's medical innovators of lying about how the new policy will affect their companies. And implicitly, by extension, he's suggesting that these Democrats are either gullible or corrupt for believing the lies. Apparently we're supposed to believe that the crew over at Think Progress has more expertise on the intricacies of healthcare business models than the industry's actual businesses do. Incidentally, MKH pieced together a useful rundown of just a handful of the tangible consequences of this Obamacare tax over the summer. Some highlights:
(1) An Indiana-based company is severely scaling back expansion plans, likely costing the US economy hundreds of jobs at five Midwestern plants that won't exist because of the tax. Cook Medical anticipates the device tax will cost them $20 million annually. (2) It took Massachusetts' Abiomed three decades to become profitable. The new tax would have wiped out all of its 2012 profits, plunging the company $1.4 million into the red. (3) Medtronic expects an increased tax bill of up to $60 million next year, an outcome that would curtail investments and research. (4) A prosthetics manufacturer in Michigan has announced across-the-board layoffs tied directly to this tax.
But remember, Obamacare's medical device tax is narrowly targeted and fair, so it's all good. The above examples must be part of a grand conspiracy of greed, or whatever. Volsky opposes unraveling current policy, but if Senate Democrats eventually succumb to the industry's fictional grievances, he urges Democrats to find "new revenues" to fund the law. Democrats and new revenues? Shouldn't be a problem.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
9bVCwgW1VBMl5xzv
|
privacy
|
Newsmax - Opinion
| 22
|
https://www.newsmax.com/andrewnapolitano/fourth-amendment-federal-agents/2020/03/05/id/956998/
|
Time to Repeal the Patriot Act
|
2020-03-05
|
I have been writing for years about the dangers to human freedom that come from government mass surveillance . The United States was born in a defiant reaction to government surveillance . In the decade preceding the signing of the Declaration of Independence , the villains were the Stamp Act and the Writs of Assistance Act .
In 1765 , when the British government was looking for creative ways to tax the colonists , Parliament enacted the Stamp Act . That law required all persons in the colonies to purchase stamps from a British government vendor and to affix them to all documents in one 's possession . These were not stamps as we use today , rather they bore the seal of the British government . The vendor would apply ink to the seal and for a fee — a tax — impress an image of the seal onto documents .
All documents in one 's possession — financial , legal , letters , books , newspapers , pamphlets , even posters destined to be nailed to trees — required the government stamps .
How did the British government , 3,000 miles away , know if one had its stamps on one 's documents ? Answer : The Writs of Assistance Act . A writ of assistance was a general warrant issued by a secret court in London . A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized . It merely authorized the bearer — a civilian or military government official — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found .
The use of writs of assistance ostensibly to search colonial homes for stamps produced an avalanche of opposition that often turned to violence against the stamp vendors . The sheer cost of invading private homes fueled fears that the true purpose of the tax was not to generate revenue — though the king always needed cash — rather , it was to remind the colonists that the king was sovereign and his agents and soldiers could enter colonial homes on a whim .
Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 , but it had caused lasting harm to the king . Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn has estimated that by the late 1760s , one-third of the colonists favored secession from Great Britain , either peaceful or violent .
In 1789 , six years after the American Revolution was won , the 13 colonies that had seceded combined into the United States of America under the Constitution . Two years later , the Bill of Rights was ratified , the Fourth Amendment of which was expressly written to prohibit general warrants — to assure that the new government would not and could not do to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists .
That assurance was manifested in the amendment 's requirements that only judges can issue search warrants , which must be based on probable cause of crime and which must specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized .
The history of the United States is the history of the growth of government and the loss of personal liberty . Thankfully , we eradicated slavery and recognized the equality of all people , irrespective of race or gender . Yet , in times of crisis , we have supinely permitted the federal government to invade our privacy on a scale never approached by the folks who brought the Stamp Act to our ancestors .
After 9/11 , the George W. Bush administration offered the Patriot Act to Congress .
It was crafted in secrecy and enacted in infidelity to the Constitution . Members of the House of Representatives had 15 minutes to read is 300 plus pages and no time for serious floor debate . The one senator who spoke out against it was driven from office .
Section 505 of the Patriot Act permits federal agents to bypass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and to issue their own search warrants . Those agent-written warrants are not based on probable cause of crime but rather on a representation by one agent to another of governmental needs — the same lame standard used by the secret London courts that issued writs of assistance .
Since 2001 , federal agents have issued more than 300,000 of these search warrants — which they call National Security Letters — to custodians of financial records . In 2004 alone , 56,507 agent-written search warrants were issued . Those custodians include financial institutions , telecom providers , computer service providers , supermarkets , credit card issuers , health care insurers and providers , legal service providers , local and state governments , and even the Post Office .
The very concept of one federal agent authorizing another to seize records is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment and repugnant to the American Revolution .
I am writing about this now because a section of the Patriot Act will expire on March 15 , and many congressional liberals and libertarians — even a few conservatives still bruised at the governmental surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016 — have been contemplating structural changes to this pernicious law .
Section 215 — which is about to expire — is as fatal to freedom as is section 505 . It permits designated federal judges to issue general warrants based on the old writs of assistance standard of governmental need . One of those judges signed a search warrant for the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the U.S. — at the time , 115 million of them .
Both 215 and 505 are weapons of mass surveillance and should be repealed . They are instruments of a totalitarian government , not of free people . They defy the Constitution . They presume that our rights are not natural but come from a government that can take them back . Mass surveillance produces a state that knows more about us than we do about it — one that will slowly consume our freedoms in the name of governmental needs . It already has .
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey . He is Fox News ’ senior judicial analyst . Napolitano has been published in The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and numerous other publications . He is the author of the best-seller , `` Lies the Government Told You : Myth , Power , and Deception in American History . '' For more of Judge Napolitano 's reports , Go Here Now .
|
I have been writing for years about the dangers to human freedom that come from government mass surveillance. The United States was born in a defiant reaction to government surveillance. In the decade preceding the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the villains were the Stamp Act and the Writs of Assistance Act.
Today, the villain is the Patriot Act.
Here is the backstory:
In 1765, when the British government was looking for creative ways to tax the colonists, Parliament enacted the Stamp Act. That law required all persons in the colonies to purchase stamps from a British government vendor and to affix them to all documents in one's possession. These were not stamps as we use today, rather they bore the seal of the British government. The vendor would apply ink to the seal and for a fee — a tax — impress an image of the seal onto documents.
All documents in one's possession — financial, legal, letters, books, newspapers, pamphlets, even posters destined to be nailed to trees — required the government stamps.
How did the British government, 3,000 miles away, know if one had its stamps on one's documents? Answer: The Writs of Assistance Act. A writ of assistance was a general warrant issued by a secret court in London. A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. It merely authorized the bearer — a civilian or military government official — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found.
The use of writs of assistance ostensibly to search colonial homes for stamps produced an avalanche of opposition that often turned to violence against the stamp vendors. The sheer cost of invading private homes fueled fears that the true purpose of the tax was not to generate revenue — though the king always needed cash — rather, it was to remind the colonists that the king was sovereign and his agents and soldiers could enter colonial homes on a whim.
Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but it had caused lasting harm to the king. Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn has estimated that by the late 1760s, one-third of the colonists favored secession from Great Britain, either peaceful or violent.
In 1789, six years after the American Revolution was won, the 13 colonies that had seceded combined into the United States of America under the Constitution. Two years later, the Bill of Rights was ratified, the Fourth Amendment of which was expressly written to prohibit general warrants — to assure that the new government would not and could not do to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists.
That assurance was manifested in the amendment's requirements that only judges can issue search warrants, which must be based on probable cause of crime and which must specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized.
The history of the United States is the history of the growth of government and the loss of personal liberty. Thankfully, we eradicated slavery and recognized the equality of all people, irrespective of race or gender. Yet, in times of crisis, we have supinely permitted the federal government to invade our privacy on a scale never approached by the folks who brought the Stamp Act to our ancestors.
After 9/11, the George W. Bush administration offered the Patriot Act to Congress.
It was crafted in secrecy and enacted in infidelity to the Constitution. Members of the House of Representatives had 15 minutes to read is 300 plus pages and no time for serious floor debate. The one senator who spoke out against it was driven from office.
Section 505 of the Patriot Act permits federal agents to bypass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and to issue their own search warrants. Those agent-written warrants are not based on probable cause of crime but rather on a representation by one agent to another of governmental needs — the same lame standard used by the secret London courts that issued writs of assistance.
Since 2001, federal agents have issued more than 300,000 of these search warrants — which they call National Security Letters — to custodians of financial records. In 2004 alone, 56,507 agent-written search warrants were issued. Those custodians include financial institutions, telecom providers, computer service providers, supermarkets, credit card issuers, health care insurers and providers, legal service providers, local and state governments, and even the Post Office.
The very concept of one federal agent authorizing another to seize records is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment and repugnant to the American Revolution.
I am writing about this now because a section of the Patriot Act will expire on March 15, and many congressional liberals and libertarians — even a few conservatives still bruised at the governmental surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016 — have been contemplating structural changes to this pernicious law.
Section 215 — which is about to expire — is as fatal to freedom as is section 505. It permits designated federal judges to issue general warrants based on the old writs of assistance standard of governmental need. One of those judges signed a search warrant for the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the U.S. — at the time, 115 million of them.
Both 215 and 505 are weapons of mass surveillance and should be repealed. They are instruments of a totalitarian government, not of free people. They defy the Constitution. They presume that our rights are not natural but come from a government that can take them back. Mass surveillance produces a state that knows more about us than we do about it — one that will slowly consume our freedoms in the name of governmental needs. It already has.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He is Fox News’ senior judicial analyst. Napolitano has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the best-seller, "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History." For more of Judge Napolitano's reports, Go Here Now.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
F10NYwCzT4IJfYRZ
|
|
healthcare
|
Carrie Lukas
| 22
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84054.html
|
President Obama won, but Obamacare didn't
|
2012-11-20
|
Obama may have won reelection , but Obamacare remains unpopular , author says . Obama won , but Obamacare did n't
During the campaign , President Barack Obama minimized discussion of his first term ’ s most consequential new law : the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , or what ’ s commonly referred to as Obamacare .
That was no accident . Undoubtedly , the campaign knew that Obamacare is , as it always has been , deeply unpopular with the American people . In fact , Obamacare epitomizes the public ’ s greatest concerns about this administration : the massive expansion of government and failure to deliver a new era of post-partisanship to Washington , since the law was jammed through using a party line vote and every available legislative trick . Bringing up health care risked stirring the passions that fueled the tea party ’ s rise and the Democrats ’ defeat in 2010 .
Yet , research conducted by the polling company , inc./WomanTrend for Independent Women ’ s Voice ( IWV ) shows that health care was an important concern for Americans on Election Day . The president was reelected in spite of voters ’ lingering distaste for Obamacare , and the health care issue will remain a critical issue for voters moving forward .
Just a quarter , or 26 percent of those surveyed by the polling company on Election Day supported implementing Obamacare completely . Even less than half ( 48 percent ) of self-identified Democrats want full implementation , suggesting that the health care law remains a liability , even within the president ’ s party .
Forty-three percent of voters surveyed want Congress to either “ just repeal the law ” ( 30 percent ) or move toward repeal , while pursuing other measures - including defunding , amending , and blocking - to prevent its implementation ( 13 percent ) . Another quarter ( 23 percent ) favor amending the law , rather than full repeal .
Jobs and the economy was the hands-down winner ( at 41 percent ) as the issue most often cited by voters asked what issue was most important for determining their vote . But health care was the second most often cited issue ( at nine percent ) , followed by “ government programs like Social Security , Medicare , and Medicaid ” ( eight percent ) , and “ government spending , ” both of which could include concerns about Obamacare .
When asked specifically about the role health care played in determining their vote , two-thirds ( 67 percent ) of voters said it was “ very important ” that the candidates they supported want to “ repeal and then replace ” the new health care law . Only five percent of voters thought this was “ not at all important. ” Indeed , on this measure , 2012 voters echoed 2010 voters in identifying Obamacare as a key symbol of government overreach .
|
Obama may have won reelection, but Obamacare remains unpopular, author says. Obama won, but Obamacare didn't
During the campaign, President Barack Obama minimized discussion of his first term’s most consequential new law: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or what’s commonly referred to as Obamacare.
That was no accident. Undoubtedly, the campaign knew that Obamacare is, as it always has been, deeply unpopular with the American people. In fact, Obamacare epitomizes the public’s greatest concerns about this administration: the massive expansion of government and failure to deliver a new era of post-partisanship to Washington, since the law was jammed through using a party line vote and every available legislative trick. Bringing up health care risked stirring the passions that fueled the tea party’s rise and the Democrats’ defeat in 2010.
Story Continued Below
Yet, research conducted by the polling company, inc./WomanTrend for Independent Women’s Voice (IWV) shows that health care was an important concern for Americans on Election Day. The president was reelected in spite of voters’ lingering distaste for Obamacare, and the health care issue will remain a critical issue for voters moving forward.
Just a quarter, or 26 percent of those surveyed by the polling company on Election Day supported implementing Obamacare completely. Even less than half (48 percent) of self-identified Democrats want full implementation, suggesting that the health care law remains a liability, even within the president’s party.
Forty-three percent of voters surveyed want Congress to either “just repeal the law” (30 percent) or move toward repeal, while pursuing other measures - including defunding, amending, and blocking - to prevent its implementation (13 percent). Another quarter (23 percent) favor amending the law, rather than full repeal.
Jobs and the economy was the hands-down winner (at 41 percent) as the issue most often cited by voters asked what issue was most important for determining their vote. But health care was the second most often cited issue (at nine percent), followed by “government programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid” (eight percent), and “government spending,” both of which could include concerns about Obamacare.
When asked specifically about the role health care played in determining their vote, two-thirds (67 percent) of voters said it was “very important” that the candidates they supported want to “repeal and then replace” the new health care law. Only five percent of voters thought this was “not at all important.” Indeed, on this measure, 2012 voters echoed 2010 voters in identifying Obamacare as a key symbol of government overreach.
This article tagged under: Obamacare
|
www.politico.com
| 1right
|
1v1Hj0VrDO9fifI8
|
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/sarah-palin-endorses-donald-trumps-presidential-bid.html?intcmp=hplnws
|
Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump's presidential bid
|
2016-01-19
|
Former vice-presidential nominee and governor of Alaska Sarah Palin made her first foray into the 2016 presidential race Tuesday by announcing she is endorsing Donald Trump .
`` I am proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America , '' Palin said in a statement from the Trump campaign announcing the endorsement .
She later appeared alongside Trump at a campaign event at Iowa State University in Ames , Iowa
“ You ’ re putting relationships on the line for this country because you ’ re willing to make America great again , ” she said at the rally . “ I am here because like you , I know it ’ s now or never . ”
“ I ’ m in it to win it because we believe in America , ” she added .
Trump told supporters he was “ greatly honored ” to receive Palin ’ s support .
“ She ’ s the woman that from day one I said I needed to get her support , ” he said .
Palin , who became a symbol of the Tea Party movement following the 2008 presidential election , is the highest-profile backer for a Republican contender so far in the race .
In her endorsement speech , Palin praised Trump for bringing up controversial issues to create “ a good , heated primary , ” while taking aim at what she called “ establishment candidates ” in the race .
“ They ’ ve been wearing political correctness kind of like a suicide vest , ” she said .
The endorsement comes less than two weeks ahead of the critical lead-off Iowa caucus , where Trump is locked in a dead heat with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz .
In the statement announcing the endorsement , Trump 's campaign described Palin as a conservative who `` helped launch the careers of several key future leaders of the Republican Party and conservative movement . '' The statement also quoted Cruz as once saying he `` would not be in the United States Senate were it not for Gov . Sarah Palin ... She can pick winners . ''
Campaigning in New Hampshire , Tuesday , Cruz responded to Palin 's endorsement of Trump , saying `` regardless of what Sarah intends to do in 2016 , I will remain a big , big fan of Sarah Palin . ''
Trump 's national political director Michael Glassner previously worked with Palin , who was a virtual newcomer to the national political arena when McCain named her as his running mate .
Palin is expected to join Trump on Wednesday for campaign events in Norwalk , Iowa and Tulsa , Okla .
“ Even with a record number of candidates and internal calls to become more inclusive as a party , Donald Trump and Sarah Palin remain two of the GOP ’ s most influential leaders , '' Mark Paustenbach , Democratic National Committee Press secretary , said in a statement responding to the endorsement .
`` Their divisive rhetoric is now peddled by everyone from Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio . Americans deserve better than what Trump and Palin have to offer , but it seems like the other Republican candidates would rather follow in their footsteps , ” the statement continued .
Palin 's endorsement was not the only one Trump received Tuesday . While campaigning at Iowa 's John Wayne Birthplace Museum , he received an endorsement from the western film actor ’ s daughter , Aissa Wayne .
Wayne said the country needs a strong and courageous leader like her father , and that he would be offering his endorsement if he were still alive .
Trump said he was a big fan of Wayne and that the actor represented strength and power — which , he said , the American people are looking for .
|
Former vice-presidential nominee and governor of Alaska Sarah Palin made her first foray into the 2016 presidential race Tuesday by announcing she is endorsing Donald Trump.
"I am proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America," Palin said in a statement from the Trump campaign announcing the endorsement.
She later appeared alongside Trump at a campaign event at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa
“You’re putting relationships on the line for this country because you’re willing to make America great again,” she said at the rally. “I am here because like you, I know it’s now or never.”
“I’m in it to win it because we believe in America,” she added.
Trump told supporters he was “greatly honored” to receive Palin’s support.
“She’s the woman that from day one I said I needed to get her support,” he said.
Palin, who became a symbol of the Tea Party movement following the 2008 presidential election, is the highest-profile backer for a Republican contender so far in the race.
In her endorsement speech, Palin praised Trump for bringing up controversial issues to create “a good, heated primary,” while taking aim at what she called “establishment candidates” in the race.
“They’ve been wearing political correctness kind of like a suicide vest,” she said.
The endorsement comes less than two weeks ahead of the critical lead-off Iowa caucus, where Trump is locked in a dead heat with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
In the statement announcing the endorsement, Trump's campaign described Palin as a conservative who "helped launch the careers of several key future leaders of the Republican Party and conservative movement." The statement also quoted Cruz as once saying he "would not be in the United States Senate were it not for Gov. Sarah Palin...She can pick winners."
Campaigning in New Hampshire, Tuesday, Cruz responded to Palin's endorsement of Trump, saying "regardless of what Sarah intends to do in 2016, I will remain a big, big fan of Sarah Palin."
Trump's national political director Michael Glassner previously worked with Palin, who was a virtual newcomer to the national political arena when McCain named her as his running mate.
Palin is expected to join Trump on Wednesday for campaign events in Norwalk, Iowa and Tulsa, Okla.
“Even with a record number of candidates and internal calls to become more inclusive as a party, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin remain two of the GOP’s most influential leaders," Mark Paustenbach, Democratic National Committee Press secretary, said in a statement responding to the endorsement.
"Their divisive rhetoric is now peddled by everyone from Ted Cruz to Marco Rubio. Americans deserve better than what Trump and Palin have to offer, but it seems like the other Republican candidates would rather follow in their footsteps,” the statement continued.
Palin's endorsement was not the only one Trump received Tuesday. While campaigning at Iowa's John Wayne Birthplace Museum, he received an endorsement from the western film actor’s daughter, Aissa Wayne.
Wayne said the country needs a strong and courageous leader like her father, and that he would be offering his endorsement if he were still alive.
Trump said he was a big fan of Wayne and that the actor represented strength and power — which, he said, the American people are looking for.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
AmdZfcGrqrCIe6fZ
|
|
healthcare
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/freedom-caucus-senate-health-care-bill-239919
|
Freedom Caucus holds fire on Senate Obamacare repeal bill
|
2017-06-25
|
Kyle Cheney, Rachael Bade, Rachana Pradhan, Adam Cancryn, Burgess Everett, Jennifer Haberkorn
|
The most hard-line conservatives in the House are taking an unusually cautious approach to the Senate 's Obamacare replacement , promising to keep an open mind about whatever their colleagues across the Capitol send back .
It ’ s a change in strategy for the House Freedom Caucus .
When House leaders first released a health care bill in February , for instance , group members took to television talk shows to pan the plan as “ Obamacare lite , ” furious that it did n't , in their eyes , do enough to unravel the 2010 health care law .
They also threatened to withhold their support until changes were made , and later won concessions .
For now , those hardball tactics have disappeared . As the Senate looks to pass its own health care legislation this week , those same House conservatives are taking a more measured approach — even as several conservatives in the Senate are currently balking at the bill .
`` I would like it to be better , but if this is the best we can do across the whole conference and the whole Congress , I have to respect that , '' said Rep. Scott Perry ( R-Pa. ) , a Freedom Caucus member .
Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows ( R-N.C. ) said last week that he — and the majority of the group — would likely back the Senate measure if it includes a few changes offered by conservative ally Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) . And he 's signaled in recent weeks a willingness to bend on other Freedom Caucus priorities , including state waivers for Obamacare regulations that were essential to winning over the hard-liners ’ support in the House just a few weeks ago .
As senators began negotiating , the Freedom Caucus refrained from taking formal positions on ideas floating around the upper chamber that many in their ranks would have once rushed to oppose . And Freedom Caucus vice chair Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio ) on Thursday said it ’ s unlikely that they ’ ll weigh in on the plan soon .
It 's a notable change in tone from the typically rigid negotiating tactics of the Freedom Caucus . And it ’ s all aimed squarely at allowing their Senate colleagues breathing room to conduct difficult negotiations .
`` I 'm optimistic that in the effort to find 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes [ in the House ] , that some of those compromises are being made , '' Meadows told reporters Thursday , hours after the Senate released its initial health care plan .
███ Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time .
Since the House passed its bill in May , the Freedom Caucus has kept a low profile , freeing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find consensus without conservative House members blasting his every move .
In an interview late last month , Meadows even joked that his involvement would probably just tank the Senate process : “ Leader McConnell doesn ’ t need Mark Meadows to tell how to get consensus in the Senate . And quite frankly , the more that Mark Meadows tries to help him get consensus , the more difficult it is for him to get consensus , and I ’ m very self-aware of that . ”
It 's more than just simple courtesy . McConnell is working in a highly polarized Senate to cobble together 50 votes for a health care package . With no Democrats expected to support the measure , he can afford to lose only two of the chamber 's 52 Republicans .
Already , four conservative senators — Cruz , Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) , Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) and Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) — have said they ca n't support the bill without amendments to dismantle more of Obamacare . A fifth senator , Dean Heller ( R-Nev. ) , is pulling in the opposite direction , warning that the initial bill cuts too deeply into Medicaid and Obamacare 's protections for him to support it .
Meadows and the Freedom Caucus are still hoping to assert themselves before the final version of the bill is passed , but they 're doing it in uncharacteristically subtle ways .
The group 's leaders , including Meadows , Jordan and Raúl Labrador ( R-Idaho ) , have kept in touch with conservative senators , especially Lee , as well as Johnson .
Meadows has also quietly been working with mainstream Senate Republicans to ward off changes that might erode conservative support — and to signal just how far his allies might be willing to go in accepting more moderate tweaks to the bill .
For example , he 's spoken to Sen. John Thune ( R-S.D . ) about Thune ’ s plan to increase tax credits for poorer individuals while cutting them on the wealthy . The Freedom Caucus has advocated against proposals for a refundable tax credit , but Meadows signaled in May that he 's open to Thune ’ s proposal .
Meadows also indicated several weeks ago that the Senate preference for a multiyear phase-out of Obamacare 's Medicaid expansion wo n't necessarily be a deal-breaker , even though conservatives have grumbled that the House 's shorter window was already too generous . And Meadows even indicated that he could possibly back the Senate bill if it weakens a conservative-favored provision that the House included : allowing states to waive core Obamacare coverage standards .
“ If the waivers come out , there will be a number of other options that are put in their place that could potentially be just as meaningful in driving down premiums , ” he said .
There are also indications the Freedom Caucus ' muted approach could change . One conservative source said the group 's current stance is n't necessarily indicative of its posture this week , as negotiations in the Senate continue .
Perhaps the most crucial bellwether for conservative support the fate of Cruz 's proposed amendments . The Texas firebrand has suggested allowing consumers to use their Obamacare tax credits to purchase insurance products that fall short of the health care law 's coverage standards . That `` consumer choice '' amendment , along with a few other conservative additions , would virtually guarantee a majority of the Freedom Caucus ' support , Meadows said Thursday .
Another flash point will come this week , when the Congressional Budget Office indicates the economic and coverage impact that the Senate bill is likely to have . CBO 's analysis suggested that the House bill would result in 23 million fewer people with health coverage in the next decade , a metric that spooked some moderate senators , who deemed the House measure a nonstarter .
Conservatives will be looking a different CBO number : how the Senate bill affects premium increases , the most important thing to them .
“ If CBO says this will continue to bring down premiums , and it protects pro-life and Planned Parenthood defunding and all , I ’ m open to it , ” Jordan said of the Senate proposal Thursday .
In the meantime , the drumbeat of news that insurers are pulling out of Obamacare 's individual market exchanges has provided fuel for Republicans to push ahead with their plans . And it appears to be making it easier for some conservatives to swallow compromises .
`` Is the bill that the Senate kicked out or the House bill my dream bill ? No , it is not , '' Perry said . `` However , the context is , what 's happening now is failing , and we have an obligation to do what we can to fix it as best we can . ''
|
The most hard-line conservatives in the House are taking an unusually cautious approach to the Senate's Obamacare replacement, promising to keep an open mind about whatever their colleagues across the Capitol send back.
It’s a change in strategy for the House Freedom Caucus.
Story Continued Below
When House leaders first released a health care bill in February, for instance, group members took to television talk shows to pan the plan as “Obamacare lite,” furious that it didn't, in their eyes, do enough to unravel the 2010 health care law.
They also threatened to withhold their support until changes were made, and later won concessions.
For now, those hardball tactics have disappeared. As the Senate looks to pass its own health care legislation this week, those same House conservatives are taking a more measured approach — even as several conservatives in the Senate are currently balking at the bill.
"I would like it to be better, but if this is the best we can do across the whole conference and the whole Congress, I have to respect that," said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a Freedom Caucus member.
Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said last week that he — and the majority of the group — would likely back the Senate measure if it includes a few changes offered by conservative ally Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). And he's signaled in recent weeks a willingness to bend on other Freedom Caucus priorities, including state waivers for Obamacare regulations that were essential to winning over the hard-liners’ support in the House just a few weeks ago.
As senators began negotiating, the Freedom Caucus refrained from taking formal positions on ideas floating around the upper chamber that many in their ranks would have once rushed to oppose. And Freedom Caucus vice chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday said it’s unlikely that they’ll weigh in on the plan soon.
It's a notable change in tone from the typically rigid negotiating tactics of the Freedom Caucus. And it’s all aimed squarely at allowing their Senate colleagues breathing room to conduct difficult negotiations.
"I'm optimistic that in the effort to find 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes [in the House], that some of those compromises are being made," Meadows told reporters Thursday, hours after the Senate released its initial health care plan.
POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Since the House passed its bill in May, the Freedom Caucus has kept a low profile, freeing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to find consensus without conservative House members blasting his every move.
In an interview late last month, Meadows even joked that his involvement would probably just tank the Senate process: “Leader McConnell doesn’t need Mark Meadows to tell how to get consensus in the Senate. And quite frankly, the more that Mark Meadows tries to help him get consensus, the more difficult it is for him to get consensus, and I’m very self-aware of that.”
It's more than just simple courtesy. McConnell is working in a highly polarized Senate to cobble together 50 votes for a health care package. With no Democrats expected to support the measure, he can afford to lose only two of the chamber's 52 Republicans.
Already, four conservative senators — Cruz, Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) — have said they can't support the bill without amendments to dismantle more of Obamacare. A fifth senator, Dean Heller (R-Nev.), is pulling in the opposite direction, warning that the initial bill cuts too deeply into Medicaid and Obamacare's protections for him to support it.
Meadows and the Freedom Caucus are still hoping to assert themselves before the final version of the bill is passed, but they're doing it in uncharacteristically subtle ways.
The group's leaders, including Meadows, Jordan and Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), have kept in touch with conservative senators, especially Lee, as well as Johnson.
Meadows has also quietly been working with mainstream Senate Republicans to ward off changes that might erode conservative support — and to signal just how far his allies might be willing to go in accepting more moderate tweaks to the bill.
For example, he's spoken to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) about Thune’s plan to increase tax credits for poorer individuals while cutting them on the wealthy. The Freedom Caucus has advocated against proposals for a refundable tax credit, but Meadows signaled in May that he's open to Thune’s proposal.
Meadows also indicated several weeks ago that the Senate preference for a multiyear phase-out of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion won't necessarily be a deal-breaker, even though conservatives have grumbled that the House's shorter window was already too generous. And Meadows even indicated that he could possibly back the Senate bill if it weakens a conservative-favored provision that the House included: allowing states to waive core Obamacare coverage standards.
“If the waivers come out, there will be a number of other options that are put in their place that could potentially be just as meaningful in driving down premiums,” he said.
There are also indications the Freedom Caucus' muted approach could change. One conservative source said the group's current stance isn't necessarily indicative of its posture this week, as negotiations in the Senate continue.
Perhaps the most crucial bellwether for conservative support the fate of Cruz's proposed amendments. The Texas firebrand has suggested allowing consumers to use their Obamacare tax credits to purchase insurance products that fall short of the health care law's coverage standards. That "consumer choice" amendment, along with a few other conservative additions, would virtually guarantee a majority of the Freedom Caucus' support, Meadows said Thursday.
Another flash point will come this week, when the Congressional Budget Office indicates the economic and coverage impact that the Senate bill is likely to have. CBO's analysis suggested that the House bill would result in 23 million fewer people with health coverage in the next decade, a metric that spooked some moderate senators, who deemed the House measure a nonstarter.
Conservatives will be looking a different CBO number: how the Senate bill affects premium increases, the most important thing to them.
“If CBO says this will continue to bring down premiums, and it protects pro-life and Planned Parenthood defunding and all, I’m open to it,” Jordan said of the Senate proposal Thursday.
In the meantime, the drumbeat of news that insurers are pulling out of Obamacare's individual market exchanges has provided fuel for Republicans to push ahead with their plans. And it appears to be making it easier for some conservatives to swallow compromises.
"Is the bill that the Senate kicked out or the House bill my dream bill? No, it is not," Perry said. "However, the context is, what's happening now is failing, and we have an obligation to do what we can to fix it as best we can."
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
GOQsmN1JCkksMxq8
|
fiscal_cliff
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obamas-debt-problem-85708.html?hp=f1
|
Obama's debt problem
|
2013-01-03
|
Glenn Thrush, Reid J. Epstein
|
Obama can no longer focus on his predecessor 's role in digging the hole . Obama 's debt problem
President Barack Obama won ’ t be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight .
The staggering national debt — up about 60 percent from the $ 10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama ’ s record , even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush .
Obama has long emphasized Bush ’ s role in digging the immense hole . But he owns it now , and it ’ s a significant political liability as he girds for a fast-approaching brawl with the GOP over how to deal with converging deadlines of a new debt ceiling fight and the need to come up with $ 1 trillion in deficit reduction mandated by the so-called “ sequester . ”
“ The numbers — at some point it ’ s got to catch up or else we ’ re all going to die , ” said Chris Chocola , head of the anti-tax Club for Growth , which opposed the cliff deal . “ We have serious problems that are going unaddressed and we ’ re moving in the wrong direction . ”
Obama was able to splinter his deeply divided Republican opponents over the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy . But a similar fate might await the president and his Democratic allies if he brokers a deal with the GOP that requires massive spending and entitlement cuts .
During the cliff talks , Obama was purposely opaque about what cuts he ’ d ultimately accept , saying only that Republican resistance to a one-shot grand bargain meant he needed to make a deal in pieces — taxes first , spending second .
That tactic delayed but didn ’ t eliminate a looming day of reckoning on spending and entitlements that will come within 60 days thanks to the convergence of the debt ceiling deadline and the new deadline for keeping automatic cuts from kicking in .
“ Republicans — and some Democrats — want to curtail Social Security , veterans benefits , Medicare and Medicaid — that ’ s not a secret — and some of us are going to be fighting to say no , ” said Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , author of a letter sent by 29 Senate Democrats in September demanding Obama back off chained CPI , which would reduce Social Security increases indexed to inflation .
“ It is absolutely imperative the president and Democratic leadership stay strong on this issue . If they do , we will win , ” added Sanders , who wants the president to aggressively push for tax hikes and loophole elimination on corporations .
Former Clinton administration official Alice Rivlin , a member of Obama ’ s defunct deficit commission , says Obama “ understands the [ deficit-reduction ] issue ” but “ he ’ s got to deal with his own left wing , which is not enthusiastic about doing it . The real problem … is that Social Security has become kind of [ a ] no-no ” to liberals .
In a video message to his 2012 campaign supporters released Wednesday , Obama offered few specifics on how he ’ d approach the coming fight . He reiterated his call for a “ balanced ” approach to deficit reduction despite a cliff deal that contains only a few billion in cuts and may add hundreds of billions to the debt in coming decades , according to the Congressional Budget Office .
|
Obama can no longer focus on his predecessor's role in digging the hole. Obama's debt problem
President Barack Obama won’t be able to enjoy much of a victory lap from his win over congressional Republicans on the fiscal cliff fight.
There are about 16.4 trillion reasons why.
Story Continued Below
The staggering national debt — up about 60 percent from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama’s record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush.
( Also on POLITICO: Why 85 House Republicans said ‘yes’ to taxes)
Obama has long emphasized Bush’s role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now, and it’s a significant political liability as he girds for a fast-approaching brawl with the GOP over how to deal with converging deadlines of a new debt ceiling fight and the need to come up with $1 trillion in deficit reduction mandated by the so-called “sequester.”
“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth, which opposed the cliff deal. “We have serious problems that are going unaddressed and we’re moving in the wrong direction.”
Obama was able to splinter his deeply divided Republican opponents over the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy. But a similar fate might await the president and his Democratic allies if he brokers a deal with the GOP that requires massive spending and entitlement cuts.
( Also on POLITICO: Toomey: No revenue in debt deal)
During the cliff talks, Obama was purposely opaque about what cuts he’d ultimately accept, saying only that Republican resistance to a one-shot grand bargain meant he needed to make a deal in pieces — taxes first, spending second.
That tactic delayed but didn’t eliminate a looming day of reckoning on spending and entitlements that will come within 60 days thanks to the convergence of the debt ceiling deadline and the new deadline for keeping automatic cuts from kicking in.
“Republicans — and some Democrats — want to curtail Social Security, veterans benefits, Medicare and Medicaid — that’s not a secret — and some of us are going to be fighting to say no,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), author of a letter sent by 29 Senate Democrats in September demanding Obama back off chained CPI, which would reduce Social Security increases indexed to inflation.
“It is absolutely imperative the president and Democratic leadership stay strong on this issue. If they do, we will win,” added Sanders, who wants the president to aggressively push for tax hikes and loophole elimination on corporations.
( Also on POLITICO: Enjoy the fiscal cliff debate? Just wait for the debt ceiling)
Former Clinton administration official Alice Rivlin, a member of Obama’s defunct deficit commission, says Obama “understands the [deficit-reduction] issue” but “he’s got to deal with his own left wing, which is not enthusiastic about doing it. The real problem … is that Social Security has become kind of [a] no-no” to liberals.
In a video message to his 2012 campaign supporters released Wednesday, Obama offered few specifics on how he’d approach the coming fight. He reiterated his call for a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction despite a cliff deal that contains only a few billion in cuts and may add hundreds of billions to the debt in coming decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
uqcCrmxErXWlQOBp
|
politics
|
Rich Lowry
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451991/alabama-senate-race-donald-trump-republicans-identity-crisis
|
OPINION: The GOP Identity Crisis
|
2017-09-28
|
John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Robert Verbruggen, Andrew C. Mccarthy, Tobias Hoonhout, Carrie Severino
|
The GOP has no idea how to integrate Trump ’ s populism into the traditional Republican agenda .
The Republican party can ’ t pass Obamacare repeal , but it can nominate Roy Moore .
This is the state of the GOP in a nutshell . It is a party locked in mortal combat between an establishment that is ineffectual and unimaginative and a populist wing that is ineffectual and inflamed .
Donald Trump ’ s ascendance created an identity crisis in the party that hasn ’ t been resolved , and the hope that it could be papered over with legislative accomplishments and signing ceremonies has come a cropper .
It ’ d be hard to design a primary fight more characteristic of the GOP ’ s current state than Luther Strange vs. Roy Moore .
There is nothing distinctive about Strange except his height , his name , and the dubious circumstances of his appointment . He was the state attorney general investigating disgraced Alabama Gov . Robert Bentley , who ended up appointing him to the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions not long before Bentley resigned because of a sex scandal .
Since Strange would be a thoroughly adequate time-server , the establishment piled in behind him like it was trying to save Arthur Vandenberg .
As for Moore , the twice-former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is to the judiciary what Joe Arpaio is to sheriffdom — neither was particularly good at their precise duties , but both had a knack for the theatrical , polarizing cause .
It isn ’ t shocking that Moore prevailed . Sharron Angle , Christine O ’ Donnell , and Richard Mourdock all won primaries in 2010-2012 in less conservative states based on anti-establishment energy , although under a tea party/constitutionalist banner rather than a Trumpist/populist one .
It is an irony that in a race featuring a candidate as Trumpian as they come , Trump was on the other side . The president presumably won ’ t let that happen again .
The biggest loser in Alabama was Mitch McConnell . He is certainly the best Republican Senate leader in a generation . The conservative grass roots , though , has never been fond of Senate leaders who inevitably reflect the caution and process-obsession of the institution . The failure of Obamacare repeal has made him increasingly radioactive with Republicans nationally .
This sentiment is unlikely to be expressed in ways that make it easier to get anything done , as Moore ’ s victory proves . Flame-throwing and ill-informed , the presumptive next senator from Alabama is unlikely to make legislating his priority .
The result in Alabama will render Trump even more up for grabs . Is he going to simply move on and work with the congressional leadership on the next big priority , tax reform ? Is he going to exercise the “ Chuck and Nancy ” option ? Is he going to double down on his base ? All of the above ? Does he know ?
Trump ’ s problem isn ’ t that he threw in with the establishment , as his most fervent supporters believe ; it is that he threw in with an establishment that had no idea how to process his victory and integrate populism into the traditional Republican agenda .
One of the many causes of the failure of Obamacare repeal is that Republicans didn ’ t emphasize the economic interests of the working-class voters who propelled Trump to victory . Out of the gate , tax reform looks to have a similar problem — the Trumpist element is supposed to be a middle-class tax cut , but it ’ s not obvious that it delivers one .
This gets to a fundamental failing of the populists . The president and his backers haven ’ t thought through what a workable populist platform is besides inveighing against internal party enemies , igniting cable TV-friendly controversies and over-investing in symbolic measures like the wall .
If the populists don ’ t like the results , they should take their own political project more seriously , if they are capable of it .
A success on taxes would provide some respite from the party ’ s internal dissension , yet the medium-term forecast has to be for more recrimination than governing . Whatever the core competency of the national Republican party is at the moment , it certainly isn ’ t forging coherence or creating legislative achievements .
|
Roy Moore and wife Kayla on election night in Montgomery, Ala., September 26, 2017. (Reuters photo: Marvin Gentry)
The GOP has no idea how to integrate Trump’s populism into the traditional Republican agenda.
The Republican party can’t pass Obamacare repeal, but it can nominate Roy Moore.
This is the state of the GOP in a nutshell. It is a party locked in mortal combat between an establishment that is ineffectual and unimaginative and a populist wing that is ineffectual and inflamed.
Donald Trump’s ascendance created an identity crisis in the party that hasn’t been resolved, and the hope that it could be papered over with legislative accomplishments and signing ceremonies has come a cropper.
Advertisement
Advertisement
It’d be hard to design a primary fight more characteristic of the GOP’s current state than Luther Strange vs. Roy Moore.
There is nothing distinctive about Strange except his height, his name, and the dubious circumstances of his appointment. He was the state attorney general investigating disgraced Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who ended up appointing him to the Senate seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions not long before Bentley resigned because of a sex scandal.
Advertisement
Since Strange would be a thoroughly adequate time-server, the establishment piled in behind him like it was trying to save Arthur Vandenberg.
As for Moore, the twice-former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is to the judiciary what Joe Arpaio is to sheriffdom — neither was particularly good at their precise duties, but both had a knack for the theatrical, polarizing cause.
It isn’t shocking that Moore prevailed. Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Richard Mourdock all won primaries in 2010-2012 in less conservative states based on anti-establishment energy, although under a tea party/constitutionalist banner rather than a Trumpist/populist one.
Advertisement
It is an irony that in a race featuring a candidate as Trumpian as they come, Trump was on the other side. The president presumably won’t let that happen again.
Advertisement
The biggest loser in Alabama was Mitch McConnell. He is certainly the best Republican Senate leader in a generation. The conservative grass roots, though, has never been fond of Senate leaders who inevitably reflect the caution and process-obsession of the institution. The failure of Obamacare repeal has made him increasingly radioactive with Republicans nationally.
This sentiment is unlikely to be expressed in ways that make it easier to get anything done, as Moore’s victory proves. Flame-throwing and ill-informed, the presumptive next senator from Alabama is unlikely to make legislating his priority.
The result in Alabama will render Trump even more up for grabs. Is he going to simply move on and work with the congressional leadership on the next big priority, tax reform? Is he going to exercise the “Chuck and Nancy” option? Is he going to double down on his base? All of the above? Does he know?
Advertisement
Trump’s problem isn’t that he threw in with the establishment, as his most fervent supporters believe; it is that he threw in with an establishment that had no idea how to process his victory and integrate populism into the traditional Republican agenda.
One of the many causes of the failure of Obamacare repeal is that Republicans didn’t emphasize the economic interests of the working-class voters who propelled Trump to victory. Out of the gate, tax reform looks to have a similar problem — the Trumpist element is supposed to be a middle-class tax cut, but it’s not obvious that it delivers one.
This gets to a fundamental failing of the populists. The president and his backers haven’t thought through what a workable populist platform is besides inveighing against internal party enemies, igniting cable TV-friendly controversies and over-investing in symbolic measures like the wall.
Advertisement
If the populists don’t like the results, they should take their own political project more seriously, if they are capable of it.
A success on taxes would provide some respite from the party’s internal dissension, yet the medium-term forecast has to be for more recrimination than governing. Whatever the core competency of the national Republican party is at the moment, it certainly isn’t forging coherence or creating legislative achievements.
READ MORE:
Has Steve Bannon Taken Over the GOP?
The GOP has No One Left to Lie To
Is Donald Trump Shrinking the GOP?
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: [email protected]. © 2017 King Features Syndicate
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
5QYomOHG2s2r95g2
|
culture
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/20/charles-manson-dead-cult-leader-sharon-tate
|
Charles Manson, cult leader and convicted murderer, dies aged 83
|
2017-11-20
|
Mazin Sidahmed, Edward Helmore
|
Manson and his ‘ family ’ became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969
Charles Manson , the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie , died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison .
The 83-year-old , who died of natural causes , had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran , California , for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate , the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski , and six others .
While his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring , Michele Hanisee , president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County , said : “ Today , Manson ’ s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death . ”
She went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi , the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars , who had said : “ Manson was an evil , sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values . ”
As the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family , Manson had instructed his followers , made up mostly of disaffected young women , to carry out the killings . The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge , and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love . Manson presented himself as a demonic force : at trial , he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead .
The five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972 .
Manson and three female followers , Susan Atkins , Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten , were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder . Another defendant , Charles “ Tex ” Watson , was convicted later .
The second summer of Charles Manson : why the cult murders still grip us Read more
Tate , the wife of Polanski , who was out of the country the night of her murder , was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson ’ s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles . They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors , Jay Sebring , Voytek Frykowski , coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent . The word “ Pig ” was written in blood on the front door . Tate , who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls , was stabbed 16 times , and an “ X ” was carved into her stomach .
The next night , his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca .
Although the followers committed the murders , Manson had ordered them . At the LaBianca home , he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings .
After his death on Sunday night , Tate ’ s sister Debra told NBC : “ One could say I ’ ve forgiven them , which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of . It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days . ”
In the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection , Polanski wrote : “ Even after so many years , I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all . ”
Prosecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter , and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings .
Before the murders , Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison , and he later became a singer-songwriter . He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson . The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love , which Manson had written .
He became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher ( the son of Doris Day ) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie : The Love and Terror Cult ; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense .
Manson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco . He took a handful of followers , some of whom would later be convicted in the killings , to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune .
Van Houten , the youngest member of the original Manson Family , later said that Manson had used sex , LSD , Bible readings , repeated playing of the Beatles ’ White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her .
Van Houten , 68 , was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca . She was recommended for parole in September but California ’ s governor , Jerry Brown , has yet to approve the recommendation . He rejected an earlier decision , concluding that Van Houten posed “ an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison ” .
In June , officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel , the state ’ s longest-serving female prisoner , after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person . She has been denied parole multiple times in the past .
Manson ’ s lawyer , Irving Kanarek , claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with ███ . “ No question he was legally innocent . And , more than that , he was actually innocent , ” Kanarek said , arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case .
At a 2012 parole hearing , which was denied , Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists : “ I ’ m special . I ’ m not like the average inmate . I have spent my life in prison . I have put five people in the grave . I am a very dangerous man . ”
According to the LA Times , Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison , including assault , repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff . Officials said he has spat in guards ’ faces , started fights , tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze .
In 2014 , Manson and Afton Elaine Burton , a 26-year-old Manson devotee , were granted a marriage license , but it expired before the two could marry . She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years . Manson had been denied parole 12 times , with his next hearing set for 2027 .
His death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes . Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot , and an adaptation of Emma Cline ’ s bestselling 2016 novel , The Girls , is on the way .
Writer Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian , the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial , and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album ( 1979 ) .
“ Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginable… ” Didion wrote . “ A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community . The jitters were setting in . I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full .
Reached at home in Manhattan , Didion , 82 , told ███ : “ Manson ’ s legacy was never obvious to me . It wasn ’ t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian , and it isn ’ t obvious to me now . But I do find it easy to put him from my mind . ”
In 2008 , California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided . The search turned up no evidence of human remains .
Manson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures . “ I am crime , ” he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s .
|
Manson and his ‘family’ became notorious for the murder of Sharon Tate and six others during the summer of 1969
Charles Manson, the pseudo-satanic sociopath behind a string of killings that shocked California out of its late 1960s cultural reverie, died on Sunday after almost a half century in prison.
The 83-year-old, who died of natural causes, had been serving multiple life sentences in state prison in Corcoran, California, for orchestrating the violence in 1969 that claimed the lives of Sharon Tate, the heavily pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski, and six others.
While his death prompted the inevitable and renewed questioning around why his grim notoriety had been so enduring, Michele Hanisee, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, said: “Today, Manson’s victims are the ones who should be remembered and mourned on the occasion of his death.”
She went on to quote the late Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor who put Manson behind bars, who had said: “Manson was an evil, sophisticated conman with twisted and warped moral values.”
Quick guide A quick guide to Charles Manson Show Hide Who was Charles Manson? Charles Manson was one of the most notorious murderers of the 20th century. He led a cult known as the Manson Family in California, most of whom were disaffected young women. Some became killers under his messianic influence. Murder from afar Despite spending more than 40 years in prison for the murders of seven people in 1969, Manson did not carry out the killings. Instead he convinced members of his ‘family’ to murder. One of their victims was the actor Sharon Tate, who was married to Roman Polanski and was more than eight months' pregnant when she was killed. Celebrity friends By the time of his trial in 1971, Manson had spent half of his life in correctional institutions for various crimes. He became a singer-songwriter before the Tate murders and got a break in the music industry when he met Beach Boys' Dennis Wilson, who let him crash at his home. Helter Skelter It is believed that Manson intended using the murders to incite an apocalyptic race war he called Helter Skelter, taking the name from the Beatles song. Notorious by name The killings and the seven-month trial that followed were the subjects of fevered news coverage in the US. Manson occupied a dark, persistent place in American culture, inspiring music, T-shirts and half the stage name of musician Marilyn Manson. Photograph: Los Angeles Times
As the leader of a cult known as the Manson Family, Manson had instructed his followers, made up mostly of disaffected young women, to carry out the killings. The brutality of the murders set Los Angeles on edge, and ended the sunny optimism of the 60s counterculture and its aspirations to a new society built on peace and love. Manson presented himself as a demonic force: at trial, he carved a Nazi swastika into his forehead.
The five received the death penalty but were spared when capital punishment was temporarily abolished following a ruling by the supreme court in 1972.
Manson and three female followers, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten, were convicted of murder and conspiracy to murder. Another defendant, Charles “Tex” Watson, was convicted later.
The second summer of Charles Manson: why the cult murders still grip us Read more
Tate, the wife of Polanski, who was out of the country the night of her murder, was eight and a half months pregnant when Manson’s followers broke into her home in Los Angeles. They stabbed and shot Tate and her visitors, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski, coffee heiress Abigail Folger and Steven Parent. The word “Pig” was written in blood on the front door. Tate, who had starred in The Valley of the Dolls, was stabbed 16 times, and an “X” was carved into her stomach.
The next night, his followers murdered couple Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.
Although the followers committed the murders, Manson had ordered them. At the LaBianca home, he tied up the couple before leaving others to carry out the killings.
After his death on Sunday night, Tate’s sister Debra told NBC: “One could say I’ve forgiven them, which is quite different than forgetting what they are capable of. It is for this reason I fight so hard to make sure that each of these individuals stays in prison until the end of their natural days.”
In the 2004 book Sharon Tate Recollection, Polanski wrote: “Even after so many years, I find myself unable to watch a spectacular sunset or visit a lovely old house or experience visual pleasure of any kind without instinctively telling myself how much she would have loved it all.”
Prosecutors at the time said Manson and his cult were trying to spark a race war that he believed was foretold in the Beatles song Helter Skelter, and hoped the Black Panthers would be blamed for the killings.
Before the murders, Manson spent most of his teens and 20s in and out of prison, and he later became a singer-songwriter. He got a break in the music industry when he met the Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson. The group later recorded Never Learn Not to Love, which Manson had written.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Manson in a 2017 California department of corrections photo. Photograph: Reuters
He became friends with the Byrds producer Terry Melcher (the son of Doris Day) and even recorded 13 folksy songs for an album that eventually was titled Lie: The Love and Terror Cult; it was released in March 1970 to help pay for his defense.
Manson had established himself as a would-be cult leader in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. He took a handful of followers, some of whom would later be convicted in the killings, to the old Spahn Movie Ranch north of LA and turned it into a hedonistic commune.
Van Houten, the youngest member of the original Manson Family, later said that Manson had used sex, LSD, Bible readings, repeated playing of the Beatles’ White Album and rambling lectures about triggering a revolution to brainwash her.
Van Houten, 68, was convicted of the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. She was recommended for parole in September but California’s governor, Jerry Brown, has yet to approve the recommendation. He rejected an earlier decision, concluding that Van Houten posed “an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison”.
In June, officials denied a parole request by Krenwinkel, the state’s longest-serving female prisoner, after her attorney said she had been abused by Manson or another person. She has been denied parole multiple times in the past.
Manson’s lawyer, Irving Kanarek, claimed his client was innocent during a 2014 interview with the Guardian. “No question he was legally innocent. And, more than that, he was actually innocent,” Kanarek said, arguing that there was no evidence connecting him to the case.
At a 2012 parole hearing, which was denied, Manson was quoted as having said to one of his prison psychologists: “I’m special. I’m not like the average inmate. I have spent my life in prison. I have put five people in the grave. I am a very dangerous man.”
Charles Manson – a life in pictures Read more
According to the LA Times, Manson committed hundreds of rules violations while being held at the Corcoran state prison, including assault, repeated possession of a weapon and threatening staff. Officials said he has spat in guards’ faces, started fights, tried to cause a flood and set his mattress ablaze.
In 2014, Manson and Afton Elaine Burton, a 26-year-old Manson devotee, were granted a marriage license, but it expired before the two could marry. She had faithfully visited him in prison for seven years. Manson had been denied parole 12 times, with his next hearing set for 2027.
His death is unlikely to end interest in his crimes. Quentin Tarantino is believed to be preparing a film that uses the murders as a backdrop for its main plot, and an adaptation of Emma Cline’s bestselling 2016 novel, The Girls, is on the way.
Writer Joan Didion interviewed Linda Kasabian, the Manson family member who acted as a lookout in the Tate and LaBianca killings and later gave evidence at the trial, and described the atmosphere in Hollywood in an essay from her collection The White Album (1979).
“Everything was unmentionable but nothing was unimaginable…” Didion wrote. “A demented and seductive vortical tension was building in the community. The jitters were setting in. I recall a time when the dogs barked every night and the moon was always full.
“I remember that no one was surprised.”
Reached at home in Manhattan, Didion, 82, told the Guardian: “Manson’s legacy was never obvious to me. It wasn’t obvious when I went to talk with Linda Kasabian, and it isn’t obvious to me now. But I do find it easy to put him from my mind.”
In 2008, California officials ordered the search of a deserted ranch in Death Valley where Manson and his family briefly resided. The search turned up no evidence of human remains.
Manson may be gone but the persistence of his dark vision endures. “I am crime,” he proclaimed in a telephone call to the New York Post from prison in the mid-2000s.
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
km6g1sgMjvlrchT2
|
elections
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-poll/for-trump-appeals-to-white-fears-about-race-may-be-a-tougher-sell-in-2020-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1V90TX
|
For Trump, appeals to white fears about race may be a tougher sell in 2020: Reuters/Ipsos poll
|
2019-08-19
|
Chris Kahn
|
NEW YORK ( ███ ) - U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s anti-immigrant rhetoric and focus on the grievances of white voters helped him win the 2016 election . But a ███ analysis of public opinion over the last four years suggests that Trump ’ s brand of white identity politics may be less effective in the 2020 election campaign .
The analysis comes amid widespread criticism of Trump ’ s racially charged comments about four minority women lawmakers and the fallout from a mass shooting of Hispanics in El Paso , Texas , that many Democratic presidential candidates swiftly blamed on the president ’ s rhetoric .
███/Ipsos polling of 4,436 U.S. adults in July showed that people who rejected racial stereotypes were more interested in voting in the 2020 general election than those who expressed stronger levels of anti-black or anti-Hispanic biases .
In 2016 , it was the reverse . The ███ analysis shows that Trump ’ s narrow win came at a time when Americans with strong anti-black opinions were the more politically engaged group . While ███ did not measure anti-Hispanic biases in 2016 , political scientists say that people who express them closely overlap with those who are biased against other racial minorities .
This year ’ s poll found that among Americans who feel that blacks and whites are equal , or that blacks are superior to whites , 82 % expressed a strong interest in voting in 2020 . That was 7 percentage points higher than people who feel strongly that whites are superior to blacks .
“ There is some indication that racial liberals are more energized than the racially intolerant , ” said University of Michigan political scientist Vincent Hutchings , who reviewed ███ ’ findings . “ That would seem to be good news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans . ”
The July poll did have a silver lining for Trump . Most white Republicans approve of his performance in office . And over the past four years they have become increasingly supportive of his signature issue : expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border . Some 82 % now support it compared to 75 % last year .
Trump is clearly still as popular as ever with conservatives who dominate the predominantly white , working-class communities that helped him win in 2016 , said Duke University political scientist Ashley Jardina , who also reviewed the poll findings .
In his 2016 campaign , Trump focused on the grievances of white voters who feared the global economy was leaving them behind and who wanted more restrictions on immigration . He employed put-downs of Latino immigrants and inner-city , typically black , residents .
He said then that Mexicans were “ murderers ” and “ rapists , ” and as recently as last year , Trump labeled illegal immigration to the United States an “ invasion . ”
Trump has asserted repeatedly that his words are not meant to be racially divisive . “ I think my rhetoric ... brings people together , ” he said earlier this month .
Responding to the ███ polling analysis , a spokesman for Trump ’ s reelection campaign , Daniel Bucheli , said the president “ enjoys broad support from diverse groups of Americans , and this coalition of supporters , to include minorities and first time voters , continues to grow daily . ”
“ If there is something we ’ ve come to learn about President Trump is that he calls it like it is , ” Bucheli said , when asked about Trump ’ s recent comments about the lawmakers and others .
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll findings .
The ███ analysis also found that Americans were less likely to express feelings of racial anxiety this year , and they were more likely to empathize with African Americans . This was also true for white Americans and whites without a college degree , who largely backed Trump in 2016 .
White Americans are also 19 percentage points more supportive of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and 4 points less supportive of increased deportations , when their responses from the July poll were compared with a ███/Ipsos poll in January 2015 .
The July 17-22 poll also found that 29 % of whites agreed that “ America must protect and preserve its White European heritage , ” down 7 points from a ███/Ipsos poll conducted in August 2017 and 9 points down from another ███/Ipsos poll in August 2018 .
The poll also found that 17 % of whites and 26 % of white Republicans said they strongly agree that “ white people are currently under attack in this country , a drop of about 6 points and 8 points respectively from 2017 .
Paula Ioanide , an expert in American race relations at Ithaca College , said the poll findings were consistent with her research that racial anxieties among whites peaked during the presidency of Barack Obama .
Some white Americans “ are not feeling as under attack as they did in 2016 , ” Ioanide said . With Trump in the White House , “ they ’ ve seen a kind of endorsement of the kinds of things that they wanted : A restoration of a white identity that they previously had felt was under attack . ”
███ and its polling partner , Ipsos , developed its race poll with political scientists at the University of Michigan and Duke University , asking a series of questions that measured respondents ’ perceptions of people from different racial backgrounds , the treatment of blacks and whites in America and their interest in voting in 2020 .
Methodology How ███/Ipsos measured the shift in the way Americans see race
Among whites who dominate the American electorate , the poll showed a widening gap between the way Democrats and Republicans view race .
Some 28 % of white Democrats said in the latest poll that “ black people are treated less fairly than white people ” in the workplace , compared with 5 % of white Republicans . Some 59 % of white Democrats said blacks were treated less fairly by police , while 22 % of white Republicans agreed .
The number of Democrats who said blacks were treated unfairly in the workplace and by police grew by 8 points and 11 points , respectively since 2016 . There was almost no change , however , among white Republicans .
White independents were more empathetic toward blacks than white Republicans , but less empathetic than Democrats .
Michael Tesler , a political scientist at the University of California , Irvine , said Trump may be influencing many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents in their views on race .
“ They may not care that much about race initially , and then they see Trump pushing on race so hard on race , ” he said . “ And so they push back . ”
Samantha Burkes , 36 , of Bullhead City , Arizona said she was doing just that when she rated blacks well above whites in terms of intelligence , work ethic , manners , peacefulness and lawfulness in the ███/Ipsos poll .
“ I just wanted to express that I don ’ t think black people are worse than white people , ” said Burkes , a white Democrat who plans to vote against Trump in 2020 . “ I ’ m just lashing out , really . ”
|
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and focus on the grievances of white voters helped him win the 2016 election. But a Reuters analysis of public opinion over the last four years suggests that Trump’s brand of white identity politics may be less effective in the 2020 election campaign.
The analysis comes amid widespread criticism of Trump’s racially charged comments about four minority women lawmakers and the fallout from a mass shooting of Hispanics in El Paso, Texas, that many Democratic presidential candidates swiftly blamed on the president’s rhetoric.
Reuters/Ipsos polling of 4,436 U.S. adults in July showed that people who rejected racial stereotypes were more interested in voting in the 2020 general election than those who expressed stronger levels of anti-black or anti-Hispanic biases.
In 2016, it was the reverse. The Reuters analysis shows that Trump’s narrow win came at a time when Americans with strong anti-black opinions were the more politically engaged group. While Reuters did not measure anti-Hispanic biases in 2016, political scientists say that people who express them closely overlap with those who are biased against other racial minorities.
This year’s poll found that among Americans who feel that blacks and whites are equal, or that blacks are superior to whites, 82% expressed a strong interest in voting in 2020. That was 7 percentage points higher than people who feel strongly that whites are superior to blacks.
“There is some indication that racial liberals are more energized than the racially intolerant,” said University of Michigan political scientist Vincent Hutchings, who reviewed Reuters’ findings. “That would seem to be good news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans.”
The July poll did have a silver lining for Trump. Most white Republicans approve of his performance in office. And over the past four years they have become increasingly supportive of his signature issue: expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Some 82% now support it compared to 75% last year.
Trump is clearly still as popular as ever with conservatives who dominate the predominantly white, working-class communities that helped him win in 2016, said Duke University political scientist Ashley Jardina, who also reviewed the poll findings.
In his 2016 campaign, Trump focused on the grievances of white voters who feared the global economy was leaving them behind and who wanted more restrictions on immigration. He employed put-downs of Latino immigrants and inner-city, typically black, residents.
He said then that Mexicans were “murderers” and “rapists,” and as recently as last year, Trump labeled illegal immigration to the United States an “invasion.”
Trump has asserted repeatedly that his words are not meant to be racially divisive. “I think my rhetoric ... brings people together,” he said earlier this month.
Responding to the Reuters polling analysis, a spokesman for Trump’s reelection campaign, Daniel Bucheli, said the president “enjoys broad support from diverse groups of Americans, and this coalition of supporters, to include minorities and first time voters, continues to grow daily.”
“If there is something we’ve come to learn about President Trump is that he calls it like it is,” Bucheli said, when asked about Trump’s recent comments about the lawmakers and others.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the poll findings.
DECLINING ANXIETY
The Reuters analysis also found that Americans were less likely to express feelings of racial anxiety this year, and they were more likely to empathize with African Americans. This was also true for white Americans and whites without a college degree, who largely backed Trump in 2016.
White Americans are also 19 percentage points more supportive of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and 4 points less supportive of increased deportations, when their responses from the July poll were compared with a Reuters/Ipsos poll in January 2015.
The July 17-22 poll also found that 29% of whites agreed that “America must protect and preserve its White European heritage,” down 7 points from a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in August 2017 and 9 points down from another Reuters/Ipsos poll in August 2018.
The poll also found that 17% of whites and 26% of white Republicans said they strongly agree that “white people are currently under attack in this country, a drop of about 6 points and 8 points respectively from 2017.
Paula Ioanide, an expert in American race relations at Ithaca College, said the poll findings were consistent with her research that racial anxieties among whites peaked during the presidency of Barack Obama.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, and the crowd responded with "send her back", at a campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina, U.S., July 17, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake/File Photo
Some white Americans “are not feeling as under attack as they did in 2016,” Ioanide said. With Trump in the White House, “they’ve seen a kind of endorsement of the kinds of things that they wanted: A restoration of a white identity that they previously had felt was under attack.”
Reuters and its polling partner, Ipsos, developed its race poll with political scientists at the University of Michigan and Duke University, asking a series of questions that measured respondents’ perceptions of people from different racial backgrounds, the treatment of blacks and whites in America and their interest in voting in 2020.
Methodology How Reuters/Ipsos measured the shift in the way Americans see race
WIDENING DEMOCRAT VS REPUBLICAN GAP
Among whites who dominate the American electorate, the poll showed a widening gap between the way Democrats and Republicans view race.
Some 28% of white Democrats said in the latest poll that “black people are treated less fairly than white people” in the workplace, compared with 5% of white Republicans. Some 59% of white Democrats said blacks were treated less fairly by police, while 22% of white Republicans agreed.
The number of Democrats who said blacks were treated unfairly in the workplace and by police grew by 8 points and 11 points, respectively since 2016. There was almost no change, however, among white Republicans.
White independents were more empathetic toward blacks than white Republicans, but less empathetic than Democrats.
Michael Tesler, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, said Trump may be influencing many Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents in their views on race.
“They may not care that much about race initially, and then they see Trump pushing on race so hard on race,” he said. “And so they push back.”
Samantha Burkes, 36, of Bullhead City, Arizona said she was doing just that when she rated blacks well above whites in terms of intelligence, work ethic, manners, peacefulness and lawfulness in the Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Slideshow (5 Images)
“I just wanted to express that I don’t think black people are worse than white people,” said Burkes, a white Democrat who plans to vote against Trump in 2020. “I’m just lashing out, really.”
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
IuKI0oxKpWmLTNaz
|
foreign_policy
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/14/18678809/usa-iran-war-aumf-911-trump-pompeo
|
How the Trump administration is using 9/11 to build a case for war with Iran
|
2019-06-14
|
Alex Ward, Hannah Brown, Lauren Katz, Theodore Schleifer, Li Zhou, Sean Collins, Umair Irfan
|
The Trump administration keeps saying that it doesn ’ t want to go to war with Iran . The problem is that some top officials continue to make statements that could pave a dubiously legal and factually challenged pathway to war .
If that ’ s the intention , a major flare-up between Washington and Tehran could lead the administration to say it has the right to launch what would be one of the nastiest , bloodiest conflicts in modern history — even if it really doesn ’ t legally have that authorization .
For months , President Donald Trump and some of his top officials have claimed Iran and al-Qaeda , the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 terror attacks , are closely linked . That ’ s been a common refrain despite evidence showing their ties aren ’ t strong at all . In fact , even al-Qaeda ’ s own documents detail the weak connection between the two .
But insisting there ’ s a nefarious , continual relationship matters greatly . In 2001 , Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) , allowing the president “ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations , organizations , or persons he determines planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons . ”
Which means that if the Trump administration truly believes Iran and al-Qaeda have been in cahoots before or after 9/11 , then it could claim war with Tehran already is authorized by law .
That chilling possibility was raised during a House Armed Services Committee session early Thursday morning by an unlikely pair : Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-FL ) , a top Trump ally , and Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) , a Pentagon official in the Obama administration .
“ The notion that the administration has never maintained that there are elements of the 2001 AUMF that would authorize their hostilities toward Iran is not consistent with my understanding of what they said to us , ” said Gaetz . “ We were absolutely presented with a formal presentation on how the AUMF might authorize war on Iran , ” added Slotkin right after , although she noted no one said they would use it to greenlight a fight .
`` In alignment with what Rep. Gaetz said , we were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran…Pompeo said it with his own words…a relationship between Iran and al Qaeda. ” pic.twitter.com/LRezIaj5pK — Ryan Goodman ( @ rgoodlaw ) June 13 , 2019
It doesn ’ t help that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , an anti-Iran hardliner , told lawmakers behind closed doors in May that he felt Americans would support a war with Tehran if the US or its allies were attacked , congressional sources familiar with that conversation told me .
The Trump administration already blames Iran for multiple attacks on oil tankers in a strategic Middle Eastern waterway , including two Thursday on Japanese- and Norwegian-owned vessels .
None of this means the US and Iran are going to war anytime soon , or even at all . But it does mean the administration may feel it has the legal basis to do so if it wanted to .
On the surface , al-Qaeda and Iran make an odd pairing . Iran is a Shia Muslim state , and al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni terrorist organization , so it stands to reason that they would have no business interacting with each other .
Here ’ s a section from the 9/11 Commission report , the most authoritative account of how the attacks happened and the backstory behind al-Qaeda ’ s rise :
In late 1991 or 1992 , discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support — even if only training — for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States . Not long afterward , senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives . In the fall of 1993 , another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security . Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983 . The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations .
Iran ’ s proxy group in Lebanon , Hezbollah , also helped train al-Qaeda operatives ahead of its 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania . In 2003 , al-Qaeda killed more than 30 people in Saudi Arabia ’ s capital , Riyadh , and the plotters fled to Iran . Eight years later , the Obama administration said there was a “ secret deal ” between Iran and al-Qaeda “ to funnel funds and operatives through its territory . ”
The US government maintains that Iran and al-Qaeda remain linked in that way . Take this , from a 2012 State Department report : Iran “ allowed AQ [ al-Qaeda ] members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory , enabling AQ to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere. ” A nearly identical passage exists in the latest version of the annual report from 2018 , although that one specifically mentions “ Syria ” as a destination for the “ facilitators and operatives . ”
Those kinds of statements have led some experts to say the AUMF can be invoked to approve a war with Tehran . “ If the facts show Iran or any other nation is harboring al Qaeda , that ’ s a circumstance which would make the argument for the applicability of the 2001 AUMF quite strong , ” retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. , now at Duke University , told the Washington Times in February .
But there ’ s also a lot of evidence showing that Iran and al-Qaeda aren ’ t all that close and , crucially , haven ’ t colluded to commit terrorist attacks .
Just weeks after 9/11 , then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad falsely accused the US of having organized and carried out the attacks . Al-Qaeda wasn ’ t pleased : “ Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence ? ” the terror group wrote in its English-language magazine Inspire . “ Al Qaeda ... succeeded in what Iran couldn ’ t . ”
A 2018 study by the New America think tank , based on roughly 470,000 declassified files obtained from Osama bin Laden ’ s Pakistan compound in 2011 , showed no links between Iran and al-Qaeda to commit terrorist acts . “ In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism , ” Nelly Lahoud , the study ’ s author , wrote in a blog post last September .
What the documents do show is that Tehran was deeply uncomfortable having al-Qaeda on its soil , and that bin Laden fiercely distrusted Iran .
For example , Iran detained al-Qaeda members — and some in bin Laden ’ s family — for abusing the conditions of their stay in the country . An al-Qaeda operative thought Tehran was keeping some of its members hostage : “ Iranian authorities decided to keep our brothers as a bargaining chip ” after the US invaded Iraq in 2003 , a document reviewed in the study read .
In other words , Iran wasn ’ t holding al-Qaeda operatives just for fun ; it was doing so as a way to possibly strike a deal with America down the line .
It turns out that Iran and al-Qaeda actually have been at odds for a long time .
“ From his safe house in Abbottabad , Osama bin Laden considered Iran ’ s increasing regional footprint to be a menace and weighed plans to counter it , ” Thomas Jocelyn , an Iran expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington , wrote in the Weekly Standard last year . “ Al Qaeda ’ s branches have also fought Iranian proxies , including Hezbollah fighters , on the ground in Syria and Yemen for years . Anti-Iranian rhetoric is a regular feature of al Qaeda ’ s propaganda and other statements . ”
The question , then , is what one makes of this history . Does it mean that Iran should be forever linked with al-Qaeda ? Or is it removed enough from the Sunni group that Iran isn ’ t covered in the AUMF ?
The Trump administration clearly believes the former — but Congress just as clearly doesn ’ t .
Trump faces stiff resistance against using the AUMF for an Iran war
When Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 , he started off his announcement with a striking statement .
“ The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror . It exports dangerous missiles , fuels conflicts across the Middle East , and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah , Hamas , the Taliban , and al Qaeda , ” he said .
In April , Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “ there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda . Period . Full stop. ” He continued : “ They have hosted al-Qaeda . They have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country . ”
When pressed by Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) if he thought the 2001 AUMF applied to Iran , Pompeo refused to answer the question , saying he ’ d “ rather leave that to lawyers . ”
Also in April , the administration labeled Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard Corps , Iran ’ s hugely influential security and military organization responsible for the protection and survival of the regime , as a “ foreign terrorist organization. ” That means if evidence surfaced of IRGC members working with al-Qaeda operatives , it ’ d be easier to say a terror group is aiding another terror group .
And in the same Thursday speech in which Pompeo blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers this week , he listed off a series of assaults he said were “ instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests. ” One of them was a May 31 car bombing in Afghanistan that slightly wounded four US troops and killed Afghan civilians . The Taliban , which controlled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks , took responsibility for the bombing .
Pompeo thus linked Iran with the Taliban ’ s plot without providing any evidence . It ’ s unclear why he did that , but some — like Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s ( I-VT ) foreign policy adviser Matthew Duss — say the secretary wanted to build a case that the 2001 AUMF covers Iran .
Lawmakers from both parties in Congress , though , have staunchly pushed back against the administration ’ s argument . Sens . Tom Udall ( D-NM ) and Tim Kaine ( D-VA ) put forward an amendment to this year ’ s must-pass defense bill requiring an entirely new AUMF to approve a war with Iran . Rep. Mac Thornberry ( R-TX ) , the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee , also has said the 2001 AUMF doesn ’ t apply to Iran .
Others have also come out asking the administration to reconsider its position .
If @ POTUS wants to use military force against Iran ( or any nation ) he must first make his case to Congress & seek authorization . It ’ s time to repeal the 2001 AUMF so this POTUS & future admins can ’ t use shaky legal footing to drag us into conflict w/o proper authorization . ( 3/3 ) — Rep. Ted Lieu ( @ RepTedLieu ) June 13 , 2019
It ’ s worth reiterating that the administration continually says it doesn ’ t seek a war with Iran . Instead , officials claim it has applied immense economic pressure on the Islamic Republic solely in hopes of bringing it to the negotiating table — not as a prelude to conflict .
But if the administration changes its mind and decides war is necessary , it ’ s possible Trump ’ s team could use the AUMF to launch a strike — and it would be fair to consider that an illegal attack .
|
The Trump administration keeps saying that it doesn’t want to go to war with Iran. The problem is that some top officials continue to make statements that could pave a dubiously legal and factually challenged pathway to war.
If that’s the intention, a major flare-up between Washington and Tehran could lead the administration to say it has the right to launch what would be one of the nastiest, bloodiest conflicts in modern history — even if it really doesn’t legally have that authorization.
For months, President Donald Trump and some of his top officials have claimed Iran and al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that launched the 9/11 terror attacks, are closely linked. That’s been a common refrain despite evidence showing their ties aren’t strong at all. In fact, even al-Qaeda’s own documents detail the weak connection between the two.
But insisting there’s a nefarious, continual relationship matters greatly. In 2001, Congress passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), allowing the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
Which means that if the Trump administration truly believes Iran and al-Qaeda have been in cahoots before or after 9/11, then it could claim war with Tehran already is authorized by law.
That chilling possibility was raised during a House Armed Services Committee session early Thursday morning by an unlikely pair: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a top Trump ally, and Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a Pentagon official in the Obama administration.
“The notion that the administration has never maintained that there are elements of the 2001 AUMF that would authorize their hostilities toward Iran is not consistent with my understanding of what they said to us,” said Gaetz. “We were absolutely presented with a formal presentation on how the AUMF might authorize war on Iran,” added Slotkin right after, although she noted no one said they would use it to greenlight a fight.
Pompeo thinks can bypass Congress to strike Iran
"In alignment with what Rep. Gaetz said, we were absolutely presented with a full formal presentation on how the 2001 AUMF might authorize war on Iran…Pompeo said it with his own words…a relationship between Iran and al Qaeda.” pic.twitter.com/LRezIaj5pK — Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) June 13, 2019
It doesn’t help that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an anti-Iran hardliner, told lawmakers behind closed doors in May that he felt Americans would support a war with Tehran if the US or its allies were attacked, congressional sources familiar with that conversation told me.
The Trump administration already blames Iran for multiple attacks on oil tankers in a strategic Middle Eastern waterway, including two Thursday on Japanese- and Norwegian-owned vessels.
None of this means the US and Iran are going to war anytime soon, or even at all. But it does mean the administration may feel it has the legal basis to do so if it wanted to.
The complicated al-Qaeda-Iran connection, explained
On the surface, al-Qaeda and Iran make an odd pairing. Iran is a Shia Muslim state, and al-Qaeda is a radical Sunni terrorist organization, so it stands to reason that they would have no business interacting with each other.
But it turns out they have worked together before.
Here’s a section from the 9/11 Commission report, the most authoritative account of how the attacks happened and the backstory behind al-Qaeda’s rise:
In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support — even if only training — for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations.
Iran’s proxy group in Lebanon, Hezbollah, also helped train al-Qaeda operatives ahead of its 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2003, al-Qaeda killed more than 30 people in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, and the plotters fled to Iran. Eight years later, the Obama administration said there was a “secret deal” between Iran and al-Qaeda “to funnel funds and operatives through its territory.”
The US government maintains that Iran and al-Qaeda remain linked in that way. Take this, from a 2012 State Department report: Iran “allowed AQ [al-Qaeda] members to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iranian territory, enabling AQ to carry funds and move facilitators and operatives to South Asia and elsewhere.” A nearly identical passage exists in the latest version of the annual report from 2018, although that one specifically mentions “Syria” as a destination for the “facilitators and operatives.”
Those kinds of statements have led some experts to say the AUMF can be invoked to approve a war with Tehran. “If the facts show Iran or any other nation is harboring al Qaeda, that’s a circumstance which would make the argument for the applicability of the 2001 AUMF quite strong,” retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr., now at Duke University, told the Washington Times in February.
But there’s also a lot of evidence showing that Iran and al-Qaeda aren’t all that close and, crucially, haven’t colluded to commit terrorist attacks.
Just weeks after 9/11, then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad falsely accused the US of having organized and carried out the attacks. Al-Qaeda wasn’t pleased: “Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?” the terror group wrote in its English-language magazine Inspire. “Al Qaeda ... succeeded in what Iran couldn’t.”
A 2018 study by the New America think tank, based on roughly 470,000 declassified files obtained from Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan compound in 2011, showed no links between Iran and al-Qaeda to commit terrorist acts. “In none of these documents did I find references pointing to collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iran to carry out terrorism,” Nelly Lahoud, the study’s author, wrote in a blog post last September.
What the documents do show is that Tehran was deeply uncomfortable having al-Qaeda on its soil, and that bin Laden fiercely distrusted Iran.
For example, Iran detained al-Qaeda members — and some in bin Laden’s family — for abusing the conditions of their stay in the country. An al-Qaeda operative thought Tehran was keeping some of its members hostage: “Iranian authorities decided to keep our brothers as a bargaining chip” after the US invaded Iraq in 2003, a document reviewed in the study read.
In other words, Iran wasn’t holding al-Qaeda operatives just for fun; it was doing so as a way to possibly strike a deal with America down the line.
It turns out that Iran and al-Qaeda actually have been at odds for a long time.
“From his safe house in Abbottabad, Osama bin Laden considered Iran’s increasing regional footprint to be a menace and weighed plans to counter it,” Thomas Jocelyn, an Iran expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, wrote in the Weekly Standard last year. “Al Qaeda’s branches have also fought Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah fighters, on the ground in Syria and Yemen for years. Anti-Iranian rhetoric is a regular feature of al Qaeda’s propaganda and other statements.”
The question, then, is what one makes of this history. Does it mean that Iran should be forever linked with al-Qaeda? Or is it removed enough from the Sunni group that Iran isn’t covered in the AUMF?
The Trump administration clearly believes the former — but Congress just as clearly doesn’t.
Trump faces stiff resistance against using the AUMF for an Iran war
When Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, he started off his announcement with a striking statement.
“The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al Qaeda,” he said.
It’s an argument the administration continues to push.
In April, Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “there is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaeda. Period. Full stop.” He continued: “They have hosted al-Qaeda. They have permitted al-Qaeda to transit their country.”
When pressed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) if he thought the 2001 AUMF applied to Iran, Pompeo refused to answer the question, saying he’d “rather leave that to lawyers.”
Also in April, the administration labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s hugely influential security and military organization responsible for the protection and survival of the regime, as a “foreign terrorist organization.” That means if evidence surfaced of IRGC members working with al-Qaeda operatives, it’d be easier to say a terror group is aiding another terror group.
And in the same Thursday speech in which Pompeo blamed Iran for attacks on two oil tankers this week, he listed off a series of assaults he said were “instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests.” One of them was a May 31 car bombing in Afghanistan that slightly wounded four US troops and killed Afghan civilians. The Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attacks, took responsibility for the bombing.
Pompeo thus linked Iran with the Taliban’s plot without providing any evidence. It’s unclear why he did that, but some — like Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) foreign policy adviser Matthew Duss — say the secretary wanted to build a case that the 2001 AUMF covers Iran.
Lawmakers from both parties in Congress, though, have staunchly pushed back against the administration’s argument. Sens. Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tim Kaine (D-VA) put forward an amendment to this year’s must-pass defense bill requiring an entirely new AUMF to approve a war with Iran. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also has said the 2001 AUMF doesn’t apply to Iran.
Others have also come out asking the administration to reconsider its position.
If @POTUS wants to use military force against Iran (or any nation) he must first make his case to Congress & seek authorization. It’s time to repeal the 2001 AUMF so this POTUS & future admins can’t use shaky legal footing to drag us into conflict w/o proper authorization. (3/3) — Rep. Ted Lieu (@RepTedLieu) June 13, 2019
It’s worth reiterating that the administration continually says it doesn’t seek a war with Iran. Instead, officials claim it has applied immense economic pressure on the Islamic Republic solely in hopes of bringing it to the negotiating table — not as a prelude to conflict.
But if the administration changes its mind and decides war is necessary, it’s possible Trump’s team could use the AUMF to launch a strike — and it would be fair to consider that an illegal attack.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
MegTT8QQ4QpD6S3E
|
race_and_racism
|
Washington Post
| 00
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-not-a-black-woman-consensus-grows-around-bidens-vp/2020/06/19/620589e6-b275-11ea-98b5-279a6479a1e4_story.html
|
‘Why not a Black woman?’ Consensus grows around Biden’s VP
|
2020-06-19
|
Alexandra Jaffe
|
Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , has already pledged to select a woman as his vice president to energize the party ’ s base with the prospect of making history . But following the outrage over the police killing of George Floyd last month , many Democratic strategists say there ’ s growing consensus that the pick should be a Black woman .
“ Like it or not , I think the question is starting to become , ‘ Well , why not a Black woman ? ’ ” said Karen Finney , a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign .
Finney , who was one of 200 Black women who signed a letter to Biden encouraging him to select a Black woman for his ticket , warned that the former vice president could face a backlash if he chose a white woman .
“ That puts a lot of pressure on Biden . It puts a lot of pressure on who he selects , no question , ” she said . “ The country is recognizing the gravity of this moment , the significance of this moment . ”
Biden ’ s team has been vetting potential candidates for weeks and has begun whittling down their list of choices . Several of the potential contenders are Black , including California Sen. Kamala Harris , Florida Rep. Val Demings , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Susan Rice , who served as President Barack Obama ’ s national security adviser . New Mexico Gov . Michelle Lujan Grisham , a Latina , is also in the mix .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who is white , is also leading contender . Another possibility who is white , Michigan Gov . Gretchen Whitmer , said last month that she had opening conversations with Biden ’ s team about potentially serving as vice president . In a Thursday interview , she said , “ Beyond that , there ’ s just not much new to report . ”
Antjuan Seawright , a veteran Democratic strategist , said the current moment calls for someone who understands the challenges faced by Black Americans .
“ There ’ s a renewed sense of urgency around the need to have someone who can speak to the experiences of today and advocate for the promises of tomorrow when it comes to populations of constituencies in this country who ’ ve been left out for a very long time , ” he said .
Klobuchar ’ s decision was in part a reflection of the fact that her own chances at getting the VP nod diminished after Floyd ’ s killing .
She was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis , and during that period , more than two dozen people — mostly people of color — died during encounters with police . Floyd ’ s death last month set off days of protests across the country and criticism that as the county ’ s top prosecutor , Klobuchar didn ’ t charge any of the officers involved in citizen deaths .
Officer Derek Chauvin , who was charged with Floyd ’ s murder , was involved in a fatal October 2006 shooting of a man accused of stabbing people and aiming a shotgun at police . Klobuchar ’ s successor as prosecutor , Mike Freeman , sent Chauvin ’ s case to a grand jury , which was customary practice for the office at the time , and the grand jury in 2008 declined to prosecute . Freeman has said Klobuchar , who won election to the Senate in November 2006 and took office in January 2007 , had no involvement in the Chauvin case .
But her decision this week to endorse a woman of color is certain to complicate the pitches of other white contenders .
In conversations with a half-dozen Democrats , none would rule out Warren , who ’ s been actively engaging with Black activists and leaders since exiting the Democratic presidential race and won plaudits from some former skeptics for her outreach . But privately , many acknowledged that her chances have dimmed following Klobuchar ’ s remarks .
“ I think Elizabeth , if she wants the job , has got to make the case for not only why she would be the best vice president of the people he ’ s considering , but why she would be the best person to put on the ticket electorally , ” said Heidi Heitkamp , a former Democratic senator from North Dakota who served with Warren . “ If she can make that persuasive argument , you can ’ t rule her out .
Heitkamp said she ’ s long believed Biden should choose a Black woman , in part because of the current political climate , but also because Black women are some of the Democratic Party ’ s most loyal voters . And she suggested Klobuchar ’ s comments Thursday night reflected the views of many of those within the party .
“ I think it was incredibly generous of her to bow out and to say what I think a lot of us are thinking , which is that the time has come to recognize the contributions and the capabilities of a lot of women who may otherwise get passed over , ” she said .
The debate among Democrats about Biden ’ s vice presidential pick has divided among competing and sometimes contradictory views within the party about the best path to victory in November .
Those who believe Biden must take into consideration geographic concerns advocate choosing a candidate from a swing state . Those who believe Biden should focus on winning over and turning out young and liberal voters suggest he should choose a progressive . And those who believe demographics are key argue in favor of a woman of color .
Warren was long the favorite of those who felt strongest that Biden needed to win over skeptical progressives . But Seawright argued that Klobuchar ’ s comments helped refocus the conversation .
“ I think that when Klobuchar and others use intentional commentary like she did , I think it helps push back on some of these conversations being had about geographics , the flavor within the party , progressive versus moderate , etc. , ” he said . “ When intentional conversations like she had last night come about , it really turns down the noise and really focuses on the lyrics of what ’ s important . ”
|
Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has already pledged to select a woman as his vice president to energize the party’s base with the prospect of making history. But following the outrage over the police killing of George Floyd last month, many Democratic strategists say there’s growing consensus that the pick should be a Black woman.
AD
AD
“Like it or not, I think the question is starting to become, ‘Well, why not a Black woman?’” said Karen Finney, a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Finney, who was one of 200 Black women who signed a letter to Biden encouraging him to select a Black woman for his ticket, warned that the former vice president could face a backlash if he chose a white woman.
“That puts a lot of pressure on Biden. It puts a lot of pressure on who he selects, no question,” she said. “The country is recognizing the gravity of this moment, the significance of this moment.”
Biden’s team has been vetting potential candidates for weeks and has begun whittling down their list of choices. Several of the potential contenders are Black, including California Sen. Kamala Harris, Florida Rep. Val Demings, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and Susan Rice, who served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Latina, is also in the mix.
AD
AD
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is white, is also leading contender. Another possibility who is white, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, said last month that she had opening conversations with Biden’s team about potentially serving as vice president. In a Thursday interview, she said, “Beyond that, there’s just not much new to report.”
Antjuan Seawright, a veteran Democratic strategist, said the current moment calls for someone who understands the challenges faced by Black Americans.
“There’s a renewed sense of urgency around the need to have someone who can speak to the experiences of today and advocate for the promises of tomorrow when it comes to populations of constituencies in this country who’ve been left out for a very long time,” he said.
AD
Klobuchar’s decision was in part a reflection of the fact that her own chances at getting the VP nod diminished after Floyd’s killing.
AD
She was a prosecutor years ago in the county that includes Minneapolis, and during that period, more than two dozen people — mostly people of color — died during encounters with police. Floyd’s death last month set off days of protests across the country and criticism that as the county’s top prosecutor, Klobuchar didn’t charge any of the officers involved in citizen deaths.
Officer Derek Chauvin, who was charged with Floyd’s murder, was involved in a fatal October 2006 shooting of a man accused of stabbing people and aiming a shotgun at police. Klobuchar’s successor as prosecutor, Mike Freeman, sent Chauvin’s case to a grand jury, which was customary practice for the office at the time, and the grand jury in 2008 declined to prosecute. Freeman has said Klobuchar, who won election to the Senate in November 2006 and took office in January 2007, had no involvement in the Chauvin case.
AD
But her decision this week to endorse a woman of color is certain to complicate the pitches of other white contenders.
AD
In conversations with a half-dozen Democrats, none would rule out Warren, who’s been actively engaging with Black activists and leaders since exiting the Democratic presidential race and won plaudits from some former skeptics for her outreach. But privately, many acknowledged that her chances have dimmed following Klobuchar’s remarks.
“I think Elizabeth, if she wants the job, has got to make the case for not only why she would be the best vice president of the people he’s considering, but why she would be the best person to put on the ticket electorally,” said Heidi Heitkamp, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota who served with Warren. “If she can make that persuasive argument, you can’t rule her out.
AD
Heitkamp said she’s long believed Biden should choose a Black woman, in part because of the current political climate, but also because Black women are some of the Democratic Party’s most loyal voters. And she suggested Klobuchar’s comments Thursday night reflected the views of many of those within the party.
AD
“I think it was incredibly generous of her to bow out and to say what I think a lot of us are thinking, which is that the time has come to recognize the contributions and the capabilities of a lot of women who may otherwise get passed over,” she said.
The debate among Democrats about Biden’s vice presidential pick has divided among competing and sometimes contradictory views within the party about the best path to victory in November.
AD
Those who believe Biden must take into consideration geographic concerns advocate choosing a candidate from a swing state. Those who believe Biden should focus on winning over and turning out young and liberal voters suggest he should choose a progressive. And those who believe demographics are key argue in favor of a woman of color.
Warren was long the favorite of those who felt strongest that Biden needed to win over skeptical progressives. But Seawright argued that Klobuchar’s comments helped refocus the conversation.
AD
“I think that when Klobuchar and others use intentional commentary like she did, I think it helps push back on some of these conversations being had about geographics, the flavor within the party, progressive versus moderate, etc.,” he said. “When intentional conversations like she had last night come about, it really turns down the noise and really focuses on the lyrics of what’s important.”
AD
|
www.washingtonpost.com
| 0left
|
ehwLJXR3suPVOSIp
|
politics
|
Slate
| 00
|
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/joe-biden-character-anita-hill.html
|
The End of Character Politics
|
2020-06-17
|
Lili Loofbourow
|
One of Watergate ’ s less obvious but lasting effects was that a politician ’ s “ character ” —a capacious term that would eventually encompass all kinds of supposed virtues and flaws—became an object of increasingly obsessive scrutiny for the press and the public . This was a noticeable shift . John F. Kennedy , for instance , was famously unfaithful to his wife , and yet , as Lesley Stahl told Radiolab in 2016 , “ we wouldn ’ t have dreamed of printing that even if the whispers were loud enough to spread around the country . It just wasn ’ t done. ” Those decorous conventions collapsed in the wake of a more invasive press activated by Richard Nixon ’ s crimes . So , in the ensuing years , did whatever illusions the public may have had about its political leadership . Though there were many reasons for Nixon ’ s downfall , the Oval Office tapes that finally incriminated him beyond doubt did something else as well : They revealed the extent of the gap between the private machinations of the men who held office and their public bearing . And once the press had helped reveal that gap , it became impossible to close it up again .
As the tacit agreement to keep the private sins of politicians off-limits began to erode , a new political reality emerged . Its strictures—as with all such upheavals—were sometimes a little arbitrary . Many of the scandals were naturally about sex , and few were as much of a legal breach as the Watergate break-in and cover-up . In 1976 , Rep. Wayne Hays resigned when it was discovered he ’ d been keeping a young woman on his staff who turned out , despite his forceful denials , to be his mistress . The financial side of this mattered , of course , but so—to a portion of the public that was coming to see the personal as political—did the cheating and lying , something that used to be dismissed as mere “ scandal. ” The so-called character question only increased in importance over the next few years : Jimmy Carter won in part by contrasting his moral probity with the Nixon-Ford administration ’ s ( in 1979 , James Fallows would backhandedly call Carter “ as admirable a human being as has ever held the job ” ) . And in 1987—charmingly called “ the Year of the Bimbo ” by the Wall Street Journal—Gary Hart , the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination , would be brought down after an affair was deemed ( despite his protestations that infidelity “ hasn ’ t been the business of the American public for 200 years ” ) not just newsworthy but disqualifying .
In his book All the Truth Is Out about Hart , Matt Bai suggested—in a passage lamenting the rise of “ this violent compression of politics and celebrity and moral policing ” —that character , as a bucket term for human flaws that reflect on a politician ’ s fitness , had become distressingly and even unsustainably broad .
It wasn ’ t just about sex , as it was in Hart ’ s case , but also about whether you uttered a line you wished you could take back or made an investment you probably shouldn ’ t have , about whether you ’ d ever gotten stoned or written something idiotic in a school paper . Nothing mattered more in a politician than his essential character , and no shred of private behavior , no moment of weakness or questionable judgment , was too insignificant to illuminate it .
Once a person ’ s private conduct was perceived to impinge on their ability to do their public work , the onus fell on the public to decide what to do about revelations of this sort—in particular , whether they rendered the candidate unfit for public service . Many of us have spent decades being overexposed to the ubiquitous personal shortcomings of politicians . The idea was that we , the judicious public , deserved to know all the facts , ingest the filth , and metabolize it into a sound and democratic electoral result . But it has been a messy change . It ’ s not just that media organizations are neither consistent nor clear about which scandals are newsworthy ; the problem is that we , the members of that vaunted public square , have not been able to reconcile these ugly exposures with the American ideals democracy theoretically serves . And so Americans have been heading , for some time , toward something like moral burnout .
Back in 1987 , Gary Hart felt unreasonably targeted . He wasn ’ t alone ; many Americans found the reporters who hid in the bushes to get the story of Hart and Donna Rice guilty of sensational overreach . On the other hand , Cokie Roberts told Radiolab that some female reporters at the time felt that Hart ’ s conduct was more than fair game . “ There were times when you ’ d be in a room where he ’ d hit on every woman in the room , ” she said . “ The way women were treated was something we thought , and I continue to think , is a good gauge of character . … We were expanding the universe of what was a major character flaw . ”
There was one other unexpected casualty of that 1987 presidential campaign dominated by the politics of character : Joseph Biden .
Biden was forced to end his first presidential campaign after he was found to have copied parts of a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock , even appearing to claim details from Kinnock ’ s life story as his own . He was also found to have borrowed bits of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey , and to have improperly footnoted an assignment in law school . It ’ s unlikely that these discoveries would have ended his campaign two decades earlier . The New York Times called Biden “ the second victim of the character issue in a contest for the White House. ” “ Whatever else it may or may not prove , the withdrawal of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination demonstrates how much the 1988 campaign differs from its predecessors , ” the Times piece noted . “ Never before have candidates ’ alleged character flaws emerged so early or proved so lethal . ”
It ’ s possible the character issue truly peaked in 1987 ; that was also the year that Ronald Reagan ’ s failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court ( sunk with the help of Biden ) became shorthand for what were perceived as personal attacks for partisan reasons . Biden was already middle-aged—44 ! —when he first experienced this newfangled backlash to his past failings . Many , political insiders especially , saw those failings as minor : Democrats who stayed mum about Gary Hart spoke up in Biden ’ s defense . Even Republicans defended him . “ I have never seen the Republicans as totally supportive of a person on the opposite end of the spectrum as they have been with Joe , ” Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum , a Democrat from Ohio , told the New York Times . Sen. Strom Thurmond said , “ I ’ ve always found him to be a high-type man. ” The New York Times observed that these defenses “ reflected Mr. Biden ’ s acceptance within the Senate ‘ club , ’ where Mr. Hart was always considered a loner . ”
R.W . Apple Jr. ’ s assessment of Biden ’ s 1987 candidacy chose an apt metaphor to describe what went wrong : “ In the early stages of a courtship , transgressions can be fatal , but in a well-rooted marriage , they may be quickly forgiven ; so it is in politics . Almost the first things many voters learned about Mr. Biden , aside from his good looks and articulateness , was that he had done things that most people consider a bit questionable at best. ” In other words , Biden may have been familiar to Washington . But the senator from Delaware wasn ’ t broadly popular , or an especially known quantity , in the rest of America .
Character wasn ’ t reducible to one ’ s reputation . It was a more personal amalgam , and one that , in Biden ’ s view , deserved some measure of privacy .
Biden is now in just such a “ marriage ” with many American voters—thanks in no small part to his long tenure in the Senate and his close association with President Barack Obama . He ’ s a household name . But as he comes under at least as much scrutiny for his moral character as for his politics , 33 years later , we can see two things : 1 ) that Trump has badly distorted—perhaps beyond recognition—our ability to properly judge the issue of moral personal behavior in American politics ; and 2 ) that we can learn a lot about how Biden himself thinks about the character question by seeing how it played out when he presided over the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings .
One can deduce how much Biden hated the rise of “ character ” as a matter of public concern given how reluctant he seemed , a few years after losing the presidential primary on the issue , to see Thomas evaluated on the same terms . Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer write in Strange Justice that Biden was aware early on of Hill ’ s allegations but “ went out of his way to suggest that any charges of improper conduct—he made no mention of Hill or her allegations , of course—were not worthy of debate. ” Indeed , in a speech he gave explaining his choice to vote no on Thomas in committee , he made a point to say “ there is no question with respect to the nominee ’ s character , competence , credentials , or credibility. ” He told the committee before Hill ’ s allegations went public : “ I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all , and that is his character . This is about what he believes , not about who he is . ”
Biden ’ s statement betrays some concern over how slippery and powerful the category of “ character ” had gotten . Character wasn ’ t reducible to one ’ s reputation , nor was it defined by one ’ s actions , however objectionable ; it was a more personal amalgam , and one that , in his view , deserved some measure of privacy . Biden draws an extremely curious distinction on these grounds : He posits that Thomas can and should be judged on what he believes—implying that what a person believes is at least theoretically separable from who they are .
Biden ’ s strenuous exclusion of character as a criterion for public office was shared by an unlikely party : Anita Hill . According to Abramson and Mayer , Hill was also unhappy that character was becoming a defining issue in American politics . Before her claims went public , she told a friend “ that she had been ‘ appalled ’ by the treatment their old Yale professor Robert Bork had received during his abortive confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1987 . She didn ’ t want to see another nominee ripped apart on the basis of his personal character : ‘ Bork and Thomas should stand or fall on their ideas . ’ ”
It ’ s somewhat ironic that Biden—who made a point of rejecting character-based politics in 1991—has been frequently accused of transforming American political culture on those very grounds when he ran Bork ’ s confirmation hearing in 1987 , just as his own presidential campaign was collapsing on character-related charges . ( He withdrew from the race in the middle of the hearings . ) Borking has become a term of art for unfairly attacking a candidate through “ harsh public criticism or vilification. ” Many conservatives blame Biden , specifically , for ushering in an era dominated by the politics of personal destruction , even though the effort to turn public opinion against Bork ( which cited his conservative legal opinions but also his role presumably aiding Nixon in Watergate ’ s Saturday Night Massacre ) was initiated by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a combination of grassroots organizations . In actuality , Biden tried to safeguard Bork ’ s privacy , refusing , for example , to subpoena Bork ’ s video rental history . In 2008 , a former Biden intern described Biden ’ s commitment to the theoretical separation of private and public selves at this crucial moment in 1987 : “ I saw Mr. Biden struggle to focus the hearings on Judge Bork ’ s judicial philosophy rather than his private life , in the face of overwhelming political pressure from interest groups on the left . … He did everything in his power to resist the collapse of boundaries. ” Still , the hearing was one of the first to be televised and Bork himself was underprepared , which did nothing to turn the tide back in his favor . The Senate voted against the nominee by the widest margin in history .
This much is accurate : Biden maintained a distinction between public and private life even when it was not politically advantageous to do so . The future vice president ’ s reluctance to act on Hill ’ s account until he was forced to is well documented . So is the fact that he considered burying other ethically troubling allegations about nominees the decent thing to do—to avoid besmirching their characters . Per the New York Times , “ On other occasions as Judiciary Committee chairman , [ Biden ] said he had been made aware of unsubstantiated reports of wrongdoings by nominees that he did not divulge in order to protect their reputations. ” On the whole , Biden seemed to believe that a man ’ s good name needed protection more than his alleged bad actions needed exposure . In a 1992 interview with E.J . Dionne in which he looked back on the confirmation hearings , he said he regretted not defending Hill and “ attacking the attackers , ” but he also made clear that he was worried less about damage to Hill ’ s character than to Thomas ’ . Conceding that he could have paused the hearings in order to investigate whether there was a “ pattern of behavior , ” Biden said that it wouldn ’ t have been fair—to Thomas . He was worried that doing so would allow rumors about Thomas to spread .
Biden did , however , pay lip service to the new world everyone was inhabiting . He speechified—to Thomas and to his colleagues—about how private misconduct intersects with public service , and how the judgment of a man accused of such a thing would go :
We ’ re big boys . I knew when I ran for president everything was free game . Anybody who runs for the Supreme Court or is appointed to the Supreme Court , to be more precise , should understand . It ’ s not Boy Scouts , it ’ s not Cub Scouts .
Biden also clarified then that the hearing was “ not a referendum ” on whether sexual harassment was a grave offense—it was—but about whether it had occurred . “ Now , ” he addressed Thomas , “ we ’ re going to hear more witnesses who are going to come in and corroborate your position and hers . We ’ ll find out whether they ’ re telling the truth or not as best as we are capable of doing , just like you as a judge are when you look them in the eye and make a judgment . ”
What emerges is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them .
As we now know , Biden did not call three witnesses who could have spoken to whether Thomas had a pattern of sexual harassment . Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett were prepared to testify to Thomas ’ conduct and to the culture at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . So was a third woman , Rose Jourdain , who said she could back up Wright ’ s testimony and was prepared to do so while extremely ill .
In 2017 , Biden told Teen Vogue that he wanted the witnesses to testify and that they had refused . “ I wasn ’ t able to convince three women we ’ d subpoenaed to cooperate with testimony . At the last minute , they changed their mind and said they wouldn ’ t do it . I had them sign an affidavit saying , ‘ I want you to come , and you ’ re saying , “ No , I will not come. ” ’ ” A letter to that effect does exist for Wright—it ’ s in the hearing transcript and bears Wright ’ s signature as well as Biden ’ s . But Mayer and Abramson ’ s reporting on how that letter came to be entered into the record does not remotely match Biden ’ s account :
An aide from Biden ’ s office called Middlebrooks [ Wright ’ s attorney ] and offered to release Wright from her subpoena—if she was willing to say that she had requested the cancellation . Wright ’ s response was typically blunt : ‘ Bullshit . After I ’ ve been sitting here for three days being called names ? ’ Middlebrooks also refused . ‘ You are not going to make her look like she ’ s cutting and running . She ’ s the key second witness and we want our story aired . ’
Biden ’ s office kept negotiating ways for Wright not to testify , and Wright finally signed . As for Hardnett , she said in a 2018 interview with NPR that she had no idea why she wasn ’ t called .
What emerges from all this , it seems to me , is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them . Biden wants to be good , works very hard to look good , and squints very hard to try to make nice and good mean the same thing . But given the choice between exposing a fellow insider ’ s questionable conduct or withholding that information from the public he ostensibly represents , Biden protected the insider . Faced with the assassination of Anita Hill ’ s character ( which was happening in real time , under his watch ) and the potential assassination of Thomas ’ , he protected Thomas and not Hill . Biden prioritized the preservation of the insider ’ s reputation over the public ’ s right to know .
Such a man might plagiarize slightly from various speeches ( or in law school ) . Such a man might also massage an unfavorable story into a more flattering one . It ’ s he who desperately wanted Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett to testify , Biden maintains ; it was they who pulled out . Or perhaps , as he has also suggested , it was Hill ’ s preference that Wright keep quiet : “ Biden and several of his top staff members said that it had been Hill and her lawyers who had chiefly opposed calling Wright , ” Mayer and Abramson write . But Hill denied this . “ We were waiting for Angela Wright ’ s testimony , just like everyone else , ” Hill said . “ Apparently something went wrong . I was as surprised as anyone that she didn ’ t testify . ”
Biden ’ s stories about all this don ’ t quite add up . He ’ s not out-and-out wrong—the Wright affidavit exists , and she signed it ! —but the whole is sloppy and incomplete , and the omissions and errors accrue in his favor . Biden clearly sensed , even at the time , that not calling Wright might look bad . When Democratic senators decided against calling her , Biden came out and told his staff the result of a full committee vote was 13–1 against her testifying “ with himself as her sole supporter. ” But two other Democratic senators on the committee said they recalled no such vote . Howard Metzenbaum , a Democrat , said , “ I don ’ t think Biden was anxious to bring Angela Wright on . ”
Even as Biden tacitly protected Thomas ’ privacy , he publicly told him “ you will not be unaffected by this no matter what happens . Nobody goes through the white-hot glare of this process at any level for any reason and comes out unaffected. ” He also chose a fascinating metaphor for how character ought to be understood : “ But , Judge , nobody ’ s reputation , nobody ’ s reputation , is a snapshot ; it ’ s a motion picture . And the picture is being made , and you ’ ve made a vast part of it the last 43 years . ”
I have been reading up on Biden as a “ motion picture ” for obvious reasons—to better understand who Biden was before he was reinvented , during Obama ’ s presidency , as a warm and frank “ Uncle Joe ” whose gaffes are part of his charm . This last snapshot is the muscular public image on which his well-rooted marriage to the American public is based . Looking back a few decades doesn ’ t just reveal a great deal more about who Biden was—it illustrates how the American conversation around what we expect from public officials developed too . I understand why Biden wants to remain laser-focused only on his history since helping to pass the Violence Against Women Act . But the preceding years were crucial . They defined how the nation would and would not grapple with scandals around sex—a sphere whose “ dirtiness ” had functionally created a safe space of sorts for men of all previous generations , but which was becoming contested , political , and public .
A minor publishing scandal in 1979 illustrated how sensitive this new focus on private conduct was , and how much the idea of holding male politicians accountable was considered risky , or extreme , or unfair . Ted Kennedy was challenging Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination for president . Suzannah Lessard wrote a 3,000-word essay about Kennedy ’ s philandering called “ Kennedy ’ s Woman Problem , Women ’ s Kennedy Problem ” for the New Republic . It was controversial enough that TNR owner Marty Peretz refused to publish it , prompting editor Michael Kinsley to resign in protest ( he would later be rehired ) . The Washington Monthly picked the column up and made it the cover of its December issue .
Lessard ’ s point is by now familiar : She argues that character—in every sphere—counts . While privacy matters , Ted Kennedy ’ s womanizing must be considered fair game if he intends to run for president , she writes . She criticizes “ the fastidious gentlemen ’ s code that holds that the private lives of politicians should be off limits , that what counts are the serious matters , such as a man ’ s position on issues , and that only a very sleazy and trivial reporter would lower himself to write about that sort of dirt. ” She observes , too , that there ’ s more than a whiff of condescension underpinning this attitude about what the voting public needs to know : that if the people knew what politicians were really like , it would “ render them incapable of treating such information properly . They would be excessively shocked , they would overreact , and the political process would be distorted by irrelevancies . ”
Today we ’ re all the way on the other side : overexposed to “ that sort of dirt ” about politicians and exhausted from the task of sorting through it . Has the political process been “ distorted by irrelevancies ” ? Or has this painful ongoing process of navigating the “ character ” question been , on the whole , worth it ?
The public ’ s answers to these questions have oscillated . Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , for instance , was a Republican effort to make “ character ” sink a president , but it didn ’ t work out that way . Even as , according to polling , Americans became more skeptical of whether the president had “ high moral and ethical standards , ” they still supported his presidency and the roaring economy that buttressed it . Many said they didn ’ t care what Clinton did in his personal life provided he did his job .
More recently , Donald Trump has thrown a much larger wrench into these fine distinctions . And indeed , the upcoming election , between two men who have weathered—even broken—the character question , may mark another drastic shift in how we consider it .
It ’ s pretty clear by now that Tara Reade ’ s allegation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 will mean little or nothing for Biden ’ s presidential bid . Further reporting has cast some doubt on Reade ’ s credibility , but from an electoral standpoint , it ’ s amazing how little her allegation seemed to matter in the first place . Despite the ethical demands # MeToo made , people ’ s individual rulings on whether they believed Reade didn ’ t seem to much affect whether they would vote for Biden . Lucy Flores , who wrote an essay for the Cut last year describing the discomfort she experienced when he touched her and smelled her hair at a campaign event ; Linda Hirshman ; and many other feminists who spoke up for Reade said that if the presidency comes down to Trump and Biden , they would reluctantly , citing a principle of harm reduction , vote for the latter . “ I won ’ t say it will be easy , ” Hirshman wrote . “ I know how supposedly ‘ liberal ’ men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. ” But she would swallow her reservations and vote for Biden anyway . The neighbor who corroborated Reade ’ s account falls into this category too ; she ’ s a Biden supporter and likely to remain so . I ’ ve never been a Biden supporter , but if he ’ s the candidate , I , too , will vote for him , because the ongoing calamity in the United States must be slowed . Even Reade herself , in her recent interview with Megyn Kelly , said she understands that people who believe her will still vote for Biden . ( She also noted that he “ should not be running on character for the president of the United States . ” )
These statements suggest that “ character ” might have run its course as a decisive issue in American politics . There are too many tangible emergencies . There is a pandemic . Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims . More than 100,000 people who were alive three months ago are dead . Black people are being killed on video with little to no accountability while the president defends Confederate monuments and generals . Despite the dangers , the streets are wild with people ’ s desperation and unhappiness . In the middle of all of this , Biden is deploying one of his unique strengths—his empathy , born from the many familial tragedies he ’ s suffered through while in politics . America is grieving right now , and Joe Biden is good at grief .
There are too many tangible emergencies . There is a pandemic . Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims .
He is also , arguably , using the character issue to reroute Americans ’ character concerns into institutional questions . When Biden says “ character is on the ballot , ” the line isn ’ t about his character as much as it is about the moral character of America . His campaign is not personality-driven . At this particular point in history , that lack of emphasis on the self may be a welcome change .
Trump and Biden , who have both been public figures for decades , have each weathered the character question by rejecting its premises . But they ’ ve done so in different ways . Trump has flouted ethical prescriptions both publicly and privately . He screwed people who worked for him by not paying them , knowing they ’ d never be able to make him do so in court . He sued enemies until they gave up , bribed porn stars , and used Trump University to further immiserate vulnerable people who didn ’ t see through the fraud . He ’ s the ultimate expression of the American id freed of any remaining Puritan constraints , and of American capitalism freed from any regulation at all , whether legal , ethical , or social .
Biden , by contrast , has long battled from inside the crosshairs of the character crisis , as both administrator and subject . His record is mixed ; the flaws that cost him the Democratic nomination in 1987 are still there . New issues like his handsiness have emerged . As for Reade : Much has been written about her credibility , but it ’ s worth reiterating that Biden ’ s credibility is in question too . The strange lies he repeatedly tells—about being arrested en route to visiting Nelson Mandela even though he wasn ’ t , about marching in the civil rights movement even though he did not—are as injurious as his reluctance to give them up is baffling . But on this front , as with so many , Trump has bottomed out the curve . Biden ’ s ethical infractions exist , but he still responds to at least a few external standards besides his naked self-interest . He wants to be considered a good and decent man by people of all political persuasions , Republicans included . This last is key . Whatever else one might say about him—and I ’ ve said plenty—he worked very hard during the Thomas hearings to be considered fair—by Republicans even more than by Democrats .
If character were still a top-tier issue for Americans , other candidates in the Democratic primary would have fared better than they have . Biden isn ’ t the character candidate . He might be the decency candidate ( decency being a flattering category that forgives and overlooks much that character exacts and excludes ) . Given the current political terrain , many Americans seem to regard having ethical aspirations at all—even if you don ’ t live up to them , even if you fudge facts in your striving toward them , even if you have at times sacrificed righteousness for reputation—as enough .
There is an upside to this low bar . If Biden wins , his will not be a cultish victory , and some diminished passion toward the presidency might be a healthy corrective to a country whose character might be damaged beyond repair . No doubt a President Biden would see his character come under assault by the opposing party , but it ’ s not likely to be able to do much damage . Much of the public is exhausted , furious , and sickened by the yawning gap between American ideals and American realities . Standards have been shredded to such an extent that it ’ s hard to imagine a candidate dropping out over a character issue now . Maybe this is OK . The mythmaking urge to turn our leaders into idols of history—whether Clinton or Reagan or Kennedy—was always in tension with the ugly facts that kept emerging about them . Of course the cognitive dissonance was insupportable . Of course American idealism did not survive the ongoing public exposure of the political system that built it . But if we can start treating presidents as functionaries rather than celebrities—if the reality TV president ends the celebrity presidency—that will have been a good thing . And if Biden ’ s first presidential run was one of the first casualties of character politics , his late career ascent might mark its end .
|
One of Watergate’s less obvious but lasting effects was that a politician’s “character”—a capacious term that would eventually encompass all kinds of supposed virtues and flaws—became an object of increasingly obsessive scrutiny for the press and the public. This was a noticeable shift. John F. Kennedy, for instance, was famously unfaithful to his wife, and yet, as Lesley Stahl told Radiolab in 2016, “we wouldn’t have dreamed of printing that even if the whispers were loud enough to spread around the country. It just wasn’t done.” Those decorous conventions collapsed in the wake of a more invasive press activated by Richard Nixon’s crimes. So, in the ensuing years, did whatever illusions the public may have had about its political leadership. Though there were many reasons for Nixon’s downfall, the Oval Office tapes that finally incriminated him beyond doubt did something else as well: They revealed the extent of the gap between the private machinations of the men who held office and their public bearing. And once the press had helped reveal that gap, it became impossible to close it up again.
As the tacit agreement to keep the private sins of politicians off-limits began to erode, a new political reality emerged. Its strictures—as with all such upheavals—were sometimes a little arbitrary. Many of the scandals were naturally about sex, and few were as much of a legal breach as the Watergate break-in and cover-up. In 1976, Rep. Wayne Hays resigned when it was discovered he’d been keeping a young woman on his staff who turned out, despite his forceful denials, to be his mistress. The financial side of this mattered, of course, but so—to a portion of the public that was coming to see the personal as political—did the cheating and lying, something that used to be dismissed as mere “scandal.” The so-called character question only increased in importance over the next few years: Jimmy Carter won in part by contrasting his moral probity with the Nixon-Ford administration’s (in 1979, James Fallows would backhandedly call Carter “as admirable a human being as has ever held the job”). And in 1987—charmingly called “the Year of the Bimbo” by the Wall Street Journal—Gary Hart, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, would be brought down after an affair was deemed (despite his protestations that infidelity “hasn’t been the business of the American public for 200 years”) not just newsworthy but disqualifying.
In his book All the Truth Is Out about Hart, Matt Bai suggested—in a passage lamenting the rise of “this violent compression of politics and celebrity and moral policing”—that character, as a bucket term for human flaws that reflect on a politician’s fitness, had become distressingly and even unsustainably broad.
It wasn’t just about sex, as it was in Hart’s case, but also about whether you uttered a line you wished you could take back or made an investment you probably shouldn’t have, about whether you’d ever gotten stoned or written something idiotic in a school paper. Nothing mattered more in a politician than his essential character, and no shred of private behavior, no moment of weakness or questionable judgment, was too insignificant to illuminate it.
Once a person’s private conduct was perceived to impinge on their ability to do their public work, the onus fell on the public to decide what to do about revelations of this sort—in particular, whether they rendered the candidate unfit for public service. Many of us have spent decades being overexposed to the ubiquitous personal shortcomings of politicians. The idea was that we, the judicious public, deserved to know all the facts, ingest the filth, and metabolize it into a sound and democratic electoral result. But it has been a messy change. It’s not just that media organizations are neither consistent nor clear about which scandals are newsworthy; the problem is that we, the members of that vaunted public square, have not been able to reconcile these ugly exposures with the American ideals democracy theoretically serves. And so Americans have been heading, for some time, toward something like moral burnout.
Back in 1987, Gary Hart felt unreasonably targeted. He wasn’t alone; many Americans found the reporters who hid in the bushes to get the story of Hart and Donna Rice guilty of sensational overreach. On the other hand, Cokie Roberts told Radiolab that some female reporters at the time felt that Hart’s conduct was more than fair game. “There were times when you’d be in a room where he’d hit on every woman in the room,” she said. “The way women were treated was something we thought, and I continue to think, is a good gauge of character. … We were expanding the universe of what was a major character flaw.”
There was one other unexpected casualty of that 1987 presidential campaign dominated by the politics of character: Joseph Biden.
Biden was forced to end his first presidential campaign after he was found to have copied parts of a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock, even appearing to claim details from Kinnock’s life story as his own. He was also found to have borrowed bits of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, and to have improperly footnoted an assignment in law school. It’s unlikely that these discoveries would have ended his campaign two decades earlier. The New York Times called Biden “the second victim of the character issue in a contest for the White House.” “Whatever else it may or may not prove, the withdrawal of Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. from the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination demonstrates how much the 1988 campaign differs from its predecessors,” the Times piece noted. “Never before have candidates’ alleged character flaws emerged so early or proved so lethal.”
It’s possible the character issue truly peaked in 1987; that was also the year that Ronald Reagan’s failed nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court (sunk with the help of Biden) became shorthand for what were perceived as personal attacks for partisan reasons. Biden was already middle-aged—44!—when he first experienced this newfangled backlash to his past failings. Many, political insiders especially, saw those failings as minor: Democrats who stayed mum about Gary Hart spoke up in Biden’s defense. Even Republicans defended him. “I have never seen the Republicans as totally supportive of a person on the opposite end of the spectrum as they have been with Joe,” Sen. Howard M. Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, told the New York Times. Sen. Strom Thurmond said, “I’ve always found him to be a high-type man.” The New York Times observed that these defenses “reflected Mr. Biden’s acceptance within the Senate ‘club,’ where Mr. Hart was always considered a loner.”
R.W. Apple Jr.’s assessment of Biden’s 1987 candidacy chose an apt metaphor to describe what went wrong: “In the early stages of a courtship, transgressions can be fatal, but in a well-rooted marriage, they may be quickly forgiven; so it is in politics. Almost the first things many voters learned about Mr. Biden, aside from his good looks and articulateness, was that he had done things that most people consider a bit questionable at best.” In other words, Biden may have been familiar to Washington. But the senator from Delaware wasn’t broadly popular, or an especially known quantity, in the rest of America.
Character wasn’t reducible to one’s reputation. It was a more personal amalgam, and one that, in Biden’s view, deserved some measure of privacy.
Biden is now in just such a “marriage” with many American voters—thanks in no small part to his long tenure in the Senate and his close association with President Barack Obama. He’s a household name. But as he comes under at least as much scrutiny for his moral character as for his politics, 33 years later, we can see two things: 1) that Trump has badly distorted—perhaps beyond recognition—our ability to properly judge the issue of moral personal behavior in American politics; and 2) that we can learn a lot about how Biden himself thinks about the character question by seeing how it played out when he presided over the 1991 Clarence Thomas hearings.
One can deduce how much Biden hated the rise of “character” as a matter of public concern given how reluctant he seemed, a few years after losing the presidential primary on the issue, to see Thomas evaluated on the same terms. Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer write in Strange Justice that Biden was aware early on of Hill’s allegations but “went out of his way to suggest that any charges of improper conduct—he made no mention of Hill or her allegations, of course—were not worthy of debate.” Indeed, in a speech he gave explaining his choice to vote no on Thomas in committee, he made a point to say “there is no question with respect to the nominee’s character, competence, credentials, or credibility.” He told the committee before Hill’s allegations went public: “I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all, and that is his character. This is about what he believes, not about who he is.”
Biden’s statement betrays some concern over how slippery and powerful the category of “character” had gotten. Character wasn’t reducible to one’s reputation, nor was it defined by one’s actions, however objectionable; it was a more personal amalgam, and one that, in his view, deserved some measure of privacy. Biden draws an extremely curious distinction on these grounds: He posits that Thomas can and should be judged on what he believes—implying that what a person believes is at least theoretically separable from who they are.
Biden’s strenuous exclusion of character as a criterion for public office was shared by an unlikely party: Anita Hill. According to Abramson and Mayer, Hill was also unhappy that character was becoming a defining issue in American politics. Before her claims went public, she told a friend “that she had been ‘appalled’ by the treatment their old Yale professor Robert Bork had received during his abortive confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in 1987. She didn’t want to see another nominee ripped apart on the basis of his personal character: ‘Bork and Thomas should stand or fall on their ideas.’ ”
It’s somewhat ironic that Biden—who made a point of rejecting character-based politics in 1991—has been frequently accused of transforming American political culture on those very grounds when he ran Bork’s confirmation hearing in 1987, just as his own presidential campaign was collapsing on character-related charges. (He withdrew from the race in the middle of the hearings.) Borking has become a term of art for unfairly attacking a candidate through “harsh public criticism or vilification.” Many conservatives blame Biden, specifically, for ushering in an era dominated by the politics of personal destruction, even though the effort to turn public opinion against Bork (which cited his conservative legal opinions but also his role presumably aiding Nixon in Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre) was initiated by Sen. Ted Kennedy and a combination of grassroots organizations. In actuality, Biden tried to safeguard Bork’s privacy, refusing, for example, to subpoena Bork’s video rental history. In 2008, a former Biden intern described Biden’s commitment to the theoretical separation of private and public selves at this crucial moment in 1987: “I saw Mr. Biden struggle to focus the hearings on Judge Bork’s judicial philosophy rather than his private life, in the face of overwhelming political pressure from interest groups on the left. … He did everything in his power to resist the collapse of boundaries.” Still, the hearing was one of the first to be televised and Bork himself was underprepared, which did nothing to turn the tide back in his favor. The Senate voted against the nominee by the widest margin in history.
This much is accurate: Biden maintained a distinction between public and private life even when it was not politically advantageous to do so. The future vice president’s reluctance to act on Hill’s account until he was forced to is well documented. So is the fact that he considered burying other ethically troubling allegations about nominees the decent thing to do—to avoid besmirching their characters. Per the New York Times, “On other occasions as Judiciary Committee chairman, [Biden] said he had been made aware of unsubstantiated reports of wrongdoings by nominees that he did not divulge in order to protect their reputations.” On the whole, Biden seemed to believe that a man’s good name needed protection more than his alleged bad actions needed exposure. In a 1992 interview with E.J. Dionne in which he looked back on the confirmation hearings, he said he regretted not defending Hill and “attacking the attackers,” but he also made clear that he was worried less about damage to Hill’s character than to Thomas’. Conceding that he could have paused the hearings in order to investigate whether there was a “pattern of behavior,” Biden said that it wouldn’t have been fair—to Thomas. He was worried that doing so would allow rumors about Thomas to spread.
Biden did, however, pay lip service to the new world everyone was inhabiting. He speechified—to Thomas and to his colleagues—about how private misconduct intersects with public service, and how the judgment of a man accused of such a thing would go:
We’re big boys. I knew when I ran for president everything was free game. Anybody who runs for the Supreme Court or is appointed to the Supreme Court, to be more precise, should understand. It’s not Boy Scouts, it’s not Cub Scouts.
Biden also clarified then that the hearing was “not a referendum” on whether sexual harassment was a grave offense—it was—but about whether it had occurred. “Now,” he addressed Thomas, “we’re going to hear more witnesses who are going to come in and corroborate your position and hers. We’ll find out whether they’re telling the truth or not as best as we are capable of doing, just like you as a judge are when you look them in the eye and make a judgment.”
What emerges is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them.
As we now know, Biden did not call three witnesses who could have spoken to whether Thomas had a pattern of sexual harassment. Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett were prepared to testify to Thomas’ conduct and to the culture at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. So was a third woman, Rose Jourdain, who said she could back up Wright’s testimony and was prepared to do so while extremely ill.
In 2017, Biden told Teen Vogue that he wanted the witnesses to testify and that they had refused. “I wasn’t able to convince three women we’d subpoenaed to cooperate with testimony. At the last minute, they changed their mind and said they wouldn’t do it. I had them sign an affidavit saying, ‘I want you to come, and you’re saying, “No, I will not come.” ’ ” A letter to that effect does exist for Wright—it’s in the hearing transcript and bears Wright’s signature as well as Biden’s. But Mayer and Abramson’s reporting on how that letter came to be entered into the record does not remotely match Biden’s account:
An aide from Biden’s office called Middlebrooks [Wright’s attorney] and offered to release Wright from her subpoena—if she was willing to say that she had requested the cancellation. Wright’s response was typically blunt: ‘Bullshit. After I’ve been sitting here for three days being called names?’ Middlebrooks also refused. ‘You are not going to make her look like she’s cutting and running. She’s the key second witness and we want our story aired.’
Biden’s office kept negotiating ways for Wright not to testify, and Wright finally signed. As for Hardnett, she said in a 2018 interview with NPR that she had no idea why she wasn’t called.
What emerges from all this, it seems to me, is a portrait of a man perceptive enough to articulate changing mores even if he privately resists them. Biden wants to be good, works very hard to look good, and squints very hard to try to make nice and good mean the same thing. But given the choice between exposing a fellow insider’s questionable conduct or withholding that information from the public he ostensibly represents, Biden protected the insider. Faced with the assassination of Anita Hill’s character (which was happening in real time, under his watch) and the potential assassination of Thomas’, he protected Thomas and not Hill. Biden prioritized the preservation of the insider’s reputation over the public’s right to know.
Such a man might plagiarize slightly from various speeches (or in law school). Such a man might also massage an unfavorable story into a more flattering one. It’s he who desperately wanted Angela Wright-Shannon and Sukari Hardnett to testify, Biden maintains; it was they who pulled out. Or perhaps, as he has also suggested, it was Hill’s preference that Wright keep quiet: “Biden and several of his top staff members said that it had been Hill and her lawyers who had chiefly opposed calling Wright,” Mayer and Abramson write. But Hill denied this. “We were waiting for Angela Wright’s testimony, just like everyone else,” Hill said. “Apparently something went wrong. I was as surprised as anyone that she didn’t testify.”
Biden’s stories about all this don’t quite add up. He’s not out-and-out wrong—the Wright affidavit exists, and she signed it!—but the whole is sloppy and incomplete, and the omissions and errors accrue in his favor. Biden clearly sensed, even at the time, that not calling Wright might look bad. When Democratic senators decided against calling her, Biden came out and told his staff the result of a full committee vote was 13–1 against her testifying “with himself as her sole supporter.” But two other Democratic senators on the committee said they recalled no such vote. Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat, said, “I don’t think Biden was anxious to bring Angela Wright on.”
Even as Biden tacitly protected Thomas’ privacy, he publicly told him “you will not be unaffected by this no matter what happens. Nobody goes through the white-hot glare of this process at any level for any reason and comes out unaffected.” He also chose a fascinating metaphor for how character ought to be understood: “But, Judge, nobody’s reputation, nobody’s reputation, is a snapshot; it’s a motion picture. And the picture is being made, and you’ve made a vast part of it the last 43 years.”
I have been reading up on Biden as a “motion picture” for obvious reasons—to better understand who Biden was before he was reinvented, during Obama’s presidency, as a warm and frank “Uncle Joe” whose gaffes are part of his charm. This last snapshot is the muscular public image on which his well-rooted marriage to the American public is based. Looking back a few decades doesn’t just reveal a great deal more about who Biden was—it illustrates how the American conversation around what we expect from public officials developed too. I understand why Biden wants to remain laser-focused only on his history since helping to pass the Violence Against Women Act. But the preceding years were crucial. They defined how the nation would and would not grapple with scandals around sex—a sphere whose “dirtiness” had functionally created a safe space of sorts for men of all previous generations, but which was becoming contested, political, and public.
A minor publishing scandal in 1979 illustrated how sensitive this new focus on private conduct was, and how much the idea of holding male politicians accountable was considered risky, or extreme, or unfair. Ted Kennedy was challenging Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination for president. Suzannah Lessard wrote a 3,000-word essay about Kennedy’s philandering called “Kennedy’s Woman Problem, Women’s Kennedy Problem” for the New Republic. It was controversial enough that TNR owner Marty Peretz refused to publish it, prompting editor Michael Kinsley to resign in protest (he would later be rehired). The Washington Monthly picked the column up and made it the cover of its December issue.
Lessard’s point is by now familiar: She argues that character—in every sphere—counts. While privacy matters, Ted Kennedy’s womanizing must be considered fair game if he intends to run for president, she writes. She criticizes “the fastidious gentlemen’s code that holds that the private lives of politicians should be off limits, that what counts are the serious matters, such as a man’s position on issues, and that only a very sleazy and trivial reporter would lower himself to write about that sort of dirt.” She observes, too, that there’s more than a whiff of condescension underpinning this attitude about what the voting public needs to know: that if the people knew what politicians were really like, it would “render them incapable of treating such information properly. They would be excessively shocked, they would overreact, and the political process would be distorted by irrelevancies.”
Today we’re all the way on the other side: overexposed to “that sort of dirt” about politicians and exhausted from the task of sorting through it. Has the political process been “distorted by irrelevancies”? Or has this painful ongoing process of navigating the “character” question been, on the whole, worth it?
The public’s answers to these questions have oscillated. Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, for instance, was a Republican effort to make “character” sink a president, but it didn’t work out that way. Even as, according to polling, Americans became more skeptical of whether the president had “high moral and ethical standards,” they still supported his presidency and the roaring economy that buttressed it. Many said they didn’t care what Clinton did in his personal life provided he did his job.
More recently, Donald Trump has thrown a much larger wrench into these fine distinctions. And indeed, the upcoming election, between two men who have weathered—even broken—the character question, may mark another drastic shift in how we consider it.
It’s pretty clear by now that Tara Reade’s allegation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993 will mean little or nothing for Biden’s presidential bid. Further reporting has cast some doubt on Reade’s credibility, but from an electoral standpoint, it’s amazing how little her allegation seemed to matter in the first place. Despite the ethical demands #MeToo made, people’s individual rulings on whether they believed Reade didn’t seem to much affect whether they would vote for Biden. Lucy Flores, who wrote an essay for the Cut last year describing the discomfort she experienced when he touched her and smelled her hair at a campaign event; Linda Hirshman; and many other feminists who spoke up for Reade said that if the presidency comes down to Trump and Biden, they would reluctantly, citing a principle of harm reduction, vote for the latter. “I won’t say it will be easy,” Hirshman wrote. “I know how supposedly ‘liberal’ men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way.” But she would swallow her reservations and vote for Biden anyway. The neighbor who corroborated Reade’s account falls into this category too; she’s a Biden supporter and likely to remain so. I’ve never been a Biden supporter, but if he’s the candidate, I, too, will vote for him, because the ongoing calamity in the United States must be slowed. Even Reade herself, in her recent interview with Megyn Kelly, said she understands that people who believe her will still vote for Biden. (She also noted that he “should not be running on character for the president of the United States.”)
These statements suggest that “character” might have run its course as a decisive issue in American politics. There are too many tangible emergencies. There is a pandemic. Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims. More than 100,000 people who were alive three months ago are dead. Black people are being killed on video with little to no accountability while the president defends Confederate monuments and generals. Despite the dangers, the streets are wild with people’s desperation and unhappiness. In the middle of all of this, Biden is deploying one of his unique strengths—his empathy, born from the many familial tragedies he’s suffered through while in politics. America is grieving right now, and Joe Biden is good at grief.
There are too many tangible emergencies. There is a pandemic. Forty million Americans have filed jobless claims.
He is also, arguably, using the character issue to reroute Americans’ character concerns into institutional questions. When Biden says “character is on the ballot,” the line isn’t about his character as much as it is about the moral character of America. His campaign is not personality-driven. At this particular point in history, that lack of emphasis on the self may be a welcome change.
Trump and Biden, who have both been public figures for decades, have each weathered the character question by rejecting its premises. But they’ve done so in different ways. Trump has flouted ethical prescriptions both publicly and privately. He screwed people who worked for him by not paying them, knowing they’d never be able to make him do so in court. He sued enemies until they gave up, bribed porn stars, and used Trump University to further immiserate vulnerable people who didn’t see through the fraud. He’s the ultimate expression of the American id freed of any remaining Puritan constraints, and of American capitalism freed from any regulation at all, whether legal, ethical, or social.
Biden, by contrast, has long battled from inside the crosshairs of the character crisis, as both administrator and subject. His record is mixed; the flaws that cost him the Democratic nomination in 1987 are still there. New issues like his handsiness have emerged. As for Reade: Much has been written about her credibility, but it’s worth reiterating that Biden’s credibility is in question too. The strange lies he repeatedly tells—about being arrested en route to visiting Nelson Mandela even though he wasn’t, about marching in the civil rights movement even though he did not—are as injurious as his reluctance to give them up is baffling. But on this front, as with so many, Trump has bottomed out the curve. Biden’s ethical infractions exist, but he still responds to at least a few external standards besides his naked self-interest. He wants to be considered a good and decent man by people of all political persuasions, Republicans included. This last is key. Whatever else one might say about him—and I’ve said plenty—he worked very hard during the Thomas hearings to be considered fair—by Republicans even more than by Democrats.
If character were still a top-tier issue for Americans, other candidates in the Democratic primary would have fared better than they have. Biden isn’t the character candidate. He might be the decency candidate (decency being a flattering category that forgives and overlooks much that character exacts and excludes). Given the current political terrain, many Americans seem to regard having ethical aspirations at all—even if you don’t live up to them, even if you fudge facts in your striving toward them, even if you have at times sacrificed righteousness for reputation—as enough.
There is an upside to this low bar. If Biden wins, his will not be a cultish victory, and some diminished passion toward the presidency might be a healthy corrective to a country whose character might be damaged beyond repair. No doubt a President Biden would see his character come under assault by the opposing party, but it’s not likely to be able to do much damage. Much of the public is exhausted, furious, and sickened by the yawning gap between American ideals and American realities. Standards have been shredded to such an extent that it’s hard to imagine a candidate dropping out over a character issue now. Maybe this is OK. The mythmaking urge to turn our leaders into idols of history—whether Clinton or Reagan or Kennedy—was always in tension with the ugly facts that kept emerging about them. Of course the cognitive dissonance was insupportable. Of course American idealism did not survive the ongoing public exposure of the political system that built it. But if we can start treating presidents as functionaries rather than celebrities—if the reality TV president ends the celebrity presidency—that will have been a good thing. And if Biden’s first presidential run was one of the first casualties of character politics, his late career ascent might mark its end.
|
www.slate.com
| 0left
|
ufF6EOpmOlwcwSwE
|
terrorism
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/politics/obama-kerry-paris/index.html
|
Kerry defends absence from unity rally, will go to Paris on Thursday
|
2015-01-12
|
Eric Bradner
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Barack Obama 's administration admitted it erred by failing to send a higher-ranking representative of the United States to the Paris unity march on Sunday .
`` I think it 's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there , '' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon .
He said Obama himself would have liked to attend the march `` had the circumstances been a little different . '' But planning began Friday night , 36 hours before the event began , and there was n't enough time for the `` onerous and significant '' security work that needed to take place ahead of a presidential visit , Earnest said . He said Obama 's presence also would have meant extra restrictions on the people who were there .
`` That said , there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stand foursquare behind our allies in France as they face down this threat , '' he said . `` And that was evident throughout last week . ''
More than 40 world leaders , including the British , German and Israeli heads of state and Russia 's foreign minister , joined at least 1.5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity march that became France 's biggest-ever public demonstration .
But Obama and his administration 's top hands were nowhere to be found -- an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity .
The United States appeared to have options to send to the march : Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule . Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend , also with a blank public schedule . Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings -- and even recorded interviews with several U.S. Sunday morning programs -- but he did n't attend the march .
A Secret Service official said the agency was not asked to draw up security plans for a potential presidential trip to Paris in advance of Sunday 's march .
`` We were n't asked or notified about a trip , '' the official said . But the agency had Secret Service agents on the ground in Paris , per its standard operating procedure .
`` It would have been a challenging advance ... based on what we know , '' Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said . But Leary did not say that such an advance would have been impossible .
During the White House briefing , Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris . But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off . An agency official noted previous `` last minute '' presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency , including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela .
The White House noted that it was represented in Paris on Sunday -- and has offered support to France in recent days .
U.S . Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march , as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland . At a security summit , Holder was joined in those security meetings by deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas .
Obama personally visited the French Embassy in Washington last week to offer his support .
Secretary of State John Kerry , meanwhile , will visit Paris on Friday .
Kerry skipped Monday 's march because he was in India on Monday for a long-planned event there with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi -- a key relationship as the United States tries to improve long-strained trade ties with the country .
Kerry brushed the criticism off as `` quibbling , '' saying he 'll visit Paris on his way back to the United States to make `` crystal clear how passionately we feel '' about the attacks and response .
`` The U.S. has been deeply engaged with the people of France since this incident occurred , '' Kerry told reporters , adding that the United States has offered intelligence and law enforcement help .
`` This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched , our ambassador was there and marched , many people from the embassy were there and marched . ''
France 's ambassador to the United States , Gerard Araud , sought to show there are no hard feelings , tweeting on Monday : `` I am extremely grateful for the overwhelming support France has received from everybody here , from the President to the ordinary American . ''
The White House 's push-back comes as Obama takes heat -- particularly from Republicans considering 2016 presidential bids -- for his absence .
Rick Perry tweeted that Obama `` should have stood with France in person to defend Western values and show support for victims . ''
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) wrote for Time : `` Our President should have been there , because we must never hesitate to stand with our allies . ''
And Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) said Monday that `` it was a mistake not to send someone . ''
Rubio said on CBS ' `` This Morning '' that he understands that the President 's security detail can be problem in mass gatherings like the rally , but suggested Holder or Kerry should have gone in his place .
`` I think in hindsight , I would hope , that they would do it differently , '' Rubio said .
JUST WATCHED Millions gather against terrorism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Millions gather against terrorism 01:00
British Prime Minister David Cameron , German Chancellor Angela Merkel , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended , along with religious leaders .
Fareed Zakaria , host of CNN 's `` Global Public Square , '' called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake .
France is the United States ' `` deepest ideological ally , '' he said , and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member , or the President , standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders .
Zakaria noted that security concerns did n't dissuade Netanyahu or Abbas or other leaders from showing up . But Obama 's absence did show that the struggle against radical Islam is `` not all about America , '' Zakaria said .
`` Many people have tended to think that Islamic terrorism would n't exist without America , '' Zakaria said . `` This is really a struggle between the civilized world and a band of extremists . Even if you take the U.S. out of it ... the civilized world is up in arms . ''
And Jake Tapper , host of CNN 's `` The Lead , '' said American leaders were conspicuously absent from historic Paris rally , perhaps the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation .
Tapper not only called out the President and his administration , but also prospective 2016 hopefuls from both parties , for missing the opportunity to share in the global moment .
Obama spoke about the Paris attacks on Friday , saying he wants the people of France to know the United States `` stands with you today , stands with you tomorrow . ''
The White House also announced Sunday that it will host a February 18 summit aimed at countering violent extremism .
Earnest said that event will `` highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing , recruiting or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence , efforts made even more imperative in light of recent , tragic attacks in Ottawa , Sydney and Paris . ''
He said the summit will include presentations , panel discussions and small group meetings , focused on the local , state and federal government levels .
|
Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama's administration admitted it erred by failing to send a higher-ranking representative of the United States to the Paris unity march on Sunday.
"I think it's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon.
He said Obama himself would have liked to attend the march "had the circumstances been a little different." But planning began Friday night, 36 hours before the event began, and there wasn't enough time for the "onerous and significant" security work that needed to take place ahead of a presidential visit, Earnest said. He said Obama's presence also would have meant extra restrictions on the people who were there.
"That said, there is no doubt that the American people and this administration stand foursquare behind our allies in France as they face down this threat," he said. "And that was evident throughout last week."
More than 40 world leaders, including the British, German and Israeli heads of state and Russia's foreign minister, joined at least 1.5 million people on the Paris streets Sunday for a unity march that became France's biggest-ever public demonstration.
But Obama and his administration's top hands were nowhere to be found -- an absence that triggered complaints that he missed a key leadership opportunity.
The United States appeared to have options to send to the march: Obama spent Sunday at the White House with no public events on his schedule. Vice President Joe Biden was at home in Delaware for the weekend, also with a blank public schedule. Outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for security meetings -- and even recorded interviews with several U.S. Sunday morning programs -- but he didn't attend the march.
A Secret Service official said the agency was not asked to draw up security plans for a potential presidential trip to Paris in advance of Sunday's march.
"We weren't asked or notified about a trip," the official said. But the agency had Secret Service agents on the ground in Paris, per its standard operating procedure.
"It would have been a challenging advance ... based on what we know," Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary said. But Leary did not say that such an advance would have been impossible.
During the White House briefing, Earnest suggested security challenges were a factor in not having the president travel to Paris. But Earnest acknowledged the Secret Service could have pulled it off. An agency official noted previous "last minute" presidential trips have happened during the Obama presidency, including a hurried visit to South Africa in December 2013 for the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.
The White House noted that it was represented in Paris on Sunday -- and has offered support to France in recent days.
U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley was in the march, as was assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. At a security summit, Holder was joined in those security meetings by deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Obama personally visited the French Embassy in Washington last week to offer his support.
Secretary of State John Kerry, meanwhile, will visit Paris on Friday.
Kerry skipped Monday's march because he was in India on Monday for a long-planned event there with new Prime Minister Narendra Modi -- a key relationship as the United States tries to improve long-strained trade ties with the country.
Kerry brushed the criticism off as "quibbling," saying he'll visit Paris on his way back to the United States to make "crystal clear how passionately we feel" about the attacks and response.
"The U.S. has been deeply engaged with the people of France since this incident occurred," Kerry told reporters, adding that the United States has offered intelligence and law enforcement help.
"This is sort of quibbling a little bit in the sense that our assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was there and marched, our ambassador was there and marched, many people from the embassy were there and marched."
France's ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, sought to show there are no hard feelings, tweeting on Monday: "I am extremely grateful for the overwhelming support France has received from everybody here, from the President to the ordinary American."
The White House's push-back comes as Obama takes heat -- particularly from Republicans considering 2016 presidential bids -- for his absence.
Rick Perry tweeted that Obama "should have stood with France in person to defend Western values and show support for victims."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wrote for Time: "Our President should have been there, because we must never hesitate to stand with our allies."
And Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said Monday that "it was a mistake not to send someone."
Rubio said on CBS' "This Morning" that he understands that the President's security detail can be problem in mass gatherings like the rally, but suggested Holder or Kerry should have gone in his place.
"I think in hindsight, I would hope, that they would do it differently," Rubio said.
JUST WATCHED Millions gather against terrorism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Millions gather against terrorism 01:00
Who did go
British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov were among those who attended, along with religious leaders.
Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "Global Public Square," called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake.
France is the United States' "deepest ideological ally," he said, and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member, or the President, standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders.
Zakaria noted that security concerns didn't dissuade Netanyahu or Abbas or other leaders from showing up. But Obama's absence did show that the struggle against radical Islam is "not all about America," Zakaria said.
"Many people have tended to think that Islamic terrorism wouldn't exist without America," Zakaria said. "This is really a struggle between the civilized world and a band of extremists. Even if you take the U.S. out of it ... the civilized world is up in arms."
And Jake Tapper, host of CNN's "The Lead," said American leaders were conspicuously absent from historic Paris rally, perhaps the most important public demonstrations in Europe in the last generation.
Tapper not only called out the President and his administration, but also prospective 2016 hopefuls from both parties, for missing the opportunity to share in the global moment.
What Obama said
Obama spoke about the Paris attacks on Friday, saying he wants the people of France to know the United States "stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow."
The White House also announced Sunday that it will host a February 18 summit aimed at countering violent extremism.
Earnest said that event will "highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney and Paris."
He said the summit will include presentations, panel discussions and small group meetings, focused on the local, state and federal government levels.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
oUOpcIBYqcvl9gHI
|
economy_and_jobs
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/07/what-if-minimum-wage-increase-is-fraud.html
|
OPINION: What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud?
|
2016-04-07
|
Andrew Napolitano, Andrew P. Napolitano
|
What if the latest craze among the big-government crowd in both major political parties is to use the power of government to force employers to pay some of their employees more than their services are worth to the employers ?
What if this represents an intrusion by government into the employer-employee relationship ? What if this consists of the government 's effectively saying that it knows the financial worth of employees ’ services better than the employers and the employees do ?
What if the minimum wage , now on the verge of being raised to $ 15 per hour everywhere in the land , is really the government 's using threats of ruin and force to transfer wealth ? What if the $ 15-per-hour figure is based on a political compromise rather than on free market forces or economic realities ?
What if these wealth transfers will have profound unintended economic consequences and will negatively affect everyone ?
What if one of the politically intended consequences is that the employees whose salaries will rise will show gratitude not to their employers , who will be paying them more than they earn , by working better but to the politicians who will have forced the employers to pay them more by voting for those politicians ?
What if the right of an employee to sell labor by going to work and the right of an employer to purchase that labor by paying a salary are part of the natural right to exchange goods and services , which the Constitution was written to protect ? What if during America ’ s most prosperous periods , that right was protected by the courts ?
What if there are clauses in the Constitution that protect that right but the modern courts have ignored them ? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with freely entered-into contracts but the government does so anyway ? What if the courts have approved this ?
What if the Constitution prohibits the government from taking property from people without charging them with wrongdoing and proving the charge to a jury but the government does so anyway ? What if the courts have declined to interfere with all this theft ?
What if it is none of the government ’ s business how an employer and an employee decide on salary ? What if the employer and the employee know far more about the worth of the employee ’ s services and the needs of the employer than the politicians in the government do ?
What if the government has fundamental misunderstandings of the way businesses earn money , create wealth and pay salaries ? What if the government 's mindset is stuck on the governmental economic model ? What if that model has no competition , guaranteed revenue and no creation of wealth ?
What if that governmental mindset is one of control and central planning rather than appealing to the needs of consumers by providing goods and services better , faster and more cheaply than the competition ? What if the government has no need to be better , faster and cheaper because taxpayers are forced to pay it for services they often don ’ t use and the government has no competition ?
What if forcing employers to pay employees more than their services are worth results in higher prices for the goods and services the employers produce ? What if the effect of the minimum wage rise is to transfer wealth not from employers to employees but from consumers to employees ? What if the rising prices of goods and services , caused by the forced increase in wages , put some of those goods and services beyond the reach of some folks who rely upon them ?
What if the folks who can no longer afford some goods and services on which they have come to rely are the very same people whom the politicians have boasted they are helping by the increase in the minimum wage ? What if the politicians who have done this do not know what they are talking about ? What if they believe they can use minimum wage increases to bribe the poor for votes -- just as they bribe the wealthy with bailouts and the middle class with tax cuts ?
What if there are other unintended consequences to the governmental imposition of a minimum wage ? What if , rather than pay employees more than they are worth , employers stop employing some of them ? What if this results in higher unemployment ? What if the rise in the minimum wage has the unintended consequence of harming the folks it is supposed to help ?
What if the poor are better off being gainfully employed and earning less than $ 15 an hour , with an opportunity for advancement , than not working , earning nothing and relying on welfare ? What if that welfare burden adds to already overtaxed state budgets ?
What if states raise taxes to care for the newly unemployed ? What if the newly unemployed lose the self-esteem they once enjoyed when they were gainfully employed ?
What if all this came about not because of market forces , such as supply and demand , and not because people worked harder and produced more but because of lawless , greedy politicians -- heedless of basic economics -- who think they can write any law , regulate any behavior and tax any event without adverse consequences ?
What if the politicians who caused this did so just to win the votes of those they promised to help ? What if these politicians only helped themselves ? What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud ? What do we do about it ?
|
What if the latest craze among the big-government crowd in both major political parties is to use the power of government to force employers to pay some of their employees more than their services are worth to the employers?
What if this represents an intrusion by government into the employer-employee relationship? What if this consists of the government's effectively saying that it knows the financial worth of employees’ services better than the employers and the employees do?
What if the minimum wage, now on the verge of being raised to $15 per hour everywhere in the land, is really the government's using threats of ruin and force to transfer wealth? What if the $15-per-hour figure is based on a political compromise rather than on free market forces or economic realities?
What if these wealth transfers will have profound unintended economic consequences and will negatively affect everyone?
What if one of the politically intended consequences is that the employees whose salaries will rise will show gratitude not to their employers, who will be paying them more than they earn, by working better but to the politicians who will have forced the employers to pay them more by voting for those politicians?
What if the right of an employee to sell labor by going to work and the right of an employer to purchase that labor by paying a salary are part of the natural right to exchange goods and services, which the Constitution was written to protect? What if during America’s most prosperous periods, that right was protected by the courts?
What if there are clauses in the Constitution that protect that right but the modern courts have ignored them? What if the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with freely entered-into contracts but the government does so anyway? What if the courts have approved this?
What if the Constitution prohibits the government from taking property from people without charging them with wrongdoing and proving the charge to a jury but the government does so anyway? What if the courts have declined to interfere with all this theft?
What if it is none of the government’s business how an employer and an employee decide on salary? What if the employer and the employee know far more about the worth of the employee’s services and the needs of the employer than the politicians in the government do?
What if the government has fundamental misunderstandings of the way businesses earn money, create wealth and pay salaries? What if the government's mindset is stuck on the governmental economic model? What if that model has no competition, guaranteed revenue and no creation of wealth?
What if that governmental mindset is one of control and central planning rather than appealing to the needs of consumers by providing goods and services better, faster and more cheaply than the competition? What if the government has no need to be better, faster and cheaper because taxpayers are forced to pay it for services they often don’t use and the government has no competition?
What if forcing employers to pay employees more than their services are worth results in higher prices for the goods and services the employers produce? What if the effect of the minimum wage rise is to transfer wealth not from employers to employees but from consumers to employees? What if the rising prices of goods and services, caused by the forced increase in wages, put some of those goods and services beyond the reach of some folks who rely upon them?
What if the folks who can no longer afford some goods and services on which they have come to rely are the very same people whom the politicians have boasted they are helping by the increase in the minimum wage? What if the politicians who have done this do not know what they are talking about? What if they believe they can use minimum wage increases to bribe the poor for votes -- just as they bribe the wealthy with bailouts and the middle class with tax cuts?
What if there are other unintended consequences to the governmental imposition of a minimum wage? What if, rather than pay employees more than they are worth, employers stop employing some of them? What if this results in higher unemployment? What if the rise in the minimum wage has the unintended consequence of harming the folks it is supposed to help?
What if the poor are better off being gainfully employed and earning less than $15 an hour, with an opportunity for advancement, than not working, earning nothing and relying on welfare? What if that welfare burden adds to already overtaxed state budgets?
What if states raise taxes to care for the newly unemployed? What if the newly unemployed lose the self-esteem they once enjoyed when they were gainfully employed?
What if all this came about not because of market forces, such as supply and demand, and not because people worked harder and produced more but because of lawless, greedy politicians -- heedless of basic economics -- who think they can write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event without adverse consequences?
What if the politicians who caused this did so just to win the votes of those they promised to help? What if these politicians only helped themselves? What if the minimum wage increase is a fraud? What do we do about it?
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
GbeYXIXkTDMXjN6X
|
education
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/30/louisville-cold-weather-kentucky-governor-matt-bevin/2719925002/
|
Kentucky governor: Schools closing for wind chill is a sign we're 'soft'
|
2019-01-30
|
Phillip M. Bailey
|
CLOSE As Louisville dips into single digit weather , here are some things to keep in mind . Nikki Boliaux , Louisville Courier Journal
LOUISVILLE , Ky. – Kentucky Gov . Matt Bevin prodded Kentucky school districts to toughen up in the face of dangerously frigid winds that are blowing through the region .
Speaking on WHAS-AM ( 840 AM ) Tuesday , host Terry Meiners reminded Bevin that he would be up late with his children because of classes being canceled Wednesday .
`` Now we cancel school for cold , I mean — `` Bevin said .
`` Come on , now , '' Bevin said . `` There 's no ice going with it or any snow . What happens to America . We 're getting soft , Terry , we 're getting soft . ''
The Kentucky Education Association , which has jousted with Bevin over pension reform , did n't take kindly to the governor 's comment .
The teachers union tweeted : `` We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky 's children . Always . ''
We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky ’ s children . Always . https : //t.co/y0UlCd7VYL — KEA ( @ KYEducators ) January 29 , 2019
Jessica Dueñas , a teacher at the W.E.B . Du Bois Academy in Louisville , did not react warmly to the governor 's comments .
Jan. 30 : It feels like 51 below zero in Chicago : Polar vortex strikes Midwest
Jan. 30 : The Chicago River is 'smoking ' and freezing . Here 's what it looks like in sub-zero temperatures
She said via Twitter that she should like to see Bevin , `` prove how 'hard ' he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing , like many of ( Kentucky 's students ) would have been due to their lack of resources . ''
I ’ d like to see @ MattBevin prove how “ hard ” he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing , like many of KY ’ s Ss would have been due to their lack of resources . https : //t.co/gyIDo16g03 — Jessica Dueñas Ed.S . ( @ JDuenas24 ) January 29 , 2019
Tiffany Dunn , another Louisville teacher who is a self-described conservative and co-founder of `` Save Our Schools KY '' the public education advocacy group , said Bevin 's `` elitist comments do n't shock me anymore , but they 're still appalling . ''
`` I ’ m thankful for our school systems taking student safety so seriously , '' she said . `` We have to remember the safety of every child — not just those who have the means to dress warmly in this type of weather . ''
Arctic air from the polar vortex has gripped the country , causing several school districts throughout the country to be closed or have delayed starts Wednesday as temperatures and wind chills dipped below zero .
Jan. 30 : How to keep your furnace running and your pipes from freezing during the dangerous cold
Jan. 29 : Airlines resorting to 'extraordinary measures ' to protect airport workers in extreme cold
With the wind chill on Wednesday morning , forecasters say that it could feel as cold as 10 or 20 degrees below zero in parts of Louisville .
Meteorologists have said when the polar vortex plunges into the U.S. , it will be warmer in parts of the Arctic than in places like Chicago and Minneapolis . Some cities are seeing their lowest temperatures in more than two decades .
The subzero wind chills and single-digit temperatures set to hit Louisville have the potential to make it one of the coldest days on record , according to the National Weather Service . The weather service is advising residents to drip faucets to prevent pipes from freezing , limit their exposure outside and wear extra layers .
Bevin admitted during the interview that it is better for school districts to take the side of caution , but he said he is increasingly troubled by how the country reacts to adversity .
`` I 'm being only slightly facetious , '' he said , `` but it does concern me a little bit that in America on this and any number of other fronts , we 're sending messages to our young people that if life is hard you can curl up in the fetal position — somewhere in a warm place — and wait till it stops being hard , and that just is n't reality , it just is n't . ''
But that did n't stop Bevin 's political rivals on both sides of the aisle from also pouncing on his interview comments .
Jan. 29 : As historic cold blasts Midwest , cities focus on vulnerable , homeless
Jan. 29 : How long does it take for hypothermia , mummified skin to set in during extreme cold ?
Democrat Adam Edelen , who is running for governor , said he wished `` there were better words to describe the things our governor says than 'dumb and mean . ' But there aren ’ t . ''
Republican state . Rep. Robert Goforth , who is running against Bevin in the GOP primary , also slammed the remarks on Twitter . He said the comments were `` Easy for a guy to say who went to the ( Gould Academy ) - a $ 60k/yr prep school . I ’ m with KY 's kids ! ''
Political strategist Doug Stafford , who serves as a senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , also mocked the governor 's comments .
`` Oh hush , '' Stafford , a Republican , tweeted . `` It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow . Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that . No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid . ''
Oh hush . It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow . Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that . No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid . — Doug Stafford ( @ dougstafford ) January 29 , 2019
Contributing : Thomas Novelly , ( Louisville , Ky. ) Courier Journal . Follow Phillip M. Bailey on Twitter : @ phillipmbailey
|
CLOSE As Louisville dips into single digit weather, here are some things to keep in mind. Nikki Boliaux, Louisville Courier Journal
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin prodded Kentucky school districts to toughen up in the face of dangerously frigid winds that are blowing through the region.
Speaking on WHAS-AM (840 AM) Tuesday, host Terry Meiners reminded Bevin that he would be up late with his children because of classes being canceled Wednesday.
"Now we cancel school for cold, I mean — " Bevin said.
"It's deep freeze; this is serious business," Meiners responded.
"Come on, now," Bevin said. "There's no ice going with it or any snow. What happens to America. We're getting soft, Terry, we're getting soft."
The Kentucky Education Association, which has jousted with Bevin over pension reform, didn't take kindly to the governor's comment.
The teachers union tweeted: "We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky's children. Always."
We will always support decisions made for the health & safety of Kentucky’s children. Always. https://t.co/y0UlCd7VYL — KEA (@KYEducators) January 29, 2019
Jessica Dueñas, a teacher at the W.E.B. Du Bois Academy in Louisville, did not react warmly to the governor's comments.
Jan. 30: It feels like 51 below zero in Chicago: Polar vortex strikes Midwest
Jan. 30: The Chicago River is 'smoking' and freezing. Here's what it looks like in sub-zero temperatures
She said via Twitter that she should like to see Bevin, "prove how 'hard' he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing, like many of (Kentucky's students) would have been due to their lack of resources."
I’d like to see @MattBevin prove how “hard” he is by standing outside for 30 minutes tomorrow morning as if he were waiting for a bus with less than adequate clothing, like many of KY’s Ss would have been due to their lack of resources. https://t.co/gyIDo16g03 — Jessica Dueñas Ed.S. (@JDuenas24) January 29, 2019
Tiffany Dunn, another Louisville teacher who is a self-described conservative and co-founder of "Save Our Schools KY" the public education advocacy group, said Bevin's "elitist comments don't shock me anymore, but they're still appalling."
"I’m thankful for our school systems taking student safety so seriously," she said. "We have to remember the safety of every child — not just those who have the means to dress warmly in this type of weather."
Arctic air from the polar vortex has gripped the country, causing several school districts throughout the country to be closed or have delayed starts Wednesday as temperatures and wind chills dipped below zero.
Jan. 30: How to keep your furnace running and your pipes from freezing during the dangerous cold
Jan. 29: Airlines resorting to 'extraordinary measures' to protect airport workers in extreme cold
With the wind chill on Wednesday morning, forecasters say that it could feel as cold as 10 or 20 degrees below zero in parts of Louisville.
Meteorologists have said when the polar vortex plunges into the U.S., it will be warmer in parts of the Arctic than in places like Chicago and Minneapolis. Some cities are seeing their lowest temperatures in more than two decades.
The subzero wind chills and single-digit temperatures set to hit Louisville have the potential to make it one of the coldest days on record, according to the National Weather Service. The weather service is advising residents to drip faucets to prevent pipes from freezing, limit their exposure outside and wear extra layers.
Bevin admitted during the interview that it is better for school districts to take the side of caution, but he said he is increasingly troubled by how the country reacts to adversity.
"I'm being only slightly facetious," he said, "but it does concern me a little bit that in America on this and any number of other fronts, we're sending messages to our young people that if life is hard you can curl up in the fetal position — somewhere in a warm place — and wait till it stops being hard, and that just isn't reality, it just isn't."
But that didn't stop Bevin's political rivals on both sides of the aisle from also pouncing on his interview comments.
Jan. 29: As historic cold blasts Midwest, cities focus on vulnerable, homeless
Jan. 29: How long does it take for hypothermia, mummified skin to set in during extreme cold?
Democrat Adam Edelen, who is running for governor, said he wished "there were better words to describe the things our governor says than 'dumb and mean.' But there aren’t."
Republican state. Rep. Robert Goforth, who is running against Bevin in the GOP primary, also slammed the remarks on Twitter. He said the comments were "Easy for a guy to say who went to the (Gould Academy) - a $60k/yr prep school. I’m with KY's kids!"
Political strategist Doug Stafford, who serves as a senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, also mocked the governor's comments.
"Oh hush," Stafford, a Republican, tweeted. "It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow. Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that. No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid."
Oh hush. It will be 0 degrees with 20-30mph winds in places in KY tomorrow. Kids have to sit on bus stops and or walk a mile or more in that. No one wants to hear your old man stories about walking uphill both ways in that when you were a kid. — Doug Stafford (@dougstafford) January 29, 2019
You can listen to Bevin's full interview here.
Contributing: Thomas Novelly, (Louisville, Ky.) Courier Journal. Follow Phillip M. Bailey on Twitter: @phillipmbailey
Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/30/louisville-cold-weather-kentucky-governor-matt-bevin/2719925002/
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
blnAYmPWRZfd82zJ
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/10/jeb-bush-not-much-daylight-between-immigration-pla/
|
Jeb Bush: Not much daylight between immigration plans
|
2013-03-10
|
David Sherfinski
|
Former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush , blanketing the Sunday talk shows , vigorously denied charges leveled at him in the past week that he ’ s shifted his views on immigration reform as other Republicans eyeing potential 2016 presidential bids jockey for position on the issue .
Mr. Bush said he still favors a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and is on the same page with a bipartisan group of senators crafting such a bill after his new book outlining a “ pathway to residency ” for those in the country illegally drew fire from both the right and the left last week .
“ I … think that a path to citizenship , so long as the ability of someone to come legally is easier and less costly than coming illegally , then a path to citizenship is appropriate , and I applaud the work of the senators and others in the Congress that are working to try to craft a consensus and a compromise on this issue , ” Mr. Bush said on “ Fox News Sunday . ”
But in his new book , “ Immigration Wars : Forging an American Solution , ” Mr. Bush writes that he favors a path to residency , rather than citizenship , for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country , and that they should have to leave the country and reapply if they truly want to get U.S. citizenship .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , South Carolina Republican and a member of the “ Gang of Eight , ” said last week that such a stance “ undercuts ” what the senators are trying to accomplish .
But Mr. Bush said he had talked with Mr. Graham and they are on the same page — and that his views on the issue have been consistent despite backing a pathway to citizenship earlier in his career .
“ I haven ’ t changed , ” he said on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation. ” “ I support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people that have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less , the legal entrance to our country , than illegal entrance . ”
“ Let ’ s wait for a few minutes and see how Jeb Bush changes his mind , again , ” Mr. Reid told reporters last week . “ His opinion on immigration is not evolving ; it ’ s devolving . He keeps going backwards . ”
President Obama , who had pledged to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first term , has made the issue one of his top priorities for his second .
But Republicans working on the issue have a tricky needle to thread between distancing themselves from the president and potentially alienating Latino voters . Republican Sens . Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky immediately blasted a framework for immigration reform leaked by the White House last month that included a path to citizenship as part of the plan . Mr. Rubio has been widely viewed as a potential 2016 nominee , and Mr. Paul ’ s stock rose tremendously in that regard after waging a filibuster that lasted nearly 13 hours last week and ended up as a scathing critique of the White House ’ s policy on drone aircraft . Mr. Rubio , whose parents emigrated to the United States from Cuba , favors a pathway to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally , and Mr. Bush said his views “ absolutely ” coincide with those .
“ I applaud what Senator Rubio ’ s doing , the other members of the so-called Gang of Eight — they ’ re making a major contribution , ” Mr. Bush said on “ Face the Nation. ” “ And there ’ s also efforts in the House of Representatives as well . This is a very encouraging time , because if we can get immigration right , imagine , there ’ s possibilities of cats and dogs living with one another in other policy areas as well . ”
But Mr. Bush flatly dismissed the notion that the events of the past week or his book had anything to do with political maneuvering for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination .
“ Yeah , see , that ’ s the Washington world , the world of everything has to have a personal political ambition , motive , ” he said . “ That ’ s not the case . The book was written last year at a time when the tenor of the debate on immigration was dramatically different than it is today . ”
|
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, blanketing the Sunday talk shows, vigorously denied charges leveled at him in the past week that he’s shifted his views on immigration reform as other Republicans eyeing potential 2016 presidential bids jockey for position on the issue.
Mr. Bush said he still favors a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and is on the same page with a bipartisan group of senators crafting such a bill after his new book outlining a “pathway to residency” for those in the country illegally drew fire from both the right and the left last week.
“I … think that a path to citizenship, so long as the ability of someone to come legally is easier and less costly than coming illegally, then a path to citizenship is appropriate, and I applaud the work of the senators and others in the Congress that are working to try to craft a consensus and a compromise on this issue,” Mr. Bush said on “Fox News Sunday.”
But in his new book, “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution,” Mr. Bush writes that he favors a path to residency, rather than citizenship, for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants already in the country, and that they should have to leave the country and reapply if they truly want to get U.S. citizenship.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and a member of the “Gang of Eight,” said last week that such a stance “undercuts” what the senators are trying to accomplish.
But Mr. Bush said he had talked with Mr. Graham and they are on the same page — and that his views on the issue have been consistent despite backing a pathway to citizenship earlier in his career.
“I haven’t changed,” he said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “I support a path to legalization or citizenship so long as the path for people that have been waiting patiently is easier and costs less, the legal entrance to our country, than illegal entrance.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, disagreed.
“Let’s wait for a few minutes and see how Jeb Bush changes his mind, again,” Mr. Reid told reporters last week. “His opinion on immigration is not evolving; it’s devolving. He keeps going backwards.”
President Obama, who had pledged to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his first term, has made the issue one of his top priorities for his second.
But Republicans working on the issue have a tricky needle to thread between distancing themselves from the president and potentially alienating Latino voters. Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky immediately blasted a framework for immigration reform leaked by the White House last month that included a path to citizenship as part of the plan. Mr. Rubio has been widely viewed as a potential 2016 nominee, and Mr. Paul’s stock rose tremendously in that regard after waging a filibuster that lasted nearly 13 hours last week and ended up as a scathing critique of the White House’s policy on drone aircraft. Mr. Rubio, whose parents emigrated to the United States from Cuba, favors a pathway to citizenship for those currently in the country illegally, and Mr. Bush said his views “absolutely” coincide with those.
“I applaud what Senator Rubio’s doing, the other members of the so-called Gang of Eight — they’re making a major contribution,” Mr. Bush said on “Face the Nation.” “And there’s also efforts in the House of Representatives as well. This is a very encouraging time, because if we can get immigration right, imagine, there’s possibilities of cats and dogs living with one another in other policy areas as well.”
But Mr. Bush flatly dismissed the notion that the events of the past week or his book had anything to do with political maneuvering for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
“Yeah, see, that’s the Washington world, the world of everything has to have a personal political ambition, motive,” he said. “That’s not the case. The book was written last year at a time when the tenor of the debate on immigration was dramatically different than it is today.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
Uy7A9dAi693HqGGo
|
environment
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2019/0403/After-California-wildfires-what-survivors-say-they-gained-from-loss
|
After California wildfires, what survivors say they gained from loss
|
2019-04-03
|
Martin Kuz
|
“ I take more things in stride now , ” says Georgina Logue , who lost her house in the fire . The Andersons have yet to decide whether to rebuild their home , but where they once felt unmoored , they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity . Says Ms. Anderson , “ There ’ s almost a sense of freedom now . ”
The changes illustrate a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth . The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose and a greater appreciation of life . “ There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster , ” says Dr. Carol North , a professor of psychiatry . Those changes can range from greater self-confidence to deeper spiritual beliefs .
Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California ’ s wine country , destroying more than 5,300 homes . One was Evelyn and Keith Anderson ’ s house in Santa Rosa . As Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds , she finds herself aware of subtle shifts in her approach to life . She savors the quiet evening hours after work and her bond with the couple ’ s two college-age children has deepened .
The sorrow surges at unexpected moments . Evelyn Anderson recalls a visit to the outdoor store REI a few months ago when she noticed a jacket for sale similar to one she used to own . The coat tripped a cascade of memories of everything else she and her family lost when a wildfire destroyed their home in 2017 .
The thoughts soon receded , a sign of progress from the first year after the fire , when the distress felt chronic , draining her spirit day after endless day . As more time passes , and Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds , she finds herself aware of other subtle shifts in her mindset and approach to life .
She makes an effort to slow down in the evenings after work to savor the quiet hours with her husband . The already close bond she shared with the couple ’ s two college-age children has deepened . Her empathy has grown for those driven from their homes – by natural disasters or drought , by religious persecution or war – and she better understands the anxiety of uncertainty .
“ What ’ s important has changed a lot , ” says Ms. Anderson , the interim co-principal of a French-American charter school in Santa Rosa . “ And the sense that we ’ ve come such a long way since the fire – that feels good . There ’ s a sense of moving forward . ”
Her evolving perspective illustrates a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth . The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of natural disasters , mass shootings , and other life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose , gaining strength from overcoming the adversity imposed upon them .
The process of healing from psychological trauma varies by individual , and the arc of recovery can prove long , uneven , and at times , profoundly discouraging . Yet if a natural disaster exposes the vulnerability of survivors , slogging through the aftermath can uncover hidden reserves of resolve , explains Dr. Carol North , a professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas .
“ There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster , ” says Dr. North , who has studied the effects of trauma on survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks . “ Those can be things like ‘ I realize how many people care about me ’ or ‘ I realize I ’ m a lot stronger than I knew. ’ For some people , their relationships or religious faith can get stronger . ”
Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California ’ s wine country , claiming 22 lives and razing more than 5,300 homes in and around Sonoma County , including the Andersons ’ house in Santa Rosa .
The fire was one of several in fall 2017 that forced mass evacuations in the region , and thousands of people still lack permanent housing . As they attempt to restore the order of life , their internal journey could hold lessons for the residents of Paradise , California , where a wildfire in November killed 85 people and incinerated some 14,000 homes .
Ms. Anderson and her husband , Keith Anderson , an electrical engineer , moved into a rental house after the Tubbs fire . The couple has yet to decide whether to rebuild their home , but where they once felt unmoored , they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity .
“ There ’ s almost a sense of freedom now , ” she says . “ We ’ ve realized that we can do anything . ”
Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee/AP/AP Rhonda Readen , left , hugs her crying partner , Tim Shirley , after they arrived to find their residence in Santa Rosa , Calif. , totally destroyed on Oct. 10 , 2017 . Their Frank Lloyd Wright style home was burned in the Tubbs Fire .
The Tubbs fire ranks as the second-most destructive blaze in state history , behind the wildfire that wiped out much of Paradise . The sluggish pace of new housing construction in Santa Rosa has begun to pick up in the past six months . The emotional recovery of residents remains more difficult to gauge .
The demand for mental health services offers one measure of the trauma caused by the fires two years ago . A disaster crisis counseling program in Sonoma County , funded by the Federal Emergency and Management Agency ( FEMA ) , has provided free services to more than 85,000 residents since October 2017 .
Wendy Wheelwright , the program ’ s project manager , supervises 36 counselors who traverse the county to aid fire survivors coping with what she calls “ the disaster after the disaster. ” The phrase refers to the exhausting process residents face as they try to rebuild , including the almost inevitable battles with FEMA and insurance companies over disaster claims .
Many displaced homeowners have learned that the San Francisco Bay Area ’ s exploding housing costs will prevent them from building a similar home – or at all – on the same property . Those who opt to stay must weigh the risks of living in an area twice ravaged by fire since 1964 and in a state where the size , number , and intensity of wildfires appears on the rise .
The choices can sharpen the despair of residents as they languish between an irretrievable past and an unsettled present . “ It ’ s not just a house and the stuff we lose , ” Ms. Wheelwright says . “ It ’ s also losing the feeling of security and the routines we have as part of our daily lives . ”
The Tubbs fire reduced to ashes the Santa Rosa home where Georgina and John Logue had lived since 1984 . One of their neighbors died in the blaze .
The retired couple ’ s insurance covered only 70 percent of their losses . They bought a smaller house soon after the fire . The space afforded them stability without alleviating their grief .
“ Losing our house was almost like a death , ” Ms. Logue says . “ The first year was very hard and very long . ”
Recent research into the resilience of crisis survivors has expanded to the realm of post-traumatic growth . The theory ’ s broad principles range from greater self-confidence , appreciation for life , and compassion for others to closer personal relationships and deeper spiritual beliefs .
A crucial aspect of that internal change involves the degree of hardship survivors confront as they seek to reclaim their lives . One study found that New York residents who reported severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after Hurricane Sandy showed more capacity to grow from their experience . Several studies of Hurricane Katrina survivors yielded similar results .
Behavioral health researchers emphasize that post-traumatic growth generally occurs only after people resurface from a wrenching crisis and make peace with their fate . “ It ’ s hard for good things to happen when we ’ re still feeling damaged , ” Dr. North says . “ The positive change comes with time and perspective . ”
Ms. Logue sought solace from her faith and family , including five grandchildren . In recent months , with the couple ’ s new home under construction , she has perceived a difference in her disposition from before the fire .
“ I take more things in stride now , ” she says . “ It ’ s just more of an awareness of what ’ s important . I know people who are living in trailers or with family . We ’ re fortunate to be where we are . ”
Madonna Day had lived in her home for 49 years when she fled the Tubbs fire . She returned to piles of scorched rubble and the prospect of starting life over as an octogenarian .
Her visceral connection to the pastoral , Edwardian-style retreat , built in 1908 , spans memories of her two late husbands , the three children she raised , and the small dairy farm she ran to produce goat cheese .
Ms. Day admits her anguish quickened her temper . She scoffed at the well-meaning sympathy of friends and groused about the first rental house her daughter , Marie-Louise Clark , found for her .
She moved into another rental home more to her liking earlier this year , and with stubborn persistence and Ms. Clark ’ s patient help , she has pursued plans to rebuild . Mother and daughter visited the property last week , and while the blackened landscape brought Ms. Day to tears , more light infuses her outlook compared with six months ago .
“ I lost everything , ” she says . “ But I ’ ve realized I don ’ t need all the things I had before. ” As much as the house project and family support , she ascribes the gradual lifting of her mood to a renewed devotion to visiting friends whose physical frailties leave them housebound .
“ I have a very upbeat feeling when I ’ m with them because I ’ m trying to raise their spirits . That feels good because it takes my mind off my situation . It ’ s a way for me to feel like I can help , ” she says .
Studies suggest that people who seek out contact with family , friends , and neighbors after a disaster show higher potential for post-traumatic growth . An analysis of survivors of a deadly tornado in Missouri in 2011 found that more than a third reported post-traumatic growth within 30 months of the storm . In evaluating the responses of residents , researchers concluded that “ family and social networks may help individuals make sense of the traumatic experience by talking together . ”
Samuel Bernier , a psychotherapist who provides individual and group counseling to fire survivors in Santa Rosa , describes creating and repairing social connections as essential to emotional recovery in a disaster ’ s aftermath .
“ With a big wildfire , it ’ s basically like a refugee crisis , ” he says . “ People are dislocated from their homes , their neighborhoods , their communities . Coming together to talk can reduce their sense of isolation and build up their inner strength . ”
Evelyn Anderson escaped her home with little more than her purse and a work laptop . She soon began attending block meetings with other displaced residents from her neighborhood . The sessions acted as a catharsis .
Early on , they shared stories of evacuation chaos , swapped insurance tips , and vented about FEMA . At a meeting two weeks ago , they talked about progress and found reasons to laugh , even as many remain in limbo .
“ Being part of a group of fire survivors does provide strength , ” Ms. Anderson says . “ There ’ s a level of understanding that helps with healing . ”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
She never wanted to endure the trauma that the fire inflicted . She intends to always remember what she has gained from loss .
“ I have more of a sense of how adrift one can be without their home , and that ’ s given me more of an appreciation of what it means to be living with purpose . ”
|
“I take more things in stride now,” says Georgina Logue, who lost her house in the fire. The Andersons have yet to decide whether to rebuild their home, but where they once felt unmoored, they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity. Says Ms. Anderson, “There’s almost a sense of freedom now.”
The changes illustrate a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth. The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose and a greater appreciation of life. “There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster,” says Dr. Carol North, a professor of psychiatry. Those changes can range from greater self-confidence to deeper spiritual beliefs.
Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California’s wine country, destroying more than 5,300 homes. One was Evelyn and Keith Anderson’s house in Santa Rosa. As Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds, she finds herself aware of subtle shifts in her approach to life. She savors the quiet evening hours after work and her bond with the couple’s two college-age children has deepened.
The sorrow surges at unexpected moments. Evelyn Anderson recalls a visit to the outdoor store REI a few months ago when she noticed a jacket for sale similar to one she used to own. The coat tripped a cascade of memories of everything else she and her family lost when a wildfire destroyed their home in 2017.
The thoughts soon receded, a sign of progress from the first year after the fire, when the distress felt chronic, draining her spirit day after endless day. As more time passes, and Ms. Anderson mends from her emotional wounds, she finds herself aware of other subtle shifts in her mindset and approach to life.
She makes an effort to slow down in the evenings after work to savor the quiet hours with her husband. The already close bond she shared with the couple’s two college-age children has deepened. Her empathy has grown for those driven from their homes – by natural disasters or drought, by religious persecution or war – and she better understands the anxiety of uncertainty.
“What’s important has changed a lot,” says Ms. Anderson, the interim co-principal of a French-American charter school in Santa Rosa. “And the sense that we’ve come such a long way since the fire – that feels good. There’s a sense of moving forward.”
Her evolving perspective illustrates a behavioral health theory called post-traumatic growth. The concept focuses on the potential for survivors of natural disasters, mass shootings, and other life-threatening events to emerge over time with renewed purpose, gaining strength from overcoming the adversity imposed upon them.
The process of healing from psychological trauma varies by individual, and the arc of recovery can prove long, uneven, and at times, profoundly discouraging. Yet if a natural disaster exposes the vulnerability of survivors, slogging through the aftermath can uncover hidden reserves of resolve, explains Dr. Carol North, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.
“There are all number of positive things that can happen as people recover from disaster,” says Dr. North, who has studied the effects of trauma on survivors of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “Those can be things like ‘I realize how many people care about me’ or ‘I realize I’m a lot stronger than I knew.’ For some people, their relationships or religious faith can get stronger.”
Next week will mark 18 months since the Tubbs fire tore through Northern California’s wine country, claiming 22 lives and razing more than 5,300 homes in and around Sonoma County, including the Andersons’ house in Santa Rosa.
The fire was one of several in fall 2017 that forced mass evacuations in the region, and thousands of people still lack permanent housing. As they attempt to restore the order of life, their internal journey could hold lessons for the residents of Paradise, California, where a wildfire in November killed 85 people and incinerated some 14,000 homes.
Ms. Anderson and her husband, Keith Anderson, an electrical engineer, moved into a rental house after the Tubbs fire. The couple has yet to decide whether to rebuild their home, but where they once felt unmoored, they have come to regard their loss as an opportunity.
“There’s almost a sense of freedom now,” she says. “We’ve realized that we can do anything.”
Randy Pench/The Sacramento Bee/AP/AP Rhonda Readen, left, hugs her crying partner, Tim Shirley, after they arrived to find their residence in Santa Rosa, Calif., totally destroyed on Oct. 10, 2017. Their Frank Lloyd Wright style home was burned in the Tubbs Fire.
Time and perspective
The Tubbs fire ranks as the second-most destructive blaze in state history, behind the wildfire that wiped out much of Paradise. The sluggish pace of new housing construction in Santa Rosa has begun to pick up in the past six months. The emotional recovery of residents remains more difficult to gauge.
The demand for mental health services offers one measure of the trauma caused by the fires two years ago. A disaster crisis counseling program in Sonoma County, funded by the Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA), has provided free services to more than 85,000 residents since October 2017.
Wendy Wheelwright, the program’s project manager, supervises 36 counselors who traverse the county to aid fire survivors coping with what she calls “the disaster after the disaster.” The phrase refers to the exhausting process residents face as they try to rebuild, including the almost inevitable battles with FEMA and insurance companies over disaster claims.
Many displaced homeowners have learned that the San Francisco Bay Area’s exploding housing costs will prevent them from building a similar home – or at all – on the same property. Those who opt to stay must weigh the risks of living in an area twice ravaged by fire since 1964 and in a state where the size, number, and intensity of wildfires appears on the rise.
The choices can sharpen the despair of residents as they languish between an irretrievable past and an unsettled present. “It’s not just a house and the stuff we lose,” Ms. Wheelwright says. “It’s also losing the feeling of security and the routines we have as part of our daily lives.”
The Tubbs fire reduced to ashes the Santa Rosa home where Georgina and John Logue had lived since 1984. One of their neighbors died in the blaze.
The retired couple’s insurance covered only 70 percent of their losses. They bought a smaller house soon after the fire. The space afforded them stability without alleviating their grief.
“Losing our house was almost like a death,” Ms. Logue says. “The first year was very hard and very long.”
Recent research into the resilience of crisis survivors has expanded to the realm of post-traumatic growth. The theory’s broad principles range from greater self-confidence, appreciation for life, and compassion for others to closer personal relationships and deeper spiritual beliefs.
A crucial aspect of that internal change involves the degree of hardship survivors confront as they seek to reclaim their lives. One study found that New York residents who reported severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder after Hurricane Sandy showed more capacity to grow from their experience. Several studies of Hurricane Katrina survivors yielded similar results.
Behavioral health researchers emphasize that post-traumatic growth generally occurs only after people resurface from a wrenching crisis and make peace with their fate. “It’s hard for good things to happen when we’re still feeling damaged,” Dr. North says. “The positive change comes with time and perspective.”
Ms. Logue sought solace from her faith and family, including five grandchildren. In recent months, with the couple’s new home under construction, she has perceived a difference in her disposition from before the fire.
“I take more things in stride now,” she says. “It’s just more of an awareness of what’s important. I know people who are living in trailers or with family. We’re fortunate to be where we are.”
Living with purpose
Madonna Day had lived in her home for 49 years when she fled the Tubbs fire. She returned to piles of scorched rubble and the prospect of starting life over as an octogenarian.
Her visceral connection to the pastoral, Edwardian-style retreat, built in 1908, spans memories of her two late husbands, the three children she raised, and the small dairy farm she ran to produce goat cheese.
Ms. Day admits her anguish quickened her temper. She scoffed at the well-meaning sympathy of friends and groused about the first rental house her daughter, Marie-Louise Clark, found for her.
She moved into another rental home more to her liking earlier this year, and with stubborn persistence and Ms. Clark’s patient help, she has pursued plans to rebuild. Mother and daughter visited the property last week, and while the blackened landscape brought Ms. Day to tears, more light infuses her outlook compared with six months ago.
“I lost everything,” she says. “But I’ve realized I don’t need all the things I had before.” As much as the house project and family support, she ascribes the gradual lifting of her mood to a renewed devotion to visiting friends whose physical frailties leave them housebound.
“I have a very upbeat feeling when I’m with them because I’m trying to raise their spirits. That feels good because it takes my mind off my situation. It’s a way for me to feel like I can help,” she says.
Studies suggest that people who seek out contact with family, friends, and neighbors after a disaster show higher potential for post-traumatic growth. An analysis of survivors of a deadly tornado in Missouri in 2011 found that more than a third reported post-traumatic growth within 30 months of the storm. In evaluating the responses of residents, researchers concluded that “family and social networks may help individuals make sense of the traumatic experience by talking together.”
Samuel Bernier, a psychotherapist who provides individual and group counseling to fire survivors in Santa Rosa, describes creating and repairing social connections as essential to emotional recovery in a disaster’s aftermath.
“With a big wildfire, it’s basically like a refugee crisis,” he says. “People are dislocated from their homes, their neighborhoods, their communities. Coming together to talk can reduce their sense of isolation and build up their inner strength.”
Evelyn Anderson escaped her home with little more than her purse and a work laptop. She soon began attending block meetings with other displaced residents from her neighborhood. The sessions acted as a catharsis.
Early on, they shared stories of evacuation chaos, swapped insurance tips, and vented about FEMA. At a meeting two weeks ago, they talked about progress and found reasons to laugh, even as many remain in limbo.
“Being part of a group of fire survivors does provide strength,” Ms. Anderson says. “There’s a level of understanding that helps with healing.”
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
She never wanted to endure the trauma that the fire inflicted. She intends to always remember what she has gained from loss.
“I have more of a sense of how adrift one can be without their home, and that’s given me more of an appreciation of what it means to be living with purpose.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
sMfPjUduAq65lEsa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.