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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
environment
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/10/04/california-drought-nasa-satellite-images/16675981/
|
NASA images show California's drought deepening
|
2014-10-04
|
Doyle Rice
|
CLOSE Images from NASA satellites show California 's drought deepening . All of the state is in drought , and more than half is in 'exceptional ' drought . Trevor Hughes
Corrections & Clarifications : An earlier version of this report misstated the month of the 2002 NASA image .
All of California is in a historic drought , and images taken from a NASA satellite show the dramatic decrease in the state 's water storage since 2002 .
The three images were taken in June 2002 , June 2008 and June 2014 . Orange and red colors represent greater water loss .
California 's Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins , which includes the Central Valley , have suffered the most significant losses , in part due to increased groundwater pumping to support agriculture .
Between 2011 and 2014 , these river basins have lost 4 trillion gallons of water each year .
It 's also much more than California 's 38 million residents use in cities and homes annually .
As of Thursday , 100 % of the state of California was in a drought , according to the U.S. Drought Monitor . More than 58 % is in `` exceptional '' drought , the worst level . Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895 , according to data from the National Climatic Data Center .
Calif. Gov . Jerry Brown declared a statewide drought emergency earlier this year . Since then , reservoir storage levels have continued to fall , and as of Thursday , they were down to about 52 % of the historical average .
Regulations restricting outdoor water use were put in place in late July for the entire state . People are n't allowed to hose down driveways or sidewalks , nor are they allowed to water lawns and landscapes ( if there is excess runoff ) . There are reports of wells running dry in central California .
About 1,000 more wildfires than usual have charred the state , including some unusual ones in the spring .
|
CLOSE Images from NASA satellites show California's drought deepening. All of the state is in drought, and more than half is in 'exceptional' drought. Trevor Hughes
Satellite images taken from NASA show the sharp drop in California's water storage levels. (Photo: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of California, Irvine)
Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version of this report misstated the month of the 2002 NASA image.
All of California is in a historic drought, and images taken from a NASA satellite show the dramatic decrease in the state's water storage since 2002.
The three images were taken in June 2002, June 2008 and June 2014. Orange and red colors represent greater water loss.
California's Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, which includes the Central Valley, have suffered the most significant losses, in part due to increased groundwater pumping to support agriculture.
Between 2011 and 2014, these river basins have lost 4 trillion gallons of water each year.
It's also much more than California's 38 million residents use in cities and homes annually.
As of Thursday, 100% of the state of California was in a drought, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. More than 58% is in "exceptional" drought, the worst level. Record warmth has fueled the drought as the state sees its hottest year since records began in 1895, according to data from the National Climatic Data Center.
Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a statewide drought emergency earlier this year. Since then, reservoir storage levels have continued to fall, and as of Thursday, they were down to about 52% of the historical average.
Regulations restricting outdoor water use were put in place in late July for the entire state. People aren't allowed to hose down driveways or sidewalks, nor are they allowed to water lawns and landscapes (if there is excess runoff). There are reports of wells running dry in central California.
About 1,000 more wildfires than usual have charred the state, including some unusual ones in the spring.
MORE FROM USA TODAY
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1vETGOC
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
RibE3NxNTl65mzSK
|
us_congress
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/369870-senate-rejects-funding-bill-hours-before-shutdown-deadline
|
Senate rejects funding bill, partial shutdown begins
|
2018-01-19
|
Senators voted late Friday to reject a House-passed bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 16 , beginning a partial government shutdown .
Most Democrats voted to block the bill as part of a risky strategy to force Republicans to negotiate with them on a legislative fix for `` Dreamers , '' immigrants who illegally came to the country at a young age and now face the prospect of deportation . The procedural motion on the bill failed 50-49 .
Only five Democrats voted to advance the bill — Sens . Joe Manchin Joseph ( Joe ) ManchinFormer coal exec Don Blankenship launches third-party presidential bid Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren 's agenda Overnight Energy : Senate eyes nixing 'forever chemicals ' fix from defense bill | Former Obama EPA chief named CEO of green group | Senate reviews Interior , FERC nominees criticized on ethics MORE ( W.Va. ) , Joe Donnelly Joseph ( Joe ) Simon DonnellyWatchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren , Sanders , Gillibrand MORE ( Ind . ) , Heidi Heitkamp Mary ( Heidi ) Kathryn HeitkampThe Hill 's Morning Report — Biden steadies in third debate as top tier remains the same Trump wins 60 percent approval in rural areas of key states Pence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa MORE ( N.D. ) and Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillGOP senator rips into Pelosi at Trump rally : 'It must suck to be that dumb ' Iranian attacks expose vulnerability of campaign email accounts Ex-CIA chief worries campaigns falling short on cybersecurity MORE ( Mo . ) , who are all up for reelection this year in states carried by President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes MORE in 2016 election , and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones ( D-Ala. ) .
Republicans were also not united , as Sens . Rand Paul Randal ( Rand ) Howard PaulSenate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges McConnell discounts quick dismissal of Trump impeachment articles : 'We 'll have to have a trial ' GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower MORE ( Ky. ) , Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( S.C. ) , Mike Lee Michael ( Mike ) Shumway LeeFed chief urges Congress to expand US workforce while economy still strong On The Money : Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments | Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight | Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war Retirement bill blocked in Senate amid fight over amendments MORE ( Utah ) and Jeff Flake Jeffrey ( Jeff ) Lane FlakeLindsey Graham basks in the impeachment spotlight Kelly , McSally virtually tied in Arizona Senate race : poll ███ 's 12:30 Report — Presented by Nareit — White House cheers Republicans for storming impeachment hearing MORE ( Ariz. ) also voted against advancing the legislation . Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCain2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes The Memo : Democrats confront prospect of long primary Defending their honor as we hear their testimony MORE ( R-Ariz. ) , who is battling brain cancer , was absent .
The procedural vote remained open for roughly two hours on Friday night , remaining well below the needed 60 votes to pass .
Office of Management and Budget ( OMB ) Director Mick Mulvaney John ( Mick ) Michael MulvaneyKent , Taylor say they 're not 'Never Trumpers ' after Trump Twitter offensive GOP counsel acknowledges 'irregular channel ' between U.S. and Ukraine ███ 's 12:30 Report : Democrats open televised impeachment hearings MORE issued a memorandum instructing agencies to begin a shutdown .
The memo said that because OMB does not have a clear signal from Congress that it will act to fund the government , it is necessary to execute plans `` for an orderly shutdown '' due to the absence of appropriations .
While a partial shutdown has started , Mulvaney earlier in the day suggested the negative effects of a shutdown would not completely be felt until Monday , when hundreds of thousands of workers would be furloughed .
The closure will mark the first time that the government has been shuttered since 2013 , when a shutdown carried on for 16 days as a band of Republicans tried to dismantle ObamaCare .
Republicans are blaming Senate Democrats for the latest shutdown , arguing their refusal to agree to a one-month stopgap passed on a largely party-line vote in the House caused the shutdown .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison ( Mitch ) Mitchell McConnellGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham : Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower ' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE ( R-Ky. ) delayed the vote until late Friday evening as part of an effort to raise pressure on Democrats .
A meeting at the White House earlier on Friday between Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action MORE ( N.Y. ) and President Trump failed to break the stalemate , though both sides said some progress had been made .
In a speech on the Senate floor , Schumer said he had made concessions in the talks with Trump , even offering to consider his proposal for a southern border wall — an idea that Democrats had long called a non-starter .
`` During the meeting , in exchange for strong [ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ] protections , I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for the discussion . Even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal , '' Schumer said from the Senate floor .
`` In my heart , I thought we might have a deal tonight . That was how far we had come . That 's how positive our discussion felt . We had a good meeting , '' he said .
McConnell in his own floor speech castigated Democrats , saying they have forced a `` completely avoidable '' shutdown .
`` What we have just witnessed on the floor was a cynical decision by Senate Democrats to shove aside millions of Americans for the sake of irresponsible , political games , '' he said from the Senate floor .
The funding fight is set to spill over into Saturday , when both the House and Senate will be in session .
McConnell late Friday announced he would move to amend the government funding bill so that it funds the government until Feb. 8 .
A vote on that bill could be held Saturday , but it 's unclear whether it will pass . Schumer said congressional leaders should meet at the White House with Trump to finalize an agreement on immigration and the broader government funding package .
Republicans and Democrats spent most of Friday blaming each other for the looming shutdown .
“ This is completely unfair and uncompassionate for my Democratic colleagues to filibuster government funding , harm our troops and jeopardize health coverage for 9 million children because extreme elements of their base want illegal immigration to crowd out every other priority , ” McConnell said .
He says immigration reform should be handled separately from the spending bills and wants Trump to sign off on an immigration deal before it comes to the Senate floor .
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin Richard ( Dick ) Joseph DurbinPentagon watchdog declines to investigate hold on Ukraine aid Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action Five things to watch at Supreme Court 's DACA hearings MORE ( Ill. ) took to the floor after McConnell to blast Republicans for failing to make substantial progress after Trump tasked Congress with replacing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
“ So what has the Republican majority in the House and Senate done in the four and a half months since we received that challenge from President Trump ? Nothing . Nothing , ” he said
Trump administration officials hoped up until the last moment that Democrats would change their mind and vote for the House-passed stopgap , even though they made it clear they saw it as unacceptable .
White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters Friday evening that he still hoped that Democrats would let the House bill pass .
Negotiations on an immigration proposal to grant legal status to `` Dreamers '' and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border seemed to go backwards .
The No . 2-ranking leaders in both chambers , Durbin , Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Overnight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges MORE ( Texas ) , House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring , ' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay ███ 's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump , Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE ( R-Calif. ) , and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton Hoyer Hoyer calls GOP efforts to out whistleblower 'despicable ' Live coverage : House holds first public impeachment hearing Congress hunts for path out of spending stalemate MORE ( D-Md . ) , had been tasked with leading the immigration talks .
But a meeting of these four leaders that had been scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Friday , and then postponed to 1 p.m. , never happened .
Instead , Cornyn and McCarthy met separately and reported making some progress .
Cornyn applauded Trump for rejecting a bipartisan Senate deal crafted by three Democrats and three Republicans , including Durbin , Flake and Graham .
“ The president did the right thing . He told him look , you go back and you talk to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader and you guys work that out , ” Cornyn said , summarizing Trump ’ s conversation with Schumer about immigration earlier in the day .
Facing a stalemate on immigration , Schumer has shifted the argument slightly by arguing that Democrats are justified in opposing the short-term spending bill because funding the government with a series of stopgaps creates uncertainty for defense and nondefense programs .
In an unusual move , the Democratic leader decried the potential impact on the military , which is usually a Republican talking point .
“ The Pentagon thinks this [ continuing resolution ] is wrong for our military , ” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday night , reading a statement from a Dana White , the chief Defense Department spokeswoman , who called the succession of stopgap spending measures “ wasteful and destructive . ”
Schumer also wants to negotiate an extension of the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program for longer than the six-years included in the House bill , as well as higher spending caps for domestic federal programs .
But the stalemate over immigration policy is the biggest holdup .
Republicans oppose the bipartisan bill favored by the Senate Democratic leadership , arguing it does not do enough to enhance border security .
|
Senators voted late Friday to reject a House-passed bill that would have funded the government until Feb. 16, beginning a partial government shutdown.
Most Democrats voted to block the bill as part of a risky strategy to force Republicans to negotiate with them on a legislative fix for "Dreamers," immigrants who illegally came to the country at a young age and now face the prospect of deportation. The procedural motion on the bill failed 50-49.
Only five Democrats voted to advance the bill — Sens. Joe Manchin Joseph (Joe) ManchinFormer coal exec Don Blankenship launches third-party presidential bid Centrist Democrats seize on state election wins to rail against Warren's agenda Overnight Energy: Senate eyes nixing 'forever chemicals' fix from defense bill | Former Obama EPA chief named CEO of green group | Senate reviews Interior, FERC nominees criticized on ethics MORE (W.Va.), Joe Donnelly Joseph (Joe) Simon DonnellyWatchdog accuses pro-Kavanaugh group of sending illegal robotexts in 2018 Lobbying world Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand MORE (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp Mary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampThe Hill's Morning Report — Biden steadies in third debate as top tier remains the same Trump wins 60 percent approval in rural areas of key states Pence to push new NAFTA deal in visit to Iowa MORE (N.D.) and Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillGOP senator rips into Pelosi at Trump rally: 'It must suck to be that dumb' Iranian attacks expose vulnerability of campaign email accounts Ex-CIA chief worries campaigns falling short on cybersecurity MORE (Mo.), who are all up for reelection this year in states carried by President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes MORE in 2016 election, and newly elected Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.).
ADVERTISEMENT
Republicans were also not united, as Sens. Rand Paul Randal (Rand) Howard PaulSenate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges McConnell discounts quick dismissal of Trump impeachment articles: 'We'll have to have a trial' GOP motions to subpoena whistleblower MORE (Ky.), Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham: Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE (S.C.), Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeFed chief urges Congress to expand US workforce while economy still strong On The Money: Retirement savings bill blocked in Senate after fight over amendments | Stopgap bill may set up December spending fight | Hardwood industry pleads for relief from Trump trade war Retirement bill blocked in Senate amid fight over amendments MORE (Utah) and Jeff Flake Jeffrey (Jeff) Lane FlakeLindsey Graham basks in the impeachment spotlight Kelly, McSally virtually tied in Arizona Senate race: poll The Hill's 12:30 Report — Presented by Nareit — White House cheers Republicans for storming impeachment hearing MORE (Ariz.) also voted against advancing the legislation. Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCain2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes The Memo: Democrats confront prospect of long primary Defending their honor as we hear their testimony MORE (R-Ariz.), who is battling brain cancer, was absent.
The procedural vote remained open for roughly two hours on Friday night, remaining well below the needed 60 votes to pass.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney John (Mick) Michael MulvaneyKent, Taylor say they're not 'Never Trumpers' after Trump Twitter offensive GOP counsel acknowledges 'irregular channel' between U.S. and Ukraine The Hill's 12:30 Report: Democrats open televised impeachment hearings MORE issued a memorandum instructing agencies to begin a shutdown.
The memo said that because OMB does not have a clear signal from Congress that it will act to fund the government, it is necessary to execute plans "for an orderly shutdown" due to the absence of appropriations.
It said OMB would offer additional guidance as appropriate.
While a partial shutdown has started, Mulvaney earlier in the day suggested the negative effects of a shutdown would not completely be felt until Monday, when hundreds of thousands of workers would be furloughed.
The closure will mark the first time that the government has been shuttered since 2013, when a shutdown carried on for 16 days as a band of Republicans tried to dismantle ObamaCare.
Republicans are blaming Senate Democrats for the latest shutdown, arguing their refusal to agree to a one-month stopgap passed on a largely party-line vote in the House caused the shutdown.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Graham: Senate trial 'must expose the whistleblower' Graham says Schiff should be a witness in Trump impeachment trial MORE (R-Ky.) delayed the vote until late Friday evening as part of an effort to raise pressure on Democrats.
A meeting at the White House earlier on Friday between Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight, seeking larger action MORE (N.Y.) and President Trump failed to break the stalemate, though both sides said some progress had been made.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Schumer said he had made concessions in the talks with Trump, even offering to consider his proposal for a southern border wall — an idea that Democrats had long called a non-starter.
"During the meeting, in exchange for strong [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] protections, I reluctantly put the border wall on the table for the discussion. Even that was not enough to entice the president to finish the deal," Schumer said from the Senate floor.
"In my heart, I thought we might have a deal tonight . That was how far we had come. That's how positive our discussion felt. We had a good meeting," he said.
McConnell in his own floor speech castigated Democrats, saying they have forced a "completely avoidable" shutdown.
"What we have just witnessed on the floor was a cynical decision by Senate Democrats to shove aside millions of Americans for the sake of irresponsible, political games," he said from the Senate floor.
The funding fight is set to spill over into Saturday, when both the House and Senate will be in session.
McConnell late Friday announced he would move to amend the government funding bill so that it funds the government until Feb. 8.
A vote on that bill could be held Saturday, but it's unclear whether it will pass. Schumer said congressional leaders should meet at the White House with Trump to finalize an agreement on immigration and the broader government funding package.
Republicans and Democrats spent most of Friday blaming each other for the looming shutdown.
“This is completely unfair and uncompassionate for my Democratic colleagues to filibuster government funding, harm our troops and jeopardize health coverage for 9 million children because extreme elements of their base want illegal immigration to crowd out every other priority,” McConnell said.
He says immigration reform should be handled separately from the spending bills and wants Trump to sign off on an immigration deal before it comes to the Senate floor.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin Richard (Dick) Joseph DurbinPentagon watchdog declines to investigate hold on Ukraine aid Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight, seeking larger action Five things to watch at Supreme Court's DACA hearings MORE (Ill.) took to the floor after McConnell to blast Republicans for failing to make substantial progress after Trump tasked Congress with replacing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
“So what has the Republican majority in the House and Senate done in the four and a half months since we received that challenge from President Trump? Nothing. Nothing,” he said
Trump administration officials hoped up until the last moment that Democrats would change their mind and vote for the House-passed stopgap, even though they made it clear they saw it as unacceptable.
White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters Friday evening that he still hoped that Democrats would let the House bill pass.
Negotiations on an immigration proposal to grant legal status to "Dreamers" and boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border seemed to go backwards.
The No. 2-ranking leaders in both chambers, Durbin, Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn John CornynGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Overnight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Senate GOP waves Trump off early motion to dismiss impeachment charges MORE (Texas), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy Kevin Owen McCarthyHouse Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring,' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay The Hill's Morning Report - Diplomats kick off public evidence about Trump, Ukraine House Republicans prepare for public impeachment proceedings with mock hearing MORE (R-Calif.), and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer Steny Hamilton Hoyer Hoyer calls GOP efforts to out whistleblower 'despicable' Live coverage: House holds first public impeachment hearing Congress hunts for path out of spending stalemate MORE (D-Md.), had been tasked with leading the immigration talks.
But a meeting of these four leaders that had been scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Friday, and then postponed to 1 p.m., never happened.
Instead, Cornyn and McCarthy met separately and reported making some progress.
Cornyn applauded Trump for rejecting a bipartisan Senate deal crafted by three Democrats and three Republicans, including Durbin, Flake and Graham.
“The president did the right thing. He told him look, you go back and you talk to the Speaker and the Senate majority leader and you guys work that out,” Cornyn said, summarizing Trump’s conversation with Schumer about immigration earlier in the day.
Facing a stalemate on immigration, Schumer has shifted the argument slightly by arguing that Democrats are justified in opposing the short-term spending bill because funding the government with a series of stopgaps creates uncertainty for defense and nondefense programs.
In an unusual move, the Democratic leader decried the potential impact on the military, which is usually a Republican talking point.
“The Pentagon thinks this [continuing resolution] is wrong for our military,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday night, reading a statement from a Dana White, the chief Defense Department spokeswoman, who called the succession of stopgap spending measures “wasteful and destructive.”
Schumer also wants to negotiate an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program for longer than the six-years included in the House bill, as well as higher spending caps for domestic federal programs.
But the stalemate over immigration policy is the biggest holdup.
Republicans oppose the bipartisan bill favored by the Senate Democratic leadership, arguing it does not do enough to enhance border security.
Updated at 1:30 a.m.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
xcxsqWkIvfLaVHWw
|
|
republican_party
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2016-election-republican-technology-hurdle-113200.html?hp=t3_r
|
GOP's tech hurdle: They don't always get it
|
2014-11-20
|
Tony Romm
|
Republican presidential prospects like Ted Cruz , Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have tapped the tech industry ’ s fat wallets and mined its big-data expertise — but these 2016 hopefuls couldn ’ t be further from Silicon Valley when it comes to policy .
A series of major divides — from the fate of net neutrality to the future of surveillance reform — still splits this trio of prominent pols from Internet giants in the country ’ s tech heartland , which helped catapult President Barack Obama to well-funded victories in 2008 and 2012 .
Web companies , for example , are pressing the Federal Communications Commission for new rules that would require Internet providers to treat all online traffic equally . But Cruz , Paul and Rubio are anything but neutral on net neutrality — they hate it , much less any government regulation at all .
Republicans also have a rift with the tech industry over domestic spying . More than a year of work by tech leaders like Facebook and Google to curtail the National Security Agency ’ s surveillance authorities failed this month in part because Rubio joined Paul , usually a supporter , in voting against it . And tech executives who have clamored for more high-skilled workers have heard only criticism lately from most Republicans , who slammed Obama after he issued an executive order on immigration reform .
Even the GOP acknowledges it has plenty of work to do to woo Silicon Valley . “ If you look historically at who people donate to , it ’ s really been 9 or 10 to 1 , Democrat to Republican — we haven ’ t done as well , ” said Paul , who has been working to set up a new West Coast outpost .
But the senator stressed the GOP still has plenty to offer , especially on tax issues that matter to tech titans ’ bottom lines . “ Republicans are actually going to try to do something to help the economy , ” he said .
Technology companies represent some of the most successful firms in the country , and their executives form the ranks of the nation ’ s richest . That means there ’ s plenty of campaign cash for candidates to milk — and Democrats long have dominated that well . Beyond money , Democrats also have outpaced Republicans in attracting the sort of tech talent required to run modern , data-intensive campaigns .
Obama in his first presidential campaign formed powerful alliances at companies like Google , and his team by 2012 had set up an entire apparatus — Technology 4 Obama — to solicit donations from the likes of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman . Entering the 2014 midterms , Democrats again returned repeatedly to Silicon Valley and San Francisco for a series of high-dollar fundraisers . Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Sam Altman , the leader of Y Combinator , for example , hosted the president earlier this year ; so did Mark Pincus , who founded Zynga .
“ We ’ re talking about some very deep pockets here , ” said Larry Gerston , a professor focusing on U.S. public policy at San Jose State University . “ They ’ re just figuring out that money can buy them things they never imagined . ”
But , Gerston added , “ For all their efforts , certainly , Republican tech types and folks close to the Republican Party haven ’ t managed well . ”
The poor political odds have only spurred the GOP to action . Paul this summer began work to set up a technology hub of sorts in San Francisco — and the Kentucky senator returned there in October for a fundraiser alongside other prominent Senate Republicans . Cisco CEO John Chambers helped host the event at the Woodside , California , home of Oracle ’ s Larry Ellison . These tech hardware players — and others , like new Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz and HP CEO Meg Whitman , who unsuccessfully ran for governor in California — long have backed and funded Republican candidates .
“ He ’ s hopeful it ’ s a libertarian incubator of future Ayn Rands , ” said Shawn Steel , a past chairman of the California Republican Party , when asked about Paul ’ s strategy . But even Steel acknowledged that many Internet company executives are “ deeply in the infrastructure of progressive Democrats . ”
Rubio , meanwhile , has tried to align himself with businesses — speaking , for example , at Uber ’ s Beltway headquarters about the threat of government regulation to ride-sharing apps and other tech disrupters . The Florida senator has also spoken at Google ’ s Washington office about immigration , and he ’ s paid a visit to 1776 , D.C. ’ s start-up incubator .
And Cruz has ported his firebrand conservative style to tech : The Texas Republican traveled this month down to a start-up hub in Austin , where he plopped a rotary telephone down on a podium in a heated diatribe against what he called the FCC ’ s archaic approach to the Internet .
For many Republicans , their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture . | AP Photo
For all their efforts , though , there ’ s still a widening policy gap between national Republicans and the Internet giants they ’ re trying to court .
Companies like Facebook , Google , Yahoo and Yelp — through their Washington trade group , the Internet Association — are public backers of net neutrality . They together have praised Obama for endorsing an approach that might subject the Internet to utility-like regulation . All three Republicans , however , rejected the president ’ s suggestion . Rubio hammered it as “ government regulation of the Internet ” that “ threatens to restrict Internet growth and increase costs on Internet users. ” And Cruz lambasted net neutrality as “ Obamacare for the Internet ” in a tweet that went viral — and drew plenty of criticism .
A high-stakes vote over the future of the NSA further tested Republicans ’ relationships in the Valley . Paul and others had supported a major overhaul of the agency ’ s authorities to collect Americans ’ communications in bulk — but the senator shocked tech giants and civil-liberties groups when he pulled support at the last minute , as the so-called USA Freedom Act reached the Senate floor for a key procedural vote . Cruz did support the measure ; Rubio long had stated his opposition , citing emerging terrorist threats and the need for more intelligence .
And for all the talk about the tech set ’ s need for more high-skilled workers , all three Republican stalwarts slammed Obama last week for acting on his own to advance immigration reform . Cruz and Paul previously voted against an immigration bill that tech companies had backed .
To hear Paul tell it , the party hasn ’ t hurt its standing among the tech crowd . He and others , for example , have backed high-skilled labor reforms in the past . The GOP senator also stressed that support for net neutrality is “ not actually uniform throughout Silicon Valley . ”
Paul further defended his vote on surveillance reform , stressing in an interview he “ couldn ’ t vote for it because it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act ” — a law he described as “ heinous. ” And in doing so , the senator appeared to take an indirect shot at his colleague , Rubio : Paul said the only gap between his party and tech companies might involve “ Republicans who believe in vast and overwhelming government surveillance. ” Without naming anyone , Paul continued : “ I don ’ t think they have much in common at all . ”
Republican insiders also assure that the party still has plenty to offer Silicon Valley , especially on business issues — like lowering the taxes that companies pay when they return profits from overseas .
“ The parties have raised substantial resources [ in the Valley ] , both parties have substantial allies , and both parties have been appreciated on some issues and less so on others , ” said Bruce Mehlman , the leader of the Technology CEO Council and a former top tech adviser during the George W. Bush administration .
“ Republicans have been better on tax ; Republicans have [ been ] better on trade ; Democrats have been better on research funding and STEM education , ” Mehlman continued . “ Both historically have been good on high-skilled immigration , but it ’ s stuck right now . … As a result , the tech industry has always been , and remains to be , a jump ball as a political constituency . ”
For many Republicans , though , their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture .
When national Republicans have opposed gay marriage , fought climate change and taken conservative stands on hot-button social issues — the topics that tend to resonate in California — they ’ ve created a divide with the very Valley tech executives they might be trying to attract . That schism in part prompted Google , Yahoo and Yelp to depart the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council earlier this year . The group , comprised of state legislators and top companies , had lobbied extensively against renewable-energy mandates .
A community of Web entrepreneurs have come to realize that if “ it doesn ’ t fit with our employees , it doesn ’ t fit with our customers , it doesn ’ t fit with who we are , ” Gerston said .
|
Republican presidential prospects like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have tapped the tech industry’s fat wallets and mined its big-data expertise — but these 2016 hopefuls couldn’t be further from Silicon Valley when it comes to policy.
A series of major divides — from the fate of net neutrality to the future of surveillance reform — still splits this trio of prominent pols from Internet giants in the country’s tech heartland, which helped catapult President Barack Obama to well-funded victories in 2008 and 2012.
Story Continued Below
Web companies, for example, are pressing the Federal Communications Commission for new rules that would require Internet providers to treat all online traffic equally. But Cruz, Paul and Rubio are anything but neutral on net neutrality — they hate it, much less any government regulation at all.
Republicans also have a rift with the tech industry over domestic spying. More than a year of work by tech leaders like Facebook and Google to curtail the National Security Agency’s surveillance authorities failed this month in part because Rubio joined Paul, usually a supporter, in voting against it. And tech executives who have clamored for more high-skilled workers have heard only criticism lately from most Republicans, who slammed Obama after he issued an executive order on immigration reform.
( Also on POLITICO: Rick Perry ramps up)
Even the GOP acknowledges it has plenty of work to do to woo Silicon Valley. “If you look historically at who people donate to, it’s really been 9 or 10 to 1, Democrat to Republican — we haven’t done as well,” said Paul, who has been working to set up a new West Coast outpost.
But the senator stressed the GOP still has plenty to offer, especially on tax issues that matter to tech titans’ bottom lines. “Republicans are actually going to try to do something to help the economy,” he said.
Technology companies represent some of the most successful firms in the country, and their executives form the ranks of the nation’s richest. That means there’s plenty of campaign cash for candidates to milk — and Democrats long have dominated that well. Beyond money, Democrats also have outpaced Republicans in attracting the sort of tech talent required to run modern, data-intensive campaigns.
Obama in his first presidential campaign formed powerful alliances at companies like Google, and his team by 2012 had set up an entire apparatus — Technology 4 Obama — to solicit donations from the likes of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman. Entering the 2014 midterms, Democrats again returned repeatedly to Silicon Valley and San Francisco for a series of high-dollar fundraisers. Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and Sam Altman, the leader of Y Combinator, for example, hosted the president earlier this year; so did Mark Pincus, who founded Zynga.
( Also on POLITICO: Online education run amok?)
“We’re talking about some very deep pockets here,” said Larry Gerston, a professor focusing on U.S. public policy at San Jose State University. “They’re just figuring out that money can buy them things they never imagined.”
But, Gerston added, “For all their efforts, certainly, Republican tech types and folks close to the Republican Party haven’t managed well.”
The poor political odds have only spurred the GOP to action. Paul this summer began work to set up a technology hub of sorts in San Francisco — and the Kentucky senator returned there in October for a fundraiser alongside other prominent Senate Republicans. Cisco CEO John Chambers helped host the event at the Woodside, California, home of Oracle’s Larry Ellison. These tech hardware players — and others, like new Oracle co-CEO Safra Catz and HP CEO Meg Whitman, who unsuccessfully ran for governor in California — long have backed and funded Republican candidates.
“He’s hopeful it’s a libertarian incubator of future Ayn Rands,” said Shawn Steel, a past chairman of the California Republican Party, when asked about Paul’s strategy. But even Steel acknowledged that many Internet company executives are “deeply in the infrastructure of progressive Democrats.”
( Also on POLITICO: Portman for (vice) president)
Rubio, meanwhile, has tried to align himself with businesses — speaking, for example, at Uber’s Beltway headquarters about the threat of government regulation to ride-sharing apps and other tech disrupters. The Florida senator has also spoken at Google’s Washington office about immigration, and he’s paid a visit to 1776, D.C.’s start-up incubator.
And Cruz has ported his firebrand conservative style to tech: The Texas Republican traveled this month down to a start-up hub in Austin, where he plopped a rotary telephone down on a podium in a heated diatribe against what he called the FCC’s archaic approach to the Internet.
For many Republicans, their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture. | AP Photo
Both senators declined to be interviewed for this story.
For all their efforts, though, there’s still a widening policy gap between national Republicans and the Internet giants they’re trying to court.
Companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Yelp — through their Washington trade group, the Internet Association — are public backers of net neutrality. They together have praised Obama for endorsing an approach that might subject the Internet to utility-like regulation. All three Republicans, however, rejected the president’s suggestion. Rubio hammered it as “government regulation of the Internet” that “threatens to restrict Internet growth and increase costs on Internet users.” And Cruz lambasted net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet” in a tweet that went viral — and drew plenty of criticism.
A high-stakes vote over the future of the NSA further tested Republicans’ relationships in the Valley. Paul and others had supported a major overhaul of the agency’s authorities to collect Americans’ communications in bulk — but the senator shocked tech giants and civil-liberties groups when he pulled support at the last minute, as the so-called USA Freedom Act reached the Senate floor for a key procedural vote. Cruz did support the measure; Rubio long had stated his opposition, citing emerging terrorist threats and the need for more intelligence.
( Also on POLITICO: Paul on Ferguson: Criminal justice reforms part of answer)
And for all the talk about the tech set’s need for more high-skilled workers, all three Republican stalwarts slammed Obama last week for acting on his own to advance immigration reform. Cruz and Paul previously voted against an immigration bill that tech companies had backed.
To hear Paul tell it, the party hasn’t hurt its standing among the tech crowd. He and others, for example, have backed high-skilled labor reforms in the past. The GOP senator also stressed that support for net neutrality is “not actually uniform throughout Silicon Valley.”
Paul further defended his vote on surveillance reform, stressing in an interview he “couldn’t vote for it because it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act” — a law he described as “heinous.” And in doing so, the senator appeared to take an indirect shot at his colleague, Rubio: Paul said the only gap between his party and tech companies might involve “Republicans who believe in vast and overwhelming government surveillance.” Without naming anyone, Paul continued: “I don’t think they have much in common at all.”
Republican insiders also assure that the party still has plenty to offer Silicon Valley, especially on business issues — like lowering the taxes that companies pay when they return profits from overseas.
( Also on POLITICO: Obama makes immigration joke at turkey pardon)
“The parties have raised substantial resources [in the Valley], both parties have substantial allies, and both parties have been appreciated on some issues and less so on others,” said Bruce Mehlman, the leader of the Technology CEO Council and a former top tech adviser during the George W. Bush administration.
“Republicans have been better on tax; Republicans have [been] better on trade; Democrats have been better on research funding and STEM education,” Mehlman continued. “Both historically have been good on high-skilled immigration, but it’s stuck right now. … As a result, the tech industry has always been, and remains to be, a jump ball as a political constituency.”
For many Republicans, though, their biggest challenge might have nothing to do with tech policy — and everything to do with culture.
When national Republicans have opposed gay marriage, fought climate change and taken conservative stands on hot-button social issues — the topics that tend to resonate in California — they’ve created a divide with the very Valley tech executives they might be trying to attract. That schism in part prompted Google, Yahoo and Yelp to depart the conservative-leaning American Legislative Exchange Council earlier this year. The group, comprised of state legislators and top companies, had lobbied extensively against renewable-energy mandates.
A community of Web entrepreneurs have come to realize that if “it doesn’t fit with our employees, it doesn’t fit with our customers, it doesn’t fit with who we are,” Gerston said.
Follow @politico
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
nHB55EsJwcZ93KFm
|
environment
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409/
|
Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists
|
2014-05-20
|
Cheryl K. Chumley
|
While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight , 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project , saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled . `` There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide , methane , or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth 's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth 's climate , '' the petition says . `` The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science ' and an overwhelming 'consensus ' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong , '' the petition asserts . `` No such consensus or settled science exists . `` Over 9,000 of the petition 's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.For all the talk of `` settled science , '' all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited `` hockey stick '' graphic that pointed to exponential warming , to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers , receding rain forests , increases in hurricane activity , and the end of snow.Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises , leading to widespread flooding and death.But those are all myths , according to the World Climate Report , whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels , a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind 's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best , and `` after removing biases caused by urbanization , thermometer relocations , instrument changes , and so on , it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years '' in the United States , the World Climate Report found . In fact , `` aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930 , when trace-gas concentrations were low , the trend is essentially zero . `` The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated , and `` based on the best available temperature records , '' the region has actually warmed only `` about 0.65 degrees Celsius [ about 1.1 degree F. ] since 1860 . `` The report noted , `` We were n't producing much [ carbon dioxide ] prior to 1945 , so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years . But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945 . `` Todd Myers , director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center , said : `` It 's true , temperatures have risen , but not in the last 15 years . `` `` We 've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide . `` As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters , the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica , `` there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s . `` What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears , owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space ? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies , other scientists and researchers say . `` We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds , including lobby groups and activist scientists , '' Susan Crockford , a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria , Canada , said in a previously published statement . `` Many of these tales of imminent doom , however , have important facts left out , glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed , '' she said.One more fallacy that the climate-change movement does n't like to remember is the infamous `` hockey stick '' predictor , said Christopher Horner , a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute . `` That 's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases . `` `` They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial ' on record : rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [ temperatures ] did n't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed . `` Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside , a victim of factual evidence . `` The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption , that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet , '' Horner said.Nevertheless , President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies , declaring in his State of the Union address that `` climate change is fact '' and embracing the notion that the issue is `` settled science . `` White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that `` 97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity . `` But even the White House 's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate , as the Petition Project demonstrates.Adherents of the `` science-is-settled '' argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming , while two-thirds expressed no position.In 2013 , Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent . Craig D. Idso , chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change , was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented , he said it was `` not an accurate representation of my paper '' and that it `` would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming . `` The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009 , showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters . `` Once you grasp who and what they are , their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense , '' Horner , an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics , told ███.However , daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues , often isolated and derided for their findings.Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of `` McCarthyist '' -type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning , the Daily Mail reported.Bengtsson , a research fellow at the University of Reading in England , joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 's claim that the Earth 's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.Bengtsson 's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to `` reduce the underlying uncertainty '' of its findings . `` The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist , '' said Bengtsson , who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper . `` It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views . The reality has n't been keeping up with the models . `` Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore , who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world 's first `` carbon billionaire '' for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.But to at least one environmental analyst , the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money . `` My basic argument is that climate change is an identity , and changing their mind about science means changing their identity , '' Myers told ███ , referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts . `` That 's too much for people to do — to say ' I 've been living a lie . ' It 's become all about who they are as a person , as their identity . And that 's why the attacks have become so personal . ''
|
Urgent:
Who Is Your Choice for the GOP's 2016 Nominee?
Urgent:
Assess Your Heart Attack Risk in Minutes. Click Here.
Urgent:
Who Is Your Choice for the GOP's 2016 Nominee?
While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled."There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition says."The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong," the petition asserts. "No such consensus or settled science exists."Over 9,000 of the petition's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.For all the talk of "settled science," all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited "hockey stick" graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow.Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises, leading to widespread flooding and death.But those are all myths, according to the World Climate Report, whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best, and "after removing biases caused by urbanization, thermometer relocations, instrument changes, and so on, it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years" in the United States, the World Climate Report found. In fact, "aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930, when trace-gas concentrations were low, the trend is essentially zero."The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and "based on the best available temperature records," the region has actually warmed only "about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860."The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years.""We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears, owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies, other scientists and researchers say."We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds, including lobby groups and activist scientists," Susan Crockford, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria, Canada, said in a previously published statement."Many of these tales of imminent doom, however, have important facts left out, glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed," she said.One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases.""They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence."The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.Nevertheless, President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies, declaring in his State of the Union address that "climate change is fact" and embracing the notion that the issue is "settled science."White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that "97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity."But even the White House's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate, as the Petition Project demonstrates.Adherents of the "science-is-settled" argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.In 2013, Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented, he said it was "not an accurate representation of my paper" and that it "would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009, showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters."Once you grasp who and what they are, their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense," Horner, an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics, told Newsmax.However, daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues, often isolated and derided for their findings.Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of "McCarthyist"-type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning, the Daily Mail reported.Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in England, joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's claim that the Earth's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.Bengtsson's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to "reduce the underlying uncertainty" of its findings."The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models."Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore, who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world's first "carbon billionaire" for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.But to at least one environmental analyst, the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money."My basic argument is that climate change is an identity, and changing their mind about science means changing their identity," Myers told Newsmax, referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts."That's too much for people to do — to say 'I've been living a lie.' It's become all about who they are as a person, as their identity. And that's why the attacks have become so personal."
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
NkYCQmfNNmep1wIh
|
russia
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://www.apnews.com/06c8721db0b944d192cddef2bfdaa8a6
|
Barr’s testimony to House on Mueller in doubt amid dispute
|
2019-04-28
|
Mary Clare Jalonick
|
Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky )
Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report during a news conference , Thursday , April 18 , 2019 , at the Department of Justice in Washington . ( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky )
WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Justice Department has informed the House Judiciary Committee that Attorney General William Barr may skip a Thursday hearing on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report if committee lawyers seek to question him .
The Democratic-run committee plans to allow counsels from both sides to ask Barr about the Russia probe after the traditional round of questioning by lawmakers . Department officials also told the committee that they opposed a plan to go into a closed session if members wanted to discuss redacted portions of Mueller ’ s report , according to a senior Democratic aide on the committee , who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential communications with the department .
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said given that Barr had agreed to testify , lawmakers “ should be the ones doing the questioning . He remains happy to engage with members on their questions regarding the Mueller report . ”
Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House panel on Thursday . The GOP-led Senate committee is expected to have normal rounds of member questioning .
It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness . But committees can generally make their own rules , and other panels have made similar exceptions . In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year , for example , Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault .
The dispute comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access Mueller ’ s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify . Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller ’ s findings with their own investigations into the president .
House Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation . In response , the Justice Department has said they will make the full report , minus grand jury material , available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused . The dispute could eventually end up in court .
A spokeswoman for the top Republican on the committee , Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia , noted that Barr ’ s testimony is voluntary and criticized the Democrats for not reading the full report . “ Democrats have yet to prove their demands are anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee , ” Jessica Andrews said .
Democrats have criticized Barr for drawing his own conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice after Mueller found he couldn ’ t exonerate the president on that point . House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Barr is involved in a “ staggering public effort ” by the Trump administration to put a positive face on Mueller ’ s findings .
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler , D-N.Y. , has also invited Mueller to testify and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn . McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report , which recounted the president ’ s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it . The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena .
|
Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report during a news conference, Thursday, April 18, 2019, at the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
Attorney General William Barr speaks about the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's report during a news conference, Thursday, April 18, 2019, at the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has informed the House Judiciary Committee that Attorney General William Barr may skip a Thursday hearing on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report if committee lawyers seek to question him.
The Democratic-run committee plans to allow counsels from both sides to ask Barr about the Russia probe after the traditional round of questioning by lawmakers. Department officials also told the committee that they opposed a plan to go into a closed session if members wanted to discuss redacted portions of Mueller’s report, according to a senior Democratic aide on the committee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the confidential communications with the department.
Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said given that Barr had agreed to testify, lawmakers “should be the ones doing the questioning. He remains happy to engage with members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.”
Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House panel on Thursday. The GOP-led Senate committee is expected to have normal rounds of member questioning.
It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year, for example, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
The dispute comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access Mueller’s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify. Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller’s findings with their own investigations into the president.
House Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation. In response, the Justice Department has said they will make the full report, minus grand jury material, available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused. The dispute could eventually end up in court.
A spokeswoman for the top Republican on the committee, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, noted that Barr’s testimony is voluntary and criticized the Democrats for not reading the full report. “Democrats have yet to prove their demands are anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee,” Jessica Andrews said.
Democrats have criticized Barr for drawing his own conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice after Mueller found he couldn’t exonerate the president on that point. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Barr is involved in a “staggering public effort” by the Trump administration to put a positive face on Mueller’s findings.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., has also invited Mueller to testify and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn. McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report, which recounted the president’s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it. The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena.
___
Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
Hxh0WbJz33iyQVv5
|
national_defense
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2016/0509/Report-Iran-tests-missile-capable-of-reaching-Israel
|
Report: Iran tests missile capable of reaching Israel
|
2016-05-09
|
Madison Margolin
|
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has allegedly tested a ballistic missile capable of traveling up to 1,250 miles , far enough to reach Israel , according to a Monday report by the Islamic republic 's quasi-official Tasnim News Agency that the minister of defense subsequently denied .
If true , the test is the latest in a series of short- , medium- , and long-range missile exercises in the past few months since reaching a nuclear deal in July 2015 .
The latest missile tested within eight meters , said Gen. Ali Abdollahi , deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier , according to the news agency , adding that the supposed exercise took place two weeks ago . `` Eight meters means nothing , it means it 's without error , '' he said , according to the Associated Press .
CBS News reports that the state-run Iranian News Agency ( IRNA ) called the missiles a `` deterrence power , '' in hopes that their ability to reach American military bases in the region , as well as Israel , would deter an attack on Iran .
After the story broke , Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan castigated what IRNA described as `` US-Saudi propaganda campaign over missile capability . '' Gen. Dehghan told IRNA that Iran had not conducted a missile test `` with the range that was published in the media , '' but would not confirm or deny if the military had conducted any recent missile tests .
Tasnim , which produced the earlier report , is said to have close ties to Iran 's Revolutionary Guard , which oversees Iran 's ballistic missile program .
The nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this year does not prohibit missile tests . A United Nations Security Council resolution adopted in July does , however .
In that resolution , which holds until 2023 , the United Nations states : `` Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons , including launches using such ballistic missile technology . ''
When the nuclear deal became effective on January 16 , the United Nations Security Council lifted most of Tehran 's international sanctions . With its missile tests , Iran is now showing progress in its ballistic program after having scaled it back after the deal .
Iran 's first missile testing since the July nuclear agreement came in October , when US officials said the country had tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon , which they said was in violation of a UN Security Council resolution . In November , Iran also launched a missile from near the Gulf of Oman that could travel as far as 1,200 miles .
During another missile test in March , Iran sent out tow missiles decorated with the Hebrew words , `` Israel must be wiped out . '' Following this incident , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the countries that agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program — the United States , Russia , China , France , Britain , and Germany — to punish Iran .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
While Iran so far has not violated the deal , Mark Toner , United States Deputy State Department spokesman , said the American government was aware of Iran 's alleged actions and closely following reports .
`` If confirmed , we intend to raise the matter in the UN Security Council . We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response , '' said Mr. Toner . `` This development underscores why we continue to work closely with partners around the world to slow and degrade Iran 's missile program . ''
|
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard has allegedly tested a ballistic missile capable of traveling up to 1,250 miles, far enough to reach Israel, according to a Monday report by the Islamic republic's quasi-official Tasnim News Agency that the minister of defense subsequently denied.
If true, the test is the latest in a series of short-, medium-, and long-range missile exercises in the past few months since reaching a nuclear deal in July 2015.
The latest missile tested within eight meters, said Gen. Ali Abdollahi, deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier, according to the news agency, adding that the supposed exercise took place two weeks ago. "Eight meters means nothing, it means it's without error," he said, according to the Associated Press.
CBS News reports that the state-run Iranian News Agency (IRNA) called the missiles a "deterrence power," in hopes that their ability to reach American military bases in the region, as well as Israel, would deter an attack on Iran.
After the story broke, Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan castigated what IRNA described as "US-Saudi propaganda campaign over missile capability." Gen. Dehghan told IRNA that Iran had not conducted a missile test "with the range that was published in the media," but would not confirm or deny if the military had conducted any recent missile tests.
Tasnim, which produced the earlier report, is said to have close ties to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which oversees Iran's ballistic missile program.
The nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this year does not prohibit missile tests. A United Nations Security Council resolution adopted in July does, however.
In that resolution, which holds until 2023, the United Nations states: "Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."
When the nuclear deal became effective on January 16, the United Nations Security Council lifted most of Tehran's international sanctions. With its missile tests, Iran is now showing progress in its ballistic program after having scaled it back after the deal.
Iran's first missile testing since the July nuclear agreement came in October, when US officials said the country had tested a medium-range missile capable of delivering a nuclear weapon, which they said was in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. In November, Iran also launched a missile from near the Gulf of Oman that could travel as far as 1,200 miles.
During another missile test in March, Iran sent out tow missiles decorated with the Hebrew words, "Israel must be wiped out." Following this incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on the countries that agreed to lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for scaling back its nuclear program — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany — to punish Iran.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
While Iran so far has not violated the deal, Mark Toner, United States Deputy State Department spokesman, said the American government was aware of Iran's alleged actions and closely following reports.
"If confirmed, we intend to raise the matter in the UN Security Council. We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response," said Mr. Toner. "This development underscores why we continue to work closely with partners around the world to slow and degrade Iran's missile program."
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
EHf5Exkns5wqkLXk
|
coronavirus
|
CBN
| 22
|
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2020/april/new-stimulus-bill-works-through-congress-as-20-states-eye-re-opening-economies-nbsp
|
New Stimulus Bill Works Through Congress as 20 States Eye Re-Opening Economies
|
2020-04-22
|
Known as the `` Phase 3.5 '' coronavirus stimulus package , lawmakers are hopeful a new $ 484 billion bill will be enough to keep American small business going , but Republican leaders say it 's just a stop-gap .
`` Unless we get our economy up and running again there is not any way we can spend enough to continue to prop up the country , '' said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , ( R-KY ) .
$ 383 billion of this latest stimulus bill will be earmarked specifically for small business programs , including the Paycheck Protection Program .
`` We want to make sure this money is available to small businesses that need it , people who have invested their entire life savings , '' Secretary of the Treasury , Steven Mnuchin said at Tuesday 's White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing .
The new legislation is on its way to the House after being passed Tuesday by the Senate . Meanwhile , much of the country is working to re-open .
`` Twenty states representing 40 percent of the population , have announced that they are making plans and preparations to safely restart their economies in the very near future , '' President Trump announced Tuesday .
Still , some of the states rushing to re-open do n't meet the White House guidelines . Georgia 's governor is preparing to open gyms , bowling alley 's , and barbershops this week , despite not seeing a two-week decline in cases of COVID-19 .
`` When we have more people moving around we 're probably going to see more cases continue to go up but we 're a lot better prepared now than we were over a month ago , '' Gov . Brian Kemp said .
`` I certainly can not in good conscience say that I agree with his order and I will continue to use my voice as mayor of Atlanta to ask people to continue to stay home , follow the science , and exercise common sense , '' said Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms .
CDC Director Robert Redfield warned that a second wave of COVID-19 could coincide with the start of flu season and prove to be even more devastating than what we now face . Dr. Deborah Birx says , if there is another wave , the country will be much better prepared .
`` We are going to continue that surveillance from now all the way through the fall to be able to give us that early warning signal , '' Birx said during Tuesday 's briefing .
Meanwhile , the FDA says its granted emergency clearance to the first in-home test for COVID-19 . And , in the United Kingdom , researchers at Oxford University are beginning the first human trials on a potential vaccine .
|
Known as the "Phase 3.5" coronavirus stimulus package, lawmakers are hopeful a new $484 billion bill will be enough to keep American small business going, but Republican leaders say it's just a stop-gap.
"Unless we get our economy up and running again there is not any way we can spend enough to continue to prop up the country," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-KY).
$383 billion of this latest stimulus bill will be earmarked specifically for small business programs, including the Paycheck Protection Program.
"We want to make sure this money is available to small businesses that need it, people who have invested their entire life savings," Secretary of the Treasury, Steven Mnuchin said at Tuesday's White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing.
The new legislation is on its way to the House after being passed Tuesday by the Senate. Meanwhile, much of the country is working to re-open.
"Twenty states representing 40 percent of the population, have announced that they are making plans and preparations to safely restart their economies in the very near future," President Trump announced Tuesday.
Still, some of the states rushing to re-open don't meet the White House guidelines. Georgia's governor is preparing to open gyms, bowling alley's, and barbershops this week, despite not seeing a two-week decline in cases of COVID-19.
"When we have more people moving around we're probably going to see more cases continue to go up but we're a lot better prepared now than we were over a month ago," Gov. Brian Kemp said.
Atlanta's mayor plans to disregard the order.
"I certainly cannot in good conscience say that I agree with his order and I will continue to use my voice as mayor of Atlanta to ask people to continue to stay home, follow the science, and exercise common sense," said Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms.
CDC Director Robert Redfield warned that a second wave of COVID-19 could coincide with the start of flu season and prove to be even more devastating than what we now face. Dr. Deborah Birx says, if there is another wave, the country will be much better prepared.
"We are going to continue that surveillance from now all the way through the fall to be able to give us that early warning signal," Birx said during Tuesday's briefing.
Meanwhile, the FDA says its granted emergency clearance to the first in-home test for COVID-19. And, in the United Kingdom, researchers at Oxford University are beginning the first human trials on a potential vaccine.
FOR CBN NEWS CONTINUING COVERAGE ON COVID-19, CLICK HERE.
|
www1.cbn.com
| 1right
|
hvA6QNsa66M050nQ
|
|
israel
|
National Review
| 22
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443325/us-abstains-un-resolution-condemning-israel-settlements-passes-obama
|
Obama’s Shameful Parting Shot at Israel
|
2016-12-23
|
John Mccormack, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Mairead Mcardle, Robert Verbruggen, Carrie Severino, Tobias Hoonhout, Rich Lowry, John Fund
|
In a parting , spiteful shot at Israel , the Obama administration permitted a U.N. Security Council resolution to pass that seeks to permanently change the international legal status of so-called Israeli “ settlements ” in Jerusalem and the disputed West Bank . Departing from almost 50 years of bipartisan American precedent — and from the administration ’ s own past practice — the Obama administration abstained from a vote for the resolution demanding that Israel “ cease all settlement activities ” and declaring that all existing settlements were in “ flagrant violation ” of international law .
Just yesterday the resolution appeared dead , as Egypt , the resolution ’ s original sponsor , withdrew it under pressure from the incoming Trump administration . The president-elect took the unusual step of injecting himself into a U.N. controversy before taking office precisely because the Obama foreign-policy team was broadcasting its intent to abstain . Incredibly , however , four nations with precisely zero security interests at stake in the Middle East — New Zealand , Malaysia , Venezuela , and Senegal — revived the resolution and forced a vote .
The administration ’ s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace . Moreover , the Trump administration is powerless to revoke the resolution : It would have to introduce and pass a new resolution , and either Russia or China would be sure to veto it . Thus , Israel will find itself at the bargaining table in any future peace negotiation with Palestinian territorial demands backed by the U.N. ’ s most powerful body .
By declaring that settlements — including “ settlements ” in Israel ’ s capital — violate international law , the resolution purports to carve into stone the armistice lines that existed at the end of Israel ’ s war for independence . Yet these lines didn ’ t become lawful permanent borders precisely because hostile Arab nations specifically refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel ’ s border , specifically declined to create a Palestinian state , and instead maintained a posture of armed hostility to Israel . Indeed , since the West Bank hasn ’ t been part of a sovereign nation since the fall of the Ottoman Empire , the so-called occupied territories aren ’ t truly “ occupied ” under international law . They ’ re more accurately termed “ disputed ” territories , with the precise resolution of the dispute to be negotiated by the relevant parties .
The administration ’ s fecklessness has harmed Israel , endangers ordinary Israelis , and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace .
There are implications for ordinary Israelis as well . If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem , is he or she now a criminal ? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals ? Radical U.N. action will only harden Palestinian intransigence and worsen already rising anti-Semitism ( thinly disguised as anti-Zionism ) on the international left . To put this radical resolution in context , under its terms , it is now an alleged violation of international law that the Western Wall remains in Israeli hands .
It ’ s difficult to interpret the Obama administration ’ s actions as anything other than a parting shot at Israel and its prime minister , Benjamin Netanyahu . The Obama administration ’ s frustrations with the Netanyahu government are well known , but now was hardly the time to break with almost 50 years of American policy , and frustration or spite were hardly sufficient reasons . As Trump said in his statement , if there is to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians , “ it will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations . ”
The world will soon move on from Barack Obama , but he ’ s doing his best to extend his legacy of failure and appeasement . The Palestinians deserved a rebuke . Instead they received a gift . Our closest Middle Eastern ally will pay the price .
|
President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House in 2011. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)
In a parting, spiteful shot at Israel, the Obama administration permitted a U.N. Security Council resolution to pass that seeks to permanently change the international legal status of so-called Israeli “settlements” in Jerusalem and the disputed West Bank. Departing from almost 50 years of bipartisan American precedent — and from the administration’s own past practice — the Obama administration abstained from a vote for the resolution demanding that Israel “cease all settlement activities” and declaring that all existing settlements were in “flagrant violation” of international law.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Just yesterday the resolution appeared dead, as Egypt, the resolution’s original sponsor, withdrew it under pressure from the incoming Trump administration. The president-elect took the unusual step of injecting himself into a U.N. controversy before taking office precisely because the Obama foreign-policy team was broadcasting its intent to abstain. Incredibly, however, four nations with precisely zero security interests at stake in the Middle East — New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela, and Senegal — revived the resolution and forced a vote.
The administration’s fecklessness has harmed Israel, endangers ordinary Israelis, and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace. Moreover, the Trump administration is powerless to revoke the resolution: It would have to introduce and pass a new resolution, and either Russia or China would be sure to veto it. Thus, Israel will find itself at the bargaining table in any future peace negotiation with Palestinian territorial demands backed by the U.N.’s most powerful body.
By declaring that settlements — including “settlements” in Israel’s capital — violate international law, the resolution purports to carve into stone the armistice lines that existed at the end of Israel’s war for independence. Yet these lines didn’t become lawful permanent borders precisely because hostile Arab nations specifically refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel’s border, specifically declined to create a Palestinian state, and instead maintained a posture of armed hostility to Israel. Indeed, since the West Bank hasn’t been part of a sovereign nation since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the so-called occupied territories aren’t truly “occupied” under international law. They’re more accurately termed “disputed” territories, with the precise resolution of the dispute to be negotiated by the relevant parties.
The administration’s fecklessness has harmed Israel, endangers ordinary Israelis, and hurts the elusive quest for an enduring peace.
There are implications for ordinary Israelis as well. If an Israeli lives in a suburb of Jerusalem, is he or she now a criminal? Can he be arrested and tried in activist courts in Europe or in international legal tribunals? Radical U.N. action will only harden Palestinian intransigence and worsen already rising anti-Semitism (thinly disguised as anti-Zionism) on the international left. To put this radical resolution in context, under its terms, it is now an alleged violation of international law that the Western Wall remains in Israeli hands.
Advertisement
It’s difficult to interpret the Obama administration’s actions as anything other than a parting shot at Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration’s frustrations with the Netanyahu government are well known, but now was hardly the time to break with almost 50 years of American policy, and frustration or spite were hardly sufficient reasons. As Trump said in his statement, if there is to be peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, “it will only come through direct negotiations between the parties and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.”
Advertisement
The world will soon move on from Barack Obama, but he’s doing his best to extend his legacy of failure and appeasement. The Palestinians deserved a rebuke. Instead they received a gift. Our closest Middle Eastern ally will pay the price.
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
dFg7ivZ0Ik6u5uG3
|
national_security
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/23/trump-team-looks-revoking-security-clearances-obama-officials/820923002/
|
President Trump considers revoking security clearances for former U.S. officials
|
2018-07-23
|
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is exploring `` mechanisms '' to revoke security clearances for former U.S. officials who have criticized him for his handling of the Russia investigation and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin , White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday .
Sanders said the administration is reviewing clearances for former CIA director John Brennan , former FBI director director James Comey , former national intelligence director James Clapper , former CIA director Michael Hayden , former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe .
`` They politicize and in some cases actually monetize their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia , '' Sanders said .
More : Exclusive : James Comey strikes back against 'morally unfit ' Donald Trump
More : In war of words with Trump , fired McCabe says he will no longer be silent
Brennan , who worked in senior roles in President George W. Bush 's administration and was a CIA director under President Barack Obama , offered particularly incendiary criticism of Trump 's handling of his meeting in Helsinki with Putin .
After a news conference in Helsinki in which Trump appeared to favor Putin 's denials over the findings of the intelligence community , Brennan wrote on Twitter that the president 's performance was `` nothing short of treasonous . ''
Security clearances can allow government officials to work with companies on classified defense programs and advise private contractors . They also can be something of a professional courtesy , allowing former national security officials to talk to their successors .
Having a security clearance does not entitle anyone to access classified information .
Clapper , the former director of national intelligence , told CNN his clearance `` has nothing to do with how I or any of us feel about the president . And I do n't get the briefings . I do n't have access to classified information . ''
Susan Hennessy , executive editor of the blog Lawfare , tweeted that `` former high-ranking national security officials typically stay in access in order to support their successors and provide insight and continuity when necessary . ''
In announcing the review of security clearances , Sanders said that `` making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate . ''
Melissa Schwartz , a spokeswoman for McCabe , said in a statement that his clearance `` was deactivated when he was terminated , according to what we were told was FBI policy . You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps . ''
Hayden tweeted : `` I do n't go back for classified briefings . Won ’ t have any effect on what I say or write . ''
Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , said he has urged Trump to revoke clearances because `` public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking-head fees . ''
Republican consultant Liz Mair said , `` Using executive authority to punish critics sets a bad precedent and looks abusive and overpunitive , '' and the Trump administration `` already has a bad rap where that ’ s concerned . Why worsen it ? ''
Asked whether the administration would look into any security clearances for Obama himself or Vice President Joe Biden , Sanders said : `` I 'm not aware of any plans for that at this point . ''
It 's not known how Trump might revoke the clearances , if he wants to move forward .
Steven Aftergood , a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists , said Trump probably has the legal authority to do it , given his status as commander-in-chief . As a technical matter , he might have to order the agencies that granted the clearances to terminate them .
`` He might encounter resistance at that point , '' Aftergood said , if the requests are seen as some kind of `` vendetta . ''
|
David Jackson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is exploring "mechanisms" to revoke security clearances for former U.S. officials who have criticized him for his handling of the Russia investigation and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday.
Sanders said the administration is reviewing clearances for former CIA director John Brennan, former FBI director director James Comey, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Hayden, former national security adviser Susan Rice and former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
"They politicize and in some cases actually monetize their public service and their security clearances in making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia," Sanders said.
More:Ex-CIA Director John Brennan compares Trump to Bernie Madoff
More:Exclusive: James Comey strikes back against 'morally unfit' Donald Trump
More:In war of words with Trump, fired McCabe says he will no longer be silent
Brennan, who worked in senior roles in President George W. Bush's administration and was a CIA director under President Barack Obama, offered particularly incendiary criticism of Trump's handling of his meeting in Helsinki with Putin.
After a news conference in Helsinki in which Trump appeared to favor Putin's denials over the findings of the intelligence community, Brennan wrote on Twitter that the president's performance was "nothing short of treasonous."
Security clearances can allow government officials to work with companies on classified defense programs and advise private contractors. They also can be something of a professional courtesy, allowing former national security officials to talk to their successors.
Having a security clearance does not entitle anyone to access classified information.
Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, told CNN his clearance "has nothing to do with how I or any of us feel about the president. And I don't get the briefings. I don't have access to classified information."
Susan Hennessy, executive editor of the blog Lawfare, tweeted that "former high-ranking national security officials typically stay in access in order to support their successors and provide insight and continuity when necessary."
In announcing the review of security clearances, Sanders said that "making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate."
Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for McCabe, said in a statement that his clearance "was deactivated when he was terminated, according to what we were told was FBI policy. You would think the White House would check with the FBI before trying to throw shiny objects to the press corps."
Hayden tweeted: "I don't go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write."
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he has urged Trump to revoke clearances because "public officials should not use their security clearances to leverage speaking fees or network talking-head fees."
Republican consultant Liz Mair said, "Using executive authority to punish critics sets a bad precedent and looks abusive and overpunitive," and the Trump administration "already has a bad rap where that’s concerned. Why worsen it?"
Asked whether the administration would look into any security clearances for Obama himself or Vice President Joe Biden, Sanders said: "I'm not aware of any plans for that at this point."
It's not known how Trump might revoke the clearances, if he wants to move forward.
Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Trump probably has the legal authority to do it, given his status as commander-in-chief. As a technical matter, he might have to order the agencies that granted the clearances to terminate them.
"He might encounter resistance at that point," Aftergood said, if the requests are seen as some kind of "vendetta."
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
klTuTwjoOx2E7e94
|
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/kansas-2014-elections-greg-orman-pat-roberts-111616.html?hp=t1_3
|
Role reversal: Greg Orman’s wealth gives GOP fodder
|
2014-10-06
|
Manu Raju
|
Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign . Orman 's wealth gives GOP fodder
OLATHE , Kan. — Greg Orman wanted to turn the capital of shrimp cocktails into a shrimp-producing powerhouse .
A few years ago , the businessman-turned-independent Kansas Senate candidate had become a director of Ganix Biotechnologies . With the help of $ 2.5 million in federal loan guarantees and $ 128,000 in state tax breaks , he and fellow investors pledged to build a $ 5 million- $ 6 million organic shrimp farm smack dab in the Nevada desert .
“ We consume more shrimp per capita in Las Vegas than anywhere else in the world — 22 million pounds of it annually , ” Orman told Las Vegas ’ KLAS-TV in 2011 .
The venture collapsed within a year . Ganix defaulted on a $ 725,000 bank loan , and a Kansas bank foreclosed on the shrimp farm property , according to public documents . The project had been pegged to create 30 jobs and eventually pump millions into the coffers of financially struggling North Las Vegas , according to news reports at the time .
The sudden frontrunner against GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in the most competitive Senate race no one saw coming , Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign . The 45-year-old Princeton graduate tells voters he knows what it takes to create jobs and that he ’ d bring much-needed business savvy to Washington .
And there ’ s no question about this : Orman has become spectacularly wealthy over the course of a two-decade-plus career that includes investments in ventures as far flung as energy-efficient lighting , spinal surgery screws and an obscure Jeff Goldblum film . Any successful investor is bound to have some failures , but Orman appears to have more wins than losses , creating several successful companies along the way .
But triumph in the business world , as Mitt Romney learned , doesn ’ t necessarily translate into success on the campaign trail . And Republicans are seizing on the less-flattering aspects of his business past to bring Orman ’ s campaign back to earth . In addition to his well-publicized business and personal relationship with a person convicted of securities fraud , Orman has ties to companies that took advantage of offshore or low-tax havens and was once sued by a woman who alleged that Orman threatened to wipe out her children ’ s college fund if he wasn ’ t included in a deal , records show .
The outcome of the race may well turn on which portrayal of Orman ’ s background prevails : the non-ideological entrepreneur or the shady investor who won ’ t level with voters about where he stands on issues .
Going after a candidate ’ s business record is an unusual turn for Republicans , considering they ’ re typically the ones fending off rich-guy attacks . But it ’ s the hand they ’ ve been dealt and they are playing it .
“ Greg Orman ’ s offshore tax havens , business partnerships with a convicted Wall Street banker and ties to liberal Democrats raise serious questions , ” said Corry Bliss , campaign manager for Roberts .
Said Orman campaign manager Jim Jonas : “ We ’ re happy to compare Greg ’ s successful record as a businessman creating jobs with Sen. Roberts ’ failed record as a Washington politician any day . ”
Orman ’ s emergence also puts Democrats in the peculiar position of at least tacitly backing the candidate of the 1 percent . Not that there ’ s another alternative .
Asked if Orman ’ s past business dealings might turn off Democrats , the party ’ s state chairwoman , Joan Wagnon , said : “ Where would they go ? ”
She predicted the GOP attacks “ won ’ t work on Republicans because Republicans are not offended by rich people . ”
Orman , who has avoided saying which party he ’ d caucus with in an evenly split Senate , declined to be interviewed for this story . At a coffee shop in Topeka , Kansas last week , he was asked if he thought his wealth would be an asset or liability for his campaign .
“ You know , I haven ’ t thought of it , ” he told reporters .
Orman has amassed a personal fortune of at least $ 21.5 million , according to his financial disclosure documents — and likely much more because assets and liabilities are reported in broad ranges . He would be the fifth-wealthiest senator , based on a 2012 ranking by the Center for Responsive Politics .
Fresh out of Princeton in 1991 , Orman joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and wasted little time methodically building a diverse array of business interests . He created Environmental Lighting Concepts in 1992 , growing the firm to $ 10 million in annual revenue then selling it to Kansas City Power & Light in 1996 . He created a successful Minnesota commercial real estate firm , FRM Associates , in which he now holds between $ 5 million and $ 25 million in assets .
Since 2004 , Orman has worked at his private equity firm , Denali Partners , investing in small and mid-sized firms . In 2012 , Orman purchased a Kansas boxing equipment company , Combat Brands , saying he helped “ save the brand ” and protect 50 jobs . ( He owns between $ 1 million to $ 5 million in the company . ) Orman is now named as a defendant in a $ 30 million lawsuit with a rival company , Everlast , which the campaign dismisses as frivolous .
All told , Orman reports holding assets and positions in 43 companies . At least 17 are incorporated in Nevada , two are in Delaware and one in the Cayman Islands ; all three locales give corporations preferable tax treatments . ( Other companies are incorporated in Kansas , Missouri and Minnesota . ) Orman also has ties to Hollywood : he ’ s listed as executive producer of Goldblum ’ s 2006 film “ Pittsburgh , ” and one of his companies made a loan of $ 250,000- $ 500,000 to ROAR , the Hollywood talent management firm run by veteran showbiz executive Bernie Cahill .
Orman ’ s rise has been marked by multiple court battles , including a particularly nasty showdown last year stemming from a 2009 business deal .
One of Orman ’ s companies , Design X Studios , had been brought in to help restructure a graphics company ’ s outstanding loan . But the arrangement went south , and a Kansas businesswoman , Jennifer Hopkins , accused Orman of trying to bleed dry her children ’ s college funds by seeking to withhold money into her bank accounts , according to court documents . Hopkins alleged that Orman had been “ harassing ” her colleague and violated an attorney-client privilege .
“ Since July 2012 , if not earlier , Greg Orman has attempted to strong-arm Jennifer Hopkins , ” Hopkins ’ attorney , Robert Flynn , alleged in a March 2013 court document . “ If Ms. Hopkins didn ’ t agree to cut Orman into the deal , Orman threatened that he could delay the distribution of litigation proceeds , thereby causing Ms. Hopkins to incur financial damages . ”
|
Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign. Orman's wealth gives GOP fodder
OLATHE, Kan. — Greg Orman wanted to turn the capital of shrimp cocktails into a shrimp-producing powerhouse.
A few years ago, the businessman-turned-independent Kansas Senate candidate had become a director of Ganix Biotechnologies. With the help of $2.5 million in federal loan guarantees and $128,000 in state tax breaks, he and fellow investors pledged to build a $5 million-$6 million organic shrimp farm smack dab in the Nevada desert.
Story Continued Below
“We consume more shrimp per capita in Las Vegas than anywhere else in the world — 22 million pounds of it annually,” Orman told Las Vegas’ KLAS-TV in 2011.
The venture collapsed within a year. Ganix defaulted on a $725,000 bank loan, and a Kansas bank foreclosed on the shrimp farm property, according to public documents. The project had been pegged to create 30 jobs and eventually pump millions into the coffers of financially struggling North Las Vegas, according to news reports at the time.
(Also on POLITICO: The man behind the GOP’s Senate drive)
The sudden frontrunner against GOP Sen. Pat Roberts in the most competitive Senate race no one saw coming, Orman is putting his business record front and center in his campaign. The 45-year-old Princeton graduate tells voters he knows what it takes to create jobs and that he’d bring much-needed business savvy to Washington.
And there’s no question about this: Orman has become spectacularly wealthy over the course of a two-decade-plus career that includes investments in ventures as far flung as energy-efficient lighting, spinal surgery screws and an obscure Jeff Goldblum film. Any successful investor is bound to have some failures, but Orman appears to have more wins than losses, creating several successful companies along the way.
But triumph in the business world, as Mitt Romney learned, doesn’t necessarily translate into success on the campaign trail. And Republicans are seizing on the less-flattering aspects of his business past to bring Orman’s campaign back to earth. In addition to his well-publicized business and personal relationship with a person convicted of securities fraud, Orman has ties to companies that took advantage of offshore or low-tax havens and was once sued by a woman who alleged that Orman threatened to wipe out her children’s college fund if he wasn’t included in a deal, records show.
( Also on POLITICO: Court rebuffs Kansas GOP on Senate race)
The outcome of the race may well turn on which portrayal of Orman’s background prevails: the non-ideological entrepreneur or the shady investor who won’t level with voters about where he stands on issues.
Going after a candidate’s business record is an unusual turn for Republicans, considering they’re typically the ones fending off rich-guy attacks. But it’s the hand they’ve been dealt and they are playing it.
“Greg Orman’s offshore tax havens, business partnerships with a convicted Wall Street banker and ties to liberal Democrats raise serious questions,” said Corry Bliss, campaign manager for Roberts.
Said Orman campaign manager Jim Jonas: “We’re happy to compare Greg’s successful record as a businessman creating jobs with Sen. Roberts’ failed record as a Washington politician any day.”
Orman’s emergence also puts Democrats in the peculiar position of at least tacitly backing the candidate of the 1 percent. Not that there’s another alternative.
Asked if Orman’s past business dealings might turn off Democrats, the party’s state chairwoman, Joan Wagnon, said: “Where would they go?”
(Also on POLITICO: Poll: Republicans trail in Kansas)
She predicted the GOP attacks “won’t work on Republicans because Republicans are not offended by rich people.”
Orman, who has avoided saying which party he’d caucus with in an evenly split Senate, declined to be interviewed for this story. At a coffee shop in Topeka, Kansas last week, he was asked if he thought his wealth would be an asset or liability for his campaign.
“You know, I haven’t thought of it,” he told reporters.
Orman has amassed a personal fortune of at least $21.5 million, according to his financial disclosure documents — and likely much more because assets and liabilities are reported in broad ranges. He would be the fifth-wealthiest senator, based on a 2012 ranking by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Fresh out of Princeton in 1991, Orman joined the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and wasted little time methodically building a diverse array of business interests. He created Environmental Lighting Concepts in 1992, growing the firm to $10 million in annual revenue then selling it to Kansas City Power & Light in 1996. He created a successful Minnesota commercial real estate firm, FRM Associates, in which he now holds between $5 million and $25 million in assets.
Since 2004, Orman has worked at his private equity firm, Denali Partners, investing in small and mid-sized firms. In 2012, Orman purchased a Kansas boxing equipment company, Combat Brands, saying he helped “save the brand” and protect 50 jobs. (He owns between $1 million to $5 million in the company.) Orman is now named as a defendant in a $30 million lawsuit with a rival company, Everlast, which the campaign dismisses as frivolous.
All told, Orman reports holding assets and positions in 43 companies. At least 17 are incorporated in Nevada, two are in Delaware and one in the Cayman Islands; all three locales give corporations preferable tax treatments. (Other companies are incorporated in Kansas, Missouri and Minnesota.) Orman also has ties to Hollywood: he’s listed as executive producer of Goldblum’s 2006 film “Pittsburgh,” and one of his companies made a loan of $250,000-$500,000 to ROAR, the Hollywood talent management firm run by veteran showbiz executive Bernie Cahill.
Orman’s rise has been marked by multiple court battles, including a particularly nasty showdown last year stemming from a 2009 business deal.
One of Orman’s companies, Design X Studios, had been brought in to help restructure a graphics company’s outstanding loan. But the arrangement went south, and a Kansas businesswoman, Jennifer Hopkins, accused Orman of trying to bleed dry her children’s college funds by seeking to withhold money into her bank accounts, according to court documents. Hopkins alleged that Orman had been “harassing” her colleague and violated an attorney-client privilege.
“Since July 2012, if not earlier, Greg Orman has attempted to strong-arm Jennifer Hopkins,” Hopkins’ attorney, Robert Flynn, alleged in a March 2013 court document. “If Ms. Hopkins didn’t agree to cut Orman into the deal, Orman threatened that he could delay the distribution of litigation proceeds, thereby causing Ms. Hopkins to incur financial damages.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
iWD9U2m18p4xSYW0
|
media_bias
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/accused-nsa-leaker-reality-winners-motives-mystery-at-least-to-abc-nbc-and-cbs.html
|
Accused NSA leaker Reality Winner's motives a 'mystery' -- At least to ABC, NBC and CBS
|
2017-06-07
|
Not long after top-secret documents from the National Security Agency made their way onto the Internet news site The Intercept on Monday , the Justice Department arrested NSA contractor Reality Winner .
The 25-year-old Air Force veteran worked on a military base in Georgia , but online she had a long history of being heavily anti-Trump , an apparent social justice warrior , and a supporter of Iran over the U.S. During their evening broadcasts , the Big Three Networks ( ABC , CBS , and NBC ) either played down her political attitudes , or outright ignored them as they reported on what she did .
During his report on “ NBC Nightly News , ” Justice Correspondent Pete Williams passed along her family ’ s claim that “ she was n't highly political , ” and anchor Lester Holt claimed her “ motive is a mystery. ” But in reality , Winner was anything but silent about her political views .
In a tweet she wrote earlier this year , she smeared Trump , saying : “ the most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the White House . ”
She had tweeted profanities targeting Trump , such as # F * ckingWall , # TrumpIsAC * * t , and she tweeted the anti-Trump rallying cry of # notmypresident . Winner also was a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and had said on Twitter that “ being white is terrorism . ”
And in a response to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , who said “ We will never use our weapons against anyone , except in self-defense , ” Winner proclaimed her support for Iran , writing : “ There are many Americans protesting U.S. govt aggression towards Iran . If our Tangerine in Chief declares war , we stand with you ! ”
The closest Williams came to reporting Winner ’ s left-wing ideology was a mention about how “ on Twitter , she 's no fan of Donald Trump , once calling him an ‘ orange fascist. ’ ” But he played a clip of her mother , Billie Winner-Davis defending her daughter . “ She is a good person . She volunteers , she does whatever she can to make the community and the world better , ” she told the press .
On the “ CBS Evening News , ” Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett merely brushed over her anti-Trump hatred . “ Winner , whose social media postings sharply criticized President Trump , faces up to 10 years in prison , ” he said .
Garrett followed that up with a clip of Winner 's stepfather , saying : “ She 's dedicated , you know , to trying to make the world a better place. ” CBS framed the story as Trump cracking down on government leaks . `` Well , President Trump promised to crack down and now a government contractor has been charged with leaking about Russian interference with the U.S. election , '' bemoaned anchor Scott Pelley with the headline `` Leak Crackdown '' behind him .
ABC ’ s “ World News Tonight ” ignored Winner ’ s political leanings all together , but on four different times , they mentioned that she was a veteran . “ Reality Leigh Winner , an NSA linguist trained in Farsi and Pashto , who received an Air Force commendation medal , described by family as a patriot , ” reported Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas .
Winner ’ s social media accounts were crawling with her radical political posts , but Thomas couldn ’ t be bothered to report on it . Instead , he was more interested in her workout and yoga videos on Facebook . “ A young woman into fitness , seen here on Facebook discussing yoga instruction and competing in weightlifting , ” he noted .
And for the Spanish-language networks , Univision also failed to report Winner ’ s radical left-wing ideology . Meanwhile , on Telemundo , they thought it wise to not report on Winner nor the NSA leaks altogether .
Winner ’ s political philosophy should have been a major part of the story because it can explain why she leaked classified secrets . But by omitting it from their reports , or playing it down , they falsely painted her as an apolitical person doing it for a just cause when she was likely doing it to hurt Trump . And that makes us all Losers .
Nicholas Fondacaro is a media analyst for NewsBusters and the Media Research Center .
|
Editor's note: The following column originally appeared on NewsBusters.org.
Not long after top-secret documents from the National Security Agency made their way onto the Internet news site The Intercept on Monday, the Justice Department arrested NSA contractor Reality Winner.
The 25-year-old Air Force veteran worked on a military base in Georgia, but online she had a long history of being heavily anti-Trump, an apparent social justice warrior, and a supporter of Iran over the U.S. During their evening broadcasts, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) either played down her political attitudes, or outright ignored them as they reported on what she did.
During his report on “NBC Nightly News,” Justice Correspondent Pete Williams passed along her family’s claim that “she wasn't highly political,” and anchor Lester Holt claimed her “motive is a mystery.” But in reality, Winner was anything but silent about her political views.
***Caution, Winner's social media posts contain very strong language***
In a tweet she wrote earlier this year, she smeared Trump, saying: “the most dangerous entry to this country was the orange fascist we let into the White House.”
She had tweeted profanities targeting Trump, such as #F*ckingWall, #TrumpIsAC**t, and she tweeted the anti-Trump rallying cry of #notmypresident. Winner also was a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement and had said on Twitter that “being white is terrorism.”
And in a response to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who said “We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense,” Winner proclaimed her support for Iran, writing: “There are many Americans protesting U.S. govt aggression towards Iran. If our Tangerine in Chief declares war, we stand with you!”
The closest Williams came to reporting Winner’s left-wing ideology was a mention about how “on Twitter, she's no fan of Donald Trump, once calling him an ‘orange fascist.’” But he played a clip of her mother, Billie Winner-Davis defending her daughter. “She is a good person. She volunteers, she does whatever she can to make the community and the world better,” she told the press.
On the “CBS Evening News,” Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett merely brushed over her anti-Trump hatred. “Winner, whose social media postings sharply criticized President Trump, faces up to 10 years in prison,” he said.
Garrett followed that up with a clip of Winner's stepfather, saying: “She's dedicated, you know, to trying to make the world a better place.” CBS framed the story as Trump cracking down on government leaks. "Well, President Trump promised to crack down and now a government contractor has been charged with leaking about Russian interference with the U.S. election," bemoaned anchor Scott Pelley with the headline "Leak Crackdown" behind him.
ABC’s “World News Tonight” ignored Winner’s political leanings all together, but on four different times, they mentioned that she was a veteran. “Reality Leigh Winner, an NSA linguist trained in Farsi and Pashto, who received an Air Force commendation medal, described by family as a patriot,” reported Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.
Winner’s social media accounts were crawling with her radical political posts, but Thomas couldn’t be bothered to report on it. Instead, he was more interested in her workout and yoga videos on Facebook. “A young woman into fitness, seen here on Facebook discussing yoga instruction and competing in weightlifting,” he noted.
And for the Spanish-language networks, Univision also failed to report Winner’s radical left-wing ideology. Meanwhile, on Telemundo, they thought it wise to not report on Winner nor the NSA leaks altogether.
Winner’s political philosophy should have been a major part of the story because it can explain why she leaked classified secrets. But by omitting it from their reports, or playing it down, they falsely painted her as an apolitical person doing it for a just cause when she was likely doing it to hurt Trump. And that makes us all Losers.
Nicholas Fondacaro is a media analyst for NewsBusters and the Media Research Center.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
srxpl045dPCQNO3N
|
|
white_house
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/politics/trump-personal-assistant-madeleine-westerhout/index.html
|
Trump's personal assistant abruptly exits White House after sharing details about President's family
|
2019-08-29
|
Jim Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, Noah Gray, Pamela Brown, Paul Leblanc
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump 's personal assistant , who 's been with him since the start of his administration , has abruptly left the White House after sharing intimate details about the President 's family with reporters , multiple people tell CNN .
A former White House official told CNN that Trump was close with Westerhout -- whose office was directly in front of the Oval Office -- but discussing personal information about his family was a red line .
Her ouster marks yet another departure from an administration beset by a series of exits by high-ranking officials . It also underlines the President 's battle against the extensive leaks out of the White House and his greater campaign against the press , and could have a chilling effect on future contacts between members of the administration and reporters .
A person familiar with the dinner at the Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights , New Jersey -- where reporters stay during Trump 's visits -- said Westerhout and deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley attended a dinner alongside several reporters during his most recent trip . CNN was not among the news organizations represented at the dinner .
These dinners are common during the President 's trips and are typically treated as off the record , as was this one .
Westerhout 's abrupt departure came as a surprise to her colleagues who had no idea about the matter , several people told CNN . She was seen as someone loyal to Trump and a true believer in his policies , sources said , though it has been reported in two books she was in tears when he won on Election Night .
Before joining the Trump administration , Westerhout served as the assistant to Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Katie Walsh , who later became a senior adviser to the Trump transition team .
In this role , Westerhout was frequently seen escorting key members of the Trump 's transition team through the Trump Tower lobby .
`` The President-elect wanted to make sure all of his meetings were very transparent , so it became a little bit more public than I originally thought it was going to be , '' she told CNN in 2016 .
|
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump's personal assistant, who's been with him since the start of his administration, has abruptly left the White House after sharing intimate details about the President's family with reporters, multiple people tell CNN.
A former White House official told CNN that Trump was close with Westerhout -- whose office was directly in front of the Oval Office -- but discussing personal information about his family was a red line.
Her ouster marks yet another departure from an administration beset by a series of exits by high-ranking officials . It also underlines the President's battle against the extensive leaks out of the White House and his greater campaign against the press , and could have a chilling effect on future contacts between members of the administration and reporters.
A person familiar with the dinner at the Embassy Suites hotel in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey -- where reporters stay during Trump's visits -- said Westerhout and deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley attended a dinner alongside several reporters during his most recent trip. CNN was not among the news organizations represented at the dinner.
These dinners are common during the President's trips and are typically treated as off the record, as was this one.
Westerhout's abrupt departure came as a surprise to her colleagues who had no idea about the matter, several people told CNN. She was seen as someone loyal to Trump and a true believer in his policies, sources said, though it has been reported in two books she was in tears when he won on Election Night.
Before joining the Trump administration, Westerhout served as the assistant to Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Katie Walsh, who later became a senior adviser to the Trump transition team.
In this role, Westerhout was frequently seen escorting key members of the Trump's transition team through the Trump Tower lobby.
"The President-elect wanted to make sure all of his meetings were very transparent, so it became a little bit more public than I originally thought it was going to be," she told CNN in 2016.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
ivjNrorJLlcgFpfh
|
us_senate
|
Wall Street Journal - News
| 11
|
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304607104579210483046769634
|
Sen. Harry Reid is widely expected to rally Democrats to pass new filibuster rules
|
Kristina Peterson, Janet Hook, Kristina.Peterson Wsj.Com
|
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is rallying Democrats to pass new rules easing the confirmation process for executive-branch nominations and for many federal judges , despite a risk it could further sour relations between the parties .
The Nevada Democrat is widely expected on Thursday to call a vote on changing the Senate rules on the use of the filibuster , in a move that is often called the `` nuclear option . ''
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid , shown this week , pushed a change in filibuster rules earlier this year . Associated Press
Mr. Reid now has the needed 51 votes to change the rules , said Sen. Michael Bennet ( D. , Colo. ) , a member of the Senate Democratic leadership . He said it was `` a real possibility '' that Mr. Reid would call a vote on Thursday . `` And if he does , he has the votes . ''
Mr. Reid pushed his party to change the rules earlier this year , only to pull back after coming to an agreement with GOP senators on a set of nominations .
The change would curb the minority party 's main source of leverage in the Senate 's frequent battles over confirming the president 's nominees to executive and most judicial posts . Republicans , now in the minority , have often required a 60-vote threshold to consider nominees . The change under consideration would allow a confirmation to proceed with just 51 votes .
Democrats would still allow the minority party to demand 60 votes to advance Supreme Court nominations , which could protect their own leverage should the GOP take control of the Senate and White House . But Republicans warned that if Democrats change the rules , they ca n't expect Republicans to abide by any special carve-outs for the high court , if they gain the upper hand in the chamber .
If Mr. Reid `` changes the rules for some judicial nominees , he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees , including the Supreme Court , '' said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa , the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee , in a written statement on Wednesday .
The White House is deferring to Mr. Reid on how he wants to handle Senate filibuster procedures , a White House official said .
Sen. John McCain ( R. , Ariz. ) on Wednesday made a last-ditch effort to cut a deal to avert the rules change—as he did successfully last summer , when Republicans agreed to allow several contested nominations to clear the Senate .
But many Democrats remain wary of any such deal , because they believe last summer 's arrangement did little to make the GOP stand down . Since late October , Republican senators have blocked Mr. Obama 's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit . Those nominations would likely advance after any rules change .
In recent years , lawmakers from both parties have sought more frequently to block the president 's picks . Between 1967 and 1992 , the Senate took steps to set up a cloture vote—a move usually intended to overcome a filibuster—on only eight judicial nominees and four executive-branch nominees . By contrast , between 2003 and 2012 , the Senate began cloture proceedings on 50 judicial nominees and 37 executive nominees .
Some Democrats said they worried that even if they pull back from altering the rules now , Republicans might not show the same deference .
`` I just do n't think we should be so optimistic that Republicans are going to afford Democrats the protections traditionally afforded the minority if they get control of the Senate , '' Sen. Chris Murphy ( D. , Conn. ) said on Wednesday .
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas , the Senate 's second-highest-ranking Republican , said it was `` pure fantasy '' that Democrats were taking this step now to anticipate a similar move by the GOP later . `` There 's no basis for that , '' he said .
Boyden Gray , former White House counsel under President George H.W . Bush , said it could ultimately benefit Republicans if Democrats make the controversial change . `` Let them go ahead , and then the Republicans will have a free hand if and when they take the Senate and White House , '' he said .
Some lawmakers worried Wednesday that implementing the proposed rules change would inflame partisan tensions in the Senate , as well as relations with the GOP-led House .
|
WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is rallying Democrats to pass new rules easing the confirmation process for executive-branch nominations and for many federal judges, despite a risk it could further sour relations between the parties.
The Nevada Democrat is widely expected on Thursday to call a vote on changing the Senate rules on the use of the filibuster, in a move that is often called the "nuclear option."
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, shown this week, pushed a change in filibuster rules earlier this year. Associated Press
Mr. Reid now has the needed 51 votes to change the rules, said Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.), a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. He said it was "a real possibility'' that Mr. Reid would call a vote on Thursday. "And if he does, he has the votes."
Mr. Reid pushed his party to change the rules earlier this year, only to pull back after coming to an agreement with GOP senators on a set of nominations.
The change would curb the minority party's main source of leverage in the Senate's frequent battles over confirming the president's nominees to executive and most judicial posts. Republicans, now in the minority, have often required a 60-vote threshold to consider nominees. The change under consideration would allow a confirmation to proceed with just 51 votes.
Democrats would still allow the minority party to demand 60 votes to advance Supreme Court nominations, which could protect their own leverage should the GOP take control of the Senate and White House. But Republicans warned that if Democrats change the rules, they can't expect Republicans to abide by any special carve-outs for the high court, if they gain the upper hand in the chamber.
If Mr. Reid "changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a written statement on Wednesday.
The White House is deferring to Mr. Reid on how he wants to handle Senate filibuster procedures, a White House official said.
Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) on Wednesday made a last-ditch effort to cut a deal to avert the rules change—as he did successfully last summer, when Republicans agreed to allow several contested nominations to clear the Senate.
But many Democrats remain wary of any such deal, because they believe last summer's arrangement did little to make the GOP stand down. Since late October, Republican senators have blocked Mr. Obama's pick to lead the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Those nominations would likely advance after any rules change.
In recent years, lawmakers from both parties have sought more frequently to block the president's picks. Between 1967 and 1992, the Senate took steps to set up a cloture vote—a move usually intended to overcome a filibuster—on only eight judicial nominees and four executive-branch nominees. By contrast, between 2003 and 2012, the Senate began cloture proceedings on 50 judicial nominees and 37 executive nominees.
Some Democrats said they worried that even if they pull back from altering the rules now, Republicans might not show the same deference.
"I just don't think we should be so optimistic that Republicans are going to afford Democrats the protections traditionally afforded the minority if they get control of the Senate," Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said on Wednesday.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's second-highest-ranking Republican, said it was "pure fantasy" that Democrats were taking this step now to anticipate a similar move by the GOP later. "There's no basis for that," he said.
Boyden Gray, former White House counsel under President George H.W. Bush, said it could ultimately benefit Republicans if Democrats make the controversial change. "Let them go ahead, and then the Republicans will have a free hand if and when they take the Senate and White House," he said.
Some lawmakers worried Wednesday that implementing the proposed rules change would inflame partisan tensions in the Senate, as well as relations with the GOP-led House.
—Peter Nicholas contributed to this article.
Write to Kristina Peterson at [email protected] and Janet Hook at [email protected]
|
www.online.wsj.com
| 2center
|
Gmv65JWh6JkESamr
|
|
asia
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/22/358032257/hong-kong-students-march-on-chief-executives-residence
|
Hong Kong Students March On Chief Executive's Residence
|
2014-10-22
|
Scott Neuman
|
Activists in Hong Kong , angered by what they perceive as little progress in talks on democratic reforms with the government , marched to the home of the territory 's chief executive to demand his ouster .
Reuters says : `` Others continued to occupy main streets in the Chinese-controlled city , where they have camped for nearly a month in protest against a central government plan that would give Hong Kong people the chance to vote for their own leader in 2017 but tightly restrict the candidates to Beijing loyalists . ''
About 200 protesters held signs at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying 's home . The BBC reports that many were also angered by Leung 's recent remarks arguing that `` universal suffrage '' in the former British colony would lead to the poorer segments of society gaining control .
As we reported on Tuesday , the government held a televised meeting with student activists in an effort to defuse the crisis , but the results were inconclusive .
According to the South China Morning Post , police had to intervene on Wednesday in Mong Kok , one of three main protest sites , to prevent taxi drivers from tearing down barriers .
`` Rubbish bins , fences , wooden pallets and bamboo poles were ripped up by members of the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association and loaded onto the back of a truck with a crane , as angry protesters rushed to stop the destruction at the Dundas Street end of Nathan Road . ''
The cabbies are angry at the blocked streets that have resulted from the weeks of protests .
The SCMP also reports that Hong Kong 's Commerce Secretary Greg So Kam-leung has told the territory 's lawmakers that more than 70 government websites have been hacked .
The commerce secretary said hackers identifying themselves as from the group Anonymous `` issued a warning to the government and police force on October 2 after tear gas was fired at pro-democracy demonstrators in the city , '' SCMP says .
|
Hong Kong Students March On Chief Executive's Residence
Enlarge this image toggle caption Bobby Yip/Reuters/Landov Bobby Yip/Reuters/Landov
Activists in Hong Kong, angered by what they perceive as little progress in talks on democratic reforms with the government, marched to the home of the territory's chief executive to demand his ouster.
Reuters says: "Others continued to occupy main streets in the Chinese-controlled city, where they have camped for nearly a month in protest against a central government plan that would give Hong Kong people the chance to vote for their own leader in 2017 but tightly restrict the candidates to Beijing loyalists."
About 200 protesters held signs at Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's home. The BBC reports that many were also angered by Leung's recent remarks arguing that "universal suffrage" in the former British colony would lead to the poorer segments of society gaining control.
As we reported on Tuesday, the government held a televised meeting with student activists in an effort to defuse the crisis, but the results were inconclusive.
According to the South China Morning Post, police had to intervene on Wednesday in Mong Kok, one of three main protest sites, to prevent taxi drivers from tearing down barriers.
"Rubbish bins, fences, wooden pallets and bamboo poles were ripped up by members of the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association and loaded onto the back of a truck with a crane, as angry protesters rushed to stop the destruction at the Dundas Street end of Nathan Road."
The cabbies are angry at the blocked streets that have resulted from the weeks of protests.
The SCMP also reports that Hong Kong's Commerce Secretary Greg So Kam-leung has told the territory's lawmakers that more than 70 government websites have been hacked.
The commerce secretary said hackers identifying themselves as from the group Anonymous "issued a warning to the government and police force on October 2 after tear gas was fired at pro-democracy demonstrators in the city," SCMP says.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
dgDrlwDqWaUOoekz
|
economy_and_jobs
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/293725-powerful-under-used-tool-for-reducing-income-inequality
|
Powerful, under-used tool for reducing income-inequality: broad-based ownership
|
2016-08-30
|
When income inequality in the United States is reportedly the highest it has ever been , it ’ s little wonder that the average American ’ s confidence in the economy is low and dropping . Gallup recently reported that the Economic Confidence Index in mid-July had plunged nearly 20 percent from 18 months earlier . The American Dream is seen as beyond reach by most Americans . If the baby boomer generation grew up in a world where many middle class families were headed by small business owners , today that path to prosperity has been largely foreclosed . The top 10 percent of the wealthiest now hold two-thirds of national wealth . Instead of being broadly shared , wealth is flowing to folks like the highest paid CEOs managing some of the worst performing companies . Meanwhile , much of the rest of America is barely getting by , with a disturbing 40 percent of jobs in the U.S. today as part-time , temporary , or contingent . It ’ s past time to keep leaning on old , tired solutions and recognize that if we are to have a hopeful future , it lies with tackling wealth inequality at its source , which means moving asset ownership from the hands of the few to the hands of the many .
A movement to do just that has already quietly begun at the community level . In dozens of communities nationwide , broad , local coalitions of civic , advocacy , city and state leaders are taking steps to return wealth to our communities by embracing policies and practices that create broad-based ownership .
A shift in public policy from wealth concentration and extraction to one of assets rooted in communities is both feasible and broadly beneficial . Employee-owned businesses , for example , pay 5 to 12 percent more in wages than traditionally owned companies . Workers at these firms have more than double the retirement accounts , and are one-fourth as likely to be laid off . Employee Stock Ownership Plan ( ESOP ) companies , over a ten-year period , showed 2.5 percent higher job growth than other firms . Employee ownership also brings increased productivity and higher profitability to companies .
An ESOP is a form of employee ownership where employee shares are held in a retirement trust . One of the most successful is Recology in San Francisco , a firm with $ 800 million in revenues , which is 100 percent owned by its 3,000 employees , who perform waste collection and recycling services for tens of thousands of municipalities and businesses . Nationally , there are more than 7,000 companies with ESOPs , covering more than 10 million employees , who collectively have assets of nearly $ 1 trillion .
Employee ownership is just one model of broad-based ownership . Other models include social enterprises , municipally owned enterprises , and emerging hybrids like B Corporations ( which are profit-making firms with a professed aim of social benefit ) . The nation ’ s largest banks can be key allies in promoting these kinds of job-creating models , for they are already committed , under the framework of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act , to invest in low- and moderate-income communities .
Employee ownership is a model that has been proven over many decades , but is uniquely poised to go to scale today , with the coming wave of company sales from aging baby boomer entrepreneurs . At least 7 million owners of privately held businesses will reach retirement age between now and 2030 . We are on the brink of the largest generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind . How will this affect communities ? It depends on who buys these businesses . If sold to private equity , these company transfers will create more wealth for the already wealthy . But if sold to employees , these companies can represent new wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans . We can begin to restore the American Dream . Working collaboratively toward that end is the aim of a new initiative called 50 by 50 , with a goal of 50 million employee owners by 2050 . Members of the 50 by 50 campaign are as diverse as the Democracy at Work Institute , the City of Madison , Wisconsin , Citi Community Development and Prairie Capital Advisors .
Already working towards this shift in broad-based ownership are cities like New York , which has allocated $ 3.3 million over two years to develop worker cooperatives . The city is already home to the nation ’ s largest worker cooperative , Cooperative Home Health Care Associates , which has revenues of $ 60 million and employs over 2,300 people , many of them women of color . The company ’ s mission is not profit maximization but providing quality home care at living wages .
Beyond municipal policy , another tool for advancing broad-based ownership is the nation ’ s nearly 1,000 Community Development Finance Institutions ( CDFIs ) , chartered to aid disadvantaged communities . If adequately capitalized and focused , these CDFIs are a resource for facilitating and financing business conversions to ESOPs or cooperatives . For example , in 2014 , the Cooperative Fund of New England and Coastal Enterprises , Inc. , of Maine joined forces to finance a $ 5.6 million worker buyout from retiring business owners of three rural Maine businesses , converting those businesses into the 45-member worker-owned Island Employee Cooperatives .
At the national level , H.R . 2096 , the Promotion and Expansion of Employee Ownership Act , would aid in spreading the development of ESOPs by providing further tax incentives for conversion and technical assistance for making the transition . Sixty-eight percent of Americans support employee ownership . And it ’ s no surprise why , since employee ownership offers greater protection against layoffs , keeps companies rooted locally over the long term , and works to spread wealth to many .
Proven to be stable and sustainable models for economic growth , broad-based ownership models provide an important new strategy for reversing income inequality . As more and more cities and states develop cooperative economic models , financing of broad-based ownership is no longer on the fringe of economic debate ; it ’ s just good business .
Marjorie Kelly is a Senior Fellow and Executive Vice-President of the Democracy Collaborative .
|
When income inequality in the United States is reportedly the highest it has ever been, it’s little wonder that the average American’s confidence in the economy is low and dropping. Gallup recently reported that the Economic Confidence Index in mid-July had plunged nearly 20 percent from 18 months earlier. The American Dream is seen as beyond reach by most Americans. If the baby boomer generation grew up in a world where many middle class families were headed by small business owners, today that path to prosperity has been largely foreclosed. The top 10 percent of the wealthiest now hold two-thirds of national wealth. Instead of being broadly shared, wealth is flowing to folks like the highest paid CEOs managing some of the worst performing companies. Meanwhile, much of the rest of America is barely getting by, with a disturbing 40 percent of jobs in the U.S. today as part-time, temporary, or contingent. It’s past time to keep leaning on old, tired solutions and recognize that if we are to have a hopeful future, it lies with tackling wealth inequality at its source, which means moving asset ownership from the hands of the few to the hands of the many.
A movement to do just that has already quietly begun at the community level. In dozens of communities nationwide, broad, local coalitions of civic, advocacy, city and state leaders are taking steps to return wealth to our communities by embracing policies and practices that create broad-based ownership.
ADVERTISEMENT
A shift in public policy from wealth concentration and extraction to one of assets rooted in communities is both feasible and broadly beneficial. Employee-owned businesses, for example, pay 5 to 12 percent more in wages than traditionally owned companies. Workers at these firms have more than double the retirement accounts, and are one-fourth as likely to be laid off. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) companies, over a ten-year period, showed 2.5 percent higher job growth than other firms. Employee ownership also brings increased productivity and higher profitability to companies.
An ESOP is a form of employee ownership where employee shares are held in a retirement trust. One of the most successful is Recology in San Francisco, a firm with $800 million in revenues, which is 100 percent owned by its 3,000 employees, who perform waste collection and recycling services for tens of thousands of municipalities and businesses. Nationally, there are more than 7,000 companies with ESOPs, covering more than 10 million employees, who collectively have assets of nearly $1 trillion.
Employee ownership is just one model of broad-based ownership. Other models include social enterprises, municipally owned enterprises, and emerging hybrids like B Corporations (which are profit-making firms with a professed aim of social benefit). The nation’s largest banks can be key allies in promoting these kinds of job-creating models, for they are already committed, under the framework of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, to invest in low- and moderate-income communities.
Employee ownership is a model that has been proven over many decades, but is uniquely poised to go to scale today, with the coming wave of company sales from aging baby boomer entrepreneurs. At least 7 million owners of privately held businesses will reach retirement age between now and 2030. We are on the brink of the largest generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind. How will this affect communities? It depends on who buys these businesses. If sold to private equity, these company transfers will create more wealth for the already wealthy. But if sold to employees, these companies can represent new wealth-building opportunities for millions of Americans. We can begin to restore the American Dream. Working collaboratively toward that end is the aim of a new initiative called 50 by 50, with a goal of 50 million employee owners by 2050. Members of the 50 by 50 campaign are as diverse as the Democracy at Work Institute, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, Citi Community Development and Prairie Capital Advisors.
Already working towards this shift in broad-based ownership are cities like New York, which has allocated $3.3 million over two years to develop worker cooperatives. The city is already home to the nation’s largest worker cooperative, Cooperative Home Health Care Associates, which has revenues of $60 million and employs over 2,300 people, many of them women of color. The company’s mission is not profit maximization but providing quality home care at living wages.
Beyond municipal policy, another tool for advancing broad-based ownership is the nation’s nearly 1,000 Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), chartered to aid disadvantaged communities. If adequately capitalized and focused, these CDFIs are a resource for facilitating and financing business conversions to ESOPs or cooperatives. For example, in 2014, the Cooperative Fund of New England and Coastal Enterprises, Inc., of Maine joined forces to finance a $5.6 million worker buyout from retiring business owners of three rural Maine businesses, converting those businesses into the 45-member worker-owned Island Employee Cooperatives.
At the national level, H.R. 2096, the Promotion and Expansion of Employee Ownership Act, would aid in spreading the development of ESOPs by providing further tax incentives for conversion and technical assistance for making the transition. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support employee ownership. And it’s no surprise why, since employee ownership offers greater protection against layoffs, keeps companies rooted locally over the long term, and works to spread wealth to many.
Proven to be stable and sustainable models for economic growth, broad-based ownership models provide an important new strategy for reversing income inequality. As more and more cities and states develop cooperative economic models, financing of broad-based ownership is no longer on the fringe of economic debate; it’s just good business.
Marjorie Kelly is a Senior Fellow and Executive Vice-President of the Democracy Collaborative.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
XMoCNEfqRGZZudQX
|
|
culture
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/23/politics/trump-churches-base-memorial-day-weekend/index.html
|
Trump stokes base with call to reopen churches as Americans head into uncertain holiday weekend
|
2020-05-23
|
Analysis Maeve Reston
|
( CNN ) President Donald Trump made another play to his base Friday , declaring churches and houses of worship `` essential '' and sharply warning the nation 's governors that he would `` override '' any actions they take that interfere with the resumption of religious services .
It was a move meant to shore up the support of his core supporters at a time when Trump 's reelection prospects look uncertain in the midst of declining approval of his handling of the virus and the economic meltdown . Adding fuel to the latest controversy on the right -- just as he did when he supported protesters at state capitols who rebelled against their states ' lockdowns -- Trump tried to assert authority he does not have as part of his relentless push for normalcy .
His comments came as the nation headed into Memorial Day weekend , a time when health experts worry that Americans ' vigilance will give way to complacency with the potential for crowded beaches , pools , parks , holiday barbecues -- and now churches -- across the country .
An updated predictions model from the PolicyLab at Children 's Hospital of Philadelphia this week forecasts that Miami and parts of Alabama , Tennessee and Texas will see rapid surges in new cases
Neither the President nor his press secretary explained Friday how he plans to follow through on his threat to governors , which he issued shortly before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released voluntary recommendations for religious institutions .
Still , Trump 's remarks Friday were threaded with his impatience for the cautionary warnings of the scientists and medical experts within his own administration , who are worried about a resurgence of coronavirus cases and have highlighted the risks of large gatherings ( which many religious services could entail ) . Throughout the week , he has courted his evangelical supporters with his charge that governors are treating churches unfairly and his insistence that he wants to `` get the churches open . ''
Trump said Friday that some governors have `` deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential , '' but have left out churches and other houses of worship . `` It 's not right . So I 'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential , '' he said during a brief statement at the White House .
`` I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now . If there 's any question , they 're going to have to call me , but they 're not going to be successful in that call , '' Trump said . `` The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now , for this weekend . If they do n't do it , I will override the governors . In America we need more prayer , not less , '' he said , taking no questions from reporters .
As his general election campaign with former Vice President Joe Biden heats up , Trump has increasingly invoked America 's culture wars . During a `` Rolling to Remember '' ceremony earlier on Friday to honor the nation 's veterans , prisoners of war and those missing in action -- where he spoke to bikers who then rode two laps around the White House driveway -- Trump noted his political support from bikers .
`` Always there , the bikers , '' he said . `` What do I have ? 98 % ? 95 ? We 're trying to find who are the 3 % or the 2 % . We 're looking for them , right ? ''
`` November 3rd is a big day , '' Trump said , referring to the November election after they lapped the South Lawn Drive . `` We do n't want to destroy this country . We 're going to make it bigger , better , greater than ever before . ''
Though the Memorial Day weekend traditionally kicks off summer , this year 's holiday will be anything but normal with many governors , mayors and local officials calling on their states ' residents to continue social distancing , wear masks and stay as close to home as possible .
Speaking from the briefing room podium later on Friday , Dr. Deborah Birx , the administration 's coronavirus response coordinator , tempered some of Trump 's enthusiasm for reopening -- emphasizing both the social distancing guidelines that churches should adhere to in order to reopen as well as the safety precautions Americans must take to enjoy their favorite pastimes this weekend .
In encouraging news , Birx noted that 42 states now have less a less than 10 % positivity rate of cases as a rolling seven-day average . But she noted that Maryland , the District of Columbia and Virginia are still the top states with high numbers of cases , followed by Nebraska , Illinois and Minnesota . `` There is still significant virus circulating here , '' she said of the Washington area .
Birx also highlighted the top metropolitan areas where the rate of positive cases has stalled or increased as places where Americans should be especially cautious this weekend . The DC metro area topped that list , followed by Baltimore , Chicago and Minneapolis . ( All of the others were below the 10 % threshold , which Birx said , showed `` great progress . '' )
Despite the encouraging news from Birx about the decline in the rate of positive cases , the holiday weekend could also mark another grim moment in the pandemic as the number of deaths in the US approached 100,000 .
`` We think we 're going to hit the milestone of 100,000 deaths over the four-day weekend , '' said Dr. Chris Murray , the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington , which has produced one of the most influential coronavirus models .
Looking ahead to the holiday weekend , Birx said Americans could get outside with a long list of caveats . Some Americans could play golf , she said , for example , if they are `` very careful '' and `` do n't touch the flags . '' She suggested playing tennis with `` marked balls '' and just one other person so `` you 're only touching your ball . ''
This weekend , if Americans want to do some kind of social gathering , `` it 's very important to maintain that six feet distance and very important to have your mask with you in case that six feet distance can not be maintained , '' Birx said .
`` We are asking continuously for you all to be outside , to enjoy your Memorial Day weekend ; to play golf ; to hike as Dr. ( Anthony ) Fauci said ; to play tennis with marked balls -- and to be out with your families that you have been in the household with ; and even consider sharing socially distanced space as long as you have utensils that belong to individuals and that maybe can be thrown out immediately , '' Birx said . `` There 's a lot of things to think through . I know you can do this . I know the American people can do it . ''
When asked about Trump 's declaration that churches and houses of worship should reopen , Birx said faith community leaders should be in touch with their local health departments to check the number of new cases in their zip codes , so they can communicate the risks to congregants .
`` Certainly people that have significant co-morbidities , we want them protected . I know those houses of worship want to protect them , '' Birx said . `` So really ensuring that -- maybe they ca n't go this week if there 's high number of Covid cases . Maybe they wait another week , but there is a way to social distance like you are here , '' she said , gesturing to the reporters who were spaced several seats apart in the White House briefing room , `` in places of worship . ''
Though Baltimore is one of the areas of concern for public health officials like Birx , Trump and first lady Melania Trump plan to travel to Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Monday to commemorate Memorial Day .
They will do so in spite of a plea from Baltimore 's Mayor Bernard `` Jack '' Young who said the trip will send the wrong message at a time when he is asking the city 's residents not to travel .
`` I 'm asking the President to rethink his trip . It sends a bad , bad message to the citizens of Baltimore because I 'm asking them to stay home and only come out for essential reasons , '' Young told CNN 's John King . `` I just want him to set the example for the rest of the country and not do this trip , because it 's not essential . ''
White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere responded to earlier criticism from Young by stating that `` the brave men and women who have preserved our freedoms for generations did not stay home and the President will not either as he honors their sacrifice by visiting such a historic landmark in our Nation 's history . ''
|
(CNN) President Donald Trump made another play to his base Friday, declaring churches and houses of worship "essential" and sharply warning the nation's governors that he would "override" any actions they take that interfere with the resumption of religious services.
It was a move meant to shore up the support of his core supporters at a time when Trump's reelection prospects look uncertain in the midst of declining approval of his handling of the virus and the economic meltdown. Adding fuel to the latest controversy on the right -- just as he did when he supported protesters at state capitols who rebelled against their states' lockdowns -- Trump tried to assert authority he does not have as part of his relentless push for normalcy.
His comments came as the nation headed into Memorial Day weekend, a time when health experts worry that Americans' vigilance will give way to complacency with the potential for crowded beaches, pools , parks, holiday barbecues -- and now churches -- across the country.
An updated predictions model from the PolicyLab at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia this week forecasts that Miami and parts of Alabama, Tennessee and Texas will see rapid surges in new cases
Neither the President nor his press secretary explained Friday how he plans to follow through on his threat to governors, which he issued shortly before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released voluntary recommendations for religious institutions.
Still, Trump's remarks Friday were threaded with his impatience for the cautionary warnings of the scientists and medical experts within his own administration, who are worried about a resurgence of coronavirus cases and have highlighted the risks of large gatherings (which many religious services could entail). Throughout the week, he has courted his evangelical supporters with his charge that governors are treating churches unfairly and his insistence that he wants to "get the churches open."
Trump said Friday that some governors have "deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential," but have left out churches and other houses of worship. "It's not right. So I'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential," he said during a brief statement at the White House.
"I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If there's any question, they're going to have to call me, but they're not going to be successful in that call," Trump said. "The governors need to do the right thing and allow these very important essential places of faith to open right now, for this weekend. If they don't do it, I will override the governors. In America we need more prayer, not less," he said, taking no questions from reporters.
As his general election campaign with former Vice President Joe Biden heats up, Trump has increasingly invoked America's culture wars. During a "Rolling to Remember" ceremony earlier on Friday to honor the nation's veterans, prisoners of war and those missing in action -- where he spoke to bikers who then rode two laps around the White House driveway -- Trump noted his political support from bikers.
"Always there, the bikers," he said. "What do I have? 98%? 95? We're trying to find who are the 3% or the 2%. We're looking for them, right?"
"November 3rd is a big day," Trump said, referring to the November election after they lapped the South Lawn Drive. "We don't want to destroy this country. We're going to make it bigger, better, greater than ever before."
Birx urges safety precautions
Though the Memorial Day weekend traditionally kicks off summer, this year's holiday will be anything but normal with many governors, mayors and local officials calling on their states' residents to continue social distancing, wear masks and stay as close to home as possible.
Speaking from the briefing room podium later on Friday, Dr. Deborah Birx, the administration's coronavirus response coordinator, tempered some of Trump's enthusiasm for reopening -- emphasizing both the social distancing guidelines that churches should adhere to in order to reopen as well as the safety precautions Americans must take to enjoy their favorite pastimes this weekend.
In encouraging news, Birx noted that 42 states now have less a less than 10% positivity rate of cases as a rolling seven-day average. But she noted that Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia are still the top states with high numbers of cases, followed by Nebraska, Illinois and Minnesota. "There is still significant virus circulating here," she said of the Washington area.
Birx also highlighted the top metropolitan areas where the rate of positive cases has stalled or increased as places where Americans should be especially cautious this weekend. The DC metro area topped that list, followed by Baltimore, Chicago and Minneapolis. (All of the others were below the 10% threshold, which Birx said, showed " great progress .")
Despite the encouraging news from Birx about the decline in the rate of positive cases, the holiday weekend could also mark another grim moment in the pandemic as the number of deaths in the US approached 100,000.
"We think we're going to hit the milestone of 100,000 deaths over the four-day weekend," said Dr. Chris Murray, the director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, which has produced one of the most influential coronavirus models.
Looking ahead to the holiday weekend, Birx said Americans could get outside with a long list of caveats. Some Americans could play golf, she said, for example, if they are "very careful" and "don't touch the flags." She suggested playing tennis with "marked balls" and just one other person so "you're only touching your ball."
This weekend, if Americans want to do some kind of social gathering, "it's very important to maintain that six feet distance and very important to have your mask with you in case that six feet distance cannot be maintained," Birx said.
"We are asking continuously for you all to be outside, to enjoy your Memorial Day weekend; to play golf; to hike as Dr. (Anthony) Fauci said; to play tennis with marked balls -- and to be out with your families that you have been in the household with; and even consider sharing socially distanced space as long as you have utensils that belong to individuals and that maybe can be thrown out immediately," Birx said. "There's a lot of things to think through. I know you can do this. I know the American people can do it."
When asked about Trump's declaration that churches and houses of worship should reopen, Birx said faith community leaders should be in touch with their local health departments to check the number of new cases in their zip codes, so they can communicate the risks to congregants.
"Certainly people that have significant co-morbidities, we want them protected. I know those houses of worship want to protect them," Birx said. "So really ensuring that -- maybe they can't go this week if there's high number of Covid cases. Maybe they wait another week, but there is a way to social distance like you are here," she said, gesturing to the reporters who were spaced several seats apart in the White House briefing room, "in places of worship."
Though Baltimore is one of the areas of concern for public health officials like Birx, Trump and first lady Melania Trump plan to travel to Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Monday to commemorate Memorial Day.
They will do so in spite of a plea from Baltimore's Mayor Bernard "Jack" Young who said the trip will send the wrong message at a time when he is asking the city's residents not to travel.
"I'm asking the President to rethink his trip. It sends a bad, bad message to the citizens of Baltimore because I'm asking them to stay home and only come out for essential reasons," Young told CNN's John King. "I just want him to set the example for the rest of the country and not do this trip, because it's not essential."
White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere responded to earlier criticism from Young by stating that "the brave men and women who have preserved our freedoms for generations did not stay home and the President will not either as he honors their sacrifice by visiting such a historic landmark in our Nation's history."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
jiuCOvhqXhBeudX5
|
immigration
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/6/trump-signs-memo-vowing-end-to-catch-and-release-o/
|
Trump signs memo vowing end to ‘catch-and-release’ of illegal immigrants
|
2018-04-06
|
Stephen Dinan
|
President Trump signed a directive Friday ordering the government to end the so-called “ catch-and-release ” policy at the border , moving to combat what the administration says is a growing “ crisis ” of illegal immigration .
He called for illegal immigrants nabbed at the border to be held in custody , to the fullest extent possible . He also ordered more asylum officers to head to detention centers so they can rule on cases faster , calculating that if they can clear the cases they can send undeserving migrants home without having to release them .
In a memo to his attorney general and secretaries of the State , Defense , Homeland and Health and Human Services departments , Mr. Trump also demanded regular updates on progress , and told them to submit requests for any new resources they need .
“ The safety and security of the American people is the president ’ s highest priority , and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected , ” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said .
Catch-and-release is the name Border Patrol agents and others involved in the immigration debate have given to the practice of arresting illegal immigrants , processing them and then having to set them free in the U.S. , with the order that they return for a deportation hearing some time in the future .
They disappear into the shadows and most never bother to show for their hearings , which can be years later .
The Bush administration had tried to end catch-and-release by speeding up deportations of Mexicans . But a shift in migration patterns , with a surge in people from Central America — particularly children and families — has caused the issue to raise its head again .
U.S. law , court cases and Obama administration decisions have made it much tougher to deport those people , with a host of legal protections built up around them pushing for them to be released from custody if their cases can ’ t be cleared quickly .
Earlier Friday Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the southwest border to bring criminal misdemeanor charges against people who jump the border .
Mr. Trump ’ s new memo calls on Mr . Sessions and the other departments to crack down on abuse of the asylum system , after illegal immigrants have learned how to game the system by using “ magic words ” indicating they fear being sent back home .
Before 2013 , only about 1 percent of migrants showing up on the border claimed asylum . Now the number is higher than 10 percent , Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said this week .
“ Smugglers themselves are gaming the system , pure and simple . They take advantage of the loopholes in our laws . They know that we can not prosecute as we need to to stop their behavior , ” she said .
|
President Trump signed a directive Friday ordering the government to end the so-called “catch-and-release” policy at the border, moving to combat what the administration says is a growing “crisis” of illegal immigration.
He called for illegal immigrants nabbed at the border to be held in custody, to the fullest extent possible. He also ordered more asylum officers to head to detention centers so they can rule on cases faster, calculating that if they can clear the cases they can send undeserving migrants home without having to release them.
In a memo to his attorney general and secretaries of the State, Defense, Homeland and Health and Human Services departments, Mr. Trump also demanded regular updates on progress, and told them to submit requests for any new resources they need.
“The safety and security of the American people is the president’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
Catch-and-release is the name Border Patrol agents and others involved in the immigration debate have given to the practice of arresting illegal immigrants, processing them and then having to set them free in the U.S., with the order that they return for a deportation hearing some time in the future.
They disappear into the shadows and most never bother to show for their hearings, which can be years later.
The Bush administration had tried to end catch-and-release by speeding up deportations of Mexicans. But a shift in migration patterns, with a surge in people from Central America — particularly children and families — has caused the issue to raise its head again.
U.S. law, court cases and Obama administration decisions have made it much tougher to deport those people, with a host of legal protections built up around them pushing for them to be released from custody if their cases can’t be cleared quickly.
Earlier Friday Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered prosecutors along the southwest border to bring criminal misdemeanor charges against people who jump the border.
Mr. Trump’s new memo calls on Mr. Sessions and the other departments to crack down on abuse of the asylum system, after illegal immigrants have learned how to game the system by using “magic words” indicating they fear being sent back home.
Before 2013, only about 1 percent of migrants showing up on the border claimed asylum. Now the number is higher than 10 percent, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said this week.
“Smugglers themselves are gaming the system, pure and simple. They take advantage of the loopholes in our laws. They know that we cannot prosecute as we need to to stop their behavior,” she said.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
Vm5nSrZoUgrTgXfh
|
education
|
Politico
| 00
|
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/07/white-house-cdc-pediatricians-reopening-schools-350655
|
DeVos blasts school districts that hesitate at reopening
|
2020-07-07
|
███ Dispatch : July 8 The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in families considered food insecure — and that ’ s true across demographic groups . But for Black and Hispanic families , the numbers are unprecedented .
DeVos , who has been criticized for standing on the sidelines during the crisis , took a tough tone . During a call with governors , DeVos slammed the Fairfax , Va. , district for its distance learning “ disaster ” in the spring and offering a choice of only zero or two days of in-person instruction moving forward , according to notes of a call , led by Vice President Mike Pence , with governors obtained by ███ . Earlier in the pandemic , DeVos had been more open to kids learning both online and during in-person classes .
“ Education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk . … Risk is involved in everything we do , from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between , ” she said .
But a statement Tuesday night from teachers unions , the PTA , special education administrators and secondary school principals indicated that their relationship with the White House has hit a new low .
`` Throughout this pandemic , the administration has failed to address the needs of students , especially those students who need the most support . They have failed to listen to families and public school educators who have been on the frontlines serving their communities , '' the statement read .
`` Public school educators , students and parents must have a voice in critical conversations and decisions on reopening schools . The president should not be brazenly making these decisions . ''
Trump and DeVos praised Florida ’ s new reopening plan , which orders the state ’ s public schools to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students . `` We will put out the fires as they come up , but we have to open our schools , ” Trump said , and he decried “ political statements ” that will keep schools closed .
“ They think it 's going to be good for them politically , so they keep the schools closed . No way , ” he said during a roundtable discussion at the White House . “ So we 're very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools , to get them open . And it 's very important . It 's very important for our country . It 's very important for the well-being of the student and the parents . ”
Trump had tweeted on Monday : `` Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don ’ t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons , not for health reasons ! They think it will help them in November . Wrong , the people get it ! ''
The push to reopen comes as parents agonize over whether it will be safe to send their kids back to school this fall and districts wrestle with whether and how to conduct classes . The reopening of schools is vital not just to getting the economy going , but to Trump ’ s reelection prospects . The campaign may be banking on the issue as a way to revive his appeal among disaffected suburban women , whose support will be key .
The Trump campaign is also seizing on former Vice President Joe Biden 's support of teachers unions that are stalwarts of Democratic politics and challenging Biden ’ s commitment to helping parents get their kids back to school . The campaign ’ s “ question of the day ” on Tuesday for the presumptive Democratic nominee is “ Will you side with union bosses who want to keep schools closed or parents who want their kids to keep learning ? ''
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar backed up DeVos , saying parents should expect schools to deliver a safe learning environment for their children , even during a pandemic .
“ We must reopen , ” he said during a White House event on reopening schools . “ We ’ ve got to get people back to work , back to school , back to health care , because we ca n't stay locked in our homes forever . It 's bad for our physical and mental and emotional health — us as adults , as well as for our kids . ”
But Lily Eskelsen García , president of the National Education Association , said `` the reality is no one should listen to Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos when it comes to what is best for students . ''
After Trump tweeted , “ SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL ! ! ! , ” García fired back on Monday , “ You forgot to add the word ‘ SAFELY. ’ ” Biden , speaking to the NEA on Friday , pledged his administration will have a `` teacher-oriented '' Department of Education .
Meanwhile , American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted on Tuesday that , to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19 , schools need `` double the staff and double the space to teach in person . But with state budgets facing massive cuts as a result of the pandemic , we need federal funding to # ReopenSafely , '' she wrote .
The White House hosted events throughout Tuesday on safely reopening , culminating with the roundtable discussion with Trump , first lady Melania Trump , administration officials and teachers , administrators and students from around the country . House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) wrote an op-ed published in USA Today advocating liability protections for schools in any upcoming emergency relief package and underlining GOP support for helping parents with child care problems .
Last spring , DeVos , in a slight departure from Trump , suggested through a spokesperson that schools may have to stick with virtual learning if they ’ re not ready to fully reopen . But on Tuesday , during the panel discussion at the White House , she praised Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran for issuing a “ very comprehensive ” plan to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students .
“ There may be other states and other communities that want to look at that , but again , with the expectation that students are together and that families will be able to count on a five-day school week if that ’ s the right answer for them , ” she said .
During the later panel discussion with Trump , DeVos said too many students `` were trapped in schools that do n't meet their needs '' even before the virus , and that this is the time to reopen and rethink education — a common refrain for the school choice advocate .
`` This moment demands actions , '' she said . `` Not excuse-making or fearmongering . ''
The White House is leaning on CDC reopening guidance and a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that details the importance of in-person learning and “ strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school . ”
CDC Director Robert Redfield said during another White House panel discussion that reopening plans should minimize the risk of Covid-19 while providing students the critical services , academic resources , and social and emotional support they need . And plans should anticipate that Covid cases `` will in fact occur . ''
`` The CDC encourages all schools , all schools to do what they need to reopen , '' he said , adding that the agency ’ s guidance viewed as a recommendation to reopen . `` Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school district or school use our guidance as a reason not to reopen . ''
|
POLITICO Dispatch: July 8 The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in families considered food insecure — and that’s true across demographic groups. But for Black and Hispanic families, the numbers are unprecedented.
DeVos, who has been criticized for standing on the sidelines during the crisis, took a tough tone. During a call with governors, DeVos slammed the Fairfax, Va., district for its distance learning “disaster” in the spring and offering a choice of only zero or two days of in-person instruction moving forward, according to notes of a call, led by Vice President Mike Pence, with governors obtained by POLITICO. Earlier in the pandemic, DeVos had been more open to kids learning both online and during in-person classes.
“Education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk. … Risk is involved in everything we do, from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between,” she said.
But a statement Tuesday night from teachers unions, the PTA, special education administrators and secondary school principals indicated that their relationship with the White House has hit a new low.
"Throughout this pandemic, the administration has failed to address the needs of students, especially those students who need the most support. They have failed to listen to families and public school educators who have been on the frontlines serving their communities," the statement read.
"Public school educators, students and parents must have a voice in critical conversations and decisions on reopening schools. The president should not be brazenly making these decisions."
Trump and DeVos praised Florida’s new reopening plan, which orders the state’s public schools to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students. "We will put out the fires as they come up, but we have to open our schools,” Trump said, and he decried “political statements” that will keep schools closed.
“They think it's going to be good for them politically, so they keep the schools closed. No way,” he said during a roundtable discussion at the White House. “So we're very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools, to get them open. And it's very important. It's very important for our country. It's very important for the well-being of the student and the parents.”
Trump had tweeted on Monday: "Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don’t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons, not for health reasons! They think it will help them in November. Wrong, the people get it!"
The push to reopen comes as parents agonize over whether it will be safe to send their kids back to school this fall and districts wrestle with whether and how to conduct classes. The reopening of schools is vital not just to getting the economy going, but to Trump’s reelection prospects. The campaign may be banking on the issue as a way to revive his appeal among disaffected suburban women, whose support will be key.
The Trump campaign is also seizing on former Vice President Joe Biden's support of teachers unions that are stalwarts of Democratic politics and challenging Biden’s commitment to helping parents get their kids back to school. The campaign’s “question of the day” on Tuesday for the presumptive Democratic nominee is “Will you side with union bosses who want to keep schools closed or parents who want their kids to keep learning?"
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar backed up DeVos, saying parents should expect schools to deliver a safe learning environment for their children, even during a pandemic.
“We must reopen,” he said during a White House event on reopening schools. “We’ve got to get people back to work, back to school, back to health care, because we can't stay locked in our homes forever. It's bad for our physical and mental and emotional health — us as adults, as well as for our kids.”
But Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association, said "the reality is no one should listen to Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos when it comes to what is best for students."
After Trump tweeted, “SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL!!!,” García fired back on Monday, “You forgot to add the word ‘SAFELY.’” Biden, speaking to the NEA on Friday, pledged his administration will have a "teacher-oriented" Department of Education.
Meanwhile, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted on Tuesday that, to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19, schools need "double the staff and double the space to teach in person. But with state budgets facing massive cuts as a result of the pandemic, we need federal funding to #ReopenSafely," she wrote.
The White House hosted events throughout Tuesday on safely reopening, culminating with the roundtable discussion with Trump, first lady Melania Trump, administration officials and teachers, administrators and students from around the country. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wrote an op-ed published in USA Today advocating liability protections for schools in any upcoming emergency relief package and underlining GOP support for helping parents with child care problems.
Last spring, DeVos, in a slight departure from Trump, suggested through a spokesperson that schools may have to stick with virtual learning if they’re not ready to fully reopen. But on Tuesday, during the panel discussion at the White House, she praised Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran for issuing a “very comprehensive” plan to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students.
“There may be other states and other communities that want to look at that, but again, with the expectation that students are together and that families will be able to count on a five-day school week if that’s the right answer for them,” she said.
During the later panel discussion with Trump, DeVos said too many students "were trapped in schools that don't meet their needs" even before the virus, and that this is the time to reopen and rethink education — a common refrain for the school choice advocate.
"This moment demands actions," she said. "Not excuse-making or fearmongering."
The White House is leaning on CDC reopening guidance and a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that details the importance of in-person learning and “strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.”
CDC Director Robert Redfield said during another White House panel discussion that reopening plans should minimize the risk of Covid-19 while providing students the critical services, academic resources, and social and emotional support they need. And plans should anticipate that Covid cases "will in fact occur."
"The CDC encourages all schools, all schools to do what they need to reopen," he said, adding that the agency’s guidance viewed as a recommendation to reopen. "Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school district or school use our guidance as a reason not to reopen."
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
Shf6NAW8cYvMxRuc
|
|
white_house
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/13/were-talking-about-practice/?hpt=po_t1
|
Washington preps for inauguration
|
2013-01-13
|
( CNN ) - `` Practice makes perfect , '' or so the saying goes , and it was practice time in Washington on Sunday , one week ahead of Inauguration Day .
Hundreds of band members , military personnel , media and law enforcement took part in an exercise to rehearse both the swearing-in ceremony and the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue , scheduled to take place a week from Monday , helping to make sure they get the real thing right .
The practice swearing-in ceremony took place in what would be real time – but eight days off - complete with stand-ins filling in for the actual participants , including both Barack and Michelle Obama .
Inauguration Day is January 20 . Obama will take the oath of office that day at the White House to begin his second term , since the date falls on a Sunday . The bigger , ceremonial swearing-in and inaugural address will take place the next day at the Capitol .
This year 's inauguration figures to be a little different from the one four years ago . For starters , officials are expecting around half as many people as in 2009 , when a record 1.8 million attended .
Barbara Lang , president and CEO of the DC Chamber of Commerce , said business leaders would love to see almost 2 million people again this year , but the expected lower attendance is at least good news for those who are looking for a place to stay .
`` We are told that the hotels are not sold out . So that 's very different than it was four years ago . So there 's still availability in all of the major hotels around the city , '' Lang said .
Lang also gave a few tips for those coming into Washington for the big event : Wear comfortable shoes , bring maps and try to avoid bringing backpacks , as security personnel will have a long list of prohibited items .
Most importantly though , Lang said , `` Just really enjoy the moment . This is a terrific city . Obviously , I am the cheerleader in chief , but it is a wonderful city , and we want people to come here and enjoy themselves . Spend a lot of money and come back often . ''
As for practicing , there 's no word on whether Obama or Chief Justice John Roberts is rehearsing the oath of office this time around . The pair notably flubbed the recitation in front of millions during Obama 's first inauguration .
|
7 years ago
(CNN) - "Practice makes perfect," or so the saying goes, and it was practice time in Washington on Sunday, one week ahead of Inauguration Day.
Hundreds of band members, military personnel, media and law enforcement took part in an exercise to rehearse both the swearing-in ceremony and the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, scheduled to take place a week from Monday, helping to make sure they get the real thing right.
Follow @politicalticker
The practice swearing-in ceremony took place in what would be real time – but eight days off - complete with stand-ins filling in for the actual participants, including both Barack and Michelle Obama.
Inauguration Day is January 20. Obama will take the oath of office that day at the White House to begin his second term, since the date falls on a Sunday. The bigger, ceremonial swearing-in and inaugural address will take place the next day at the Capitol.
This year's inauguration figures to be a little different from the one four years ago. For starters, officials are expecting around half as many people as in 2009, when a record 1.8 million attended.
Barbara Lang, president and CEO of the DC Chamber of Commerce, said business leaders would love to see almost 2 million people again this year, but the expected lower attendance is at least good news for those who are looking for a place to stay.
"We are told that the hotels are not sold out. So that's very different than it was four years ago. So there's still availability in all of the major hotels around the city," Lang said.
Lang also gave a few tips for those coming into Washington for the big event: Wear comfortable shoes, bring maps and try to avoid bringing backpacks, as security personnel will have a long list of prohibited items.
Most importantly though, Lang said, "Just really enjoy the moment. This is a terrific city. Obviously, I am the cheerleader in chief, but it is a wonderful city, and we want people to come here and enjoy themselves. Spend a lot of money and come back often."
As for practicing, there's no word on whether Obama or Chief Justice John Roberts is rehearsing the oath of office this time around. The pair notably flubbed the recitation in front of millions during Obama's first inauguration.
|
www.politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
| 0left
|
27rWSKZM4uACrMTb
|
|
middle_east
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://apnews.com/2fd2efad28f41f82f8204d4d3ae05ba6
|
The Latest: US forces halt anti-IS operations in Iraq
|
2020-01-05
|
Mourners carry the coffins of Iran 's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf , Iraq , Saturday , Jan. 4 , 2020 . Iran has vowed `` harsh retaliation '' for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad 's airport that killed Tehran 's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East , as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing . ( AP Photo/Anmar Khalil )
Mourners carry the coffins of Iran 's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf , Iraq , Saturday , Jan. 4 , 2020 . Iran has vowed `` harsh retaliation '' for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad 's airport that killed Tehran 's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East , as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing . ( AP Photo/Anmar Khalil )
BEIRUT ( AP ) — The latest on U.S.-Iran tensions ( all times local ) :
Residents of the Iraq ’ s capital of Baghdad say three explosions rang out heard inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone , home to the U.S. Embassy and the seat of Iraq ’ s government .
This is was the second such attack in recent days .
Alert sirens were sounded Sunday in the area on the west bank of the Tigris river .
There was no immediate confirmation from authorities but the explosions were believed to have been from mortars or rockets that struck the area .
The strikes come after top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad . His killing has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S .
Turkey ’ s president called for de-escalation between Iran and the U.S. following America ’ s killing of an Iranian general . He says the slaying of a top commander will likely not go unanswered , and voiced concern about regional security risks .
Recep Tayyip Erdogan ’ s first public comments on the killing came in a televised interview Sunday . He says he was surprised because the strike occurred just hours after a phone call with President Donald Trump .
Erdogan said he “ especially had suggested to ( Trump ) that tensions with Iran should not be heightened ” during that call .
Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani ’ s killing in a drone strike in Baghdad has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S .
Tehran has since abandoned all limits of its 2015 nuclear deal , and Iraq ’ s parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil .
Iranian state television reports that Iran will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal .
The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad .
It ’ s unclear what this means for the program , especially when it comes to enrichment of uranium . Authorities did not immediately elaborate .
A former leader of Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guard says the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa can be targeted to avenge a general killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad .
Mohsen Rezaee made the comment Sunday in Tehran at a ceremony in honor of the slain leader Qassem Soleimani .
He has previously alleged Israel somehow leaked information about Soleimani ’ s whereabouts to U.S. forces , who killed him Friday in a drone strike .
The U.S-led coalition in Iraq says it is pausing operations in support of Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State militants .
The coalition says it ’ s focus will now be on protecting U.S. personnel and bases in Iraq , and it is suspending training for Iraqi forces .
The coalition ’ s decision Sunday comes days after a U.S. drone strike killed Iran ’ s top commander in Baghdad .
The killing has heightened tensions in the region and tested the U.S.-Iraq alliance . Attacks on bases that house U.S. forces are expected to increase .
Iraqi lawmakers also voted Sunday in favor of a new bill that calls for the expulsion of all 5,000 US troops from Iraq .
Iraq ’ s parliament has voted to expel the U.S. military from the country .
Lawmakers voted Sunday in favor of a resolution that calls for ending foreign military presence in the country . The resolution ’ s main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in different parts of Iraq .
The vote comes two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani inside Iraq , dramatically increasing regional tensions .
The Iraqi resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group .
The resolution was backed by most Shiite members of parliament , who hold a majority of seats .
Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session , apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal .
The leader of Lebanon ’ s Hezbollah group says America ’ s military in the Middle East region , including U.S. bases , warships and soldiers are fair targets following the U.S. killing of Iran ’ s top general .
Hassan Nasrallah says evicting U.S. military forces from the region is now a priority .
The U.S. military , which recently killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani “ will pay the price , ” he added in a speech Sunday .
“ The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave from our region in the past are still here and their numbers have increased , ” Nasrallah added .
Pope Francis is calling for dialogue and self-restraint in his first public comments amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran , after a U.S. airstrike killed Iran ’ s top general in Iraq .
During his Sunday noon blessing , Francis warned : “ War brings only death and destruction. ” He led the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter ’ s Square in a silent prayer for peace .
Speaking off the cuff , Francis said : “ I call on all side to keep alive the flame of dialogue and self-control , and to avoid the shadows of enmity . ”
Francis had hoped to visit Iraq this year to minister to the Christian minorities that have been targeted by the Islamic State group . Vatican officials and local Catholic bishops in Iraq have voiced concern about the impact of any new conflict on the weakest and most marginal in Iraq .
Iraq ’ s parliament has begun an emergency session and will likely vote on a resolution requiring the government to ask foreign forces to leave Iraq .
The resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group .
The resolution is backed by most Shiite members of parliament , who hold a majority of seats .
The request was put forward Sunday by the largest bloc in the legislature , known as Fatah . That bloc includes leaders associated with the Iran-backed paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units , which were a major force in the fight against IS .
Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session , apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal .
At the start of the session , 180 legislators of the 329-member parliament were present .
The leader of Lebanon ’ s Hezbollah group says the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general puts the entire region at the beginning of a “ completely new phase . ”
Speaking before thousands of supports at a rally in southern Beirut , Hassan Nasrallah has called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani a “ clear , blatant crime ” that will transform the Middle East .
Sunday ’ s comments were his first public statements since Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq Friday .
The Shiite militant group is Iran ’ s key proxy and most successful military export . Nasrallah , who has been in hiding fearing Israeli assassination since 2006 , spoke to supporters through a large screen via satellite link .
The daughter of Iran ’ s Gen. Qassem Soleimani says the death of her father will “ not break us ” and the United States should know that his blood will not go for free .
Zeinab Soleimani told Lebanon ’ s Al-Manar TV — which is linked with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group — that the “ filthy ” President Donald Trump will not be able to wipe out the achievements of the slain Iranian leader .
In the short interview aired Sunday , Zeinab Soleimani said Trump is not courageous because her father was targeted by missiles from afar and the U.S. president should have “ stood face to face in front of him . ”
The young woman , who spoke in Farsi with Arabic voice over , said that she knows that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will avenge the death of her father .
The U.S. has warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia “ of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks ” amid soaring tensions with Iran .
A security alert message sent Sunday by the U.S. mission there said that in the past “ regional actors hostile to Saudi Arabia have conducted missile and drone attacks against both civilian and military targets inside the kingdom . ”
It warned that U.S. citizens living and working near military bases , oil and gas facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure are at heightened risk of attack , particularly in the Eastern Province where the oil giant Aramco is headquartered and areas near the border with Yemen .
Britain ’ s foreign minister says it is trying to “ de-escalate ” a volatile situation after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday in an interview with broadcaster Sky News that Soleimani “ was a regional menace . ”
Raab added that the UK understood the U.S. ’ s “ position ” and “ right to exercise self-defense . ”
But Raab said the UK was discussing with top officials in the U.S. and Europe , as well as Iran and Iraq , about how to avoid a war , which he said wouldn ’ t be in anyone ’ s interests . Britain ’ s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said late Saturday that he had ordered two British Navy warships , the HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer , to return to the Strait of Hormuz amid the soaring regional tensions .
Iran ’ s Foreign Ministry spokesman says that officials in the Islamic Republic plan to meet Sunday night to discuss their next step out of the nuclear deal and that it will be even bigger than initially planned .
Abbas Mousavi made the comment Sunday during a briefing with journalists after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Mousavi said the step would be greater than planned as “ in the world of politics , all developments are interconnected . ”
If taken , it would be the fifth step to break terms of Tehran ’ s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers , which saw Iran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions .
Mousavi did not elaborate on what that step could be . Iran previously has broken limits of its enrichment , its stockpiles and its centrifuges , as well as restarted enrichment at an underground facility .
Major stock markets in the Middle East are trading down on fears of a conflict between Iran and the U.S. after an American drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
The Boursa Kuwait closed down 4 % . The Dubai Financial Market closed down just over 3 % . Riyadh ’ s Tadawul was down over 2 % as trading continued . The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange fell 1.42 % .
Meanwhile , oil prices continued to rise . Brent crude traded up 3.5 % to $ 68.60 a barrel .
The U.S. killed Soleimani on Friday . Early Sunday , as Iran threatened “ harsh retaliation , ” President Donald Trump tweeted the U.S. was prepared to strike 52 sites in the Islamic Republic if any Americans are harmed .
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says President Donald Trump is “ worthy of all appreciation ” for ordering the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that Soleimani “ initiated , planned and carried out many terror attacks ” in the Middle East and beyond . Israel has long accused Soleimani of being the mastermind of Iran ’ s belligerency in the region .
Netanyahu said Israel stood alongside the United States in its current campaign against Iran .
Netanyahu has been among the strongest voices against Iran ’ s Islamic rulers in recent years . The Israeli leader pushed hard against the nuclear deal Western powers signed with Tehran in 2015 and which Trump later reversed .
The United States killed Soleimani in a drone airstrike at Baghdad ’ s international airport early Friday . The Iranian commander was widely seen as the architect of Tehran ’ s proxy wars in the Middle East .
The deputy leader of Lebanon ’ s militant Hezbollah group says the United States carried out a “ very stupid act ” by killing Iran ’ s Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Sheikh Naim Kassem made his comments on Sunday after paying a visit to the Iranian embassy in Beirut where he paid condolences . He said the attack will make Tehran and its allies stronger .
Kassem told reporters “ now we have more responsibilities ” adding that the United States will discover that “ its calculations ” were wrong .
Heazbollah is a close ally of Iran ’ s and considered part of a regional Iranian-backed alliance of proxy militias .
Iranian officials are criticizing President Donald Trump ’ s threats to target sites important to Iran ’ s culture .
Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites would be hit fast and hard if Tehran attacks U.S. assets to avenge the killing of a powerful Iranian general .
Iran ’ s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter Sunday that after committing “ grave breaches ” in the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , Trump is threatening new breaches of international law .
Telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi compared Trump ’ s threats to the Islamic State group , Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan .
“ They all hate cultures . Trump is a ‘ terrorist in a suit ’ , ” Jahromi wrote on Twitter , warning that nobody can defeat Iran .
Iraq ’ s Iran-backed militias say that some remains of the Iranian top general and Iraqi militant leader killed in the U.S. drone strike in Iraq were sent to Iran for DNA tests to identify their corpses .
The Popular Mobilization Forces said in a statement Sunday that the bodies of the two commanders as well as an Iraqi bodyguard were torn to pieces and mangled by the explosion of the American missiles near Baghdad ’ s international airport .
It said the test will take few days after which the remains of the Iraqi commander , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , will be brought back to Iraq for burial in the holy Shiite city of Najaf .
Iran has declared three days of public mourning over Gen. Qassem Soleimani ’ s death in the U.S. attack .
The body of a top Iranian commander , who was killed in a U.S. drone strike , has arrived in Iran as the crisis between the two countries escalates .
Throngs of mourners carried Sunday the flag-draped casket of Gen. Qassem Soleimani off a plane in Ahvaz in southwestern Iran .
The U.S. drone strike targeting Soleimani in Iraq Friday also killed a leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis .
President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 sites in Iran if it retaliates by attacking Americans .
The tensions take root in Trump pulling out of Iran ’ s nuclear deal with world powers . That accord soon likely will further unravel as Tehran is expected to announce as soon as Sunday another set of atomic limits the country will break .
|
Mourners carry the coffins of Iran's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020. Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation" for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad's airport that killed Tehran's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East, as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing. (AP Photo/Anmar Khalil)
Mourners carry the coffins of Iran's Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iran-backed militias at the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020. Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation" for the U.S. airstrike near Baghdad's airport that killed Tehran's top general and the architect of its interventions across the Middle East, as tensions soared in the wake of the targeted killing. (AP Photo/Anmar Khalil)
BEIRUT (AP) — The latest on U.S.-Iran tensions (all times local):
9:50 p.m.
Residents of the Iraq’s capital of Baghdad say three explosions rang out heard inside the heavily-fortified Green Zone, home to the U.S. Embassy and the seat of Iraq’s government.
This is was the second such attack in recent days.
Alert sirens were sounded Sunday in the area on the west bank of the Tigris river.
There was no immediate confirmation from authorities but the explosions were believed to have been from mortars or rockets that struck the area.
The strikes come after top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad. His killing has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S.
___
9:20 p.m.
Turkey’s president called for de-escalation between Iran and the U.S. following America’s killing of an Iranian general. He says the slaying of a top commander will likely not go unanswered, and voiced concern about regional security risks.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s first public comments on the killing came in a televised interview Sunday. He says he was surprised because the strike occurred just hours after a phone call with President Donald Trump.
Erdogan said he “especially had suggested to (Trump) that tensions with Iran should not be heightened” during that call.
Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s killing in a drone strike in Baghdad has escalated the crisis between Iran and the U.S.
Tehran has since abandoned all limits of its 2015 nuclear deal, and Iraq’s parliament called for the expulsion of all American troops from Iraqi soil.
Turkey shares a border with Iran, Iraq and Syria.
___
8:05 p.m.
Iranian state television reports that Iran will no longer abide by any of the limits of its 2015 nuclear deal.
The announcement came Sunday night after another Iranian official said it would consider taking even-harsher steps over the U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Friday in Baghdad.
It’s unclear what this means for the program, especially when it comes to enrichment of uranium. Authorities did not immediately elaborate.
___
6:30 p.m.
A former leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says the Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa can be targeted to avenge a general killed by a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad.
Mohsen Rezaee made the comment Sunday in Tehran at a ceremony in honor of the slain leader Qassem Soleimani.
He has previously alleged Israel somehow leaked information about Soleimani’s whereabouts to U.S. forces, who killed him Friday in a drone strike.
Israel and Iran are longtime foes.
___
5:50 p.m.
The U.S-led coalition in Iraq says it is pausing operations in support of Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State militants.
The coalition says it’s focus will now be on protecting U.S. personnel and bases in Iraq, and it is suspending training for Iraqi forces.
The coalition’s decision Sunday comes days after a U.S. drone strike killed Iran’s top commander in Baghdad.
The killing has heightened tensions in the region and tested the U.S.-Iraq alliance. Attacks on bases that house U.S. forces are expected to increase.
Iraqi lawmakers also voted Sunday in favor of a new bill that calls for the expulsion of all 5,000 US troops from Iraq.
___
4:45 p.m.
Iraq’s parliament has voted to expel the U.S. military from the country.
Lawmakers voted Sunday in favor of a resolution that calls for ending foreign military presence in the country. The resolution’s main aim is to get the U.S. to withdraw some 5,000 U.S. troops present in different parts of Iraq.
The vote comes two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani inside Iraq, dramatically increasing regional tensions.
The Iraqi resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.
The resolution was backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats.
Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
___
4:20 p.m.
The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says America’s military in the Middle East region, including U.S. bases, warships and soldiers are fair targets following the U.S. killing of Iran’s top general.
Hassan Nasrallah says evicting U.S. military forces from the region is now a priority.
The U.S. military, which recently killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani “will pay the price,” he added in a speech Sunday.
“The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave from our region in the past are still here and their numbers have increased,” Nasrallah added.
___
4:10 p.m.
Pope Francis is calling for dialogue and self-restraint in his first public comments amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and Iran, after a U.S. airstrike killed Iran’s top general in Iraq.
During his Sunday noon blessing, Francis warned: “War brings only death and destruction.” He led the tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square in a silent prayer for peace.
Speaking off the cuff, Francis said: “I call on all side to keep alive the flame of dialogue and self-control, and to avoid the shadows of enmity.”
Francis had hoped to visit Iraq this year to minister to the Christian minorities that have been targeted by the Islamic State group. Vatican officials and local Catholic bishops in Iraq have voiced concern about the impact of any new conflict on the weakest and most marginal in Iraq.
___
3:55 p.m.
Iraq’s parliament has begun an emergency session and will likely vote on a resolution requiring the government to ask foreign forces to leave Iraq.
The resolution specifically calls for ending an agreement in which Washington sent troops to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.
The resolution is backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats.
The request was put forward Sunday by the largest bloc in the legislature, known as Fatah. That bloc includes leaders associated with the Iran-backed paramilitary Popular Mobilization Units, which were a major force in the fight against IS.
Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
At the start of the session, 180 legislators of the 329-member parliament were present.
3:40 p.m.
The leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah group says the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general puts the entire region at the beginning of a “completely new phase.”
Speaking before thousands of supports at a rally in southern Beirut, Hassan Nasrallah has called the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani a “clear, blatant crime” that will transform the Middle East.
Sunday’s comments were his first public statements since Soleimani was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Iraq Friday.
The Shiite militant group is Iran’s key proxy and most successful military export. Nasrallah, who has been in hiding fearing Israeli assassination since 2006, spoke to supporters through a large screen via satellite link.
__
2:10 p.m.
The daughter of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani says the death of her father will “not break us” and the United States should know that his blood will not go for free.
Zeinab Soleimani told Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV — which is linked with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group — that the “filthy” President Donald Trump will not be able to wipe out the achievements of the slain Iranian leader.
In the short interview aired Sunday, Zeinab Soleimani said Trump is not courageous because her father was targeted by missiles from afar and the U.S. president should have “stood face to face in front of him.”
The young woman, who spoke in Farsi with Arabic voice over, said that she knows that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah will avenge the death of her father.
___
2:00 p.m.
The U.S. has warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia “of the heightened risk of missile and drone attacks” amid soaring tensions with Iran.
A security alert message sent Sunday by the U.S. mission there said that in the past “regional actors hostile to Saudi Arabia have conducted missile and drone attacks against both civilian and military targets inside the kingdom.”
It warned that U.S. citizens living and working near military bases, oil and gas facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure are at heightened risk of attack, particularly in the Eastern Province where the oil giant Aramco is headquartered and areas near the border with Yemen.
___
1:55 p.m.
Britain’s foreign minister says it is trying to “de-escalate” a volatile situation after a U.S. drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said on Sunday in an interview with broadcaster Sky News that Soleimani “was a regional menace.”
Raab added that the UK understood the U.S.’s “position” and “right to exercise self-defense.”
But Raab said the UK was discussing with top officials in the U.S. and Europe, as well as Iran and Iraq, about how to avoid a war, which he said wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests. Britain’s Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said late Saturday that he had ordered two British Navy warships, the HMS Montrose frigate and the HMS Defender destroyer, to return to the Strait of Hormuz amid the soaring regional tensions.
___
1:40 p.m.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman says that officials in the Islamic Republic plan to meet Sunday night to discuss their next step out of the nuclear deal and that it will be even bigger than initially planned.
Abbas Mousavi made the comment Sunday during a briefing with journalists after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Mousavi said the step would be greater than planned as “in the world of politics, all developments are interconnected.”
If taken, it would be the fifth step to break terms of Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which saw Iran limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
Mousavi did not elaborate on what that step could be. Iran previously has broken limits of its enrichment, its stockpiles and its centrifuges, as well as restarted enrichment at an underground facility.
___
12:15 p.m.
Major stock markets in the Middle East are trading down on fears of a conflict between Iran and the U.S. after an American drone strike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
The Boursa Kuwait closed down 4%. The Dubai Financial Market closed down just over 3%. Riyadh’s Tadawul was down over 2% as trading continued. The Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange fell 1.42%.
Egypt’s stock exchange also fell 4%.
Meanwhile, oil prices continued to rise. Brent crude traded up 3.5% to $68.60 a barrel.
The U.S. killed Soleimani on Friday. Early Sunday, as Iran threatened “harsh retaliation,” President Donald Trump tweeted the U.S. was prepared to strike 52 sites in the Islamic Republic if any Americans are harmed.
___
11:50 a.m.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says President Donald Trump is “worthy of all appreciation” for ordering the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Netanyahu told his Cabinet Sunday that Soleimani “initiated, planned and carried out many terror attacks” in the Middle East and beyond. Israel has long accused Soleimani of being the mastermind of Iran’s belligerency in the region.
Netanyahu said Israel stood alongside the United States in its current campaign against Iran.
Netanyahu has been among the strongest voices against Iran’s Islamic rulers in recent years. The Israeli leader pushed hard against the nuclear deal Western powers signed with Tehran in 2015 and which Trump later reversed.
The United States killed Soleimani in a drone airstrike at Baghdad’s international airport early Friday. The Iranian commander was widely seen as the architect of Tehran’s proxy wars in the Middle East.
___
11:45 a.m.
The deputy leader of Lebanon’s militant Hezbollah group says the United States carried out a “very stupid act” by killing Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Sheikh Naim Kassem made his comments on Sunday after paying a visit to the Iranian embassy in Beirut where he paid condolences. He said the attack will make Tehran and its allies stronger.
Kassem told reporters “now we have more responsibilities” adding that the United States will discover that “its calculations” were wrong.
Heazbollah is a close ally of Iran’s and considered part of a regional Iranian-backed alliance of proxy militias.
___
11:40 a.m.
Iranian officials are criticizing President Donald Trump’s threats to target sites important to Iran’s culture.
Trump threatened Iranian cultural sites would be hit fast and hard if Tehran attacks U.S. assets to avenge the killing of a powerful Iranian general.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter Sunday that after committing “grave breaches” in the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Trump is threatening new breaches of international law.
Zarif wrote: “Targeting cultural sites is a WAR CRIME.”
Telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi compared Trump’s threats to the Islamic State group, Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan.
“They all hate cultures. Trump is a ‘terrorist in a suit’,” Jahromi wrote on Twitter, warning that nobody can defeat Iran.
___
11:30 a.m.
Iraq’s Iran-backed militias say that some remains of the Iranian top general and Iraqi militant leader killed in the U.S. drone strike in Iraq were sent to Iran for DNA tests to identify their corpses.
The Popular Mobilization Forces said in a statement Sunday that the bodies of the two commanders as well as an Iraqi bodyguard were torn to pieces and mangled by the explosion of the American missiles near Baghdad’s international airport.
It said the test will take few days after which the remains of the Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, will be brought back to Iraq for burial in the holy Shiite city of Najaf.
Al-Muhandis was closely allied with Iran for decades.
Iran has declared three days of public mourning over Gen. Qassem Soleimani’s death in the U.S. attack.
___
6:45 a.m.
The body of a top Iranian commander, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike, has arrived in Iran as the crisis between the two countries escalates.
Throngs of mourners carried Sunday the flag-draped casket of Gen. Qassem Soleimani off a plane in Ahvaz in southwestern Iran.
The U.S. drone strike targeting Soleimani in Iraq Friday also killed a leader of an Iran-backed Iraqi militia, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.
President Donald Trump threatened to bomb 52 sites in Iran if it retaliates by attacking Americans.
The tensions take root in Trump pulling out of Iran’s nuclear deal with world powers. That accord soon likely will further unravel as Tehran is expected to announce as soon as Sunday another set of atomic limits the country will break.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
gJ3FMPfRX9MdpeDg
|
|
trade
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/03/08/trump-planning-make-formal-tariff-announcement/406065002/
|
Trump planning to make formal tariff announcement
|
2018-03-08
|
David Jackson
|
CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty , President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement . ( March 8 ) AP
WASHINGTON — Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide , President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries .
In statements from the White House , Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs , pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations , and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties .
`` We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries , while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours , '' Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House .
CLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S. , things did n't go well for the economy . Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum ? Here are the facts . Just the FAQs
He also described the move as `` vital to our national security , '' and said more trade policy changes are on the way .
Trump said there would be 25 % tariffs on steel and 10 % on aluminum , but there would be exemptions and possible changes .
`` I 'll have a right to go up or down , depending on the country , and I 'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries , '' he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day . `` We just want fairness . Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries . ''
When Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago , aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs .
The European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products , from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon . Trump 's decision `` will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response , '' said Cecilia Malmström , the EU commissioner for trade .
In addition to threatening to go after American products , other countries ridiculed Trump 's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense , saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China .
Many fellow Republicans also objected to Trump 's tariffs , predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere .
Outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz. , who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump 's action , ridiculed the notion of `` flexible '' tariffs : `` What does that mean ? One day you wake up and you say , ‘ I don ’ t like Australia ? ’ ... That ’ s unbelievable . ”
Looking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House . We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 8 , 2018
The critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wisc. , who said that `` I 'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences . ''
Trump justified the decision by citing `` shuttered plants and mills , '' laid-off workers , and `` the decimation of entire communities , '' all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries . Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs , and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy .
During the signing ceremony , Trump invited some of the steel workers , hard hats in hands , to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry .
The trade debate played a major role in Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign .
During the Cabinet meeting , Trump said he would flexible with `` real friends . '' In addition to Canada and Mexico , Trump mentioned Australia — `` we have a trade surplus with Australia '' — while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending .
`` We have some friends and some enemies , where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years , on trade , and on military , '' Trump said .
More : Trump claims 'trade wars ' are 'easy to win ' day after tariff talk roils stock market
More : Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs
Trump said Canada and Mexico , the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement , could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA , a trade deal the president has long criticized .
`` With Mexico and Canada , we 're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop , '' Trump told his Cabinet , though officials in those countries have denounced the president 's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal .
Trump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago , telling a group of executives he would impose 25 % tariffs on steel imports and 10 % on aluminum imports .
The tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself , and led in part to this week 's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn .
During his session with aides , Trump noted that it would be Cohn 's last Cabinet meeting . He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide 's support of free trade , saying that Cohn “ may be a globalist , but I still like him . ''
A number of Republicans , nominal allies of Trump , have criticized the tariffs .
More : Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump 's White House
House Republicans focused on trade , however , were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues .
Rep. Kevin Brady , the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , said exempting Canada and Mexico was “ a good first step . ”
“ I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target – and not U.S. workers , businesses , and families , ” Brady said .
Rep. David Reichert , R-Wash. , said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective .
“ With 40 % of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington , we can not take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world , ” said Reichert , chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means .
In a letter released Wednesday , 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to “ tailor ” the tariffs to punish “ bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America ” such as China .
Sen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , minority leader in the Senate , said he sympathizes with Trump 's criticism of trade rules , but the main culprit is China . Trump 's plan does n't address the Chinese , he said , because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S .
`` Instead of getting right at China , the president ’ s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries , '' Schumer said . He also hit `` the haphazard way these tariffs were put together , '' and that Trump `` makes up his mind one day and changes it the next . ''
Trump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes . During the signing ceremony , he outlined a `` reciprocal tax '' to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products .
Like other business groups , the National Retail Federation called the tariffs `` a self-inflicted wound '' that will lead to `` higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics . ''
Some economists defended Trump 's plan , saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing .
Peter Morici , a business professor at the University of Maryland , tweeted that Trump `` is not starting a trade war '' because `` we are already in one , '' especially with China .
`` The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols , '' Morici said . `` China has targeted one U.S. industry after another , thrown millions of Americans out of work . Time to fight back . ''
|
CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty, President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement. (March 8) AP
President Trump (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)
WASHINGTON — Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide, President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries.
In statements from the White House, Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs, pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations, and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties.
"We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries, while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours," Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House.
CLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S., things didn't go well for the economy. Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum? Here are the facts. Just the FAQs
He also described the move as "vital to our national security," and said more trade policy changes are on the way.
Trump said there would be 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum, but there would be exemptions and possible changes.
"I'll have a right to go up or down, depending on the country, and I'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries," he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day. "We just want fairness. Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries."
The new tariffs take effect in 15 days.
When Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago, aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs.
The European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products, from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon. Trump's decision "will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response," said Cecilia Malmström, the EU commissioner for trade.
In addition to threatening to go after American products, other countries ridiculed Trump's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense, saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China.
Many fellow Republicans also objected to Trump's tariffs, predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere.
Outgoing Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump's action, ridiculed the notion of "flexible" tariffs: "What does that mean? One day you wake up and you say, ‘I don’t like Australia?’ ... That’s unbelievable.”
Looking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House. We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2018
The critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., who said that "I'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences."
Trump justified the decision by citing "shuttered plants and mills," laid-off workers, and "the decimation of entire communities," all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries. Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs, and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy.
During the signing ceremony, Trump invited some of the steel workers, hard hats in hands, to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry.
The trade debate played a major role in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
During the Cabinet meeting, Trump said he would flexible with "real friends." In addition to Canada and Mexico, Trump mentioned Australia — "we have a trade surplus with Australia" — while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending.
"We have some friends and some enemies, where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years, on trade, and on military," Trump said.
More: Trump claims 'trade wars' are 'easy to win' day after tariff talk roils stock market
More: Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs
Trump said Canada and Mexico, the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement, could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA, a trade deal the president has long criticized.
"With Mexico and Canada, we're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop," Trump told his Cabinet, though officials in those countries have denounced the president's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal.
Trump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago, telling a group of executives he would impose 25% tariffs on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports.
The tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself, and led in part to this week's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn.
During his session with aides, Trump noted that it would be Cohn's last Cabinet meeting. He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide's support of free trade, saying that Cohn “may be a globalist, but I still like him."
A number of Republicans, nominal allies of Trump, have criticized the tariffs.
More: Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump's White House
House Republicans focused on trade, however, were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues.
Rep. Kevin Brady, the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee, said exempting Canada and Mexico was “a good first step.”
“I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target – and not U.S. workers, businesses, and families,” Brady said.
Rep. David Reichert, R-Wash., said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective.
“With 40% of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington, we cannot take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world,” said Reichert, chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means.
In a letter released Wednesday, 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to “tailor” the tariffs to punish “bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America” such as China.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., minority leader in the Senate, said he sympathizes with Trump's criticism of trade rules, but the main culprit is China. Trump's plan doesn't address the Chinese, he said, because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S.
"Instead of getting right at China, the president’s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries," Schumer said. He also hit "the haphazard way these tariffs were put together," and that Trump "makes up his mind one day and changes it the next."
Trump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes. During the signing ceremony, he outlined a "reciprocal tax" to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products.
Like other business groups, the National Retail Federation called the tariffs "a self-inflicted wound" that will lead to "higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics."
Some economists defended Trump's plan, saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing.
Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, tweeted that Trump "is not starting a trade war" because "we are already in one," especially with China.
"The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols," Morici said. "China has targeted one U.S. industry after another, thrown millions of Americans out of work. Time to fight back."
Contributing: Herb Jackson
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2oZ93Uy
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
Bcok1Vmli5usKNPi
|
elections
|
The Atlantic
| 00
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/tulsi-gabbard-2020-candidate/597226/
|
The Enduring Mystery of Tulsi Gabbard
|
2019-09-05
|
Edward-Isaac Dovere
|
Many of Gabbard ’ s current supporters are former Sanders supporters , who first came to know her when she quit as a DNC vice chair in 2016 , saying that the process was rigged and she would endorse Sanders over Clinton . “ I don ’ t know if [ Sanders ] has enough fight in him to go against the powers that be , ” Dean Mincer , a 2016 Sanders delegate from Glidden , Iowa , told me at that coffee shop in Ames , worrying about how people would respond to the senator ’ s socialist views . “ Tulsi ’ s more of a realist . ”
Gabbard ’ s supporters are a mix of old hippie peaceniks , cryptocurrency enthusiasts , people who obsess over American imperialism , and former Trump voters . They are also people who just love that she ’ s a young woman of color who always talks about “ what we in Hawaii call that spirit of Aloha , ” as she ’ d said at the Wing Ding . “ Aloha means so much more than ‘ hello ’ and ‘ goodbye , ’ as some of you may be familiar . What it really means is love and respect and a recognition that we are all connected , that we are all children of God , we are all brothers and sisters , regardless of the color of our skin , or where we come from , or who we love , or how we worship or if we worship. ” At a recent event in Los Angeles , a woman told Gabbard she had cancer , and attributed it to a wire on her roof . “ I ’ m now electrosensitive , ” the woman said . She told Gabbard that she lived in her car and wanted to know what the candidate would do about Federal Communications Commission standards . “ This is something I ’ m looking more into as I ’ m hearing from people like you who are raising these concerns , ” Gabbard replied . A 16-year-old at the event told Gabbard he is frustrated that no one seems to care about the concerns of young people . “ I ’ m smiling , ” she told him , “ because I ’ ve lost track of how many times I ’ ve been told that . ”
She ’ s a presidential candidate and a member of Congress , but tracking down Gabbard wasn ’ t easy . In July , when she was in Milwaukee to speak at a veterans ’ breakfast during a League of United Latin American Citizens conference—where I ’ d heard she ’ d been well received , talking about her own service—I ran into her while she was waiting in line for a vegan sandwich at the Milwaukee Public Market . She was serious about this race , she told me , and she wouldn ’ t be in it if she thought anyone else running could be commander in chief . I said we should do an interview , and she told me to get in touch with her new press secretary , but she couldn ’ t remember his last name , and neither could any of the staffers standing nearby whom she asked .
Contrast that with how her sister and a small circle of aides wear earpieces and cluster around her like a security detail . Gabbard ’ s husband , Abraham Williams , a trained videographer , uses a special camera stabilizer that gives a cinematic feel to the live-streams of her events . Her website features coding that isn ’ t quite sophisticated , but is slightly more than meets the eye : In the final days of trying to qualify for the September debate , it would generate random numbers just short of 130,000—the donor number she needed to hit—every time the page was refreshed , and then for weeks after had a one-minute countdown urging : “ If you contribute in the next minute , we can hit our weekly goal. ” The countdown reset with every refresh . ( These tactics aren ’ t typical for candidates ’ websites . ) Her campaign now claims to have well over 130,000 donors . A spokesman wouldn ’ t say how many people are currently on staff , though her second-quarter Federal Elections Commission report showed salaries going to just six employees , for a total of $ 50,000 over three months , in addition to a few consulting fees .
|
Many of Gabbard’s current supporters are former Sanders supporters, who first came to know her when she quit as a DNC vice chair in 2016, saying that the process was rigged and she would endorse Sanders over Clinton. “I don’t know if [Sanders] has enough fight in him to go against the powers that be,” Dean Mincer, a 2016 Sanders delegate from Glidden, Iowa, told me at that coffee shop in Ames, worrying about how people would respond to the senator’s socialist views. “Tulsi’s more of a realist.”
Gabbard’s supporters are a mix of old hippie peaceniks, cryptocurrency enthusiasts, people who obsess over American imperialism, and former Trump voters. They are also people who just love that she’s a young woman of color who always talks about “what we in Hawaii call that spirit of Aloha,” as she’d said at the Wing Ding. “Aloha means so much more than ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye,’ as some of you may be familiar. What it really means is love and respect and a recognition that we are all connected, that we are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters, regardless of the color of our skin, or where we come from, or who we love, or how we worship or if we worship.” At a recent event in Los Angeles, a woman told Gabbard she had cancer, and attributed it to a wire on her roof. “I’m now electrosensitive,” the woman said. She told Gabbard that she lived in her car and wanted to know what the candidate would do about Federal Communications Commission standards. “This is something I’m looking more into as I’m hearing from people like you who are raising these concerns,” Gabbard replied. A 16-year-old at the event told Gabbard he is frustrated that no one seems to care about the concerns of young people. “I’m smiling,” she told him, “because I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been told that.”
She’s a presidential candidate and a member of Congress, but tracking down Gabbard wasn’t easy. In July, when she was in Milwaukee to speak at a veterans’ breakfast during a League of United Latin American Citizens conference—where I’d heard she’d been well received, talking about her own service—I ran into her while she was waiting in line for a vegan sandwich at the Milwaukee Public Market. She was serious about this race, she told me, and she wouldn’t be in it if she thought anyone else running could be commander in chief. I said we should do an interview, and she told me to get in touch with her new press secretary, but she couldn’t remember his last name, and neither could any of the staffers standing nearby whom she asked.
Contrast that with how her sister and a small circle of aides wear earpieces and cluster around her like a security detail. Gabbard’s husband, Abraham Williams, a trained videographer, uses a special camera stabilizer that gives a cinematic feel to the live-streams of her events. Her website features coding that isn’t quite sophisticated, but is slightly more than meets the eye: In the final days of trying to qualify for the September debate, it would generate random numbers just short of 130,000—the donor number she needed to hit—every time the page was refreshed, and then for weeks after had a one-minute countdown urging: “If you contribute in the next minute, we can hit our weekly goal.” The countdown reset with every refresh. (These tactics aren’t typical for candidates’ websites.) Her campaign now claims to have well over 130,000 donors. A spokesman wouldn’t say how many people are currently on staff, though her second-quarter Federal Elections Commission report showed salaries going to just six employees, for a total of $50,000 over three months, in addition to a few consulting fees.
|
www.theatlantic.com
| 0left
|
yvNj9I3r7tqICyOt
|
banking_and_finance
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/09/exclusive_bank_of_americas_horrid_customer_service_scandal/
|
EXCLUSIVE: Bank of America’s horrid “customer service” scandal
|
2014-10-09
|
Sarah Jaffe
|
Tony ( last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job ) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate . He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills , and he tries to help them solve their problems . And Tony and his coworkers are organizing .
Bank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution , according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine . And according to Tony , many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers , who instead feel squeezed , wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong . Tired of the inadequate training they receive , tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they did n't know were mistakes , tired of feeling like they 're hurting customers rather than helping them , a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make , in Tony 's words , a positive change .
“ We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out , ” Tony says . “ It 's tough when you 've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder , say 'Can you come to a meeting ? ' and as you walk away , another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff . If you look over your shoulder , you see them packing your stuff as you walk away . And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do ? ' ”
He continues , “ When we 're not trained properly it 's hurting the customer , it 's hurting us . What 's sad is that , when we 're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank , when we 're trained properly we do n't favor the bank . Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor . ”
For example , he says , associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers ' accounts . For a while , he was n't aware that at the end of the call , a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer , a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer . Instead , he says , they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished , so if the customer ended the call , the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing . One of his coworkers , he says , was fired when the quality control department , which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they 're doing their jobs correctly , caught her not reading the disclosure . “ This disclosure where the customer can say ' I do n't want a 4 % fee , ' this favors the bank when we do n't read it to them , ” he says . “ You 've already got the balance transfer , we ca n't do anything about the fee . ”
Another person , he says , was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager . The managers , he notes , get the same training on the system as the associates , but often have even less time to pay attention to them .
Tony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate . Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions , he says , they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take . Additionally , he says , “ The first thing it does is tell you 'here 's what the training is about , acknowledge you 've taken it and you know the subject matter . ' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter . After you take the course , if you do n't understand it , they go 'Well you learned about it , you clicked that button . ' There 's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it . We feel that 's their way of saying it 's on you now . It 's not the bank , you acknowledged you know it , so you do it wrong , that 's your fault . ”
The training they do get , he says , is often about how to “ deepen the relationship , ” with the customer . “ Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something , ” he says . Instead of upgrading a customer 's credit card , for instance , they are pushed to open a new card , one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card . According to Chi Chi Wu , a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center , this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act , which prohibits “ unsolicited issuance ” of a credit card .
“ Deepening the relationship ” means something different , perhaps , to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups . He says , “ I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards , how to 'deepen that relationship , ' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card . One of the associates in the meeting says , 'This woman 's overdrawn , she 's told me she 's unemployed , I ca n't sell her a credit card , she ca n't afford to pay any of her bills now , that 's going to hurt her . ' The manager said 'How do you know she does n't need the credit card to buy milk or formula ? This could be just right at the right time . Sell her the credit card , it is n't our responsibility if she ca n't pay it . ' ”
“ That 's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy , ” Tony adds .
With the help of the Committee for Better Banks , a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York ( ALIGN ) , Make the Road New York , New York Communities for Change ( NYCC ) and the Communications Workers of America union ( CWA ) , Tony 's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June . The petition calls for “ independent , federally-guided training be implemented immediately , for employees and managers alike . ”
Tony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers . As David Dayen reported for ███ in June of 2013 , former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs , given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure , and pressed to lie to customers . Tony says , “ Maybe they 're like us , maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank . As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas , making their numbers , maybe that 's all they care about . ”
“ I look at Bank of America and like I said I 've worked there for years , I see them , they 're selling things off left and right , they 're selling branches in Michigan , they 're selling branches in Maine , we 're shrinking the bank , ” Tony continues . “ I wonder if they 're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good ? Because it 's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders . Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt ? No , I really do n't . They 're more concerned with the return on their stock . Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers , it would be much better world . ”
They began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs , being better able to serve their customers , and Tony says that though it 's slow , they are seeing some results . No one has acknowledged their petition , though he says he 's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing , but after the workers took their yearly “ associate engagement survey , ” the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed . This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they 'd never have done if they were trained properly .
Once the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems , Tony says , there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication , though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information .
Tony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other , they can change the banking industry. “ Our customers are all our families , our friends , our communities , this country is in a dire situation because so many systems , of which banking is one , are failing them , because banking has become more about greed , ” he says . “ This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this is n't going to change . ”
|
Tony (last name not included for fear of reprisal on the job) has worked at Bank of America for 11 years as a customer service associate. He takes phone calls from customers whose needs range from a simple change of address to a family crisis that leaves the caller unable to pay their bills, and he tries to help them solve their problems. And Tony and his coworkers are organizing.
Bank of America has had more complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau than any other American financial institution, according to a July report from Mother Jones magazine. And according to Tony, many of those complaints could be fixed with better training for workers, who instead feel squeezed, wanting to provide good service to the customers they talk to daily and on the other hand scapegoated when something goes wrong. Tired of the inadequate training they receive, tired of watching associates get fired for mistakes they didn't know were mistakes, tired of feeling like they're hurting customers rather than helping them, a group of around 40 workers got together to try to make, in Tony's words, a positive change.
Advertisement:
“We started the group because we were tired of seeing good people walked out,” Tony says. “It's tough when you've got to work in an environment where they tap you on the shoulder, say 'Can you come to a meeting?' and as you walk away, another manager walks up to your desk with a box and starts packing your stuff. If you look over your shoulder, you see them packing your stuff as you walk away. And we all sit there in shock saying 'What did they do?'”
He continues, “When we're not trained properly it's hurting the customer, it's hurting us. What's sad is that, when we're not trained properly our mistakes tend to favor the bank, when we're trained properly we don't favor the bank. Some people feel that the bank would rather us not be trained because the money they make off of that is in their favor.”
For example, he says, associates received just a brief training on doing balance transfers in the computer system that they use to manage customers' accounts. For a while, he wasn't aware that at the end of the call, a disclosure statement would pop up that was to be read to the customer, a legal statement of how the interest would accrue and what the fee would be for the transfer. Instead, he says, they were told that they should never end a call until the customer is finished, so if the customer ended the call, the next call would come in without the disclosure ever appearing. One of his coworkers, he says, was fired when the quality control department, which listens to two recorded calls from each worker each month to make sure they're doing their jobs correctly, caught her not reading the disclosure. “This disclosure where the customer can say 'I don't want a 4% fee,' this favors the bank when we don't read it to them,” he says. “You've already got the balance transfer, we can't do anything about the fee.”
Advertisement:
Another person, he says, was fired for taking a hold off of a deposited check at the request of a manager. The managers, he notes, get the same training on the system as the associates, but often have even less time to pay attention to them.
Tony worries that the computer-based trainings they do receive are inadequate. Instead of a class where they might be able to ask questions, he says, they get computer-based trainings that they are often pushed to rush through in less time than the training says it will take. Additionally, he says, “The first thing it does is tell you 'here's what the training is about, acknowledge you've taken it and you know the subject matter.' To get into the course to learn about the subject matter you have to click a button that says we know about the subject matter. After you take the course, if you don't understand it, they go 'Well you learned about it, you clicked that button.' There's no way to take the course unless you acknowledge it. We feel that's their way of saying it's on you now. It's not the bank, you acknowledged you know it, so you do it wrong, that's your fault.”
The training they do get, he says, is often about how to “deepen the relationship,” with the customer. “Deepening the relationship is a nice word for selling you something,” he says. Instead of upgrading a customer's credit card, for instance, they are pushed to open a new card, one which might have a higher interest rate than their existing card. According to Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, this process could violate the Truth in Lending Act, which prohibits “unsolicited issuance” of a credit card.
Advertisement:
“Deepening the relationship” means something different, perhaps, to Tony than it does to the bank higher-ups. He says, “I once sat in a training was about selling more credit cards, how to 'deepen that relationship,' using what the customer says as a tool to sell them this new credit card. One of the associates in the meeting says, 'This woman's overdrawn, she's told me she's unemployed, I can't sell her a credit card, she can't afford to pay any of her bills now, that's going to hurt her.' The manager said 'How do you know she doesn't need the credit card to buy milk or formula? This could be just right at the right time. Sell her the credit card, it isn't our responsibility if she can't pay it.'”
“That's the kind of thinking that sunk this economy,” Tony adds.
Advertisement:
With the help of the Committee for Better Banks, a labor-community coalition that includes Alliance for a Greater New York (ALIGN), Make the Road New York,New York Communities for Change (NYCC) and the Communications Workers of America union (CWA), Tony's group started a petition on Coworker.org this June. The petition calls for “independent, federally-guided training be implemented immediately, for employees and managers alike.”
Tony and his coworkers are not the first Bank of America employees to worry that they are being pushed to do wrong by their customers. As David Dayen reported for Salon in June of 2013, former employees testified that they were denied training on mortgage procedures under federal programs, given bonuses for putting accounts into foreclosure, and pressed to lie to customers. Tony says, “Maybe they're like us, maybe certain things were left out because it favored the bank. As long as managers and site leaders are making their quotas, making their numbers, maybe that's all they care about.”
“I look at Bank of America and like I said I've worked there for years, I see them, they're selling things off left and right, they're selling branches in Michigan, they're selling branches in Maine, we're shrinking the bank,” Tony continues. “I wonder if they're shrinking the bank to pay the bills and to make the bank look good? Because it's all about profit and money and we have to return to the shareholders. Do I think shareholders really care if the customers get burnt? No, I really don't. They're more concerned with the return on their stock. Maybe if banks listened to their employees and listened to their customers, it would be much better world.”
Advertisement:
They began organizing with the idea of getting better at their jobs, being better able to serve their customers, and Tony says that though it's slow, they are seeing some results. No one has acknowledged their petition, though he says he's overhead remarks from higher-ups about their organizing, but after the workers took their yearly “associate engagement survey,” the Human Resources department sent someone to look into their complaints and one site leader was removed. This survey was given after about forty people had been let go for things that Tony says they'd never have done if they were trained properly.
Once the workers began standing together to try to solve their problems, Tony says, there have been fewer firings and somewhat better communication, though information about practices still too often comes from other associates who have been reprimanded for doing something wrong and who share that information.
Tony hopes that if workers and customers stand up for each other, they can change the banking industry.“Our customers are all our families, our friends, our communities, this country is in a dire situation because so many systems, of which banking is one, are failing them, because banking has become more about greed,” he says. “This is all of us together trying to make a better situation and until we all come together this isn't going to change.”
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
QkdR7Irhuh5FR7Ih
|
elections
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/09/blankenship-trump-primary-west-virginia-north-carolina-ohio-indiana/593722002/
|
Blankenship is out and sucking up to Trump may not be enough: 4 takeaways from Tuesday’s primaries
|
2018-05-09
|
Eliza Collins
|
CLOSE Former Coal Executive Don Blankenship , who called himself `` Trumpier than Trump , '' finished third in West Virginia 's Republican Senate Primary . President Trump opposed him . Attorney General Patrick Morrisey will face Democratic Senator Joe Manchin . ( May 9 ) AP
WASHINGTON – Four states held primaries Tuesday night , all in states President Trump won in 2016 . Republicans avoided electing someone many thought would sink their chances of flipping the Senate seat in West Virginia . In North Carolina , an incumbent congressman lost his party 's nomination for his re-election and in Indiana two sitting congressmen lost the GOP nod for the Senate to an outsider businessman . In Ohio , establishment candidates in both parties took the nominations .
Trump declared Tuesday 's elections `` a great night '' and said `` all candidates are those who have a great chance of winning in November . ''
Republicans — and particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — woke up Wednesday with a weight off their shoulders . West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won Tuesday ’ s marquee race . In West Virginia ’ s Republican Senate primary , Morrisey came in 6 percentage points ahead of Rep. Evan Jenkins and beat former convict Don Blankenship by 15 percentage points .
Republicans had been wringing their hands over Blankenship , who appeared to be surging in the final days of the race . Blankenship was the former Massey Energy CEO convicted of a misdemeanor related to a mine explosion that killed 29 men . During the primary , he had been on supervised release , which ended Wednesday . Blankenship also made headlines by attacking McConnell and his “ China family , ” a reference to the family of McConnell 's wife , Elaine Chao , the current secretary of Transportation .
Trump won West Virginia during the 2016 election by 42 points and Republicans see Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin as a prime pick-off opportunity in the fall . Many worried that Blankenship would hurt their chances . Republicans , traumatized by the Senate seat they lost in Alabama because of a damaged candidate , had been sounding the alarm about Blankenship in the final days and Trump issued an eleventh hour tweet telling voters he was unelectable in the general election .
To the great people of West Virginia we have , together , a really great chance to keep making a big difference . Problem is , Don Blankenship , currently running for Senate , can ’ t win the General Election in your State ... No way ! Remember Alabama . Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 7 , 2018
Getting Morrisey may have bolstered Republicans ’ chances in the state , but it ’ s still not a slam dunk , said Terry Sullivan a Republican strategist and former campaign manager for Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s 2016 presidential run .
“ I think that candidates matter in races and I think people are underestimating Joe Manchin to be honest with you , ” Sullivan said . “ Yes , Blankenship would have an even harder time beating Manchin than any other candidate … but I think anybody is going to have a tough time beating Joe Manchin in West Virginia . ”
Then again , Manchin lost 30 % of the Democratic vote to challenger Paula Jean Swearengin , a point the Republican National Committee hammered Tuesday night with a email titled “ Trouble in WV ... ? ”
House members went down all over the place Tuesday night . In North Carolina ’ s 9th Congressional District , Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger became the first sitting congressman of the cycle to lose his primary . Mark Harris , a conservative pastor who came very close to beating Pittenger in 2016 , labeled Pittenger a member of the “ Washington swamp ” and beat him by 3 percentage points Tuesday .
In West Virginia , Jenkins , a current House member , came in second in his bid for his party ’ s nomination for Senate . And in Indiana , Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita both lost by double-digits to businessman Mike Braun .
Braun , himself , a former state lawmaker , played up his credentials as an outsider businessman . Braun argued that Messer and Rokita were basically the same career politician . In one ad , Braun carried cardboard cutouts of his opponents around his hometown of Jasper , where voters struggled to tell them apart .
But one congressman , Republican Rep. Jim Renacci in Ohio , captured his party ’ s nomination for the Senate with 47 % of the vote .
Trump won all four of Tuesday ’ s primary states during the 2016 election and he remains popular with the GOP electorate , but voters didn ’ t reward candidates just because they aligned themselves with him . It wasn ’ t that Tuesday ’ s winners had rebuked Trump , it ’ s just that the most overt Trump supporters were not necessarily rewarded .
In Indiana , an analysis by Kantar Media 's Campaign Media Analysis Group for ███ NETWORK found that all of Messer ’ s and Rokita ’ s ads that aired through April included a reference to Trump , only 12 % of Braun ’ s did .
Blankenship had fashioned himself in the mold of Trump , even declaring he was `` Trumpier than Trump ” after the president urged voters to vote against him .
Renacci may have easily won his primary in Ohio , but the fact that unknown businessman Bob Gibbons got 32 % could be a red flag . Renacci was endorsed by the president , who came and campaigned for him multiple times .
( Morrisey ’ s clear victory sent McConnell and his allies on a victory lap Tuesday night with the Kentucky Republican ’ s campaign team tweeting a photoshopped picture of McConnell surrounded by cocaine fashioned after the promo pictures of the Netflix show Narcos . The photo was a reference to Blankenship calling McConnell `` Cocaine Mitch '' based on a 2014 report that cocaine was discovered aboard a vessel owned by his father-in-law 's company . )
But there were plenty of other reasons for the establishment — in both parties — to celebrate Tuesday .
In Ohio , two conservative Republicans aligned with the hard-line House Freedom Caucus , went down to more mainstream candidates . State Sen . Troy Balderson , who had been backed by retired Rep. Pat Tiberi , won both primaries for the special election ( to fill the remainder of the term ) and the midterm election ( for next year ) for Ohio ’ s 12th Congressional District .
Balderson beat Melanie Leneghan — a businesswoman and local government official — in both elections by just 1 percentage point . Leneghan had been backed by former Freedom Caucus chair Jim Jordan of Ohio .
Former NFL football player Anthony Gonzalez also beat state Sen. Christina Hagan in Ohio ’ s 16th Congressional District . The House Freedom Fund , the Freedom Caucus-aligned super PAC started by Jordan , had donated to Hagen .
In the Ohio , both parties got well-known establishment politicians for their gubernatorial race .
Democrat Richard Cordray , the state ’ s former attorney general and the former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , crushed the other candidates in his primary including former congressman Dennis Kucinich , by 39 percentage points . On the Republican side , Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov . Mary Taylor by 20 percentage points .
The race will be a rematch of the 2010 attorney general race which DeWine narrowly won .
Contributing : Nicole Gaudiano in Washington ; Tony Cook and Maureen Groppe in Indiana ; and Jason Williams in Ohio
|
CLOSE Former Coal Executive Don Blankenship, who called himself "Trumpier than Trump," finished third in West Virginia's Republican Senate Primary. President Trump opposed him. Attorney General Patrick Morrisey will face Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. (May 9) AP
Former Massey CEO and West Virginia Republican Senatorial candidate, Don Blankenship, kicks off his campaign in Logan, W.Va., on Jan. 18, 2018. (Photo: Steve Helber, AP)
WASHINGTON – Four states held primaries Tuesday night, all in states President Trump won in 2016. Republicans avoided electing someone many thought would sink their chances of flipping the Senate seat in West Virginia. In North Carolina, an incumbent congressman lost his party's nomination for his re-election and in Indiana two sitting congressmen lost the GOP nod for the Senate to an outsider businessman. In Ohio, establishment candidates in both parties took the nominations.
Trump declared Tuesday's elections "a great night" and said "all candidates are those who have a great chance of winning in November."
Here are our four big takeaways from Tuesday's primaries:
Republicans still have a chance in West Virginia
Republicans — and particularly Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — woke up Wednesday with a weight off their shoulders. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won Tuesday’s marquee race. In West Virginia’s Republican Senate primary, Morrisey came in 6 percentage points ahead of Rep. Evan Jenkins and beat former convict Don Blankenship by 15 percentage points.
Republicans had been wringing their hands over Blankenship, who appeared to be surging in the final days of the race. Blankenship was the former Massey Energy CEO convicted of a misdemeanor related to a mine explosion that killed 29 men. During the primary, he had been on supervised release, which ended Wednesday. Blankenship also made headlines by attacking McConnell and his “China family,” a reference to the family of McConnell's wife, Elaine Chao, the current secretary of Transportation.
Trump won West Virginia during the 2016 election by 42 points and Republicans see Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin as a prime pick-off opportunity in the fall. Many worried that Blankenship would hurt their chances. Republicans, traumatized by the Senate seat they lost in Alabama because of a damaged candidate, had been sounding the alarm about Blankenship in the final days and Trump issued an eleventh hour tweet telling voters he was unelectable in the general election.
To the great people of West Virginia we have, together, a really great chance to keep making a big difference. Problem is, Don Blankenship, currently running for Senate, can’t win the General Election in your State...No way! Remember Alabama. Vote Rep. Jenkins or A.G. Morrisey! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 7, 2018
Getting Morrisey may have bolstered Republicans’ chances in the state, but it’s still not a slam dunk, said Terry Sullivan a Republican strategist and former campaign manager for Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential run.
“I think that candidates matter in races and I think people are underestimating Joe Manchin to be honest with you,” Sullivan said. “Yes, Blankenship would have an even harder time beating Manchin than any other candidate … but I think anybody is going to have a tough time beating Joe Manchin in West Virginia.”
Then again, Manchin lost 30% of the Democratic vote to challenger Paula Jean Swearengin, a point the Republican National Committee hammered Tuesday night with a email titled “Trouble in WV...?”
Voters still want to drain the swamp
House members went down all over the place Tuesday night. In North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger became the first sitting congressman of the cycle to lose his primary. Mark Harris, a conservative pastor who came very close to beating Pittenger in 2016, labeled Pittenger a member of the “Washington swamp” and beat him by 3 percentage points Tuesday.
In West Virginia, Jenkins, a current House member, came in second in his bid for his party’s nomination for Senate. And in Indiana, Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita both lost by double-digits to businessman Mike Braun.
Braun, himself, a former state lawmaker, played up his credentials as an outsider businessman. Braun argued that Messer and Rokita were basically the same career politician. In one ad, Braun carried cardboard cutouts of his opponents around his hometown of Jasper, where voters struggled to tell them apart.
But one congressman, Republican Rep. Jim Renacci in Ohio, captured his party’s nomination for the Senate with 47% of the vote.
Being close to Trump isn’t enough
Trump won all four of Tuesday’s primary states during the 2016 election and he remains popular with the GOP electorate, but voters didn’t reward candidates just because they aligned themselves with him. It wasn’t that Tuesday’s winners had rebuked Trump, it’s just that the most overt Trump supporters were not necessarily rewarded.
In Indiana, an analysis by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group for USA TODAY NETWORK found that all of Messer’s and Rokita’s ads that aired through April included a reference to Trump, only 12% of Braun’s did.
Blankenship had fashioned himself in the mold of Trump, even declaring he was "Trumpier than Trump” after the president urged voters to vote against him.
Renacci may have easily won his primary in Ohio, but the fact that unknown businessman Bob Gibbons got 32% could be a red flag. Renacci was endorsed by the president, who came and campaigned for him multiple times.
The establishment's big night
Establishment Republicans were obviously gleeful over Blankenship’s loss.
(Morrisey’s clear victory sent McConnell and his allies on a victory lap Tuesday night with the Kentucky Republican’s campaign team tweeting a photoshopped picture of McConnell surrounded by cocaine fashioned after the promo pictures of the Netflix show Narcos. The photo was a reference to Blankenship calling McConnell "Cocaine Mitch" based on a 2014 report that cocaine was discovered aboard a vessel owned by his father-in-law's company.)
But there were plenty of other reasons for the establishment — in both parties — to celebrate Tuesday.
In Ohio, two conservative Republicans aligned with the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, went down to more mainstream candidates. State Sen. Troy Balderson, who had been backed by retired Rep. Pat Tiberi, won both primaries for the special election (to fill the remainder of the term) and the midterm election (for next year) for Ohio’s 12th Congressional District.
Balderson beat Melanie Leneghan — a businesswoman and local government official — in both elections by just 1 percentage point. Leneghan had been backed by former Freedom Caucus chair Jim Jordan of Ohio.
Former NFL football player Anthony Gonzalez also beat state Sen. Christina Hagan in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District. The House Freedom Fund, the Freedom Caucus-aligned super PAC started by Jordan, had donated to Hagen.
In the Ohio, both parties got well-known establishment politicians for their gubernatorial race.
Democrat Richard Cordray, the state’s former attorney general and the former head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, crushed the other candidates in his primary including former congressman Dennis Kucinich, by 39 percentage points. On the Republican side, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine beat Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor by 20 percentage points.
The race will be a rematch of the 2010 attorney general race which DeWine narrowly won.
Contributing: Nicole Gaudiano in Washington; Tony Cook and Maureen Groppe in Indiana; and Jason Williams in Ohio
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2rwPnsn
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
lq2RdBzz2jF284eh
|
culture
|
New York Post
| 22
|
https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/the-best-calming-cbd-products-to-buy-in-honor-of-4-20/
|
The best CBD products to buy in honor of 4/20
|
2020-04-20
|
NY Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you buy through our links .
If you ’ ve been feeling anxiety over current events , it might be time to browse a few soothing CBD products — especially in honor of this week ’ s cheeky 4/20 holiday , celebrated by cannabis lovers around the globe .
Besides their scintillating aroma , CBD ( cannabidiol ) products promise to reduce inflammation , calm nerves and alleviate pain . While few of these benefits are backed up by medical studies , the cannabis craze shows no signs of slowing down .
From CBD-infused oils and eye masks to gummies and skin-care potions , chill out with our favorite plant-based picks .
Say hasta la vista to dark under-eye circles with these hydrogel eye masks . Infused with cannabis sativa seed oil , green tea extract , chamomile and sodium hyaluronate , these miracle masks nourish , smooth and brighten delicate skin under the eyes .
No Puff Zone Hydrating Hemp Hydrogel Under Eye Mask , $ 9 Nails Inc .
Constantly washing and sanitizing your hands can take a real toll on your skin . Let this natural CBD skin cream be your handy hydrating hero .
Natural CBD skin cream , $ 65 ( 2 oz . ) at Dr. Kerklaan
This shampoo and conditioner set — infused with hemp-derived CBD — gently cleanses , detangles and hydrates locks , leaving you with the ultimate hair high .
The only thing worth inhaling this 4/20 are the mild floral scents and rich , spicy and herbaceous aromas of this candle .
Self-soothe with this restorative body oil , packed with powerful ingredients such as full-spectrum CBD and French maritime pine bark extract .
Ellis Brooklyn Marvelous CBD Massage & Body Oil , $ 65 at Standard Dose
This budding bundle will keep you calm and organized . The all-in-one kit includes a sleek leather pouch , a starter pack of CBD gummies and a gift card to a meditation app .
Enjoy the stress-relieving benefits of this sophisticated skin-care cream . Its rich blend of terpenes , CBD and natural compounds delivers instant relief to dry and itchy skin .
Get baked and bronzed with the first luxurious CBD-infused tanning mousse . Nourishing botanical ingredients leave skin with a long-lasting sun-kissed glow — and a fresh scent .
This facial mist uses the finest THC-free cannabidiol ( in combination with aloe , green tea , coffee and peppermint ) to reduce redness and leave you fresh-faced for your next video call .
Bask in the glow of your own complexion with this CBD face oil . Infused with Colorado-grown , organic , full-spectrum CBD , it offers TLC to dry , irritated or stressed-out skin .
Emerald CBD Adaptogens Deep Moisture Glow Oil , $ 98 at Herbivore Botanicals
Add a tranquil touch to virtual happy hour by stirring one of these soothing sachets into your drink . Packed with powerful anti-inflammatories agents such as turmeric , ginger and boswellia , along with CBD and tart cherry powder , the powders promise to optimize relaxation and ease sore and achy joints .
Soothing sachets , $ 50 ( box of 12 ) at Nature of Things
Soak up the healing benefits of these CBD- and botanical-infused bath salts , designed to alleviate aches and pains . Ingredients such as sulfur detoxify and draw out impurities , while active botanicals soothe muscles and promote relaxation .
Let this earthy eau de grassy vetiver , with calming violet leaf and fresh lemon , be the high note of your fragrance collection .
The debut of this bubbling face tonic ( from vegan and cruelty-free skin-care brand Wldkat ) comes just in time for 4/20 . Charged with powerful ingredients such as broad-spectrum CBD , kombucha and ginger root extract , the potion leaves skin looking bright and radiant .
Ginger + Kombucha Bubbling Skin Tonic , $ 28 ( available 4/20 ) at Wldkat
|
NY Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you buy through our links.
If you’ve been feeling anxiety over current events, it might be time to browse a few soothing CBD products — especially in honor of this week’s cheeky 4/20 holiday, celebrated by cannabis lovers around the globe.
Besides their scintillating aroma, CBD (cannabidiol) products promise to reduce inflammation, calm nerves and alleviate pain. While few of these benefits are backed up by medical studies, the cannabis craze shows no signs of slowing down.
From CBD-infused oils and eye masks to gummies and skin-care potions, chill out with our favorite plant-based picks.
Puff begone
Say hasta la vista to dark under-eye circles with these hydrogel eye masks. Infused with cannabis sativa seed oil, green tea extract, chamomile and sodium hyaluronate, these miracle masks nourish, smooth and brighten delicate skin under the eyes.
No Puff Zone Hydrating Hemp Hydrogel Under Eye Mask, $9 Nails Inc.
Hydrated high
Constantly washing and sanitizing your hands can take a real toll on your skin. Let this natural CBD skin cream be your handy hydrating hero.
Natural CBD skin cream, $65 (2 oz.) at Dr. Kerklaan
Herbal essence
This shampoo and conditioner set — infused with hemp-derived CBD — gently cleanses, detangles and hydrates locks, leaving you with the ultimate hair high.
Super Garden shampoo and conditioner set, $72 at R+Co
Get lit
The only thing worth inhaling this 4/20 are the mild floral scents and rich, spicy and herbaceous aromas of this candle.
Cannabis candle, $55 at Malin + Goetz
Strike oil
Self-soothe with this restorative body oil, packed with powerful ingredients such as full-spectrum CBD and French maritime pine bark extract.
Ellis Brooklyn Marvelous CBD Massage & Body Oil, $65 at Standard Dose
Chew on this
This budding bundle will keep you calm and organized. The all-in-one kit includes a sleek leather pouch, a starter pack of CBD gummies and a gift card to a meditation app.
The Bee & Kit, $99 at Bee & Kin
Serenity now
Enjoy the stress-relieving benefits of this sophisticated skin-care cream. Its rich blend of terpenes, CBD and natural compounds delivers instant relief to dry and itchy skin.
CBD 300 Face and Body Cream, $125 at Chantecaille
Always sunny
Get baked and bronzed with the first luxurious CBD-infused tanning mousse. Nourishing botanical ingredients leave skin with a long-lasting sun-kissed glow — and a fresh scent.
Tanning Mousse, $55 at Opalens Beauty
Mist Mary Jane
This facial mist uses the finest THC-free cannabidiol (in combination with aloe, green tea, coffee and peppermint) to reduce redness and leave you fresh-faced for your next video call.
Tone Down spray, $29 at Fitish
Go green
Bask in the glow of your own complexion with this CBD face oil. Infused with Colorado-grown, organic, full-spectrum CBD, it offers TLC to dry, irritated or stressed-out skin.
Emerald CBD Adaptogens Deep Moisture Glow Oil, $98 at Herbivore Botanicals
Powder hour
Add a tranquil touch to virtual happy hour by stirring one of these soothing sachets into your drink. Packed with powerful anti-inflammatories agents such as turmeric, ginger and boswellia, along with CBD and tart cherry powder, the powders promise to optimize relaxation and ease sore and achy joints.
Soothing sachets, $50 (box of 12) at Nature of Things
Rub-a-dub-dub
Soak up the healing benefits of these CBD- and botanical-infused bath salts, designed to alleviate aches and pains. Ingredients such as sulfur detoxify and draw out impurities, while active botanicals soothe muscles and promote relaxation.
Botanicals bath salts, $29 at Vertly
Just a spritz
Let this earthy eau de grassy vetiver, with calming violet leaf and fresh lemon, be the high note of your fragrance collection.
Dirty Grass eau de parfum, $185 at Heretic
Chronic tonic
The debut of this bubbling face tonic (from vegan and cruelty-free skin-care brand Wldkat) comes just in time for 4/20. Charged with powerful ingredients such as broad-spectrum CBD, kombucha and ginger root extract, the potion leaves skin looking bright and radiant.
Ginger + Kombucha Bubbling Skin Tonic, $28 (available 4/20) at Wldkat
|
www.nypost.com
| 1right
|
3rftYU2xcUdyb12i
|
|
environment
|
National Review
| 22
|
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/san-francisco-straws-ban-bubble-tea-business-hurt/
|
San Francisco Bans Plastic Straws and Cocktail Swords
|
2018-07-27
|
Katherine Timpf, David French, Jordan Sillars, Jay Nordlinger, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, Victor Davis Hanson, Yuval Levin
|
The city is placing a burden on its businesses for very little environmental benefit .
San Francisco ’ s supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to ban plastic straws , toothpicks , cocktail swords , and stirrers .
The ordinance goes into effect in July of 2020 and will punish violators with a fine ranging from $ 100 to $ 500 . Although it doesn ’ t include a specific exemption for the disabled , it does state that “ strict compliance . . . is not required in instances where it would interfere with accommodating for any person ’ s medical needs . ”
This ban is not quite as severe as the one that was just passed in Santa Barbara , which will punish violators with a maximum penalty of a $ 1,000 fine or six months in jail per straw . What ’ s more , Santa Barbara legislation ’ s does not contain language about reduced requirements for compliance when dealing with people who are disabled . ( It is still , as Reason notes , stricter than the one in Seattle , because it bans compostable plastics as well as regular ones . )
Just because San Francisco ’ s ban is less strict than Santa Barbara ’ s , however , does not mean that it is not going to cause any problems . In fact , there is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban : bubble-tea shops .
There is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban : bubble-tea shops .
If you ’ re not familiar with bubble tea — also known as “ boba ” — it ’ s tea-based drink with tapioca pearls — or “ bubbles ” — at the bottom . It ’ s a very popular drink in San Francisco ; according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle , 250 local bubble-tea businesses are mentioned in Yelp reviews for the area . The tea not only requires a straw , but it also requires a special kind of straw , a larger one that allows the consumer to sip up the bubbles .
According to the Chronicle , bubble-tea-shop owners have been running into more than a few hurdles when trying to figure out how they will comply with the new ordinance . One chain , Boba Guys , was delighted to find a supplier that makes straws out of polylactic acid — a degradable plastic also known as PLA — only to find that PLA was also banned by the ordinance .
There are still , of course , other options — such as bamboo , metal , or paper . But the Chronicle notes that all of these options are far more expensive : Plastic straws cost between one to three cents apiece , while paper straws cost between seven and nine cents . It might not seem like the hugest deal , but when Boba Guys is handing out around 2 million straws per year , that increased cost is certainly going to add up .
There is also the additional problem of supply . According to the Chronicle , Boba Guys staff say they know of three options for compliant straws : paper straws from a company called Aardvark , paper straws from a company called Worldcentric , and seaweed-based plastic straws from a company called Loliware . There ’ s just one issue : Aardvark has a backlog of orders , and jumbo straws from the other two companies are not on the market yet .
To be fair , the San Francisco Department of the Environment has told the Chronicle that they ’ re willing to help the boba-tea businesses .
“ If there is a moment when this goes into effect when you ’ re unable to source the straws you need , ” Department of the Environment director Debbie Raphael said . “ Let ’ s talk about it and see what we can do to help . ”
Hopefully all of the bubble-tea shops can figure out a way to survive this ban , but the whole thing seems a little ridiculous when you consider how minimal the environmental impact of the straw ban will have in the first place . As I ’ ve noted before , straws represent only 0.02 percent of the plastic waste that is estimated to go into the ocean each year , and the United States is responsible for only about 1 percent of the total plastic waste in the ocean overall . It seems as though San Francisco is placing a hell of a burden on its businesses for something where the benefit isn ’ t even worth it .
|
(Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)
The city is placing a burden on its businesses for very little environmental benefit.
San Francisco’s supervisors voted unanimously on Tuesday to ban plastic straws, toothpicks, cocktail swords, and stirrers.
The ordinance goes into effect in July of 2020 and will punish violators with a fine ranging from $100 to $500. Although it doesn’t include a specific exemption for the disabled, it does state that “strict compliance . . . is not required in instances where it would interfere with accommodating for any person’s medical needs.”
Advertisement
This ban is not quite as severe as the one that was just passed in Santa Barbara, which will punish violators with a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine or six months in jail per straw. What’s more, Santa Barbara legislation’s does not contain language about reduced requirements for compliance when dealing with people who are disabled. (It is still, as Reason notes, stricter than the one in Seattle, because it bans compostable plastics as well as regular ones.)
Just because San Francisco’s ban is less strict than Santa Barbara’s, however, does not mean that it is not going to cause any problems. In fact, there is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban: bubble-tea shops.
There is one industry in particular that is facing some extreme difficulties due to this ban: bubble-tea shops.
If you’re not familiar with bubble tea — also known as “boba” — it’s tea-based drink with tapioca pearls — or “bubbles” — at the bottom. It’s a very popular drink in San Francisco; according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, 250 local bubble-tea businesses are mentioned in Yelp reviews for the area. The tea not only requires a straw, but it also requires a special kind of straw, a larger one that allows the consumer to sip up the bubbles.
Advertisement
According to the Chronicle, bubble-tea-shop owners have been running into more than a few hurdles when trying to figure out how they will comply with the new ordinance. One chain, Boba Guys, was delighted to find a supplier that makes straws out of polylactic acid — a degradable plastic also known as PLA — only to find that PLA was also banned by the ordinance.
There are still, of course, other options — such as bamboo, metal, or paper. But the Chronicle notes that all of these options are far more expensive: Plastic straws cost between one to three cents apiece, while paper straws cost between seven and nine cents. It might not seem like the hugest deal, but when Boba Guys is handing out around 2 million straws per year, that increased cost is certainly going to add up.
Advertisement
Advertisement
There is also the additional problem of supply. According to the Chronicle, Boba Guys staff say they know of three options for compliant straws: paper straws from a company called Aardvark, paper straws from a company called Worldcentric, and seaweed-based plastic straws from a company called Loliware. There’s just one issue: Aardvark has a backlog of orders, and jumbo straws from the other two companies are not on the market yet.
Advertisement
To be fair, the San Francisco Department of the Environment has told the Chronicle that they’re willing to help the boba-tea businesses.
“If there is a moment when this goes into effect when you’re unable to source the straws you need,” Department of the Environment director Debbie Raphael said. “Let’s talk about it and see what we can do to help.”
Hopefully all of the bubble-tea shops can figure out a way to survive this ban, but the whole thing seems a little ridiculous when you consider how minimal the environmental impact of the straw ban will have in the first place. As I’ve noted before, straws represent only 0.02 percent of the plastic waste that is estimated to go into the ocean each year, and the United States is responsible for only about 1 percent of the total plastic waste in the ocean overall. It seems as though San Francisco is placing a hell of a burden on its businesses for something where the benefit isn’t even worth it.
NOW WATCH: ‘Democrats Target Plastic Straws’
|
www.nationalreview.com
| 1right
|
vdZpdpPmqCeiZcek
|
elections
|
The Flip Side
| 11
|
https://www.theflipside.io/archives/joe-biden-2021
|
Joe Biden
|
The left is divided about Reade ’ s allegation and Biden ’ s plan .
“ There have been a number of sneering columns accusing liberal feminists of hypocrisy for not championing Reade as fervently as they did Christine Blasey Ford , who claimed , during Brett Kavanaugh ’ s Supreme Court nomination fight , that he ’ d sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school…
“ The truth is , if Blasey had been so inconsistent in telling her story , feminists might still have believed her , but they likely wouldn ’ t have made her a cause célèbre , and Democrats on Capitol Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly . Advocates for victims of sexual harassment and assault would worry that using such an ambiguous case as a political weapon would undermine their cause… It would be easier to know what to do with Tara Reade ’ s accusation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her if her tale were more solid , or if it were less . ”
“ The Times article attempts to address the inevitable calculus voters will have to make in November by providing a thorough accounting of the ‘ pattern of behavior ’ laid out by the more than 20 women who ’ ve accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault . Indeed , before they describe Reade ’ s allegation in any detail , Lerer and Ember write that the allegations against Trump go ‘ far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden. ’ It ’ s not wrong to consider how a sexual assault allegation might affect a political candidate ’ s chances . But Lerer and Ember chose to forgo any informed political analysis in favor of a simpler comparison : Whose sexual assault allegations are worse ? …
“ There ’ s a reason why Trump brought Bill Clinton ’ s accusers to a 2016 presidential debate . By reminding voters of another set of sexual abuse allegations , Trump sought to minimize and deflect from his own . There may well be voters who ’ ll choose their vote for president based on who has drawn a longer list of sexual assault allegations , and they should feel free to compare Biden and Trump by that measure . But journalists should know better than to engage in this obfuscating exercise of relativity . ”
Regarding Biden ’ s plan , critics note that “ Biden ’ s response to [ the ] young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won ’ t help any of them for decades . And to understand just how pitifully stingy this ‘ concession ’ is , remember that dozens of Democratic senators , including plenty of ‘ moderates ’ , have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 . You can find an op-ed in Forbes ( not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter ) suggesting 50 would be a better age… Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998 , and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016… [ Biden ’ s plan is ] not nothing , but it ’ s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing , and it shows that Biden isn ’ t serious about courting the left . ”
Others , however , point out that “ In state after state , young voters ’ enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders failed to translate into cold , hard votes… Fair or not , their inability to deliver on his behalf will not go unnoticed in political circles , and going forward , candidates will be that much more hesitant to pin their chances on this demographic… Sitting this election out for whatever reason would not serve young voters ’ interests in the short or long term . They need to show up and be counted like never before , even if only to write in a protest candidate . Once they establish themselves as a reliable force , they won ’ t again have to beg and bargain with politicians to take them seriously . ”
|
From the Left
The left is divided about Reade’s allegation and Biden’s plan.
“There have been a number of sneering columns accusing liberal feminists of hypocrisy for not championing Reade as fervently as they did Christine Blasey Ford, who claimed, during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination fight, that he’d sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school…
“The truth is, if Blasey had been so inconsistent in telling her story, feminists might still have believed her, but they likely wouldn’t have made her a cause célèbre, and Democrats on Capitol Hill never would have invited her to testify publicly. Advocates for victims of sexual harassment and assault would worry that using such an ambiguous case as a political weapon would undermine their cause… It would be easier to know what to do with Tara Reade’s accusation that Joe Biden sexually assaulted her if her tale were more solid, or if it were less.”
Michelle Goldberg, New York Times
“The Times article attempts to address the inevitable calculus voters will have to make in November by providing a thorough accounting of the ‘pattern of behavior’ laid out by the more than 20 women who’ve accused Trump of sexual harassment or assault. Indeed, before they describe Reade’s allegation in any detail, Lerer and Ember write that the allegations against Trump go ‘far beyond the accusations against Mr. Biden.’ It’s not wrong to consider how a sexual assault allegation might affect a political candidate’s chances. But Lerer and Ember chose to forgo any informed political analysis in favor of a simpler comparison: Whose sexual assault allegations are worse?…
“There’s a reason why Trump brought Bill Clinton’s accusers to a 2016 presidential debate. By reminding voters of another set of sexual abuse allegations, Trump sought to minimize and deflect from his own. There may well be voters who’ll choose their vote for president based on who has drawn a longer list of sexual assault allegations, and they should feel free to compare Biden and Trump by that measure. But journalists should know better than to engage in this obfuscating exercise of relativity.”
Christina Cauterucci, Slate
Regarding Biden’s plan, critics note that “Biden’s response to [the] young people demanding a better health policy is to offer a policy that won’t help any of them for decades. And to understand just how pitifully stingy this ‘concession’ is, remember that dozens of Democratic senators, including plenty of ‘moderates’, have already endorsed lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55. You can find an op-ed in Forbes (not exactly the Democratic Socialists of America newsletter) suggesting 50 would be a better age… Bill Clinton proposed 55 in 1998, and Hillary Clinton advocated 55 in 2016… [Biden’s plan is] not nothing, but it’s about as close to nothing as a policy can get without literally being nothing, and it shows that Biden isn’t serious about courting the left.”
Nathan Robinson, The Guardian
Others, however, point out that “In state after state, young voters’ enthusiasm for Mr. Sanders failed to translate into cold, hard votes… Fair or not, their inability to deliver on his behalf will not go unnoticed in political circles, and going forward, candidates will be that much more hesitant to pin their chances on this demographic… Sitting this election out for whatever reason would not serve young voters’ interests in the short or long term. They need to show up and be counted like never before, even if only to write in a protest candidate. Once they establish themselves as a reliable force, they won’t again have to beg and bargain with politicians to take them seriously.”
Editorial Board, New York Times
|
www.theflipside.io
| 2center
|
IkqZBwS28dfkOQoN
|
||
culture
|
Yahoo! The 360
| 11
|
https://news.yahoo.com/what-happens-when-videos-of-police-violence-go-viral-165242076.html
|
What happens when videos of police violence go viral?
|
2020-07-06
|
Julia Munslow
|
“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates .
On May 25 , a 17-year-old recorded a video that changed the world . Darnella Frazier ’ s video of the police killing of George Floyd sparked mass protests across the United States , leading to a racial reckoning that is continuing to affect nearly all parts of society .
The video and clips from it drew the attention of millions . The officers onscreen have been arrested and charged , and in the weeks since , countless videos of police brutality have appeared on social media . Other videos of police brutality against Black people , including Philando Castile , Eric Garner , Tamir Rice and countless others , have also spurred calls for police reform and antiracism .
There ’ s a long history of widely shared images of Black people in pain or dying . During the Civil War era , an image of the raised scars on the back of an escaped slave galvanized Northerners to sympathize with abolitionist movements . But in the late 1800s and early 1900s , white people created “ lynching postcards , ” sharing images of the killings of Black people with friends and family . As technology evolved , more Black people started documenting atrocities themselves — from Ida B. Wells ’ s work chronicling lynchings to photos of Emmett Till ’ s mutilated body . The images of Till , which were published in Black newspapers , are credited with helping shock people into supporting the civil rights movement .
Most people agree that the documentation of these incidents is historically valuable . Videos provide proof of what happened , acting as evidence in the pursuit of justice . However , there is debate over how such videos should be treated by the general public and the press , especially in the age of social media .
Some say there is value in videos like these going viral . They can galvanize movements and bring attention to an incident , which helps pressure authorities to respond . In recent weeks , several videos have led to disciplinary action . Images and videos also force people to face the truth : Though decades apart , the mothers of both Till and Elijah McClain said they want people to see photos of their dead Black sons and bear witness to what happened to them .
But others point out that videos of police brutality have been going viral for years and there hasn ’ t been systemic change . The circumstances that led to the incident in the first place are still in place , they say . Millions of views and shares aren ’ t the same as a conviction , they say . Plus , Black , indigenous and people of color ( BIPOC ) shouldn ’ t have to film police brutality and racism to prove they exist . The mass dissemination of these videos also leads to ethical questions over who has the privilege of suffering in private , as the bulk are BIPOC — it ’ s rare to see a viral video of a white person in pain .
Finally , there ’ s the psychological effects of these videos . Psychologists say Black people can be traumatized by viewing these videos repeatedly . Experts also worry that watching too many videos of police brutality leads to dehumanization of Black people in the videos and desensitizes non-BIPOC to their pain .
As the racial reckoning continues and more videos of police brutality and other incidents emerge , some experts recommend that we consume and engage with these videos in a more thoughtful manner .
“ It powerfully shapes our discourse , much like the images of African-American youth in the South who were being sprayed with powerful water hoses and bitten by police dogs when they protested during the Civil Rights Movement . As disturbing as these images are , as tragic as it is for individuals who ’ ve lost their lives , or who have been abused in these circumstances , the reality is that their victimization is not in vain . '' — Brian Smedley to USA Today
“ It wasn ’ t until things were made visual in the civil rights movement that we really saw folks come out and being shocked into movement . ... To publish those photographs [ of Emmett Till ] in black publications so the entire Black world , like our Facebook or our Twitter now , right , so that the whole Black world could see what had happened. ” — Melina Abdullah in documentary 13th
|
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.
What’s happening
On May 25, a 17-year-old recorded a video that changed the world. Darnella Frazier’s video of the police killing of George Floyd sparked mass protests across the United States, leading to a racial reckoning that is continuing to affect nearly all parts of society.
The video and clips from it drew the attention of millions. The officers onscreen have been arrested and charged, and in the weeks since, countless videos of police brutality have appeared on social media. Other videos of police brutality against Black people, including Philando Castile, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and countless others, have also spurred calls for police reform and antiracism.
There’s a long history of widely shared images of Black people in pain or dying. During the Civil War era, an image of the raised scars on the back of an escaped slave galvanized Northerners to sympathize with abolitionist movements. But in the late 1800s and early 1900s, white people created “lynching postcards,” sharing images of the killings of Black people with friends and family. As technology evolved, more Black people started documenting atrocities themselves — from Ida B. Wells’s work chronicling lynchings to photos of Emmett Till’s mutilated body. The images of Till, which were published in Black newspapers, are credited with helping shock people into supporting the civil rights movement.
Why there’s debate
Most people agree that the documentation of these incidents is historically valuable. Videos provide proof of what happened, acting as evidence in the pursuit of justice. However, there is debate over how such videos should be treated by the general public and the press, especially in the age of social media.
Some say there is value in videos like these going viral. They can galvanize movements and bring attention to an incident, which helps pressure authorities to respond. In recent weeks, several videos have led to disciplinary action. Images and videos also force people to face the truth: Though decades apart, the mothers of both Till and Elijah McClain said they want people to see photos of their dead Black sons and bear witness to what happened to them.
But others point out that videos of police brutality have been going viral for years and there hasn’t been systemic change. The circumstances that led to the incident in the first place are still in place, they say. Millions of views and shares aren’t the same as a conviction, they say. Plus, Black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) shouldn’t have to film police brutality and racism to prove they exist. The mass dissemination of these videos also leads to ethical questions over who has the privilege of suffering in private, as the bulk are BIPOC — it’s rare to see a viral video of a white person in pain.
Finally, there’s the psychological effects of these videos. Psychologists say Black people can be traumatized by viewing these videos repeatedly. Experts also worry that watching too many videos of police brutality leads to dehumanization of Black people in the videos and desensitizes non-BIPOC to their pain.
What’s next
As the racial reckoning continues and more videos of police brutality and other incidents emerge, some experts recommend that we consume and engage with these videos in a more thoughtful manner.
Perspectives
These images are important and shape our national conversation
“It powerfully shapes our discourse, much like the images of African-American youth in the South who were being sprayed with powerful water hoses and bitten by police dogs when they protested during the Civil Rights Movement. As disturbing as these images are, as tragic as it is for individuals who’ve lost their lives, or who have been abused in these circumstances, the reality is that their victimization is not in vain." — Brian Smedley to USA Today
Images can catalyze movements and need to be seen
“It wasn’t until things were made visual in the civil rights movement that we really saw folks come out and being shocked into movement. ... To publish those photographs [of Emmett Till] in black publications so the entire Black world, like our Facebook or our Twitter now, right, so that the whole Black world could see what had happened.” — Melina Abdullah in documentary 13th
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 2center
|
uWHOmRQwsNLIGvWf
|
trade
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48309703
|
US lifts steel and aluminium tariffs on Canada
|
The US has reached a deal with Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium imports in a move that could lead to approval for a new North American trade deal .
In a joint statement , the US and Canada announced that a 25 % tariff on steel imports , and of 10 % on aluminium , will end in 48 hours .
It is widely expected the US and Mexico will make a similar announcement soon .
The US implemented the tariffs last year on grounds of `` national security '' .
Under the agreement , there will be no quotas on how much steel or aluminium the three countries buy from overseas .
However , the US and Canada will monitor imports and if a country is determined to be buying in too much , one of the other nations can request a consultation and potentially re-impose tariffs .
Getting rid of the tariffs is viewed as a key hurdle to approval for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) trade deal which was signed in 2018 . It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement .
Providing that Washington and Mexico City also announce an agreement to lift levies on steel and aluminium , the US , Mexico and Canada will ask their respective governments to ratify USMCA .
Canada also announced that it would lift tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium that it implemented last year in retaliation for the Trump administration 's levies .
The spotlight had been on rising trade tensions between the US and China .
So America 's decision to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium coming from Canada and Mexico was a surprise bit of good news .
As it holds the line with China , the US is now pushing forward with a trade deal much closer to home .
Remember the USMCA trade agreement - meant to replace NAFTA ? No ?
Hardly a surprise . It has been languishing in the background .
For almost a year now these tariffs had been an obstacle to ratification of the deal . Canada and Mexico had vowed not to move ahead as long as they were in place . And several members of Congress had also raised objections .
This now raises the odds of it crossing the finishing line , opening up a new era of trade expansion in North America .
For Mr Trump , who loves tariffs so much he called himself the 'tariff man ' , this would be a big win .
And who knows , trade peace in North America might even strengthen his hand in negotiations with China .
It also targeted US farm goods as well as items like tomato ketchup and household products .
Canada 's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday : `` These tariffs were harming workers and consumers on both sides of the border . As we look at moving forward with the new NAFTA , it did n't make a lot of sense to continue to have tariffs on steel and aluminium between our countries . ''
European Union steel and aluminium exports to the US are still subject to the tariffs , but there has been some good news for trade relations between the two - on Friday President Donald Trump delayed a decision on whether to impose levies on cars and car part imports .
The White House has put back the decision by six months to allow more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan .
Tariffs of up to 25 % on imported cars and car parts were under consideration .
A report by the Commerce Department claimed that imports of foreign-made cars and auto parts into the US were a threat to national security .
The report has not been published , but in Friday 's announcement Mr Trump cited its findings which conclude that US carmakers are missing out on revenues to invest in research and development ( R & D ) .
It said : `` The lag in R & D expenditures by American-owned producers is weakening innovation and , accordingly , threatening to impair our national security . ''
The president said he agreed with the study 's finding that imported cars and trucks were `` weakening our internal economy '' .
The deal with Canada , as well as the delay in higher tariffs on EU and Japanese cars and auto parts , come at a critical time for the US and China - the world 's two biggest economies .
On Monday , Beijing implemented retaliatory tariffs on US imports after Mr Trump imposed levies on a further $ 200bn of Chinese goods , following a breakdown in trade talks between the two nations .
However , shortly afterwards , Mr Trump declared a `` national emergency '' to protect US computer networks from `` foreign adversaries '' .
While the announcement did not name any individual companies , it was widely perceived to be directed at Huawei , the Chinese telecoms equipment maker , which has faced claims its products could be used by China for surveillance .
|
Image copyright Getty Images
The US has reached a deal with Canada to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium imports in a move that could lead to approval for a new North American trade deal.
In a joint statement, the US and Canada announced that a 25% tariff on steel imports, and of 10% on aluminium, will end in 48 hours.
It is widely expected the US and Mexico will make a similar announcement soon.
The US implemented the tariffs last year on grounds of "national security".
Under the agreement, there will be no quotas on how much steel or aluminium the three countries buy from overseas.
However, the US and Canada will monitor imports and if a country is determined to be buying in too much, one of the other nations can request a consultation and potentially re-impose tariffs.
What does the agreement mean?
Getting rid of the tariffs is viewed as a key hurdle to approval for the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal which was signed in 2018. It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Providing that Washington and Mexico City also announce an agreement to lift levies on steel and aluminium, the US, Mexico and Canada will ask their respective governments to ratify USMCA.
Image copyright Getty Images
Canada also announced that it would lift tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium that it implemented last year in retaliation for the Trump administration's levies.
A win awaits for the 'tariff man'
Analysis by Michelle Fleury, New York business correspondent
The spotlight had been on rising trade tensions between the US and China.
So America's decision to lift tariffs on steel and aluminium coming from Canada and Mexico was a surprise bit of good news.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption (L-R) Mexico's then President Enrique Pena Nieto, US President Donald Trump, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sign the USMCA deal
As it holds the line with China, the US is now pushing forward with a trade deal much closer to home.
Remember the USMCA trade agreement - meant to replace NAFTA? No?
Hardly a surprise. It has been languishing in the background.
For almost a year now these tariffs had been an obstacle to ratification of the deal. Canada and Mexico had vowed not to move ahead as long as they were in place. And several members of Congress had also raised objections.
This now raises the odds of it crossing the finishing line, opening up a new era of trade expansion in North America.
For Mr Trump, who loves tariffs so much he called himself the 'tariff man', this would be a big win.
And who knows, trade peace in North America might even strengthen his hand in negotiations with China.
It also targeted US farm goods as well as items like tomato ketchup and household products.
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Friday: "These tariffs were harming workers and consumers on both sides of the border. As we look at moving forward with the new NAFTA, it didn't make a lot of sense to continue to have tariffs on steel and aluminium between our countries."
What about other countries hit with US tariffs?
European Union steel and aluminium exports to the US are still subject to the tariffs, but there has been some good news for trade relations between the two - on Friday President Donald Trump delayed a decision on whether to impose levies on cars and car part imports.
The White House has put back the decision by six months to allow more time for trade talks with the European Union and Japan.
Tariffs of up to 25% on imported cars and car parts were under consideration.
A report by the Commerce Department claimed that imports of foreign-made cars and auto parts into the US were a threat to national security.
The report has not been published, but in Friday's announcement Mr Trump cited its findings which conclude that US carmakers are missing out on revenues to invest in research and development (R&D).
It said: "The lag in R&D expenditures by American-owned producers is weakening innovation and, accordingly, threatening to impair our national security."
The president said he agreed with the study's finding that imported cars and trucks were "weakening our internal economy".
How are US relations with major trading partners?
The deal with Canada, as well as the delay in higher tariffs on EU and Japanese cars and auto parts, come at a critical time for the US and China - the world's two biggest economies.
Image copyright Getty Images
On Monday, Beijing implemented retaliatory tariffs on US imports after Mr Trump imposed levies on a further $200bn of Chinese goods, following a breakdown in trade talks between the two nations.
The US President characterised it as a "little squabble".
However, shortly afterwards, Mr Trump declared a "national emergency" to protect US computer networks from "foreign adversaries".
While the announcement did not name any individual companies, it was widely perceived to be directed at Huawei, the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, which has faced claims its products could be used by China for surveillance.
Huawei has vehemently denied the allegations.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
5GWeH7VOEPSipHIv
|
||
justice_department
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0518/IRS-scandal-becomes-Republican-battering-ram-against-Obamacare-video
|
IRS scandal becomes Republican battering ram against Obamacare
|
2013-05-18
|
Mark Trumbull
|
Now playing in a political theater near you : The IRS scandal meets Obamacare .
Republicans in Congress are saying the scandal over Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups raises new doubts about President Obama ’ s health-insurance reform law .
The reason is that the health-care law gives the IRS an important role in things like administering tax credits , verifying whether people are eligible for subsidies , and checking whether citizens have complied with a new mandate to carry insurance or pay a fine .
“ The power in our health-care system should belong to patients and their families , not politicians – and certainly not the tax man , ” Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland said Saturday in the Republican Party ’ s weekly radio address . “ Americans should be able to choose the coverage they need at a cost they can afford . ”
This battle over Obamacare , officially known as the Affordable Care Act , is not new . House Republicans voted just this week to repeal it – their 37th such vote since its 2010 passage . Their criticisms have long included worries about an expansion of IRS power and overreach .
But the latest controversy about the IRS comes as the Obama administration is in a difficult home stretch of implementing the health law ’ s biggest elements – notably ensuring that health insurance “ exchanges ” exist in each state for Americans to use in sign-ups that begin later this year .
Even Democrats acknowledge that the administrative task is daunting . Republicans are painting the implementation as a tangle of bureaucracy that ’ s impeding job creation .
Congressman Harris introduced his brief address by saying that he was standing next to “ Red Tape Tower , ” some 20,000 pages of regulations tied to Obamacare . Then he brought up the role the IRS will play in implementation and enforcement of the act ’ s provisions .
“ If we ’ ve learned anything this week , it ’ s that the IRS needs less power , not more , ” said Harris . He added : “ It turns out that the IRS official who oversaw the operation that ’ s under scrutiny for targeting conservatives is now in charge of the IRS ’ s Obamacare office . You can ’ t make this stuff up . ”
Republicans and Democrats alike have denounced the IRS in recent days for scrutinizing conservative groups seeking a tax exemption but not similar liberal groups . It ’ s not that the IRS has no business weighing the tax status of political groups – the lines for qualifying for a tax exemption can be fuzzy . But the widespread perception is that the IRS stepped over a line .
By extension , some IRS critics say , this raises the fear that some aspects of Obamacare implementation could be handled along partisan lines .
Some Democrats say it ’ s Republicans , not the IRS , that is overreaching when it comes to the health-care law .
The head of the IRS health-care office , Sarah Hall Ingram , was in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 , when agents first started improperly targeting conservative groups over their applications for tax-exempt status , according to The Associated Press .
`` [ But ] there is n't any evidence that Sarah Ingram had any inkling of the problems '' before she changed jobs to help implement the health-care law , Rep. Sander Levin ( D ) of Michigan said , according to the AP .
Biased or not , the tax agency has a large new role to play under the Affordable Care Act . But its job is just part of the law ’ s labyrinthine scope , which extends from an expansion of Medicaid for the poor to new rules that bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of someone ’ s health status .
Republican critics say the Affordable Care Act , with its numerous regulations , will make health care more expensive and is making many businesses reluctant to hire new workers or to keep offering coverage to employees .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
Supporters of Obamacare say that most businesses will continue health benefits , and that some 30 million more Americans will have health insurance under the law . Premium costs may rise for individuals buying insurance , but the law provides subsidies to help moderate-income households pay for it .
The law ’ s connection with the IRS was underscored in a 2012 US Supreme Court decision , which ruled that the law ’ s mandate on individuals – to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is constitutional because the penalty is in effect a tax .
|
Now playing in a political theater near you: The IRS scandal meets Obamacare.
Republicans in Congress are saying the scandal over Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of tea party and other conservative groups raises new doubts about President Obama’s health-insurance reform law.
The reason is that the health-care law gives the IRS an important role in things like administering tax credits, verifying whether people are eligible for subsidies, and checking whether citizens have complied with a new mandate to carry insurance or pay a fine.
“The power in our health-care system should belong to patients and their families, not politicians – and certainly not the tax man,” Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland said Saturday in the Republican Party’s weekly radio address. “Americans should be able to choose the coverage they need at a cost they can afford.”
This battle over Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, is not new. House Republicans voted just this week to repeal it – their 37th such vote since its 2010 passage. Their criticisms have long included worries about an expansion of IRS power and overreach.
But the latest controversy about the IRS comes as the Obama administration is in a difficult home stretch of implementing the health law’s biggest elements – notably ensuring that health insurance “exchanges” exist in each state for Americans to use in sign-ups that begin later this year.
Even Democrats acknowledge that the administrative task is daunting. Republicans are painting the implementation as a tangle of bureaucracy that’s impeding job creation.
Congressman Harris introduced his brief address by saying that he was standing next to “Red Tape Tower,” some 20,000 pages of regulations tied to Obamacare. Then he brought up the role the IRS will play in implementation and enforcement of the act’s provisions.
“If we’ve learned anything this week, it’s that the IRS needs less power, not more,” said Harris. He added: “It turns out that the IRS official who oversaw the operation that’s under scrutiny for targeting conservatives is now in charge of the IRS’s Obamacare office. You can’t make this stuff up.”
Republicans and Democrats alike have denounced the IRS in recent days for scrutinizing conservative groups seeking a tax exemption but not similar liberal groups. It’s not that the IRS has no business weighing the tax status of political groups – the lines for qualifying for a tax exemption can be fuzzy. But the widespread perception is that the IRS stepped over a line.
By extension, some IRS critics say, this raises the fear that some aspects of Obamacare implementation could be handled along partisan lines.
Some Democrats say it’s Republicans, not the IRS, that is overreaching when it comes to the health-care law.
The head of the IRS health-care office, Sarah Hall Ingram, was in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010, when agents first started improperly targeting conservative groups over their applications for tax-exempt status, according to The Associated Press.
"[But] there isn't any evidence that Sarah Ingram had any inkling of the problems" before she changed jobs to help implement the health-care law, Rep. Sander Levin (D) of Michigan said, according to the AP.
Biased or not, the tax agency has a large new role to play under the Affordable Care Act. But its job is just part of the law’s labyrinthine scope, which extends from an expansion of Medicaid for the poor to new rules that bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of someone’s health status.
Republican critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its numerous regulations, will make health care more expensive and is making many businesses reluctant to hire new workers or to keep offering coverage to employees.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Supporters of Obamacare say that most businesses will continue health benefits, and that some 30 million more Americans will have health insurance under the law. Premium costs may rise for individuals buying insurance, but the law provides subsidies to help moderate-income households pay for it.
The law’s connection with the IRS was underscored in a 2012 US Supreme Court decision, which ruled that the law’s mandate on individuals – to buy insurance or pay a penalty – is constitutional because the penalty is in effect a tax.
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
qwgmDYIRZQ4I5JaG
|
justice_department
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/16/investigate-investigators-gop-lawmakers-urge-probe-irs-scandal-review/
|
Investigate the investigators? GOP lawmakers urge probe of IRS scandal review
|
2014-01-16
|
Republican lawmakers , frustrated by the Justice Department 's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and `` conflict of interest '' concerns , are now calling for the investigators to be investigated .
Reps. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , and Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department 's inspector general launch his own probe into the department 's review of IRS activities .
The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department 's conduct and , specifically , a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation .
`` The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct , '' Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz .
Such complaints have come to a head this week , as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status .
In their letter , Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns , including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely . But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe . Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $ 6,000 to Obama 's two presidential campaigns .
`` Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter , '' they wrote , also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009 .
Separately , the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement , given his prior position as Bosserman 's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department .
The Justice Department , though , has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman 's fitness for the role .
One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she 's not acting professionally . Officials stressed that they can not consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments .
`` It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions , '' the department said in a statement .
On Monday , a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team , which was described as `` typical '' given their `` technical support '' on the bill .
|
Republican lawmakers, frustrated by the Justice Department's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and "conflict of interest" concerns, are now calling for the investigators to be investigated.
Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department's inspector general launch his own probe into the department's review of IRS activities.
The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department's conduct and, specifically, a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation.
"The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct," Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Such complaints have come to a head this week, as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.
In their letter, Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns, including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely. But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe. Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $6,000 to Obama's two presidential campaigns.
"Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter," they wrote, also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009.
Separately, the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement, given his prior position as Bosserman's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
The Justice Department, though, has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman's fitness for the role.
One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she's not acting professionally. Officials stressed that they cannot consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments.
"It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions," the department said in a statement.
On Monday, a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team, which was described as "typical" given their "technical support" on the bill.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
gZqTuVZdacoBJxPe
|
|
free_speech
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/2019/08/14/democrats-join-trump-in-seeking-balance-by-policing-speech/
|
Democrats Join Trump in Seeking Balance by Policing Speech
|
2019-08-14
|
Jacob Sullum, David Post, Josh Blackman, Shikha Dalmia, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Eric Boehm, Ilya Somin, Mike Riggs
|
Donald Trump wants to regulate social media , while Democrats want to regulate political spending . Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness , balance , and equality .
The president 's plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux . But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons .
According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN , one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which protects `` interactive computer service providers '' from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others . Section 230 , which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it , also shields websites from liability for `` any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable . ''
Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums , including all manner of blogs , vendors , review sites , and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms , from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic . The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content , which would be fatal to social media in their current form .
The proposed executive order , CNN reports , would ask the FCC to `` find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content '' and `` the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive , unfair or deceptive practices . '' The FTC , meanwhile , would `` work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways . ''
Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased , a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley ( R–Mo . ) , would be counterproductive , since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content , as well as shortsighted . As Wayne Crews , vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute , observes , `` tomorrow 's Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump ( or Hawley ) thinks they mean . ''
While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it , Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach , unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize `` reasonable '' limits on election-related spending . The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits , noting that they `` place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates , citizens , and associations to engage in protected political expression , restrictions that the First Amendment can not tolerate . ''
The answer , Democrats think , is to amend the First Amendment . `` Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box , regardless of the size of their bank account , '' says Sen. Tom Carper ( D–Del . ) .
Democrats , in other words , want to mute some voices so that others may be heard , an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press . When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians , it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights .
While Trump 's assault on the First Amendment is less blatant , it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech , forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove , or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression . And unlike the Democrats ' speech-curtailing constitutional amendment , Trump 's policy may actually come to pass , providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator .
|
Donald Trump wants to regulate social media, while Democrats want to regulate political spending. Both are prepared to sacrifice freedom of speech on the altar of fairness, balance, and equality.
The president's plan for fighting anti-conservative bias on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook is still in flux. But it reportedly includes siccing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on companies that are deemed to be removing content for political or ideological reasons.
According to a summary of a proposed executive order obtained by CNN, one possible approach involves reinterpreting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects "interactive computer service providers" from liability for state crimes and many kinds of torts based on content produced by others. Section 230, which has been crucial to the development of the internet as we know it, also shields websites from liability for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."
Those two provisions are supposed to protect online forums, including all manner of blogs, vendors, review sites, and news outlets as well as the major social media platforms, from potentially crippling lawsuits triggered either by their failure to remove all arguably illegal posts or by their decisions to remove content they view as problematic. The idea is to give websites the freedom to exercise some editorial discretion without requiring them to exert comprehensive control over user-produced content, which would be fatal to social media in their current form.
The proposed executive order, CNN reports, would ask the FCC to "find that social media sites do not qualify for the good-faith immunity if they remove or suppress content" and "the decision is proven to be evidence of anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive practices." The FTC, meanwhile, would "work with the FCC to develop a report investigating how tech companies curate their platforms and whether they do so in neutral ways."
Removing Section 230 protection from platforms that bureaucrats consider biased, a policy similar to one proposed by Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), would be counterproductive, since it would encourage them to suppress a lot more content, as well as shortsighted. As Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes, "tomorrow's Speech Police are not going to think political neutrality or criteria for a certification of objectivity mean what Trump (or Hawley) thinks they mean."
While Trump is using the language of free speech to support a policy that would undermine it, Senate Democrats are taking a more direct approach, unanimously backing a constitutional amendment that would authorize "reasonable" limits on election-related spending. The Supreme Court has categorically rejected such limits, noting that they "place substantial and direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions that the First Amendment cannot tolerate."
The answer, Democrats think, is to amend the First Amendment. "Every American deserves to have an equal voice at the ballot box, regardless of the size of their bank account," says Sen. Tom Carper (D–Del.).
Democrats, in other words, want to mute some voices so that others may be heard, an idea that is plainly inconsistent with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When the government dictates how much money you can spend to praise or criticize politicians, it is directly restricting your First Amendment rights.
While Trump's assault on the First Amendment is less blatant, it will lead either to a kind of compelled speech, forcing private companies to host content they would otherwise remove, or to a much less freewheeling internet where liability concerns stifle self-expression. And unlike the Democrats' speech-curtailing constitutional amendment, Trump's policy may actually come to pass, providing a real-life lesson in what happens when the government tries to act as a debate moderator.
© Copyright 2019 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
pCdvBNa6EwPYAw03
|
taxes
|
The Daily Caller
| 22
|
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/15/reid-ocasio-cortez-tax-proposal/
|
Harry Reid Criticizes Ocasio-Cortez Tax Proposal as Too ‘Rapid’
|
2019-01-15
|
Former Nevada Democratic Sen . Majority Leader Harry Reid had some criticism for his party ’ s new star .
Reid ripped New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s proposal for a 70-percent marginal tax rate during an interview with The Nevada Independent . Reid called out Ocasio-Cortez for her “ radical ” proposal while arguing that Democrats should push for incremental change instead . ( RELATED : Trump Shrugs Off Ocasio-Cortez Criticism : ’ Who Cares ? ’ )
“ A person could say we need to raise taxes a little bit , ” Reid said . “ We have to be careful because the American people are very conservative in the sense of not wanting radical change quickly . ”
The self-proclaimed socialist from Queens , New York , has shaken up the Democratic Party with her desire for sweeping leftist policy change including : higher tax rates for top income earners ( in her words , the “ tippy tops ” of the U.S. population ) ; a “ Green New Deal , ” which would plan to eliminate carbon emissions in the United States within 12 years and possibly create other regulations ; and “ Medicare for All , ” a proposed socialist-style healthcare system — which has received support from many congressional Democrats — that Ocasio-Cortez claims would be cheaper than our current healthcare system , though some have argued against such an idea .
Reid made clear that he would rather Democrats focus on shoring up past legislative accomplishments rather than advocate for sweeping change .
“ It ’ s a shame what they ’ ve done with ObamaCare , ” Reid said . “ That was certainly a step in the right direction . The Democrat has to talk about health care , restoring Obamacare or versions of it . ”
A long-time Nevada senator , Reid served as the Senate Majority Leader from 2007-15 and as Minority Leader from 2015-17 before deciding not to seek a seventh term in the Senate in 2017 .
The Tax Foundation , an “ independent tax policy nonprofit ” organization , according to their website , found that a proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to 70 percent for incomes over $ 10 million would only raise roughly $ 51.4 billion over the next 10 years .
A more generous study conducted by the organization , however , found that a different proposal for the same tax hike idea for incomes over $ 10 million would raise $ 291 billion over the same time period — still only a fraction of the cost needed to pay for Ocasio-Cortez ’ s ambitious agenda .
|
Former Nevada Democratic Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid had some criticism for his party’s new star.
Reid ripped New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70-percent marginal tax rate during an interview with The Nevada Independent. Reid called out Ocasio-Cortez for her “radical” proposal while arguing that Democrats should push for incremental change instead. (RELATED: Trump Shrugs Off Ocasio-Cortez Criticism:’Who Cares?’)
“A person could say we need to raise taxes a little bit,” Reid said. “We have to be careful because the American people are very conservative in the sense of not wanting radical change quickly.”
The self-proclaimed socialist from Queens, New York, has shaken up the Democratic Party with her desire for sweeping leftist policy change including: higher tax rates for top income earners (in her words, the “tippy tops” of the U.S. population); a “Green New Deal,” which would plan to eliminate carbon emissions in the United States within 12 years and possibly create other regulations; and “Medicare for All,” a proposed socialist-style healthcare system — which has received support from many congressional Democrats — that Ocasio-Cortez claims would be cheaper than our current healthcare system, though some have argued against such an idea.
Reid made clear that he would rather Democrats focus on shoring up past legislative accomplishments rather than advocate for sweeping change.
“It’s a shame what they’ve done with ObamaCare,” Reid said. “That was certainly a step in the right direction. The Democrat has to talk about health care, restoring Obamacare or versions of it.”
A long-time Nevada senator, Reid served as the Senate Majority Leader from 2007-15 and as Minority Leader from 2015-17 before deciding not to seek a seventh term in the Senate in 2017.
The Tax Foundation, an “independent tax policy nonprofit” organization, according to their website, found that a proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to 70 percent for incomes over $10 million would only raise roughly $51.4 billion over the next 10 years.
A more generous study conducted by the organization, however, found that a different proposal for the same tax hike idea for incomes over $10 million would raise $291 billion over the same time period — still only a fraction of the cost needed to pay for Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious agenda.
Follow William Davis on Twitter
|
www.dailycaller.com
| 1right
|
bi47OyRoWthUkbXF
|
|
national_security
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/28/trump-kim-summit-ends-early-no-deal/
|
Trump-Kim summit ends abruptly with no deal: 'Sometimes you have to walk'
|
2019-02-28
|
Dave Boyer, David R. Sands
|
HANOI , Vietnam — President Trump ’ s high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ended abruptly without a deal Thursday , cutting short two days of talks aimed at dismantling Pyongyang ’ s weapons program and leaving the two sides with a murky and uncertain path ahead .
In the stunning outcome in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi , the two sides disagreed over what led to the breakdown and whether and when new talks can be arranged . Mr. Trump said he expected his extraordinary personal diplomacy with Mr. Kim to end the crisis on the divided Korean Peninsula will continue .
To the surprise of supporters and detractors back home , Mr. Trump proved willing to walk away from a diplomatic breakthrough that he clearly craved . He said he ended the private talks two hours early when Mr. Kim insisted that all international economic sanctions be dropped before the North agrees to shutter its nuclear and missile programs .
“ Sometimes you have to walk , ” Mr. Trump explained at a subdued closing news conference . Mr. Trump said he rejected a more modest agreement that was “ ready to be signed , ” and a signing ceremony and celebratory lunch that were on the two leaders ’ schedules were quickly scrubbed .
“ I ’ d much rather do it right than do it fast … , ” Mr. Trump said . “ Basically , they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety , and we couldn ’ t do that . ”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters as he flew to the Philippines from Vietnam on Thursday , “ We were hoping we could take another big swing when the two leaders got together .
SEE ALSO : Trump says at least Cohen didn ’ t lie about Russian collusion : ‘ It was pretty shameful ’
“ We made some progress , but we didn ’ t get as far as we would have hoped we would have gotten , ” Mr. Pompeo said .
But in a sign of possible trouble ahead , North Korea ’ s top diplomat held a rare press briefing of his own to challenge Mr. Trump ’ s version of events . He said Mr. Kim had not made the maximalist demands that Mr. Trump described .
Even as the U.S. delegation was jetting home on Air Force One , North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho insisted that Pyongyang had asked only for a partial easing of the sanctions in exchange for shutting down the North ’ s main nuclear complex in Yongbyon . Mr. Ri said the North was also ready to offer in writing a permanent halt of the country ’ s nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests and that Washington had wasted an opportunity that “ may not come again . ”
Mr. Pompeo predicted that lower-level diplomacy between the two sides could resume quickly , but Pyongyang challenged even that . North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui told reporters that Mr. Kim was finding it difficult to understand why the U.S. left the talks and that the young North Korean leader “ may have lost his will ” to continue the talks .
Mr. Trump said the end of the talks was amicable . He even offered a sort of defense of Mr. Kim over the death of U.S. college student Otto Warmbier , who succumbed to severe illness shortly after his release from a North Korean prison in June 2017 .
Mr. Trump once cited Warmbier ’ s treatment as a symbol of the human rights failings of the Kim regime , but he said Thursday that the North Korean leader told him he had not been aware of the Ohio college student ’ s case .
Mr. Kim “ tells me that he didn ’ t know about it , and I will take him at his word , ” Mr. Trump said .
Those comments struck a discordant note in the generally positive assessment in Washington of Mr. Trump ’ s handling of the summit .
“ We must remember Otto , and we should never let North Korea off the hook for what they did to him , ” Sen . Rob Portman , Ohio Republican , said in a statement .
But ending the summit without agreement on any of the issues discussed clearly fell short of expectations . Negotiators on both sides had spent months in talks leading up to the summit , trying to pave the way for an agreement that also could have included a declaration to formally end the Korean War or the opening of a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang .
The stunning result divided analysts who said Mr. Trump had already taken a huge gamble in agreeing to meet with the reclusive North Korean leader and holding a one-on-negotiating session with so many key items still unresolved .
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer , a New York Democrat who is usually a fierce critic of the president , said Mr. Trump “ did the right thing by walking away and not cutting a poor deal for the sake of a photo op . ”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , California Democrat , also said Mr. Trump was right not to take a bad deal , but she argued that Mr. Kim was the “ big winner ” for having secured two personal summits with an American president and easing his country ’ s pariah status without having made any significant concessions .
Some said Mr. Trump may have enhanced his bargaining position by showing the North Koreans and a watching world that he was willing to risk short-term setbacks to achieve his long-term goals . North Korea ’ s hopes for an easing of its economic isolation — and even a possible formal ending to the stalemated Korean War of the 1950s — were dashed with Mr. Trump ’ s decision to walk away .
The summit result was clearly a setback for South Korea , which has pursued its own rapprochement with Pyongyang and hoped a U.S.-North Korean detente would speed along that process . Mr. Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Jae-in on the flight home from Hanoi , the White House said .
Mr. Moon ’ s office said in a statement that it regretted the outcome of the summit but expressed a firm commitment to continue North-South negotiations .
South Korean officials said Mr . Moon encouraged Mr. Trump to continue his efforts for accomplishing the “ historic feat of resolving the world ’ s last remaining Cold War rivalry ” and that the two leaders agreed to meet soon to discuss the nuclear issue , The Associated Press reported .
China , North Korea ’ s longtime key ally , refused to assign blame for the Hanoi summit . Officials said Mr. Trump ’ s diplomatic gambit was a positive step and that the U.S. and North Korea must “ meet each other halfway ” if a deal is to be struck .
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told reporters that the Korean Peninsula had experienced a significant “ turnaround ” over the past year , a “ hard-won result ” that is worth cherishing .
After a friendly dinner Wednesday night in Hanoi and talks that Mr. Trump described as “ very good , ” the discussions rapidly fell apart Thursday .
The two leaders canceled a formal working lunch , and the White House soon announced a “ schedule change. ” Word soon came down that the joint signing ceremony with both leaders was canceled .
The second summit between the two men began with smiles and handshakes Wednesday as Mr. Trump sought more clarity from the North Korean leader on the steps he would be willing to take to dismantle his nuclear weapons program . They started that process at a breakthrough summit in Singapore in June .
Mr. Trump was lowering expectations for the second round of talks , cautioning the media that he was in “ no rush ” to get a comprehensive agreement as long as Mr. Kim continued to honor his pledge not to conduct any more missile tests .
Asked whether he was serious about giving up his weapons program , Mr. Kim had said , “ If I was not , I wouldn ’ t be here . ”
Another reporter asked whether he was willing to take concrete steps to denuclearize . Mr. Kim said : “ That ’ s what we are discussing right now . ”
⦁ David R. Sands reported from Washington for this article , which is based in part on wire service reports .
|
HANOI, Vietnam — President Trump’s high-stakes summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ended abruptly without a deal Thursday, cutting short two days of talks aimed at dismantling Pyongyang’s weapons program and leaving the two sides with a murky and uncertain path ahead.
In the stunning outcome in the Vietnamese capital of Hanoi, the two sides disagreed over what led to the breakdown and whether and when new talks can be arranged. Mr. Trump said he expected his extraordinary personal diplomacy with Mr. Kim to end the crisis on the divided Korean Peninsula will continue.
To the surprise of supporters and detractors back home, Mr. Trump proved willing to walk away from a diplomatic breakthrough that he clearly craved. He said he ended the private talks two hours early when Mr. Kim insisted that all international economic sanctions be dropped before the North agrees to shutter its nuclear and missile programs.
“Sometimes you have to walk,” Mr. Trump explained at a subdued closing news conference. Mr. Trump said he rejected a more modest agreement that was “ready to be signed,” and a signing ceremony and celebratory lunch that were on the two leaders’ schedules were quickly scrubbed.
“I’d much rather do it right than do it fast …,” Mr. Trump said. “Basically, they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, and we couldn’t do that.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters as he flew to the Philippines from Vietnam on Thursday, “We were hoping we could take another big swing when the two leaders got together.
SEE ALSO: Trump says at least Cohen didn’t lie about Russian collusion: ‘It was pretty shameful’
“We made some progress, but we didn’t get as far as we would have hoped we would have gotten,” Mr. Pompeo said.
But in a sign of possible trouble ahead, North Korea’s top diplomat held a rare press briefing of his own to challenge Mr. Trump’s version of events. He said Mr. Kim had not made the maximalist demands that Mr. Trump described.
Even as the U.S. delegation was jetting home on Air Force One, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho insisted that Pyongyang had asked only for a partial easing of the sanctions in exchange for shutting down the North’s main nuclear complex in Yongbyon. Mr. Ri said the North was also ready to offer in writing a permanent halt of the country’s nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile tests and that Washington had wasted an opportunity that “may not come again.”
Mr. Pompeo predicted that lower-level diplomacy between the two sides could resume quickly, but Pyongyang challenged even that. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui told reporters that Mr. Kim was finding it difficult to understand why the U.S. left the talks and that the young North Korean leader “may have lost his will” to continue the talks.
Discordant note
Mr. Trump said the end of the talks was amicable. He even offered a sort of defense of Mr. Kim over the death of U.S. college student Otto Warmbier, who succumbed to severe illness shortly after his release from a North Korean prison in June 2017.
Mr. Trump once cited Warmbier’s treatment as a symbol of the human rights failings of the Kim regime, but he said Thursday that the North Korean leader told him he had not been aware of the Ohio college student’s case.
Mr. Kim “tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word,” Mr. Trump said.
Those comments struck a discordant note in the generally positive assessment in Washington of Mr. Trump’s handling of the summit.
“We must remember Otto, and we should never let North Korea off the hook for what they did to him,” Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, said in a statement.
But ending the summit without agreement on any of the issues discussed clearly fell short of expectations. Negotiators on both sides had spent months in talks leading up to the summit, trying to pave the way for an agreement that also could have included a declaration to formally end the Korean War or the opening of a U.S. liaison office in Pyongyang.
The stunning result divided analysts who said Mr. Trump had already taken a huge gamble in agreeing to meet with the reclusive North Korean leader and holding a one-on-negotiating session with so many key items still unresolved.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is usually a fierce critic of the president, said Mr. Trump “did the right thing by walking away and not cutting a poor deal for the sake of a photo op.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, also said Mr. Trump was right not to take a bad deal, but she argued that Mr. Kim was the “big winner” for having secured two personal summits with an American president and easing his country’s pariah status without having made any significant concessions.
Some said Mr. Trump may have enhanced his bargaining position by showing the North Koreans and a watching world that he was willing to risk short-term setbacks to achieve his long-term goals. North Korea’s hopes for an easing of its economic isolation — and even a possible formal ending to the stalemated Korean War of the 1950s — were dashed with Mr. Trump’s decision to walk away.
The summit result was clearly a setback for South Korea, which has pursued its own rapprochement with Pyongyang and hoped a U.S.-North Korean detente would speed along that process. Mr. Trump spoke with South Korean President Moon Jae-in on the flight home from Hanoi, the White House said.
Mr. Moon’s office said in a statement that it regretted the outcome of the summit but expressed a firm commitment to continue North-South negotiations.
South Korean officials said Mr. Moon encouraged Mr. Trump to continue his efforts for accomplishing the “historic feat of resolving the world’s last remaining Cold War rivalry” and that the two leaders agreed to meet soon to discuss the nuclear issue, The Associated Press reported.
China, North Korea’s longtime key ally, refused to assign blame for the Hanoi summit. Officials said Mr. Trump’s diplomatic gambit was a positive step and that the U.S. and North Korea must “meet each other halfway” if a deal is to be struck.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told reporters that the Korean Peninsula had experienced a significant “turnaround” over the past year, a “hard-won result” that is worth cherishing.
Smiles and setbacks
After a friendly dinner Wednesday night in Hanoi and talks that Mr. Trump described as “very good,” the discussions rapidly fell apart Thursday.
The two leaders canceled a formal working lunch, and the White House soon announced a “schedule change.” Word soon came down that the joint signing ceremony with both leaders was canceled.
The second summit between the two men began with smiles and handshakes Wednesday as Mr. Trump sought more clarity from the North Korean leader on the steps he would be willing to take to dismantle his nuclear weapons program. They started that process at a breakthrough summit in Singapore in June.
Mr. Trump was lowering expectations for the second round of talks, cautioning the media that he was in “no rush” to get a comprehensive agreement as long as Mr. Kim continued to honor his pledge not to conduct any more missile tests.
Asked whether he was serious about giving up his weapons program, Mr. Kim had said, “If I was not, I wouldn’t be here.”
Another reporter asked whether he was willing to take concrete steps to denuclearize. Mr. Kim said: “That’s what we are discussing right now.”
⦁ David R. Sands reported from Washington for this article, which is based in part on wire service reports.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
jA8zq56n9h6KwDGp
|
supreme_court
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-judiciary-committee-receives-fbi-report-on-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh
|
Senate Judiciary Committee receives FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh
|
Benjamin Brown
|
Senators will get their first look Thursday at the FBI 's background investigation on sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh , with a tense series of votes looming and likely to play out into the weekend .
The report , which is already coming under scrutiny from lawyers for accuser Christine Blasey Ford , will be a key factor for wavering senators ahead of the confirmation vote .
A source familiar with the supplemental report told Fox News it shows no evidence corroborating the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct against the nominee . Other specifics from the report were not immediately available , but Fox News is told the review included interviews with nine people , along with a sworn statement from another . This went beyond the original Senate request for interviews with four people , though the FBI did not dive into Kavanaugh 's drinking habits in high school , one area of contention , because the Senate did not formally request the information .
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley tweeted early Thursday that the committee received the “ supplemental FBI background file. ” Grassley said he has agreed with ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein “ to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents . ”
The FBI was tasked by Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh by three women . The investigation commenced after Ford -- the first woman to come forward -- testified before the Senate Judiciary last week about her claims against the federal judge .
MCCONNELL DESIGNS GAMBIT TO HANDLE OTHER ISSUES IN SENATE , WHILE ADVANCING KAVANAUGH NOMINATION
The White House announced early Thursday that it has also received the FBI 's supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh , and is `` fully confident '' that President Trump 's pick will eventually be confirmed to the Supreme Court .
Attorneys for Ford slammed the FBI background investigation for not interviewing the California professor , who has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s , attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream .
`` An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford -- nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony -- can not be called an investigation , '' the statement read . `` We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward , those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth . ''
Ford told the committee that she was `` 100 percent '' certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker . Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations .
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE HELPED FRIEND PREP FOR POTENTIAL POLYGRAPH ; GRASSLEY SOUNDS ALARM
Mark Judge , a friend of Kavanaugh ’ s who previously said in a letter to the committee the he did “ not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony ” nor did he see “ Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes , ” was among those interviewed by the FBI .
The FBI also interviewed Deborah Ramirez , who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a party while they were students at Yale University , according to The Associated Press .
Kavanaugh ’ s fate boils down to at least three Republican senators : Jeff Flake , Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski . Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.Va. , who is facing a re-election battle , also has said he will make his decision after the FBI probe .
Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 51-49 , and – in the event of a tie – Vice President Mike Pence would be the deciding vote .
|
Senators will get their first look Thursday at the FBI's background investigation on sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, with a tense series of votes looming and likely to play out into the weekend.
The report, which is already coming under scrutiny from lawyers for accuser Christine Blasey Ford, will be a key factor for wavering senators ahead of the confirmation vote.
A source familiar with the supplemental report told Fox News it shows no evidence corroborating the allegations of sexual assault or misconduct against the nominee. Other specifics from the report were not immediately available, but Fox News is told the review included interviews with nine people, along with a sworn statement from another. This went beyond the original Senate request for interviews with four people, though the FBI did not dive into Kavanaugh's drinking habits in high school, one area of contention, because the Senate did not formally request the information.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley tweeted early Thursday that the committee received the “supplemental FBI background file.” Grassley said he has agreed with ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein “to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents.”
The FBI was tasked by Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh by three women. The investigation commenced after Ford -- the first woman to come forward -- testified before the Senate Judiciary last week about her claims against the federal judge.
MCCONNELL DESIGNS GAMBIT TO HANDLE OTHER ISSUES IN SENATE, WHILE ADVANCING KAVANAUGH NOMINATION
The White House announced early Thursday that it has also received the FBI's supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh, and is "fully confident" that President Trump's pick will eventually be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys for Ford slammed the FBI background investigation for not interviewing the California professor, who has accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed during a house party in Maryland in the early 1980s, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.
"An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford -- nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony -- cannot be called an investigation," the statement read. "We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth."
Ford told the committee that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.
CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD EX-BOYFRIEND SAYS SHE HELPED FRIEND PREP FOR POTENTIAL POLYGRAPH; GRASSLEY SOUNDS ALARM
Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s who previously said in a letter to the committee the he did “not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony” nor did he see “Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,” was among those interviewed by the FBI.
The FBI also interviewed Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her during a party while they were students at Yale University, according to The Associated Press.
Kavanaugh’s fate boils down to at least three Republican senators: Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who is facing a re-election battle, also has said he will make his decision after the FBI probe.
Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 51-49, and – in the event of a tie – Vice President Mike Pence would be the deciding vote.
Fox News’ Chad Pergram and Edmund DeMarche contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
nhE1L8443f8jEtlY
|
|
technology
|
Reason
| 22
|
https://reason.com/blog/2017/12/05/no-the-fcc-isnt-overturning-net-neutrali
|
No, the FCC Isn’t 'Overturning Net Neutrality'
|
2017-12-05
|
"Andrea OSullivan", Christian Britschgi, Josh Blackman, Xander Peters, Cosmo Wenman, Joe Setyon, Zuri Davis
|
The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) moves to vote on Chairman Pai 's deregulatory `` Restoring Internet Freedom '' ( RIF ) order on Dec. 14 . It 's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called `` net neutrality '' have taken to harassing commissioners ' children and even threatening to kill a congressman .
It 's a nasty state of affairs , and it 's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing . Telling people that a policy change will `` end the internet as we know it '' or `` kill the internet '' can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things .
In truth , the Obama administration-era `` Open Internet Order '' ( OIO ) that the FCC is overturning has little to with `` net neutrality '' at all . In fact , the OIO would still allow internet service providers ( ISPs ) to block content—to say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content .
Furthermore , repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of `` net neutrality '' will not be upheld , nor that ISPs will be `` unregulated . '' Rather , the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion .
One of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved `` net neutrality . '' It did n't . While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about `` treating all traffic equally , '' the actual implementation of the Obama administration 's regulations did nothing of the sort .
As my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out , the OIO did not require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic the same . Rather , it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies .
Not even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO . Because of First Amendment concerns , the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation . The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO . ISPs that explicitly offer `` 'edited ' services '' to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations . It 's a huge loophole , and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent 's claims that they are supporting `` net neutrality . ''
But importantly , the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart 's content . Indeed , one could argue that content aggregators and search engines , like Facebook and Google , have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize . Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician . Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon .
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal . Major edge service providers like Google , Facebook , Reddit , and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base . Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages , urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same . Yet at the same time , these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do .
This hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency . It 's about economic power . By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth , these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture . ( It should be noted that there is some division within these firms : Google 's Eric Schmidt , for instance , famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014 . )
Not only is it unfair , it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric . These companies are not taking principled stands at all . They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook . In Pai 's words , `` they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest , but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy . ''
The second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection . This has never been true , and will not be true under the RIF either .
OIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages , similar to cable subscriptions . This misleading image is a popular one : It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $ 10 for a `` Hollywood '' package including YouTube and Hulu , and a $ 5 `` Playground '' offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft . Of course , no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement , but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many `` net neutrality '' supporters .
Recently , this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat . None other than Tim Wu himself , the brains behind the concept of `` net neutrality , '' shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision , where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies . An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario , sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category .
But there was a huge problem with this story , as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out . That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no ███ , but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for €25 a month , or about $ 30 . There are examples from the U.S. , too . In 2010 , then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated , or discounted , access to YouTube content to be competitive . But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers , putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy . Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need .
These kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that `` net neutrality '' rhetoric has instilled into the public . Sometimes , as is the case with Portuguese example , an alleged `` violation '' is actually a valued ( and voluntary ! ) option for many consumers . But in general , people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone . Of course , this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015 , and it will be even less true under the RIF .
The debate has never been over `` regulation '' vs. `` no regulation '' of ISPs . Rather , it 's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected , called `` ex post regulation , '' or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest , known as `` ex ante regulation . ''
The latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably , and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $ 30 billion each year due to the OIO . Furthermore , introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption .
The RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO . It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission , which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection , privacy , and security . It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010 , which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices , thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior . And most importantly , it would achieve these `` neutral network '' goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption .
The OIO allowed content filtering anyway . The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO .
People who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic . Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense , it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today . The internet is important in our lives , and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever . But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat , and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love .
|
The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moves to vote on Chairman Pai's deregulatory "Restoring Internet Freedom" (RIF) order on Dec. 14. It's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called "net neutrality" have taken to harassing commissioners' children and even threatening to kill a congressman.
It's a nasty state of affairs, and it's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing. Telling people that a policy change will "end the internet as we know it" or "kill the internet" can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things.
In truth, the Obama administration-era "Open Internet Order" (OIO) that the FCC is overturning has little to with "net neutrality" at all. In fact, the OIO would still allow internet service providers (ISPs) to block content—to say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content.
Furthermore, repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of "net neutrality" will not be upheld, nor that ISPs will be "unregulated." Rather, the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion.
The OIO allows all kinds of content filtering
One of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved "net neutrality." It didn't. While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about "treating all traffic equally," the actual implementation of the Obama administration's regulations did nothing of the sort.
As my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out, the OIO did not require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic the same. Rather, it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies.
Not even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO. Because of First Amendment concerns, the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation. The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO. ISPs that explicitly offer "'edited' services" to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations. It's a huge loophole, and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent's claims that they are supporting "net neutrality."
But importantly, the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart's content. Indeed, one could argue that content aggregators and search engines, like Facebook and Google, have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize. Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician. Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal. Major edge service providers like Google, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base. Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages, urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same. Yet at the same time, these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do.
This hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency. It's about economic power. By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth, these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture. (It should be noted that there is some division within these firms: Google's Eric Schmidt, for instance, famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014.)
Not only is it unfair, it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric. These companies are not taking principled stands at all. They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook. In Pai's words, "they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy."
Regulators will still go after bad actors
The second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection. This has never been true, and will not be true under the RIF either.
OIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages, similar to cable subscriptions. This misleading image is a popular one: It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $10 for a "Hollywood" package including YouTube and Hulu, and a $5 "Playground" offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft. Of course, no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement, but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many "net neutrality" supporters.
Recently, this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat. None other than Tim Wu himself, the brains behind the concept of "net neutrality," shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision, where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies. An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario, sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category.
But there was a huge problem with this story, as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out. That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no reason, but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for €25 a month, or about $30. There are examples from the U.S., too. In 2010, then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated, or discounted, access to YouTube content to be competitive. But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers, putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy. Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need.
These kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that "net neutrality" rhetoric has instilled into the public. Sometimes, as is the case with Portuguese example, an alleged "violation" is actually a valued (and voluntary!) option for many consumers. But in general, people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone. Of course, this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015, and it will be even less true under the RIF.
The debate has never been over "regulation" vs. "no regulation" of ISPs. Rather, it's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected, called "ex post regulation," or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest, known as "ex ante regulation."
The latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably, and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $30 billion each year due to the OIO. Furthermore, introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption.
The RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO. It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission, which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection, privacy, and security. It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010, which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices, thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior. And most importantly, it would achieve these "neutral network" goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption.
The OIO allowed content filtering anyway. The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO.
Keep calm and binge on
People who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic. Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense, it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today. The internet is important in our lives, and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever. But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat, and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
5pCmAglvwMk6B48n
|
national_security
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stones-predawn-fbi-arrest-operation-sparks-controversy
|
FBI's show of force in Roger Stone arrest spurs criticism of Mueller tactics Brooke Singman
|
Brooke Singman
|
The FBI 's pre-dawn arrest of President Trump 's ex-adviser Roger Stone at his Florida home prompted critics to once again question the tactics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller , after more than a dozen special agents clad in tactical gear raided Stone 's property Friday .
Stone , 66 , was taken into custody early Friday after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier as part of Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election . CNN , which conveniently happened to be staking out Stone 's Fort Lauderdale home , posted video of the arrest that showed a team of FBI agents with guns banging on Stone ’ s door and demanding that he come outside .
ROGER STONE VOWS TO FIGHT CHARGES IN MUELLER PROBE , CALLS INDICTMENT 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED '
“ At the crack of dawn , 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles , with lights flashing , when they could have contacted my lawyer , ” Stone explained after a court appearance Friday . “ But the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous . ”
Stone will appear on Fox News Channel 's `` Tucker Carlson Tonight '' on Friday at 8 p.m . ET .
“ A SWAT team , searching the house , scaring his wife , scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary , ” Stone ’ s attorney said . “ A telephone call would have done the job , and he would have appeared . Mr. Stone has nothing to hide . ”
The arrest operation drew scrutiny on social media—even from President Trump , who said “ Border Coyotes , Drug Dealers and Human Traffickers are treated better , ” and questioned “ who alerted CNN to be there ? ”
One federal law enforcement source told Fox News on Friday that the operation was “ standard ” for a home arrest . The source told Fox News that home arrests typically take place early in the morning with a team of FBI agents in protective gear , adding that Stone ’ s situation was “ nothing out of the ordinary . ”
A former senior Justice Department official , now-white collar criminal attorney with Ifrah Law , James Trusty , told Fox News that while common procedure in white collar cases would involve a federal prosecutor contacting the defendant ’ s attorney , Stone ’ s charges could have sparked a different approach .
“ It shows that there is either a fundamental distrust of Mr. Stone , possibly due to the witness tampering charge , or that there was a real breakdown with his attorney , ” Trusty said Friday . “ The wild card here is that in charging Stone with a form of obstruction of justice , the Mueller team may view it differently than typical white-collar investigations . ”
He added : “ If the FBI and the Mueller team believe Stone has engaged in witness tampering , then there is a palpable distrust , which would make them err on the side of surprise , rather than a courtesy phone call . ”
FBI 'S MANAFORT RAID INCLUDED A DOZEN AGENTS , 'DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE , ' SOURCE SAYS
The 24-page indictment released early Friday alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee , denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony .
The indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks , the anti-secrecy website that published the emails , or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them . Instead , it accuses him of witness tampering , obstruction and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks ' release .
But former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova blasted the tactic as “ outrageous . ”
“ I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender , ” diGenova , who has informally been an adviser to the president throughout the Russia investigation , told Fox News . “ This is an abuse of power and it underscores the vindictive nature of it by the fact that CNN was alerted ahead of time . ”
He added : “ For those of us who have been prosecutors and have prosecuted mob figures , drug dealers and terrorists—those are the people for whom these aggressive tactics are reserved . Not a Roger Stone . ”
“ Make no mistake , ” he said . “ This was designed to be vindictive and intimidating . ”
DiGenova likened the FBI arrest of Stone to the bureau ’ s early morning raid last summer of the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort .
Stone on Friday said he would plead not guilty to the charges leveled against him by the special counsel ’ s team , and said he “ looks forward to being fully and completely vindicated . ”
“ I believe this is a politically motivated investigation , ” Stone said Friday . “ There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president , nor will I make up lies . ”
PAUL MANAFORT COULD BE CHARGED WITH MORE CRIMES DOWN THE ROAD , PROSECUTOR TELLS JUDGE
Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before Trump ran for president . He left Trump ’ s campaign in August 2015 , but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 presidential election .
Mueller ’ s investigation , which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election , has gone on for more than a year and half . It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election , conversations Trump ’ s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe .
Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election . But none of the Trump associates connected to Trump have been charged with crimes related to collusion .
Other convictions include former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017 . Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election .
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November . Alex van der Zwaan , a London-based lawyer , pleaded guilty to making false statements this year , and Richard Pinedo , a California man , pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018 .
|
The FBI's pre-dawn arrest of President Trump's ex-adviser Roger Stone at his Florida home prompted critics to once again question the tactics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, after more than a dozen special agents clad in tactical gear raided Stone's property Friday.
Stone, 66, was taken into custody early Friday after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 presidential election. CNN, which conveniently happened to be staking out Stone's Fort Lauderdale home, posted video of the arrest that showed a team of FBI agents with guns banging on Stone’s door and demanding that he come outside.
ROGER STONE VOWS TO FIGHT CHARGES IN MUELLER PROBE, CALLS INDICTMENT 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED'
“At the crack of dawn, 29 FBI agents arrived at my home with 17 vehicles, with lights flashing, when they could have contacted my lawyer,” Stone explained after a court appearance Friday. “But the FBI agents were extraordinarily courteous.”
Stone will appear on Fox News Channel's "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Friday at 8 p.m. ET.
Stone’s attorney added that the arrest was a “spectacle.”
“A SWAT team, searching the house, scaring his wife, scaring his dogs—it was completely unnecessary,” Stone’s attorney said. “A telephone call would have done the job, and he would have appeared. Mr. Stone has nothing to hide.”
The arrest operation drew scrutiny on social media—even from President Trump, who said “Border Coyotes, Drug Dealers and Human Traffickers are treated better,” and questioned “who alerted CNN to be there?”
One federal law enforcement source told Fox News on Friday that the operation was “standard” for a home arrest. The source told Fox News that home arrests typically take place early in the morning with a team of FBI agents in protective gear, adding that Stone’s situation was “nothing out of the ordinary.”
A former senior Justice Department official, now-white collar criminal attorney with Ifrah Law, James Trusty, told Fox News that while common procedure in white collar cases would involve a federal prosecutor contacting the defendant’s attorney, Stone’s charges could have sparked a different approach.
“It shows that there is either a fundamental distrust of Mr. Stone, possibly due to the witness tampering charge, or that there was a real breakdown with his attorney,” Trusty said Friday. “The wild card here is that in charging Stone with a form of obstruction of justice, the Mueller team may view it differently than typical white-collar investigations.”
He added: “If the FBI and the Mueller team believe Stone has engaged in witness tampering, then there is a palpable distrust, which would make them err on the side of surprise, rather than a courtesy phone call.”
FBI'S MANAFORT RAID INCLUDED A DOZEN AGENTS, 'DESIGNED TO INTIMIDATE,' SOURCE SAYS
The 24-page indictment released early Friday alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.
The indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published the emails, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them. Instead, it accuses him of witness tampering, obstruction and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks' release.
But former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Joseph diGenova blasted the tactic as “outrageous.”
“I am appalled that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have permitted a vindictive use of arrest in a non-violent case with a defendant who was willing to surrender,” diGenova, who has informally been an adviser to the president throughout the Russia investigation, told Fox News. “This is an abuse of power and it underscores the vindictive nature of it by the fact that CNN was alerted ahead of time.”
He added: “For those of us who have been prosecutors and have prosecuted mob figures, drug dealers and terrorists—those are the people for whom these aggressive tactics are reserved. Not a Roger Stone.”
“Make no mistake,” he said. “This was designed to be vindictive and intimidating.”
DiGenova likened the FBI arrest of Stone to the bureau’s early morning raid last summer of the home of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Stone on Friday said he would plead not guilty to the charges leveled against him by the special counsel’s team, and said he “looks forward to being fully and completely vindicated.”
“I believe this is a politically motivated investigation,” Stone said Friday. “There is no circumstance whatsoever under which I will bear false witness against the president, nor will I make up lies.”
PAUL MANAFORT COULD BE CHARGED WITH MORE CRIMES DOWN THE ROAD, PROSECUTOR TELLS JUDGE
Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before Trump ran for president. He left Trump’s campaign in August 2015, but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and half. It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe.
Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election. But none of the Trump associates connected to Trump have been charged with crimes related to collusion.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Other convictions include former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017. Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election.
Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November. Alex van der Zwaan, a London-based lawyer, pleaded guilty to making false statements this year, and Richard Pinedo, a California man, pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018.
Fox News’ Alex Pappas and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
8RTRb5oIoy2yEzXH
|
|
politics
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/01/judge-allows-california-city-to-enter-bankruptcy-largest-municipality-to-go/
|
Judge allows California city to enter bankruptcy, largest municipality to go bust
|
2013-04-01
|
Stockton , Calif. , became the most populous city in the nation to go broke Monday , after a judge accepted the city 's application to enter bankruptcy .
In the closely watched decision , U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said the bankruptcy declaration was needed to allow the city to continue to provide basic services . He determined Stockton would not be able to perform `` its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without '' the protections provided under bankruptcy proceedings .
Stockton was facing a $ 26 million shortfall when it filed for bankruptcy last summer , the result of the housing bust and soaring pension obligations . After cutting a quarter of their police force and other city services to the bone , officials argued bankruptcy was their only option .
The city of nearly 300,000 people has become emblematic of government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the housing bubble burst .
Its salaries , benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue . But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures beginning in the mid-2000s and a 70 percent decline in the city 's tax base .
The city 's creditors wanted to keep Stockton out of bankruptcy -- a status that would likely allow the city to avoid repaying its debts in full .
They argued the city had not cut spending enough or sought a tax increase that would have allowed it to avoid bankruptcy .
Matthew Walsh , an attorney for the bond holders , declined to comment after Monday 's ruling .
Attorneys for the city said the city 's budget and services had been cut to the bone .
`` There 's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy , '' said Bob Deis , Stockton 's city manager . `` But it is a vindication of what we 've been saying for nine months . ''
The Chapter 9 bankruptcy case is being closely watched nationally for potential precedent-setting implications .
The $ 900 million that Stockton owes to the California Public Employees ' Retirement System to cover pension promises is its biggest debt . So far Stockton has kept up with pension payments while it has reneged on other debts , maintaining that it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce .
The creditors who challenged Stockton 's bankruptcy petition are the bond insurers who guaranteed $ 165 million in loans the city secured in 2007 to pay its contributions to the CalPERS pension fund . That debt got out of hand as property tax values plummeted during the recession , and money to pay the pension obligation fell short .
Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge Stockton 's repayment plan in the next phase of the process .
By 2009 Stockton had accumulated nearly $ 1 billion in debt on civic improvements , money owed to pay pension contributions , and the most generous health care benefit in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent , no matter how long they had worked for the city .
|
Stockton, Calif., became the most populous city in the nation to go broke Monday, after a judge accepted the city's application to enter bankruptcy.
In the closely watched decision, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein said the bankruptcy declaration was needed to allow the city to continue to provide basic services. He determined Stockton would not be able to perform "its obligations to its citizens on fundamental public safety as well as other basic government services without" the protections provided under bankruptcy proceedings.
Stockton was facing a $26 million shortfall when it filed for bankruptcy last summer, the result of the housing bust and soaring pension obligations. After cutting a quarter of their police force and other city services to the bone, officials argued bankruptcy was their only option.
The city of nearly 300,000 people has become emblematic of government excess and the financial calamity that resulted when the housing bubble burst.
Its salaries, benefits and borrowing were based on anticipated long-term developer fees and increasing property tax revenue. But those were lost in a flurry of foreclosures beginning in the mid-2000s and a 70 percent decline in the city's tax base.
The city's creditors wanted to keep Stockton out of bankruptcy -- a status that would likely allow the city to avoid repaying its debts in full.
They argued the city had not cut spending enough or sought a tax increase that would have allowed it to avoid bankruptcy.
Matthew Walsh, an attorney for the bond holders, declined to comment after Monday's ruling.
Attorneys for the city said the city's budget and services had been cut to the bone.
"There's nothing to celebrate about bankruptcy," said Bob Deis, Stockton's city manager. "But it is a vindication of what we've been saying for nine months."
The Chapter 9 bankruptcy case is being closely watched nationally for potential precedent-setting implications.
The $900 million that Stockton owes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to cover pension promises is its biggest debt. So far Stockton has kept up with pension payments while it has reneged on other debts, maintaining that it needs a strong pension plan to retain its pared-down workforce.
The creditors who challenged Stockton's bankruptcy petition are the bond insurers who guaranteed $165 million in loans the city secured in 2007 to pay its contributions to the CalPERS pension fund. That debt got out of hand as property tax values plummeted during the recession, and money to pay the pension obligation fell short.
Legal observers expect the creditors to aggressively challenge Stockton's repayment plan in the next phase of the process.
By 2009 Stockton had accumulated nearly $1 billion in debt on civic improvements, money owed to pay pension contributions, and the most generous health care benefit in the state -- coverage for life for all retirees plus a dependent, no matter how long they had worked for the city.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
LLTxM08AjAanIuN8
|
|
white_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/24/donald-trump-with-agenda-stalled-implores-republic/
|
Trump implores Republicans to deliver big legislative win, starting with Obamacare repeal
|
2017-07-24
|
S.A. Miller
|
President Trump ’ s dismay with congressional Republicans burst into public view Monday as he implored them to get behind his agenda , starting with repealing Obamacare this week as he searches for an elusive first major legislative win .
The man who made his reputation as a deal-maker , however , has struggled to sell his agenda even to his own party on Capitol Hill , where Republicans appear to be unsteady at the basic business of governing .
Ahead of a key vote expected Tuesday , Mr. Trump called out Senate Republicans for wavering on their longtime promise to repeal Obamacare .
“ We , as a party , must fulfill that solemn promise to voters of this country to repeal and replace , what they have been saying for the last seven years , ” he said . “ But so far Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare . ”
He made the remark at a White House event surrounded by families described as “ victims of Obamacare ” and warned senators that Americans were demanding action on health care .
“ You ’ ll see that at the voting booth . Believe me , ” Mr. Trump said .
He also used a speech to the Boy Scouts later Monday both to make a similar point — that “ after seven years of trying … they ’ d better do it ” — and to deliver an unusually public and personal jab at his health and human services secretary .
He told Thomas Price , who joined him on stage , that he had better get the numbers lined up for Tuesday ’ s key vote , “ otherwise I ’ ll say , ‘ Tom , you ’ re fired. ’ I ’ ll get somebody else , ” reviving his catch phrase from the reality TV show “ The Apprentice . ”
White House aides stressed that Mr. Trump has been deeply involved in pushing the Obamacare repeal bill forward , making calls to senators around the clock to get them on board .
“ This is the greatest amount of involvement by any president that I have ever witnessed with members of Congress , one on one , ” he said .
The description of his wheeling and dealing , however , underscored the absence of results .
Frustration has been mounting in the White House for weeks over the plodding progress with Mr. Trump ’ s agenda on Capitol Hill and over Republican allies ’ lackluster defense against accusations that the Trump campaign helped Russia meddle in the U.S. presidential election .
Moving to energize his base to put pressure on Congress , Mr. Trump is taking his message on the road . He delivered a speech Monday to the 2017 National Scout Jamboree in Beaver , West Virginia , and is scheduled to hold a campaign-style rally Tuesday in Youngstown , Ohio .
Some of the president ’ s pent-up anger was released on Twitter .
“ If Republicans don ’ t Repeal and Replace the disastrous ObamaCare , the repercussions will be far greater than any of them understand ! ” Mr. Trump tweeted in the morning .
A day earlier , he vented about the lack of political coverage Republican allies provided in the face of unrelenting attacks on his presidency .
“ It ’ s very sad that Republicans , even some that were carried over the line on my back , do very little to protect their President , ” he said .
Mr. Trump has had a difficult relationship with the Republican establishment in Washington since his campaign , including reluctance of party leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to endorse him after he clenched the party ’ s nomination .
Despite Mr. Trump ’ s upset win in November , some Republicans worry that his unpopularity will hamper their re-election campaigns .
Mr. Trump had a 39.9 percent job approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls , but he also had low numbers when he won the White House .
“ What the Republicans have to remember — and his is sort of what Trump is grousing about — is Republicans have forgotten how to fight and they have to stop falling on their sword at the first sign of bad news coverage , ” said Republican Party strategist Ford O ’ Connell .
He said the consequences would be worse for Republican lawmakers who falter on Obamacare repeal or tax cuts than for those who go to the mat for the president .
“ They honestly think that Trump is going to drag them down , and what Trump is explaining to them is he is going to save their political necks , ” Mr. O ’ Connell said .
After six months in the Oval Office , he has most of his agenda mired in Congress . The president has yet to put a win on the board for Obamacare repeal , tax cuts , a major infrastructure program or increased military spending .
He began the pivot to using public pressure on Congress over the weekend when presiding over the commissioning ceremony for the Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford . He prodded the crowd in Norfolk , Virginia , to get on the phone to their congressional representatives and senators .
“ We need Congress to do its job and pass the budget that provides for higher , stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs that our fighting men and women deserve . And you will get it , believe me , ” he said . “ But I don ’ t mind getting a little hand , so call that congressman , and call that senator , and make sure you get it . ”
“ By the way , you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care , ” Mr. Trump said .
|
President Trump’s dismay with congressional Republicans burst into public view Monday as he implored them to get behind his agenda, starting with repealing Obamacare this week as he searches for an elusive first major legislative win.
The man who made his reputation as a deal-maker, however, has struggled to sell his agenda even to his own party on Capitol Hill, where Republicans appear to be unsteady at the basic business of governing.
Ahead of a key vote expected Tuesday, Mr. Trump called out Senate Republicans for wavering on their longtime promise to repeal Obamacare.
“We, as a party, must fulfill that solemn promise to voters of this country to repeal and replace, what they have been saying for the last seven years,” he said. “But so far Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare.”
He made the remark at a White House event surrounded by families described as “victims of Obamacare” and warned senators that Americans were demanding action on health care.
“You’ll see that at the voting booth. Believe me,” Mr. Trump said.
He also used a speech to the Boy Scouts later Monday both to make a similar point — that “after seven years of trying … they’d better do it” — and to deliver an unusually public and personal jab at his health and human services secretary.
He told Thomas Price, who joined him on stage, that he had better get the numbers lined up for Tuesday’s key vote, “otherwise I’ll say, ‘Tom, you’re fired.’ I’ll get somebody else,” reviving his catch phrase from the reality TV show “The Apprentice.”
White House aides stressed that Mr. Trump has been deeply involved in pushing the Obamacare repeal bill forward, making calls to senators around the clock to get them on board.
Mr. Price called the president’s personal involvement unprecedented.
“This is the greatest amount of involvement by any president that I have ever witnessed with members of Congress, one on one,” he said.
The description of his wheeling and dealing, however, underscored the absence of results.
Frustration has been mounting in the White House for weeks over the plodding progress with Mr. Trump’s agenda on Capitol Hill and over Republican allies’ lackluster defense against accusations that the Trump campaign helped Russia meddle in the U.S. presidential election.
Moving to energize his base to put pressure on Congress, Mr. Trump is taking his message on the road. He delivered a speech Monday to the 2017 National Scout Jamboree in Beaver, West Virginia, and is scheduled to hold a campaign-style rally Tuesday in Youngstown, Ohio.
Some of the president’s pent-up anger was released on Twitter.
“If Republicans don’t Repeal and Replace the disastrous ObamaCare, the repercussions will be far greater than any of them understand!” Mr. Trump tweeted in the morning.
A day earlier, he vented about the lack of political coverage Republican allies provided in the face of unrelenting attacks on his presidency.
“It’s very sad that Republicans, even some that were carried over the line on my back, do very little to protect their President,” he said.
Mr. Trump has had a difficult relationship with the Republican establishment in Washington since his campaign, including reluctance of party leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan to endorse him after he clenched the party’s nomination.
Despite Mr. Trump’s upset win in November, some Republicans worry that his unpopularity will hamper their re-election campaigns.
Mr. Trump had a 39.9 percent job approval rating in the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, but he also had low numbers when he won the White House.
“What the Republicans have to remember — and his is sort of what Trump is grousing about — is Republicans have forgotten how to fight and they have to stop falling on their sword at the first sign of bad news coverage,” said Republican Party strategist Ford O’Connell.
He said the consequences would be worse for Republican lawmakers who falter on Obamacare repeal or tax cuts than for those who go to the mat for the president.
“They honestly think that Trump is going to drag them down, and what Trump is explaining to them is he is going to save their political necks,” Mr. O’Connell said.
The stakes for Mr. Trump are just as high.
After six months in the Oval Office, he has most of his agenda mired in Congress. The president has yet to put a win on the board for Obamacare repeal, tax cuts, a major infrastructure program or increased military spending.
He began the pivot to using public pressure on Congress over the weekend when presiding over the commissioning ceremony for the Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford. He prodded the crowd in Norfolk, Virginia, to get on the phone to their congressional representatives and senators.
“We need Congress to do its job and pass the budget that provides for higher, stable and predictable funding levels for our military needs that our fighting men and women deserve. And you will get it, believe me,” he said. “But I don’t mind getting a little hand, so call that congressman, and call that senator, and make sure you get it.”
He also threw in a plug for Obamacare repeal.
“By the way, you can also call those senators to make sure you get health care,” Mr. Trump said.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
AJWSG8QhMw5Y3RDa
|
campaign_finance
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/congress-campaign-finance-ethics-slush-fund-117541.html?hp=t1_r
|
Scarves, BMWs, Admirals Clubs: Congress' petty cash problem
|
2015-05-01
|
Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer
|
Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $ 2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian , House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman .
Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) has dropped nearly $ 3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia .
Other lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels , upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country . In one case , a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $ 20,000 since Election Day .
Disgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock ( R-Ill. ) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle , among other alleged misdeeds . But the truth is , while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case , he is far from the exception . It fact , elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress , according to a ███ review of campaign documents .
Indeed , donor dollars can , at times , resemble a slush fund . And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense .
“ The House Ethics Committee typically gives ( members of Congress ) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities , ” said Kenneth Gross , a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden , Arps , Slate , Meagher & Flom . “ However , under House and [ Federal Election Commission ] rules , personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited . ”
In the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars , Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller ’ s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars . A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock ’ s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars .
But unlike official expenditures , campaign expenditures are barely monitored . Case in point : Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments . More than a month after resigning , the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records .
Congress ' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense . Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars : Rep. Anna Eshoo ( D-Ca . ) : Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman , more than $ 2,000 . Rep. Bob Brady ( D-Pa. ) : Christmas gifts from Capital Grille , upwards of $ 10,000 per year . Rep. Henry Cuellar ( D-Texas ) : Servicing his BMW in Alexandria , Virginia , nearly $ 3,400 . Sen. John Cornyn , ( R-Texas ) : “ Beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa , $ 336 . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) : 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014 , $ 20.39 on six occasions . Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) : Regular visits to Tune Inn , a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue , more than $ 1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013 . Rep. Louie Gohmert ( R-Texas ) : Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December , more than $ 5,400 . Rep. Gene Green ( D-Texas ) : Gifts for his D.C. and district staff , roughly $ 3,000 . Retired Rep. Buck McKeon ( R-Ca . ) : Money left in campaign post-retirement in January , $ 250,000 .
Paying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts . Most corporations wouldn ’ t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees , yet that ’ s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does . At the end of each year , the Texas Democrat takes roughly $ 3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $ 200 as a holiday present .
“ I don ’ t buy gifts , ” Green said . “ I give , typically , [ it ] started out at $ 100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $ 200 at Christmas . ”
Dozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns .
Rep. Robert Brady , a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia , shells out more than $ 10,000 every year at Capital Grille , buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides . He hasn ’ t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998 .
“ Since members run for reelection every two years , it ’ s important to say ‘ thank you ’ to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns , ” said Stanley V. White , Brady ’ s chief of staff . “ These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady ’ s reelection efforts . ”
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines , the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company — to the tune of $ 12,295 in the past five months . He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team , a spokesman said .
Eshoo , who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades , says she is “ grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts . ”
“ I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays , ” Eshoo said in an interview . “ Why give to the leader ? Why have I done that for the leader , amongst others ? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been . I always think a ‘ thank you ’ should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it , and they carry memorable items . ”
Eshoo said she couldn ’ t recall what she has bought for Pelosi , but said she believes she ’ s given the Democratic leader scarves .
Other lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad .
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas , but one of his campaign line items last year was $ 272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos , Nigeria . In three expenditures in November and December , Gohmert paid more than $ 5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London . He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel .
Gohmert ’ s spokesman , Kimberly Willingham , said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England , but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed . She suggested ███ write an “ unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds . ”
Sen. John Cornyn , the No . 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas , spent $ 336 for “ beverages for meal ” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa . Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town , which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world . Cornyn ’ s office didn ’ t respond to multiple requests for comment .
Rep. Dan Lipinski ( D-Ill. ) , whose district includes the suburbs Chicago , went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year , running up a bill of more than $ 750 . A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference .
Dublin , Ireland , also appeared on campaign disclosure forms . In 2013 , Rep. John Larson ( D-Conn. ) had a “ political ” meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $ 112 . Rep. Richard Neal ( D-Mass . ) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012 , shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel , and the Europa Hotel in Belfast . Neal ’ s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council ’ s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn Féin .
Fromer Rep. Aaron Schock , Rep. Steve Scalise , Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. “ Buck ” McKeon are pictured . | AP and Getty Photos
Other politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime . Rep. Jason Smith ( R-Mo . ) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June .
Josh Haynes , his chief of staff , says Smith “ doesn ’ t drink coffee , and when he meets in the morning with elected officials , donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie. ” However , during his campaign last year , Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term .
Rep. Raúl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) , meanwhile , is a regular at Tune Inn , a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol . His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013 , totaling more than $ 1,000 . Sometimes the bill is as small as $ 20 , other times $ 130 . Grijalva ’ s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director , Jose Miranda , was reimbursed for the political meals , not the congressman .
Cuellar ’ s office , meanwhile , says it ’ s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington . His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work , including to and from the Capitol , to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo .
“ Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal , ” Strother said .
Buck McKeon ’ s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping — because he ’ s not even in Congress anymore . The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers .
He ’ s used the money to pay his wife about $ 20,000 since Election Day . Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay , the ex-congressman said in an interview , and she ’ s now helping him close out his campaign operation .
“ If you average that all out over the 22 years , it ’ s a lot less than the indication , ” the ex-congressman asserted . “ People think we paid her that much forever , ” he added , but the fact is “ she worked for years for free . ”
|
Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo has dipped into her campaign fund to buy more than $2,000 in gifts for her good friend and fellow Californian, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) has dropped nearly $3,400 in campaign cash servicing his BMW in Alexandria, Virginia.
Story Continued Below
Other lawmakers have used their war chests for European travels, upgrade airline seats and access the American Airlines Admirals Club in airports across the country. In one case, a retired member of Congress with money left in his account used the cash to pay his wife roughly $20,000 since Election Day.
Disgraced former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) resigned after a firestorm of criticism over his use of campaign dollars to underwrite a lavish lifestyle, among other alleged misdeeds. But the truth is, while Schock was by all accounts an extreme case, he is far from the exception. It fact, elected officials routinely tap their campaign accounts to pay for things that appear to have little to do with seeking another term in Congress, according to a POLITICO review of campaign documents.
Indeed, donor dollars can, at times, resemble a slush fund. And experts say the reason is because lawmakers have almost complete latitude to decide what constitutes a campaign expense.
“The House Ethics Committee typically gives (members of Congress) a wide berth in defining what is considered campaign or officially connected activities,” said Kenneth Gross, a veteran ethics and election lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. “However, under House and [Federal Election Commission] rules, personal use of campaign funds is strictly prohibited.”
In the wake of revelations that Schock allegedly misrepresented his congressional expenses by tens of thousands of dollars, Michigan Republican Rep. Candice Miller’s House Administration Committee is reviewing internal procedures and controls on the spending of taxpayer dollars. A grand jury is currently hearing testimony related to Schock’s alleged misspending of taxpayer dollars.
But unlike official expenditures, campaign expenditures are barely monitored. Case in point: Schock publicly admitted to several errors on FEC reports and promised to file amendments. More than a month after resigning, the Illinois Republican still has not filed any corrected records.
Gifts galore
Congress' petty cash problem Members of Congress have almost total discretion to determine what is a legitimate campaign expense. Here are some of the more unusual ways they have used donor dollars: Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Ca.): Gifts for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi from swank stores such as Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman, more than $2,000. Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.): Christmas gifts from Capital Grille, upwards of $10,000 per year. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas): Servicing his BMW in Alexandria, Virginia, nearly $3,400. Sen. John Cornyn, (R-Texas): “Beverages for meal” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa, $336. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.): 18 trips to Smoothie King since June 2014, $20.39 on six occasions. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.): Regular visits to Tune Inn, a dive bar on Pennsylvania Avenue, more than $1,000 for over 20 trips since Sept. 2013. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas): Three expenditures at the Andaz Hotel in London in November and December, more than $5,400. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): Gifts for his D.C. and district staff, roughly $3,000. Retired Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Ca.): Money left in campaign post-retirement in January, $250,000.
Paying for gifts is one of the unique ways that members of Congress use their campaign accounts. Most corporations wouldn’t allow the boss to withdraw thousands of dollars from business coffers without any oversight to hand out cash gifts to employees, yet that’s essentially what Rep. Gene Green does. At the end of each year, the Texas Democrat takes roughly $3,000 from his reelection fund and gives each staffer in his Washington and district offices $200 as a holiday present.
“I don’t buy gifts,” Green said. “I give, typically, [it] started out at $100 and now I give the staff whether D.C. staff or district staff $200 at Christmas.”
Dozens of members of Congress reward people who work on their reelection campaigns.
Rep. Robert Brady, a powerful Democrat from Philadelphia, shells out more than $10,000 every year at Capital Grille, buying Christmas gifts for campaign aides. He hasn’t won with less than 74 percent of the vote since he was first elected in 1998.
“Since members run for reelection every two years, it’s important to say ‘thank you’ to the men and women who volunteer so much of their time and energy to his campaigns,” said Stanley V. White, Brady’s chief of staff. “These gifts were for political activists and ward leaders who are integral to Congressman Brady’s reelection efforts.”
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) has gone on a shopping spree at Vineyard Vines, the Connecticut-based preppy clothing company — to the tune of $12,295 in the past five months. He likes to buy gifts at the beginning of each session of Congress for members of his vote-counting team, a spokesman said.
Eshoo, who also has not faced a serious reelection threat in two decades, says she is “grateful to colleagues and constituents who support me in my reelection efforts.”
“I tend to express my appreciation with a token of thanks and to remember them on birthdays and holidays,” Eshoo said in an interview. “Why give to the leader? Why have I done that for the leader, amongst others? No one has been more consistently thoughtful or actively supportive than she has been. I always think a ‘thank you’ should be as memorable as the kindness that prompted it, and they carry memorable items.”
Eshoo said she couldn’t recall what she has bought for Pelosi, but said she believes she’s given the Democratic leader scarves.
Spending abroad
Other lawmakers have tapped their campaign kitties to travel abroad.
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert represents a district on the eastern border of Texas, but one of his campaign line items last year was $272 for a meeting room at the Intercontinental Victoria Island in Lagos, Nigeria. In three expenditures in November and December, Gohmert paid more than $5,400 at the Andaz Hotel in London. He also spent time in Oxford at the Old Bank Hotel.
Gohmert’s spokesman, Kimberly Willingham, said Gohmert was giving political speeches in England, but did not respond to questions about whom Gohmert addressed. She suggested POLITICO write an “unbiased article about a congressman saving taxpayers significant amounts of money by legally using funds he has raised instead of taxpayer funds.”
Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican who is also from Texas, spent $336 for “beverages for meal” while on a congressional delegation trip to South Africa. Cornyn bought the drinks at La Combe in Cape Town, which is located on an organic wine estate and considered one of the top restaurants in the world. Cornyn’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment.
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), whose district includes the suburbs Chicago, went to the Tango Hotel Roma and Villa Tucolana Roma last year, running up a bill of more than $750. A spokesman said the congressman was in Rome for the International Catholic Legislators Network conference.
Dublin, Ireland, also appeared on campaign disclosure forms. In 2013, Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) had a “political” meal at The Merrion Hotel there that cost $112. Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) also visited Dublin on the campaign dime in both 2011 and 2012, shelling out thousands of dollars for stays at the Shelbourne Meridien and the Westbury Hotel, and the Europa Hotel in Belfast. Neal’s office said he spoke at the Ireland-U.S. Council’s annual meeting and the annual political conference of Sinn Féin.
Dining in D.C.
Fromer Rep. Aaron Schock, Rep. Steve Scalise, Rep. Anna Eshoo and Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon are pictured. | AP and Getty Photos
Other politicians have favorite dining spots in Washington that they frequent on the campaign dime. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has gone to Smoothie King in D.C. and Missouri more than a dozen times since June.
Josh Haynes, his chief of staff, says Smith “doesn’t drink coffee, and when he meets in the morning with elected officials, donors or staff they oftentimes will get a smoothie.” However, during his campaign last year, Smith set a goal of having coffee with every member of Congress by the end of this term.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), meanwhile, is a regular at Tune Inn, a dive bar blocks away from the Capitol. His campaign has foot the bill for meals there more than 20 times since September 2013, totaling more than $1,000. Sometimes the bill is as small as $20, other times $130. Grijalva’s spokesman provided receipts that show that his political director, Jose Miranda, was reimbursed for the political meals, not the congressman.
Cuellar’s office, meanwhile, says it’s perfectly permissible for his campaign to pay for repairs on his BMW in Washington. His political aide Colin Strother said he drives the vehicle 90 percent of the time for political work, including to and from the Capitol, to events on K Street and to the airport when he flies home to Laredo.
“Using campaign funds for things like maintenance and repair of a vehicle used for campaign purposes is completely legal,” Strother said.
Buck McKeon’s campaign spending is perhaps the most eye-popping — because he’s not even in Congress anymore. The California Republican retired from the House in January after more than two decades with more than a quarter of a million dollars left in his campaign coffers.
He’s used the money to pay his wife about $20,000 since Election Day. Patricia McKeon worked for the congressman for years without pay, the ex-congressman said in an interview, and she’s now helping him close out his campaign operation.
“If you average that all out over the 22 years, it’s a lot less than the indication,” the ex-congressman asserted. “People think we paid her that much forever,” he added, but the fact is “she worked for years for free.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
jvsDxssNd0bBHyQF
|
trade
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/index.html
|
Trump had heated exchange with Australian PM, talked 'tough hombres' with Mexican leader
|
2017-02-01
|
Jake Tapper, Eli Watkins, Jim Acosta, Euan Mckirdy
|
During the US President 's call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Saturday , Trump objected to an agreement over the US receiving refugees , sources told CNN . All this a day after a call with Mexico 's President , where a transcript showed Trump complaining about Mexico 's `` handling '' of `` tough hombres . ''
Australia is an ally of the United States , with the two countries joining three other English-speaking countries in an intelligence sharing arrangement known as the `` Five Eyes . ''
The disagreement came as the two leaders discussed a deal , reached under the Obama administration , for the US to accept refugees from Australia who are living on islands in detention centers off the mainland due to strict government policies .
Many of them are from the seven countries affected by Trump 's travel ban . Trump on Friday also suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days , along with indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees .
Sources say Trump insisted it was a very bad deal for the US to take 2,000 refugees and that one of them was going to be the next Boston bomber .
Turnbull told Trump several times the agreement was for 1,250 refugees , not 2,000 . He also said Australia was asking to submit them to the US for refugee screening , and if the refugees did not pass the US screening process , they would not come .
Trump expressed concern as to how this agreement from President Barack Obama 's administration would go forward given his executive order the day before temporarily suspending the US refugee program .
Trump abruptly ended the call because he was unhappy , a source told CNN . White House press Wednesday night , Trump tweeted , `` Do you believe it ? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia . Why ? I will study this dumb deal ! ''
Do you believe it ? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia . Why ? I will study this dumb deal ! — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 2 , 2017
Turnbull said the call ended `` courteously '' in a radio interview Thursday .
On Thursday , Trump used his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast -- an annual tradition attended by many world and religious leaders -- to weigh in on the reports circulating on his phone calls .
`` When you hear about the tough phone calls I 'm having , do n't worry about it . Just do n't worry about it . They 're tough . We have to be tough . It 's time we 're going to be a little tough , folks , '' he said . `` We 're taken advantage of by every nation in the world , virtually . It 's not going to happen anymore . It 's not going to happen anymore . ''
The Washington Post was the first to report on the details of the Australian call .
When asked about the tweet labeling the agreement brokered with Obama 's administration a `` dumb deal , '' Turnball said , while the deal may not have been one Trump would 've done or considered a `` good deal , '' the President and his administration have committed to honor it .
Earlier this week , Spicer said the Trump administration would honor the agreement , saying the refugees would be submitted to `` extreme vetting . ''
Turnbull attempted to keep some semblance of diplomacy , declining to elaborate on details of the call .
`` Look , I 'm not going to comment on a conversation between myself and the President of the United States other than what we have said publicly , and you can surely understand the reasons for that , '' he said . `` I 'm sure you can understand that . It 's better these conversations are conducted candidly , frankly , privately . If you 'll see reports of them , I 'm not going to add to them . ''
One person familiar with the circumstances on Saturday notes that President Trump 's phone call with Turnbull came after a long day of conversations with other foreign leaders -- Turnbull was the fifth call after conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Abe , French President Hollande , German Chancellor Merkel , and Russian President Putin , each of which lasted close to an hour .
Trump , this source said , was feeling some fatigue after his first major bout of diplomacy . And while his earlier conversations were n't necessarily contentious , they did involve some tense moments . Merkel and Hollande pushed back on the travel ban over the phone . Merkel felt she had to explain the Geneva Convention to Trump -- a lecture a source has said Trump chafed at .
JUST WATCHED Mexico 's top diplomat responds to Trump 's tweet Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mexico 's top diplomat responds to Trump 's tweet 00:45
CNN has also learned details about the Friday phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto , who canceled an in-person visit with Trump after the US President insisted Mexico pay for a border wall between the two countries .
According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN , Trump said , `` You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with . We are willing to help with that big-league , but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out . ''
Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels .
The excerpt of the transcript obtained by CNN differs with an official internal readout of the call that wrongly suggested Trump was contemplating sending troops to the border in a hostile way .
The Associated Press report said Trump threatened to send US troops to stop criminals in Mexico unless the government did more to control them , but both the US and Mexican governments denied details from the story .
Sources described the AP 's reporting as being based upon a readout -- written by aides -- not a transcript .
A government official familiar with Trump 's interactions with foreign leaders said , `` ( Trump 's ) interactions are naive in that he keeps suggesting we will have the best relationship ever with a broad departure of countries , but there is no substance to back it up . When he encounters a policy challenge , like with Turnbull , he responds with a tantrum . ''
|
During the US President's call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Saturday, Trump objected to an agreement over the US receiving refugees, sources told CNN. All this a day after a call with Mexico's President, where a transcript showed Trump complaining about Mexico's "handling" of "tough hombres."
Australia is an ally of the United States, with the two countries joining three other English-speaking countries in an intelligence sharing arrangement known as the "Five Eyes."
Refugee deal
The disagreement came as the two leaders discussed a deal, reached under the Obama administration, for the US to accept refugees from Australia who are living on islands in detention centers off the mainland due to strict government policies.
Many of them are from the seven countries affected by Trump's travel ban . Trump on Friday also suspended the entry of all refugees for 120 days, along with indefinitely suspending the entry of Syrian refugees.
Sources say Trump insisted it was a very bad deal for the US to take 2,000 refugees and that one of them was going to be the next Boston bomber.
Turnbull told Trump several times the agreement was for 1,250 refugees, not 2,000. He also said Australia was asking to submit them to the US for refugee screening, and if the refugees did not pass the US screening process, they would not come.
Trump expressed concern as to how this agreement from President Barack Obama's administration would go forward given his executive order the day before temporarily suspending the US refugee program.
Trump abruptly ended the call because he was unhappy, a source told CNN. White House press Wednesday night, Trump tweeted, "Do you believe it? The Obama administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!"
Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 2, 2017
Turnbull said the call ended "courteously" in a radio interview Thursday.
On Thursday, Trump used his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast -- an annual tradition attended by many world and religious leaders -- to weigh in on the reports circulating on his phone calls.
"When you hear about the tough phone calls I'm having, don't worry about it. Just don't worry about it. They're tough. We have to be tough. It's time we're going to be a little tough, folks," he said. "We're taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. It's not going to happen anymore. It's not going to happen anymore."
The Washington Post was the first to report on the details of the Australian call.
When asked about the tweet labeling the agreement brokered with Obama's administration a "dumb deal," Turnball said, while the deal may not have been one Trump would've done or considered a "good deal," the President and his administration have committed to honor it.
Earlier this week, Spicer said the Trump administration would honor the agreement, saying the refugees would be submitted to "extreme vetting."
Turnbull attempted to keep some semblance of diplomacy, declining to elaborate on details of the call.
"Look, I'm not going to comment on a conversation between myself and the President of the United States other than what we have said publicly, and you can surely understand the reasons for that," he said. "I'm sure you can understand that. It's better these conversations are conducted candidly, frankly, privately. If you'll see reports of them, I'm not going to add to them."
One person familiar with the circumstances on Saturday notes that President Trump's phone call with Turnbull came after a long day of conversations with other foreign leaders -- Turnbull was the fifth call after conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Abe, French President Hollande, German Chancellor Merkel, and Russian President Putin, each of which lasted close to an hour.
Trump, this source said, was feeling some fatigue after his first major bout of diplomacy. And while his earlier conversations weren't necessarily contentious, they did involve some tense moments. Merkel and Hollande pushed back on the travel ban over the phone. Merkel felt she had to explain the Geneva Convention to Trump -- a lecture a source has said Trump chafed at.
JUST WATCHED Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Mexico's top diplomat responds to Trump's tweet 00:45
'Tough hombres' talk with Mexican President
CNN has also learned details about the Friday phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto, who canceled an in-person visit with Trump after the US President insisted Mexico pay for a border wall between the two countries.
According to an excerpt of the transcript of the call with Peña Nieto provided to CNN, Trump said, "You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with. We are willing to help with that big-league, but they have be knocked out and you have not done a good job knocking them out."
Trump made an offer to help Peña Nieto with the drug cartels.
The excerpt of the transcript obtained by CNN differs with an official internal readout of the call that wrongly suggested Trump was contemplating sending troops to the border in a hostile way.
The Associated Press report said Trump threatened to send US troops to stop criminals in Mexico unless the government did more to control them, but both the US and Mexican governments denied details from the story.
Sources described the AP's reporting as being based upon a readout -- written by aides -- not a transcript.
Spicer described the call with Peña Nieto as "productive."
A government official familiar with Trump's interactions with foreign leaders said, "(Trump's) interactions are naive in that he keeps suggesting we will have the best relationship ever with a broad departure of countries, but there is no substance to back it up. When he encounters a policy challenge, like with Turnbull, he responds with a tantrum."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
t7g4TRDXyeIwgcnP
|
taxes
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/01/trump-test-democrats-tax-patriotism-glenn-reynolds/101159082/
|
OPINION: Trump will test Democrats' tax patriotism
|
2017-05-01
|
Glenn Harlan Reynolds
|
President 's plan would make high-tax blue states pay their fair share .
Democrats have been saying for years that we need tax increases , and that paying taxes is one of the greatest forms of patriotism . Now it looks like President Trump is going to put their beliefs to the test .
Trump ’ s new tax plan would hit blue states hardest , by eliminating the federal deductibility of state income and property taxes . That ’ s going to make it harder for blue states to maintain the high tax rates they ’ ve traditionally levied .
Right now , if you pay state property or income taxes , you can deduct them against your federal income taxes . In effect , it means that if you ’ re in a high federal bracket , your state taxes may be offset by that federal deduction to the tune of 40 % or more .
End the federal deduction , though , and high state taxes come straight out of taxpayers ’ pockets with no offset . As economist Nicole Kaeding told The Hill , by allowing deductions for state taxes , “ the federal government is essentially subsidizing high tax rates in states like California and New York . ”
The National Journal ’ s Ronald Brownstein calls this `` an offensive against blue states , '' but as Brad Todd replied on Twitter , “ I think what you mean is it ends imbalanced federal subsidy for big government at the local level . ”
I think that ’ s right . States should be able to set their own levels of taxing and spending , but I see no reason why a Walmart cashier in Tennessee ( which has no state income tax and low property taxes ) should be subsidizing a hedge fund mogul in New York or a studio executive in Hollywood . It ’ s fine if blue states want to have higher state and local tax rates , as they do , but they shouldn ’ t be encouraged to do so by federal tax giveaways . And it ’ s the urban , coastal areas that have done best over the past 25 years , so it seems time for them to pay their fair share now .
In that spirit , I have a few other proposals . First , we should eliminate the mortgage interest deduction . Experts have been calling for that for years , and they ’ re right to . The deduction was part of an ill-considered federal effort to encourage home ownership by people who could only marginally afford it , but that has backfired with the bursting of the housing bubble .
It ’ s something that has been dubbed ( not by me ) Reynolds ’ Law : “ The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle-class people have : If middle-class people go to college and own homes , then surely if more people go to college and own homes , we ’ ll have more middle-class people . But homeownership and college aren ’ t causes of middle-class status ; they ’ re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline , the ability to defer gratification , etc . — that let you enter , and stay , in the middle class . Subsidizing the markers doesn ’ t produce the traits ; if anything , it undermines them . ”
In addition , of course , the mortgage interest deduction encourages and perpetuates high housing prices , which ultimately make housing less , not more , affordable . It gives you bigger benefits when you make a lot of money and own an expensive home . It ’ s essentially a transfer of money from the young , the poor , and the rural to the old , the wealthy and the urban .
There are a lot of things like this in the tax code : When tax-making powers are exercised by politicians , taxes are generally written in a way that benefits people politicians care about , who tend to be rich and powerful . A simpler tax code — such as a flat tax — would fix that , but politicians hate such proposals because they offer insufficient opportunities for graft .
But hey , paying taxes is patriotic . So I don ’ t expect to hear any complaints from blue-staters . Right ?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds , a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself , is a member of ███ 's Board of Contributors .
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page , on Twitter @ USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter . To submit a letter , comment or column , check our submission guidelines .
|
President's plan would make high-tax blue states pay their fair share.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin arrives at a tax reform meeting, U.S. Capitol, Washington, April 25, 2017. (Photo: Eric Thayer, Getty Images)
Democrats have been saying for years that we need tax increases, and that paying taxes is one of the greatest forms of patriotism. Now it looks like President Trump is going to put their beliefs to the test.
Trump’s new tax plan would hit blue states hardest, by eliminating the federal deductibility of state income and property taxes. That’s going to make it harder for blue states to maintain the high tax rates they’ve traditionally levied.
Right now, if you pay state property or income taxes, you can deduct them against your federal income taxes. In effect, it means that if you’re in a high federal bracket, your state taxes may be offset by that federal deduction to the tune of 40% or more.
End the federal deduction, though, and high state taxes come straight out of taxpayers’ pockets with no offset. As economist Nicole Kaeding told The Hill, by allowing deductions for state taxes, “the federal government is essentially subsidizing high tax rates in states like California and New York.”
The National Journal’s Ronald Brownstein calls this "an offensive against blue states," but as Brad Todd replied on Twitter, “I think what you mean is it ends imbalanced federal subsidy for big government at the local level.”
I think that’s right. States should be able to set their own levels of taxing and spending, but I see no reason why a Walmart cashier in Tennessee (which has no state income tax and low property taxes) should be subsidizing a hedge fund mogul in New York or a studio executive in Hollywood. It’s fine if blue states want to have higher state and local tax rates, as they do, but they shouldn’t be encouraged to do so by federal tax giveaways. And it’s the urban, coastal areas that have done best over the past 25 years, so it seems time for them to pay their fair share now.
In that spirit, I have a few other proposals. First, we should eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Experts have been calling for that for years, and they’re right to. The deduction was part of an ill-considered federal effort to encourage home ownership by people who could only marginally afford it, but that has backfired with the bursting of the housing bubble.
It’s something that has been dubbed (not by me) Reynolds’ Law: “The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle-class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status; they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.”
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
In addition, of course, the mortgage interest deduction encourages and perpetuates high housing prices, which ultimately make housing less, not more, affordable. It gives you bigger benefits when you make a lot of money and own an expensive home. It’s essentially a transfer of money from the young, the poor, and the rural to the old, the wealthy and the urban.
There are a lot of things like this in the tax code: When tax-making powers are exercised by politicians, taxes are generally written in a way that benefits people politicians care about, who tend to be rich and powerful. A simpler tax code — such as a flat tax — would fix that, but politicians hate such proposals because they offer insufficient opportunities for graft.
But hey, paying taxes is patriotic. So I don’t expect to hear any complaints from blue-staters. Right?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2qpQ1pZ
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
8l8O4ujbVtCwZySv
|
us_house
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/02/democrats-may-subpoena-trump-teams-after-whistleblower-testimony-over-trump-clearances-may-prompt-su/3339849002/
|
White House whistleblower testimony may prompt Dems to subpoena Trump team over security clearances
|
2019-04-02
|
WASHINGTON – A Democrat-led House committee voted Tuesday to subpoena a former Trump administration official to discuss how the White House granted security clearances to people despite problems with their background checks .
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted along party lines to subpoena Carl Kline , who was the personnel security director for the first two years of the Trump presidency .
The White House `` can not stonewall and stall this committee for months and then just offer us general information about their policies , not when there are such serious allegations of a risk to national security , '' said Rep. Elijah Cummings , D-Md. , chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform .
The subpoena is based on testimony to committee aides from a whistleblower , a longtime White House security adviser who said she and colleagues denied security clearances to about 25 applicants but saw those decisions overturned by higher-ups in the Trump administration .
“ I would not be doing a service to myself , my country , or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security , '' testified Tricia Newbold , a career employee who has returned to work at the White House .
The group of 25 applicants may include President Donald Trump 's son-in-law Jared Kushner , who was granted a top-secret security clearance despite concerns from officials , The New York Times and The Washington Post reported in February .
Issues with some applicants includes ties to foreign influence , conflicts of interests , questionable or criminal conduct , financial problems and drug abuse , according to testimony .
More : Congress is right to probe Trump White House security clearances . Hand over the documents .
Cummings and the committee did not identify the 25 applicants recommended for rejection . But in the past they have asked the White House to provide information about clearances for Kushner , his spouse ( and the president 's daughter ) , Ivanka Trump , and national security adviser John Bolton .
The White House has rejected the document requests , citing privacy and saying Congress does not have the authority to see these documents . Officials indicated they may fight subpoenas .
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the committee can speak with administration officials in general about the clearance process , but Congress is not entitled to detailed files on applicants .
`` We 're not going to exploit individuals and their personal information , '' Sanders said .
Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday , Kushner said he did not want to discuss the clearance process , but `` I can say over the last two years that I ’ ve been here , I ’ ve been accused of all different types of things , and all of those things have turned out to be false . ''
House Democrats are planning subpoenas in a number of investigations of the Trump White House .
The House Judiciary Committee will meet Wednesday to authorize a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s full report and the evidence his investigators gathered , setting up what could be a historic legal clash with the Justice Department .
The panel also plans to vote to authorize subpoenas for evidence from some of Trump ’ s former top advisers , including strategist Steve Bannon , communications director Hope Hicks , Chief of Staff Reince Priebus , White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson .
Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform , accused Cummings and the Democrats of politicizing security clearances and exaggerating the problems .
`` For instance , '' he said , `` the 25 examples of overruled recommendations by Ms. Newbold heralded by the Democrats include nonpolitical officials such as a GSA custodian . ''
Cummings said the evidence suggests the administration has been careless with security clearances and access to the nation 's secrets .
Newbold 's testimony reflected `` the grave security risks she has been witnessing firsthand over the past two years , '' Cummings said .
|
David Jackson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – A Democrat-led House committee voted Tuesday to subpoena a former Trump administration official to discuss how the White House granted security clearances to people despite problems with their background checks.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform voted along party lines to subpoena Carl Kline, who was the personnel security director for the first two years of the Trump presidency.
The White House "cannot stonewall and stall this committee for months and then just offer us general information about their policies, not when there are such serious allegations of a risk to national security," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
The subpoena is based on testimony to committee aides from a whistleblower, a longtime White House security adviser who said she and colleagues denied security clearances to about 25 applicants but saw those decisions overturned by higher-ups in the Trump administration.
“I would not be doing a service to myself, my country, or my children if I sat back knowing that the issues that we have could impact national security," testified Tricia Newbold, a career employee who has returned to work at the White House.
The group of 25 applicants may include President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was granted a top-secret security clearance despite concerns from officials, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported in February.
Issues with some applicants includes ties to foreign influence, conflicts of interests, questionable or criminal conduct, financial problems and drug abuse, according to testimony.
More:Congress is right to probe Trump White House security clearances. Hand over the documents.
Cummings and the committee did not identify the 25 applicants recommended for rejection. But in the past they have asked the White House to provide information about clearances for Kushner, his spouse (and the president's daughter), Ivanka Trump, and national security adviser John Bolton.
The White House has rejected the document requests, citing privacy and saying Congress does not have the authority to see these documents. Officials indicated they may fight subpoenas.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the committee can speak with administration officials in general about the clearance process, but Congress is not entitled to detailed files on applicants.
"We're not going to exploit individuals and their personal information," Sanders said.
Kushner has dismissed Newbold's complaints.
Speaking with Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Monday, Kushner said he did not want to discuss the clearance process, but "I can say over the last two years that I’ve been here, I’ve been accused of all different types of things, and all of those things have turned out to be false."
House Democrats are planning subpoenas in a number of investigations of the Trump White House.
The House Judiciary Committee will meet Wednesday to authorize a subpoena for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report and the evidence his investigators gathered, setting up what could be a historic legal clash with the Justice Department.
The panel also plans to vote to authorize subpoenas for evidence from some of Trump’s former top advisers, including strategist Steve Bannon, communications director Hope Hicks, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House counsel Donald McGahn and counsel Ann Donaldson.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, accused Cummings and the Democrats of politicizing security clearances and exaggerating the problems.
"For instance," he said, "the 25 examples of overruled recommendations by Ms. Newbold heralded by the Democrats include nonpolitical officials such as a GSA custodian."
Cummings said the evidence suggests the administration has been careless with security clearances and access to the nation's secrets.
Newbold's testimony reflected "the grave security risks she has been witnessing firsthand over the past two years," Cummings said.
Contributing: Bart Jansen
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
pW8xmntRE0H41mZT
|
|
environment
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/04/15/coronavirus-air-pollution-has-dropped-30-northeast-nasa-said/5138912002/
|
Air pollution has dropped by 30% in the Northeast, NASA says. Are coronavirus stay-at-home orders responsible?
|
2020-04-15
|
Cities such from Washington , D.C. , to Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality .
March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record .
However , in the U.S. , `` these recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost . ''
Air pollution has dropped by 30 % in the big cities of the Northeast over the past few weeks as the coronavirus pandemic worsened and people stayed home , according to NASA satellite data .
In fact , cities such as Washington , D.C. , Philadelphia , New York City and Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality similar to the improvements in Italy and China during prior coronavirus lockdowns , AccuWeather said .
Nitrogen dioxide ( NO2 ) , which is primarily emitted from burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation , can be used as an indicator of changes in human activity , according to NASA . With people staying home and not driving their cars , air pollution has declined in a big way .
Other major cities that saw recent major drops in NO2 levels included Cleveland , Detroit , Buffalo , New York , and Pittsburgh , according to AccuWeather .
Though year-to-year variations in weather can cause variations in the monthly averages for individual years , in the Northeast , March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record , which spans the past 15 years .
Last month , pollution reductions were also noted in countries hit hard by the coronavirus , including China and Italy .
This led to speculation that the virus had actually saved more lives than it took . According to Paul Monks of the University of Leicester , `` the World Health Organization ( WHO ) estimates that about 3 million people die each year from ailments caused by air pollution and that more than 80 % of people living in urban areas are exposed to air-quality levels that exceed safe limits . ''
Saving lives ? : Could the coronavirus actually be saving lives in some parts of the world because of reduced pollution ?
Stanford University 's Marshall Burke also noted in March that `` the reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved 20 times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country . ''
However , in the U.S. , the trade-off has been steep . `` These recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost as communities grapple with widespread lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders as a result of the spread of COVID-19 , '' NASA said .
The data NASA released should be used with caution , Accuweather said . One reason is that NO2 levels recorded by satellites are n't necessarily the exact same as levels found at the ground level .
NASA also said in its report that further analysis is needed to determine the true amount that nitrogen dioxide levels have changed and whether it is associated with changes in pollutant emissions – or is just a natural variation in weather .
“ We all have this hunch about how air pollution has changed , the longer this goes on , the more we will see , ” NASA air pollution specialist Ryan Stauffer told The Washington Post last week .
|
Cities such from Washington, D.C., to Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality.
March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record.
However, in the U.S., "these recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost."
Air pollution has dropped by 30% in the big cities of the Northeast over the past few weeks as the coronavirus pandemic worsened and people stayed home, according to NASA satellite data.
In fact, cities such as Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston have seen significant improvement in air quality similar to the improvements in Italy and China during prior coronavirus lockdowns, AccuWeather said.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which is primarily emitted from burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity generation, can be used as an indicator of changes in human activity, according to NASA. With people staying home and not driving their cars, air pollution has declined in a big way.
Other major cities that saw recent major drops in NO2 levels included Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, according to AccuWeather.
Though year-to-year variations in weather can cause variations in the monthly averages for individual years, in the Northeast, March 2020 showed the lowest monthly atmospheric nitrogen dioxide levels of any March on record, which spans the past 15 years.
Last month, pollution reductions were also noted in countries hit hard by the coronavirus, including China and Italy.
This led to speculation that the virus had actually saved more lives than it took. According to Paul Monks of the University of Leicester, "the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 3 million people die each year from ailments caused by air pollution and that more than 80% of people living in urban areas are exposed to air-quality levels that exceed safe limits."
Saving lives?:Could the coronavirus actually be saving lives in some parts of the world because of reduced pollution?
Stanford University's Marshall Burke also noted in March that "the reductions in air pollution in China caused by this economic disruption likely saved 20 times more lives in China than have currently been lost due to infection with the virus in that country."
However, in the U.S., the trade-off has been steep. "These recent improvements in air quality have come at a high cost as communities grapple with widespread lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders as a result of the spread of COVID-19," NASA said.
The data NASA released should be used with caution, Accuweather said. One reason is that NO2 levels recorded by satellites aren't necessarily the exact same as levels found at the ground level.
NASA also said in its report that further analysis is needed to determine the true amount that nitrogen dioxide levels have changed and whether it is associated with changes in pollutant emissions – or is just a natural variation in weather.
“We all have this hunch about how air pollution has changed, the longer this goes on, the more we will see,” NASA air pollution specialist Ryan Stauffer told The Washington Post last week.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
Vcaqh0Sn3F5IiTMR
|
|
us_house
|
Vox
| 00
|
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/10/17929460/paul-ryan-speaker-retiring-debt-deficits-trump
|
Paul Ryan’s long con
|
2018-12-10
|
Ezra Klein
|
House Speaker Paul Ryan ’ s legacy can be summed up in just one number : $ 343 billion .
That ’ s the increase between the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018 — that is , the difference between the fiscal year before Ryan became speaker of the House and the fiscal year in which he retired .
If the economy had fallen into recession between 2015 and 2018 , Ryan ’ s record would be understandable . But it didn ’ t . In fact , growth quickened and the labor market tightened — which means deficits should ’ ve fallen . Indeed , that ’ s exactly what happened in each of the five years preceding Ryan ’ s speakership ; from 2011 to 2015 , annual deficits fell each year .
As he prepares to leave office , Ryan says that debt reduction is one of those things “ I wish we could have gotten done. ” Ryan , the man with the single most power over the federal budget in recent years , sounds like a bystander , as if he watched laws happen rather than made them happen .
To understand the irony and duplicity of that statement , you need to understand Ryan ’ s career . After the profligacy of the George W. Bush years and the rise of the Tea Party , Ryan rocketed to the top ranks of his party by warning that mounting deficits under President Obama threatened the “ most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country. ” Absent the fiscal responsibility that would accompany Republican rule , we were facing nothing less than “ the end of the American dream . ”
Ryan ’ s reputation was built on the back of his budgets : draconian documents that gutted social spending , privatized Medicare , and showed the Republican Party had embraced the kinds of hard fiscal choices that Bush had sloughed off . And Ryan presented himself as the wonkish apostle of this new GOP , rolling up his sleeves and running through the charts , graphs , and tables that made his case .
“ I admit that in recent years Republicans abandoned these principles , ” Ryan wrote in the book Young Guns , the 2010 GOP manifesto he co-authored with Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor . “ We lost the true path and suffered electoral defeats . But we have not returned from this experience empty handed . ”
What Republicans had returned with , according to Ryan , was a willingness to make hard choices . “ It ’ s time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children , ” he wrote . “ It ’ s time we stop deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies . ”
For this , Ryan was feted in Washington society ; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave him a “ Fiscy ” award for budget bravery ; he was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission ( which he ultimately voted against ) ; he became Mitt Romney ’ s vice presidential candidate . His reputation was so towering that when John Boehner stepped down as speaker , he told Ryan , “ You ’ ve got to do this job . ”
I was among the reporters who took Ryan ’ s reboot seriously . “ To move us to surpluses , ” I wrote of his 2010 proposal , “ Ryan ’ s budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent . Medicare is privatized . Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance , and the voucher ’ s growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs . Medicaid is also privatized . The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated , replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs . ”
I didn ’ t agree with Ryan ’ s policies , but at least he was making the trade-offs of his vision clear . Here was a Republican who said what he was going to do , who admitted his health care plan included “ rationing , ” who offered something specific to argue with . That was progress .
But to critics like the New York Times ’ s Paul Krugman , Ryan was an obvious con man weaponizing the deficit to hamstring Obama ’ s presidency , weaken the recovery , and snooker Beltway centrists eager to champion a reasonable-seeming Republican . Ryan , after all , had voted for Bush ’ s deficits — he was a yes on the tax cuts , on the wars , on Medicare Part D. He proposed a Social Security privatization scheme so pricey that even the Bush administration dismissed it as “ irresponsible . ”
And his budgets , for all the hard choices , didn ’ t actually add up . They included massive tax cuts with underestimated costs and unspecified financing — which is what led Krugman to call him a charlatan back in 2010 . Ryan waved this away as nitpicking . ” If needed , ” his office said , “ adjustments can be easily made to the specified rates to hit the revenue targets. ” But his critics predicted he would lose his appetite for hard choices the moment his party returned to power . He hadn ’ t changed ; he had merely rebranded .
The numbers proved them right . Ryan was elected speaker of the House on October 29 , 2015 . Over the next three years , annual deficits increased by almost 80 percent . The added debt is Ryan ’ s legacy , not his circumstance . It is entirely attributable to policy choices he made .
To Ryan ’ s supporters , this is unfair . “ Being speaker of the House is the most Faustian job in history , ” Arthur Brooks , president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute , told me . “ He ’ s done the best he can under these circumstances . Because he did one thing but didn ’ t do another , to say he never cared about the first thing is to misunderstand the choices , and to commit ad hominem arguments . ”
I think that ’ s too kind . As speaker , Ryan had tremendous power . He could have , for instance , brought immigration compromises to the floor of the House but enforced congressional PayGo rules to bar any bills that increased the deficit from coming to a vote . Instead , he refused to bring immigration compromises to the floor while personally shepherding bills that betrayed the ideas that won him power . We are the choices we make — and Ryan made his .
To be clear , I am not particularly concerned about deficits right now , just as I wasn ’ t in 2010 . But I took Ryan seriously when he said he was . I covered the arguments Ryan made , the policies he crafted , and I treated them as if they offered a guide to how Republicans would govern . I listened when Ryan said things like , “ In Europe , generations of welfare-dependent citizens are hurling Molotov cocktails because their governments can no longer fund their entitlement programs . We can ’ t let that happen here . ”
Ryan ’ s office did not grant my request for an interview for this piece . But now , as Ryan prepares to leave Congress , it is clear that his critics were correct and a credulous Washington press corps — including me — that took him at his word was wrong . In the trillions of long-term debt he racked up as speaker , in the anti-poverty proposals he promised but never passed , and in the many lies he told to sell unpopular policies , Ryan proved as much a practitioner of post-truth politics as Donald Trump .
Three bills in particular stand out in assessing Ryan ’ s record .
The first is the 2017 tax cut Ryan passed but didn ’ t pay for . His defenders note that early drafts of the tax cut bill included a border adjustment tax that would ’ ve made the package revenue-neutral , fulfilling Ryan ’ s promises . But that policy fell out of the legislation early on , and rather than replace it , Ryan pushed a plan that added $ 1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years , and used accounting gimmicks to hide vastly larger increases tucked into the legislation ’ s long-term design . Now House Republicans , still under Ryan ’ s leadership , are agitating to make the tax cuts permanent , with a 20-year cost estimated at $ 4 trillion .
This is particularly galling given that Ryan ’ s initial star turn in Republican politics came through a misleading presentation accusing the Obama administration of using gimmickry to hide Obamacare ’ s true cost . ( In reality , Obamacare was paid for and its costs have been even lower than promised . )
The second is the spending Ryan passed but didn ’ t pay for . Years of fiscal irresponsibility have sometimes permitted Republicans to be graded on a curve , where tax cuts can be charged to the national credit card and spending cuts are the true measure of policy steel . But even on this diminished measure , Ryan ’ s record betrayed his promises .
In March , Ryan pushed a $ 1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill through the House , which included almost $ 300 billion in spending increases . New spending , it turned out , only had to be paid for so long as it was a Democratic president proposing or signing it .
“ When you have power and need to make choices , those choices do reveal something about you , ” says Yuval Levin , editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs . “ I think what they reveal is where the least common denominator is in the Republican Party . I think there ’ s no question that what Republicans do when we get power is supply-side tax cuts . That ’ s the wall I and others have been banging our heads into for years now . ”
The third is the expansion of the earned income tax credit Ryan proposed but never even tried to pass . After the 2010 election , he went on a much-vaunted tour of American poverty , racking up positive press for expanding the boundaries of the possible under conservatism , and arguing for an enlarged EITC that would help childless adults .
The Obama administration quickly spied a possible compromise with Ryan , and sought to capitalize on it . But Ryan proved more interested in the praise than the policy .
“ When we tried to get it into a negotiation , he refused , ” says Jason Furman , who served as Obama ’ s chief economist . “ It wasn ’ t in his tax plan . In $ 1.5 trillion in tax cuts , he somehow couldn ’ t find space for this $ 60 billion item . It ’ s just amazing . ”
Speaker of the House actually is a powerful position in American politics
Ryan ’ s defenders portray him as a principled legislator trapped by the coalition he managed .
“ Donald Trump was president of the United States , and that circumscribed Paul Ryan ’ s choices , ” says Brooks . “ You can dispute what he did , but he got as much of the loaf as he thought he could get given the factions of his caucus and Trump ’ s peculiarities . Did he like being speaker of the House ? The results speak for themselves : He ’ s leaving . ”
In this telling , Ryan ’ s principled vision was foiled by Trump ’ s ascendancy . Faced with a Republican president he had never expected , and managing a restive majority that mostly agreed on being disagreeable , Ryan defaulted to the lowest common denominator of Republican Party policy : unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich , increases in defense spending , and failed attempts to repeal Obamacare .
This is more or less the defense Ryan has offered of his tenure . “ I think some people would like me to start a civil war in our party and achieve nothing , ” he told the New York Times . Trump had no appetite for cutting entitlements , so Ryan got what he could , and he got out .
But would it have started a civil war in the Republican Party if the most publicly anti-deficit politician of his generation had simply refused to pass laws that increased the deficit ? And even if it had , isn ’ t that the war Ryan had promised ?
The question here is not why Ryan didn ’ t live up to a liberal philosophy of government ; it ’ s why he didn ’ t live up to his own philosophy of government .
What ’ s more , Trump was clearly flexible when it came to policy . On the campaign , Trump repeatedly promised he wouldn ’ t cut Medicaid ; as president , he endorsed legislation Ryan wrote that did exactly that . After winning the election , Trump promised he ’ d replace Obamacare with a plan that offered “ insurance for everybody ” with “ much lower deductibles , ” but he ultimately backed Ryan ’ s bill to take Obamacare away from millions and push the system toward higher-deductible plans . For Ryan to claim he was not driving the policy agenda in the Trump years is ridiculous .
Ryan proved himself and his party to be exactly what the critics said : monomaniacally focused on taking health insurance from the poor , cutting taxes for the rich , and spending more on the Pentagon . And he proved that Republicans were willing to betray their promises and , in their embrace of Trump , violate basic decency to achieve those goals .
Ryan clearly wishes Donald Trump had lost the primary , and his early exit from the speakership reflects it . As such , a lot of the narrative around Ryan ’ s retirement has emphasized his discontinuities with Trump , and whether he did enough to voice them . In the New York Times , for instance , Mark Leibovich wrote :
As has been strenuously noted , Trump and Ryan are stylistic and philosophical opposites : Trump the blunt-force agitator vs. Ryan the think-tank conservative . Trump lashes out while Ryan treads carefully . Ryan still fashions himself a “ policy guy ” and a man of ideas : In high school , he read the conservative philosopher Ayn Rand and was captivated by her signature work , “ Atlas Shrugged. ” He bills himself as a guardian of the free-trading , debt-shrinking notions that Republican-led governments used to stand for before Trump crashed the tent .
But more important than the differences between Ryan and Trump are the similarities . Yes , Ryan is decorous and polite where Trump is confrontational and uncouth , but the say-anything brand of politics that so outrages Trump ’ s critics is no less present in Ryan ’ s recent history . How else can we read a politician who rose to power promising to reduce deficits only to increase them at every turn ? Or a politician who raked in good press for promising anti-poverty policies that he subsequently refused to pass ?
And as ridiculous as some of Trump ’ s claims have been , his baldfaced lies that his inauguration was better-attended than Obama ’ s was a less consequential violation of the truth than what Ryan said when asked about the tax bill : “ I don ’ t think it will increase the deficit. ” Note that the tax bill is already increasing the deficit .
Ryan ’ s campaign for his failed Obamacare repeal bill was thick with similarly brazen deceptions , like that the legislation would strengthen protections for preexisting conditions , when in fact it would gut them .
“ What made Ryan attractive to analysts and journalists across the spectrum was that he ’ d engage in a thoughtful dialogue with you , ” says Bob Greenstein , president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , “ but that didn ’ t mean that 10 minutes later , in front of the cameras , he wouldn ’ t say something that was at best misleading and at worst invalid . ”
In important ways , Trump is not a break from the Republican Party ’ s recent past but an acceleration of it . A party that acculturates itself , its base , and its media sphere to constant nonsense can hardly complain when other political entrepreneurs notice that nonsense sells and decide to begin marketing their own brand of flimflam .
Ultimately , Ryan put himself forward as a test of a simple , but important , proposition : Is fiscal responsibility something Republicans believe in or something they simply weaponize against Democrats to win back power so they can pass tax cuts and defense spending ? Over the past three years , he provided a clear answer . That is his legacy , and it will haunt his successors .
Sooner or later , Trump ’ s presidency will end , and there will come a new generation of Republicans who want to separate themselves from the embarrassments of their party ’ s record . As Ryan did , they will present themselves as appalled by both their party ’ s past and the Democrats ’ present , and they will promise to lead into a more responsible future . The first question they will face , and the hardest one to answer , will be : Why should anyone believe they ’ re not just another Paul Ryan ?
|
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s legacy can be summed up in just one number: $343 billion.
That’s the increase between the deficit for fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018 — that is, the difference between the fiscal year before Ryan became speaker of the House and the fiscal year in which he retired.
If the economy had fallen into recession between 2015 and 2018, Ryan’s record would be understandable. But it didn’t. In fact, growth quickened and the labor market tightened — which means deficits should’ve fallen. Indeed, that’s exactly what happened in each of the five years preceding Ryan’s speakership; from 2011 to 2015, annual deficits fell each year.
As he prepares to leave office, Ryan says that debt reduction is one of those things “I wish we could have gotten done.” Ryan, the man with the single most power over the federal budget in recent years, sounds like a bystander, as if he watched laws happen rather than made them happen.
To understand the irony and duplicity of that statement, you need to understand Ryan’s career. After the profligacy of the George W. Bush years and the rise of the Tea Party, Ryan rocketed to the top ranks of his party by warning that mounting deficits under President Obama threatened the “most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country.” Absent the fiscal responsibility that would accompany Republican rule, we were facing nothing less than “the end of the American dream.”
Ryan’s reputation was built on the back of his budgets: draconian documents that gutted social spending, privatized Medicare, and showed the Republican Party had embraced the kinds of hard fiscal choices that Bush had sloughed off. And Ryan presented himself as the wonkish apostle of this new GOP, rolling up his sleeves and running through the charts, graphs, and tables that made his case.
“I admit that in recent years Republicans abandoned these principles,” Ryan wrote in the book Young Guns, the 2010 GOP manifesto he co-authored with Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Eric Cantor. “We lost the true path and suffered electoral defeats. But we have not returned from this experience empty handed.”
What Republicans had returned with, according to Ryan, was a willingness to make hard choices. “It’s time politicians in Washington stopped patronizing the American people as if they were children,” he wrote. “It’s time we stop deferring tough decisions and promising fiscal fantasies.”
For this, Ryan was feted in Washington society; the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget gave him a “Fiscy” award for budget bravery; he was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission (which he ultimately voted against); he became Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate. His reputation was so towering that when John Boehner stepped down as speaker, he told Ryan, “You’ve got to do this job.”
I was among the reporters who took Ryan’s reboot seriously. “To move us to surpluses,” I wrote of his 2010 proposal, “Ryan’s budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher’s growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs.”
I didn’t agree with Ryan’s policies, but at least he was making the trade-offs of his vision clear. Here was a Republican who said what he was going to do, who admitted his health care plan included “rationing,” who offered something specific to argue with. That was progress.
But to critics like the New York Times’s Paul Krugman, Ryan was an obvious con man weaponizing the deficit to hamstring Obama’s presidency, weaken the recovery, and snooker Beltway centrists eager to champion a reasonable-seeming Republican. Ryan, after all, had voted for Bush’s deficits — he was a yes on the tax cuts, on the wars, on Medicare Part D. He proposed a Social Security privatization scheme so pricey that even the Bush administration dismissed it as “irresponsible.”
And his budgets, for all the hard choices, didn’t actually add up. They included massive tax cuts with underestimated costs and unspecified financing — which is what led Krugman to call him a charlatan back in 2010. Ryan waved this away as nitpicking. ”If needed,” his office said, “adjustments can be easily made to the specified rates to hit the revenue targets.” But his critics predicted he would lose his appetite for hard choices the moment his party returned to power. He hadn’t changed; he had merely rebranded.
The numbers proved them right. Ryan was elected speaker of the House on October 29, 2015. Over the next three years, annual deficits increased by almost 80 percent. The added debt is Ryan’s legacy, not his circumstance. It is entirely attributable to policy choices he made.
To Ryan’s supporters, this is unfair. “Being speaker of the House is the most Faustian job in history,” Arthur Brooks, president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told me. “He’s done the best he can under these circumstances. Because he did one thing but didn’t do another, to say he never cared about the first thing is to misunderstand the choices, and to commit ad hominem arguments.”
I think that’s too kind. As speaker, Ryan had tremendous power. He could have, for instance, brought immigration compromises to the floor of the House but enforced congressional PayGo rules to bar any bills that increased the deficit from coming to a vote. Instead, he refused to bring immigration compromises to the floor while personally shepherding bills that betrayed the ideas that won him power. We are the choices we make — and Ryan made his.
To be clear, I am not particularly concerned about deficits right now, just as I wasn’t in 2010. But I took Ryan seriously when he said he was. I covered the arguments Ryan made, the policies he crafted, and I treated them as if they offered a guide to how Republicans would govern. I listened when Ryan said things like, “In Europe, generations of welfare-dependent citizens are hurling Molotov cocktails because their governments can no longer fund their entitlement programs. We can’t let that happen here.”
Ryan’s office did not grant my request for an interview for this piece. But now, as Ryan prepares to leave Congress, it is clear that his critics were correct and a credulous Washington press corps — including me — that took him at his word was wrong. In the trillions of long-term debt he racked up as speaker, in the anti-poverty proposals he promised but never passed, and in the many lies he told to sell unpopular policies, Ryan proved as much a practitioner of post-truth politics as Donald Trump.
Paul Ryan’s three betrayals
Three bills in particular stand out in assessing Ryan’s record.
The first is the 2017 tax cut Ryan passed but didn’t pay for. His defenders note that early drafts of the tax cut bill included a border adjustment tax that would’ve made the package revenue-neutral, fulfilling Ryan’s promises. But that policy fell out of the legislation early on, and rather than replace it, Ryan pushed a plan that added $1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, and used accounting gimmicks to hide vastly larger increases tucked into the legislation’s long-term design. Now House Republicans, still under Ryan’s leadership, are agitating to make the tax cuts permanent, with a 20-year cost estimated at $4 trillion.
This is particularly galling given that Ryan’s initial star turn in Republican politics came through a misleading presentation accusing the Obama administration of using gimmickry to hide Obamacare’s true cost. (In reality, Obamacare was paid for and its costs have been even lower than promised.)
The second is the spending Ryan passed but didn’t pay for. Years of fiscal irresponsibility have sometimes permitted Republicans to be graded on a curve, where tax cuts can be charged to the national credit card and spending cuts are the true measure of policy steel. But even on this diminished measure, Ryan’s record betrayed his promises.
In March, Ryan pushed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill through the House, which included almost $300 billion in spending increases. New spending, it turned out, only had to be paid for so long as it was a Democratic president proposing or signing it.
“When you have power and need to make choices, those choices do reveal something about you,” says Yuval Levin, editor of the conservative policy journal National Affairs. “I think what they reveal is where the least common denominator is in the Republican Party. I think there’s no question that what Republicans do when we get power is supply-side tax cuts. That’s the wall I and others have been banging our heads into for years now.”
The third is the expansion of the earned income tax credit Ryan proposed but never even tried to pass. After the 2010 election, he went on a much-vaunted tour of American poverty, racking up positive press for expanding the boundaries of the possible under conservatism, and arguing for an enlarged EITC that would help childless adults.
The Obama administration quickly spied a possible compromise with Ryan, and sought to capitalize on it. But Ryan proved more interested in the praise than the policy.
“When we tried to get it into a negotiation, he refused,” says Jason Furman, who served as Obama’s chief economist. “It wasn’t in his tax plan. In $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, he somehow couldn’t find space for this $60 billion item. It’s just amazing.”
Speaker of the House actually is a powerful position in American politics
Ryan’s defenders portray him as a principled legislator trapped by the coalition he managed.
“Donald Trump was president of the United States, and that circumscribed Paul Ryan’s choices,” says Brooks. “You can dispute what he did, but he got as much of the loaf as he thought he could get given the factions of his caucus and Trump’s peculiarities. Did he like being speaker of the House? The results speak for themselves: He’s leaving.”
In this telling, Ryan’s principled vision was foiled by Trump’s ascendancy. Faced with a Republican president he had never expected, and managing a restive majority that mostly agreed on being disagreeable, Ryan defaulted to the lowest common denominator of Republican Party policy: unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, increases in defense spending, and failed attempts to repeal Obamacare.
This is more or less the defense Ryan has offered of his tenure. “I think some people would like me to start a civil war in our party and achieve nothing,” he told the New York Times. Trump had no appetite for cutting entitlements, so Ryan got what he could, and he got out.
But would it have started a civil war in the Republican Party if the most publicly anti-deficit politician of his generation had simply refused to pass laws that increased the deficit? And even if it had, isn’t that the war Ryan had promised?
The question here is not why Ryan didn’t live up to a liberal philosophy of government; it’s why he didn’t live up to his own philosophy of government.
What’s more, Trump was clearly flexible when it came to policy. On the campaign, Trump repeatedly promised he wouldn’t cut Medicaid; as president, he endorsed legislation Ryan wrote that did exactly that. After winning the election, Trump promised he’d replace Obamacare with a plan that offered “insurance for everybody” with “much lower deductibles,” but he ultimately backed Ryan’s bill to take Obamacare away from millions and push the system toward higher-deductible plans. For Ryan to claim he was not driving the policy agenda in the Trump years is ridiculous.
Ryan proved himself and his party to be exactly what the critics said: monomaniacally focused on taking health insurance from the poor, cutting taxes for the rich, and spending more on the Pentagon. And he proved that Republicans were willing to betray their promises and, in their embrace of Trump, violate basic decency to achieve those goals.
Paul Ryan, Donald Trump, and post-truth politics
Ryan clearly wishes Donald Trump had lost the primary, and his early exit from the speakership reflects it. As such, a lot of the narrative around Ryan’s retirement has emphasized his discontinuities with Trump, and whether he did enough to voice them. In the New York Times, for instance, Mark Leibovich wrote:
As has been strenuously noted, Trump and Ryan are stylistic and philosophical opposites: Trump the blunt-force agitator vs. Ryan the think-tank conservative. Trump lashes out while Ryan treads carefully. Ryan still fashions himself a “policy guy” and a man of ideas: In high school, he read the conservative philosopher Ayn Rand and was captivated by her signature work, “Atlas Shrugged.” He bills himself as a guardian of the free-trading, debt-shrinking notions that Republican-led governments used to stand for before Trump crashed the tent.
But more important than the differences between Ryan and Trump are the similarities. Yes, Ryan is decorous and polite where Trump is confrontational and uncouth, but the say-anything brand of politics that so outrages Trump’s critics is no less present in Ryan’s recent history. How else can we read a politician who rose to power promising to reduce deficits only to increase them at every turn? Or a politician who raked in good press for promising anti-poverty policies that he subsequently refused to pass?
And as ridiculous as some of Trump’s claims have been, his baldfaced lies that his inauguration was better-attended than Obama’s was a less consequential violation of the truth than what Ryan said when asked about the tax bill: “I don’t think it will increase the deficit.” Note that the tax bill is already increasing the deficit.
Ryan’s campaign for his failed Obamacare repeal bill was thick with similarly brazen deceptions, like that the legislation would strengthen protections for preexisting conditions, when in fact it would gut them.
“What made Ryan attractive to analysts and journalists across the spectrum was that he’d engage in a thoughtful dialogue with you,” says Bob Greenstein, president of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “but that didn’t mean that 10 minutes later, in front of the cameras, he wouldn’t say something that was at best misleading and at worst invalid.”
In important ways, Trump is not a break from the Republican Party’s recent past but an acceleration of it. A party that acculturates itself, its base, and its media sphere to constant nonsense can hardly complain when other political entrepreneurs notice that nonsense sells and decide to begin marketing their own brand of flimflam.
Ultimately, Ryan put himself forward as a test of a simple, but important, proposition: Is fiscal responsibility something Republicans believe in or something they simply weaponize against Democrats to win back power so they can pass tax cuts and defense spending? Over the past three years, he provided a clear answer. That is his legacy, and it will haunt his successors.
Sooner or later, Trump’s presidency will end, and there will come a new generation of Republicans who want to separate themselves from the embarrassments of their party’s record. As Ryan did, they will present themselves as appalled by both their party’s past and the Democrats’ present, and they will promise to lead into a more responsible future. The first question they will face, and the hardest one to answer, will be: Why should anyone believe they’re not just another Paul Ryan?
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
2rntTaOAvu97eTRs
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/04/politics/nra-lapierre/index.html?hpt=po_c2
|
NRA's LaPierre says gun rights struggle a 'long war'
|
2013-05-04
|
Dana Davidsen
|
Story highlights NRA executive rallies supporters ; says `` we will never surrender our guns ''
Says membership in group up since the Newtown massacre , at record high
LaPierre goes after President Obama , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Wayne LaPierre , the nation 's most visible gun-rights advocate , rallied supporters on Saturday for a renewed fight against gun control , saying membership is up since the Newtown massacre , and calling the effort to stop new limits a `` long war '' and a `` fight for everything we care about . ''
The National Rifle Association 's executive vice president vowed in remarks at the group 's national convention that `` we will never surrender our guns . '' He implored members to step up their outreach to members of Congress as part of a fight against `` elites '' and others who `` use tragedy to try to blame us , to shame us '' into compromise and who `` want to change America , our culture and our values . ''
LaPierre delivered a speech heavy on militaristic and sweeping patriotic rhetoric . It was a signature moment at the weekend event , which sought to embrace a culture war theme in its so-far successful fight in Washington against recent gun-control initiatives . LaPierre singled out President Barack Obama , who has pushed for new firearms restrictions following the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut , which left 20 children and six adults dead .
The killings jolted the nation and energized gun-control advocates , while putting pressure on LaPierre 's group and testing its political muscle anew . Polls have shown most Americans favoring some kind of new restrictions .
LaPierre said NRA membership has spiked , reaching a record 5 million , and he implored members to counter efforts by leading gun-control advocates , like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , Obama , and Democrats in Congress .
`` We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about . We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation , or to lose it forever , '' LaPierre said .
JUST WATCHED Giffords battles for NRA member votes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Giffords battles for NRA member votes 03:03
JUST WATCHED Palin : Politicians exploit emotions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Palin : Politicians exploit emotions 01:02
`` We must remain vigilant , ever resolute , and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us , '' he said .
LaPierre disparaged what he called Obama 's `` all-out siege against our rights '' and efforts in Congress to enact new gun control measures , calling it `` political posturing . ''
`` Mr. President , you can give all the speeches you want . You can conjure up all the polls you can and call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of , but your gun control legislation wo n't stop one criminal , would n't make anyone safer anywhere , '' LaPierre said .
`` And that flawed failure lost on its merits and got the defeat it deserved , '' he said , referring to the setback sustained by gun control advocates last month when a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks failed in the Senate .
The outcome was considered a victory for gun rights advocates , who lobbied hard to block its passage . Obama has vowed to keep pursuing new restrictions , and a co-author of the ill-fated legislative amendment is working to revive it .
LaPierre and the NRA propose , instead , that current laws be enforced , that schools include armed guards , that the government rebuild a `` broken mental health system , '' and `` for God 's sake , leave the rest of us alone ! ''
LaPierre said the failed compromise background check proposal by Sens . Joe Manchin , a West Virginia Democrat , and Pat Toomey , a Pennsylvania Republican , were ineffective .
`` The Manchin-Toomey bill you later backed would n't have prevented Newtown , would n't have prevented Tucson or Aurora , '' he said of other deadly mass shootings in Arizona in 2011 and Colorado last July , `` and wo n't prevent the next tragedy , ''
`` None of it , any of it have anything to do with keeping our children safe at school anywhere , '' he said .
LaPierre also struck out specifically at Bloomberg , who has poured funds into the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns , for acting as a `` national nanny '' and criticized the media for , as he said , failing to hold Obama accountable .
Incoming NRA President Jim Porter is setting his sights on congressional midterm elections in 2014 as crucial in the gun rights debate , urging members to support House and Senate members who have voted against recent efforts to instate a background check system .
|
Story highlights NRA executive rallies supporters; says "we will never surrender our guns"
Says membership in group up since the Newtown massacre, at record high
LaPierre goes after President Obama, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Says ill-fated background check proposal in Senate was ineffective
Wayne LaPierre, the nation's most visible gun-rights advocate, rallied supporters on Saturday for a renewed fight against gun control, saying membership is up since the Newtown massacre, and calling the effort to stop new limits a "long war" and a "fight for everything we care about."
The National Rifle Association's executive vice president vowed in remarks at the group's national convention that "we will never surrender our guns." He implored members to step up their outreach to members of Congress as part of a fight against "elites" and others who "use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us" into compromise and who "want to change America, our culture and our values."
LaPierre delivered a speech heavy on militaristic and sweeping patriotic rhetoric. It was a signature moment at the weekend event, which sought to embrace a culture war theme in its so-far successful fight in Washington against recent gun-control initiatives. LaPierre singled out President Barack Obama, who has pushed for new firearms restrictions following the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 children and six adults dead.
The killings jolted the nation and energized gun-control advocates, while putting pressure on LaPierre's group and testing its political muscle anew. Polls have shown most Americans favoring some kind of new restrictions.
LaPierre said NRA membership has spiked, reaching a record 5 million, and he implored members to counter efforts by leading gun-control advocates, like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Obama, and Democrats in Congress.
"We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about. We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation, or to lose it forever," LaPierre said.
JUST WATCHED Giffords battles for NRA member votes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Giffords battles for NRA member votes 03:03
JUST WATCHED Palin: Politicians exploit emotions Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Palin: Politicians exploit emotions 01:02
"We must remain vigilant, ever resolute, and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us," he said.
LaPierre disparaged what he called Obama's "all-out siege against our rights" and efforts in Congress to enact new gun control measures, calling it "political posturing."
"Mr. President, you can give all the speeches you want. You can conjure up all the polls you can and call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of, but your gun control legislation won't stop one criminal, wouldn't make anyone safer anywhere," LaPierre said.
"And that flawed failure lost on its merits and got the defeat it deserved," he said, referring to the setback sustained by gun control advocates last month when a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks failed in the Senate.
The outcome was considered a victory for gun rights advocates, who lobbied hard to block its passage. Obama has vowed to keep pursuing new restrictions, and a co-author of the ill-fated legislative amendment is working to revive it.
LaPierre and the NRA propose, instead, that current laws be enforced, that schools include armed guards, that the government rebuild a "broken mental health system," and "for God's sake, leave the rest of us alone!"
LaPierre said the failed compromise background check proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, were ineffective.
"The Manchin-Toomey bill you later backed wouldn't have prevented Newtown, wouldn't have prevented Tucson or Aurora," he said of other deadly mass shootings in Arizona in 2011 and Colorado last July, "and won't prevent the next tragedy,"
"None of it, any of it have anything to do with keeping our children safe at school anywhere," he said.
LaPierre also struck out specifically at Bloomberg, who has poured funds into the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, for acting as a "national nanny" and criticized the media for, as he said, failing to hold Obama accountable.
Incoming NRA President Jim Porter is setting his sights on congressional midterm elections in 2014 as crucial in the gun rights debate, urging members to support House and Senate members who have voted against recent efforts to instate a background check system.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
3hcwWL2y6ZkVurJN
|
elections
|
The Atlantic
| 00
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/575098/
|
Democrats Seize the House
|
2018-11-06
|
David A. Graham, Amanda Mull, Stephen Marche, Ronald Brownstein, George Packer, Derek Thompson, Marina Koren, David Sims, Peter Beinart
|
Democrats will recapture control of the House of Representatives , and could gain as much as a 20-seat advantage , ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke .
With many results in , Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to likely win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some . The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in . The results are largely in line with early predictions , though early returns suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated , and Democratic analysts such as James Carville declared the hope of a blue wave dead . Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races , the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped .
Democratic control of the House will shift the terrain in Washington , providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency , and breaking the unified Republican control of the House , Senate , and White House . While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law , House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration .
Read : How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington
The Democratic wins have occurred across the country . They have won in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 , and they have won in districts Trump won . There have been victories in traditionally Democratic states such as Illinois and Minnesota , but also in more exotic locales for Democrats in the current era , including Kansas and Oklahoma . Pennsylvania and Virginia are emerging as particular bright spots for the party early .
The wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion ’ s emergence as a solid Democratic state . In addition to Tim Kaine ’ s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race , the first flipped seat of the night to be called had Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia ’ s Tenth District . Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race , but was unable to save the two-term representative . Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District . Additionally , Abigail Spanberger is poised to beat Dave Brat , the Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 GOP primary .
In Pennsylvania earlier this year , the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn , saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander . The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats , and they have capitalized . Mary Gay Scanlon won in the Fifth District , a substantially new constituency . Also in Pennsylvania , Representative Conor Lamb is expected to defeat Representative Keith Rothfus in a new district that double-bunked the members . Chrissy Houlahan won the Sixth District , vacated by retiring member Ryan Costello . Susan Wild won the Seventh , held by Charlie Dent , who is also retiring . However , the Republican Guy Reschenthaler won the Fourteenth .
Read : How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue
In Florida ’ s Twenty-Seventh District , former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala defeated Maria Elvira Salazar . The district had been held by a retiring Republican , and while Shalala was a favorite , her slipping polling made Democrats nervous in the closing days of the race . Debbie Mucarsel-Powell defeated Carlos Curbelo in Florida ’ s Twenty-Sixth District .
Democrats also won in Illinois , with Sean Casten winning in the Sixth . In New York , Antonio Delgado and Anthony Brindisi won in the Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Districts . And on Staten Island , a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City , Max Rose unseated Dan Donovan , a Trump-supported candidate who survived a primary challenge in the Eleventh District this year .
In Colorado ’ s Sixth , Jason Crow is on track to defeat Mike Coffman , a Trump-skeptical Republican . In Michigan ’ s Eleventh District , an open seat held by a retiring Republican , Haley Stevens won . In Minnesota ’ s Third , Erik Paulsen , a veteran Republican , lost to Dean Phillips . Another veteran , Texas ’ s Pete Sessions , lost to Colin Allred in the Thirty-Second District . Ann Kirkpatrick , a two-time former representative , will return to the chamber a third time , winning a race to replace Martha McSally , who is running for Senate . Mikie Sherrill has won in New Jersey ’ s Eleventh District , formerly held by the retiring Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen . In Kansas ’ s Third District , Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder . Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma ’ s Fifth .
Democrats also lead in a range of other contested races , though their hopes for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts were confounded in a series of heartbreaking losses . For example , Amy McGrath failed to unseat Andy Barr in a much-watched Kentucky race . Yet on a night when the Senate gave Democrats bleak results and governors ’ races were a mixed bag , House candidates came through for them .
The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions . The president ’ s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016 . By the eve of voting , the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge . The question was , and remains , how large it would be .
While every race has its own specific circumstances , there ’ s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win : Donald Trump . The president said he was on the ballot , and voters appear to have agreed , according to exit polls . While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads , his influence is visible in the results . Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016 , including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas . Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections . In some cases , Trump ’ s personality and style were a factor . In others , his policies , especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act , proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates . Republican turnout was up as well , which helps to explain the muted Democratic results .
During the summer of 2018 , Trump was predicting a “ red wave , ” a retort to predictions of a “ blue wave , ” though as Election Day approached , he backed off that prediction , telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House , and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate , acknowledging the prospect of losing the House .
The Democratic win calls into question Trump ’ s strategy of hammering on immigration as a wedge issue in the closing weeks of the campaign . While the issue is catnip to his base , his divisive and dark rhetoric wasn ’ t effective in rallying Republicans to the polls in numbers great enough to preserve their majority .
The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government , including the White House , the House , the Senate , and effectively the Supreme Court . The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave . As The Washington Post notes , it ’ s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years , a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period .
Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record . They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama ’ s agenda from 2011 on , but they largely failed to further conservative priorities . Federal spending continues to grow ; entitlements have not been cut ; Obamacare remains in place , though scaled back ; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul , they had to settle for temporary tax cuts . Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year , and the party is also losing its leader . Wisconsin ’ s Paul Ryan , hailed as one of the party ’ s brightest young thinkers , was reluctantly thrust into the speakership , but opted to retire this year , apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus .
It ’ s likely that the Democratic leader , at least initially , will be a familiar face : former Speaker Nancy Pelosi . Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership , and some won election this year promising not to vote for her , she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin . Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership , after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011 , but has said she is likely to be a “ transitional ” leader , paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future .
With Republicans in control of the Senate and White House , any Democratic policy priorities will be largely symbolic , though tensions between very progressive members and those representing swing districts will test the cohesion of the caucus and the skills of its leaders . Where Democrats are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House . The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power , and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues . They could demand to see the president ’ s tax returns . They could even attempt to impeach him .
For Trump , the frustration will not end there . He ’ s never enjoyed working with Congress , and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers . Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock . If there ’ s a silver lining for the president , though , it ’ s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020 .
|
Democrats will recapture control of the House of Representatives, and could gain as much as a 20-seat advantage, ending eight years of Republican control and dealing President Donald Trump a stiff rebuke.
With many results in, Democratic candidates either had won or were leading in enough districts to likely win the 23 seats needed to capture the chamber and then some. The question now is how big the Democratic advantage will be when results from all races are in. The results are largely in line with early predictions, though early returns suggested the scale of Democratic victories might be smaller than anticipated, and Democratic analysts such as James Carville declared the hope of a blue wave dead. Yet despite tough losses for Democrats in Senate and gubernatorial races, the House has shaped up about as well as the party could have hoped.
Democratic control of the House will shift the terrain in Washington, providing a genuine counterweight to President Trump for the first time in his presidency, and breaking the unified Republican control of the House, Senate, and White House. While it will be all but impossible for Democrats to actually enact any of their priorities into law, House control provides them a position to conduct strict oversight on the Trump administration.
Read: How a blue wave could crash far beyond Washington
The Democratic wins have occurred across the country. They have won in districts that Hillary Clinton won in 2016, and they have won in districts Trump won. There have been victories in traditionally Democratic states such as Illinois and Minnesota, but also in more exotic locales for Democrats in the current era, including Kansas and Oklahoma. Pennsylvania and Virginia are emerging as particular bright spots for the party early.
The wins in Virginia showcase the Old Dominion’s emergence as a solid Democratic state. In addition to Tim Kaine’s easy victory in the U.S. Senate race, the first flipped seat of the night to be called had Jennifer Wexton handily defeating Barbara Comstock in Northern Virginia’s Tenth District. Comstock is a longtime Republican soldier and the party poured millions of dollars into the race, but was unable to save the two-term representative. Elaine Luria also beat Scott Taylor in the Eleventh District. Additionally, Abigail Spanberger is poised to beat Dave Brat, the Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a 2014 GOP primary.
In Pennsylvania earlier this year, the state supreme court ordered new congressional districts to be drawn, saying that the old maps constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The new maps were far more favorable to Democrats, and they have capitalized. Mary Gay Scanlon won in the Fifth District, a substantially new constituency. Also in Pennsylvania, Representative Conor Lamb is expected to defeat Representative Keith Rothfus in a new district that double-bunked the members. Chrissy Houlahan won the Sixth District, vacated by retiring member Ryan Costello. Susan Wild won the Seventh, held by Charlie Dent, who is also retiring. However, the Republican Guy Reschenthaler won the Fourteenth.
Read: How the Democratic Party can turn the Sun Belt blue
In Florida’s Twenty-Seventh District, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala defeated Maria Elvira Salazar. The district had been held by a retiring Republican, and while Shalala was a favorite, her slipping polling made Democrats nervous in the closing days of the race. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell defeated Carlos Curbelo in Florida’s Twenty-Sixth District.
Democrats also won in Illinois, with Sean Casten winning in the Sixth. In New York, Antonio Delgado and Anthony Brindisi won in the Nineteenth and Twenty-Second Districts. And on Staten Island, a GOP stronghold in deep-blue New York City, Max Rose unseated Dan Donovan, a Trump-supported candidate who survived a primary challenge in the Eleventh District this year.
In Colorado’s Sixth, Jason Crow is on track to defeat Mike Coffman, a Trump-skeptical Republican. In Michigan’s Eleventh District, an open seat held by a retiring Republican, Haley Stevens won. In Minnesota’s Third, Erik Paulsen, a veteran Republican, lost to Dean Phillips. Another veteran, Texas’s Pete Sessions, lost to Colin Allred in the Thirty-Second District. Ann Kirkpatrick, a two-time former representative, will return to the chamber a third time, winning a race to replace Martha McSally, who is running for Senate. Mikie Sherrill has won in New Jersey’s Eleventh District, formerly held by the retiring Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen. In Kansas’s Third District, Sharice Davids beat Kevin Yoder. Kendra Horn defeated Steve Russell in Oklahoma’s Fifth.
Read: Trump already won the midterms
Democrats also lead in a range of other contested races, though their hopes for a clean sweep through strongly Republican districts were confounded in a series of heartbreaking losses. For example, Amy McGrath failed to unseat Andy Barr in a much-watched Kentucky race. Yet on a night when the Senate gave Democrats bleak results and governors’ races were a mixed bag, House candidates came through for them.
The Republican losses are in line with both historical precedent and most predictions. The president’s party typically loses seats during midterm elections—though Trump had spoken boldly of defeating the pattern—and Democratic voters have shown surprising strength in special elections since 2016. By the eve of voting, the leading analysts all expected a Democratic edge. The question was, and remains, how large it would be.
While every race has its own specific circumstances, there’s no mistaking the major factor in the Democratic win: Donald Trump. The president said he was on the ballot, and voters appear to have agreed, according to exit polls. While Democrats wrestled with how to speak about him on the campaign trail and in ads, his influence is visible in the results. Democrats competed in districts that Trump won handily in 2016, including in the Rust Belt and even in deep-red Texas. Preliminary data show that turnout was exceptionally high among minorities and youth voters compared with recent midterm elections. In some cases, Trump’s personality and style were a factor. In others, his policies, especially his attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, proved a powerful issue for Democratic candidates. Republican turnout was up as well, which helps to explain the muted Democratic results.
During the summer of 2018, Trump was predicting a “red wave,” a retort to predictions of a “blue wave,” though as Election Day approached, he backed off that prediction, telling the Associated Press in October that he would not accept blame if Republicans lost the House, and saying this week that he was concentrating on preserving the GOP edge in the Senate, acknowledging the prospect of losing the House.
The Democratic win calls into question Trump’s strategy of hammering on immigration as a wedge issue in the closing weeks of the campaign. While the issue is catnip to his base, his divisive and dark rhetoric wasn’t effective in rallying Republicans to the polls in numbers great enough to preserve their majority.
The Democratic victory ends a brief period of unified Republican control of government, including the White House, the House, the Senate, and effectively the Supreme Court. The House has been in Republican hands since the 2010 Tea Party wave. As The Washington Post notes, it’s the third time control of the chamber has flipped in the last 12 years, a level of vacillation not seen since the immediate post–World War II period.
Republicans hand over the gavel with a decidedly mixed record. They successfully stymied much of President Barack Obama’s agenda from 2011 on, but they largely failed to further conservative priorities. Federal spending continues to grow; entitlements have not been cut; Obamacare remains in place, though scaled back; and after aiming for a tax-code overhaul, they had to settle for temporary tax cuts. Much of that class of 2010 has left the House or is leaving this year, and the party is also losing its leader. Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan, hailed as one of the party’s brightest young thinkers, was reluctantly thrust into the speakership, but opted to retire this year, apparently tired of being caught between the unpredictable and often outrageous president and a fractious caucus.
Read: National politics has taken over America
It’s likely that the Democratic leader, at least initially, will be a familiar face: former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although a growing number of Democrats have chafed against her leadership, and some won election this year promising not to vote for her, she remains the heavy favorite to reclaim the gavel—at least to begin. Pelosi has been eager to reclaim the speakership, after serving in that role from 2007 to 2011, but has said she is likely to be a “transitional” leader, paving the way for a new Democratic speaker in the near future.
With Republicans in control of the Senate and White House, any Democratic policy priorities will be largely symbolic, though tensions between very progressive members and those representing swing districts will test the cohesion of the caucus and the skills of its leaders. Where Democrats are likely to make their biggest impact is in oversight of the White House. The majority means Democratic chairs of committees will have subpoena power, and are likely to deluge the Trump administration with requests for documents and testimony on a range of issues. They could demand to see the president’s tax returns. They could even attempt to impeach him.
For Trump, the frustration will not end there. He’s never enjoyed working with Congress, and has expressed frustration at the slow pace of both chambers. Having the opposition party in control of the House will create further gridlock. If there’s a silver lining for the president, though, it’s that a Democratic House will create a useful foil for him as he runs for reelection in 2020.
|
www.theatlantic.com
| 0left
|
8ITfyAHDqzSjX2mp
|
politics
|
The Guardian
| 00
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/15/donald-trump-transition-team-disarray-adviser-purge
|
Trump transition team in disarray after top adviser 'purged'
|
2016-11-15
|
David Smith
|
Donald Trump ’ s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law .
Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect ’ s transition team without explanation , but one report attributed it to a “ Stalinesque purge ” .
Late on Tuesday , Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture , tweeting that the transition process was “ very organized ” . He also wrote that only he knew who “ the finalists ” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice .
Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions . I am the only one who knows who the finalists are !
A week after his election , Trump and vice-president-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington .
Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent . He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “ on the complex national security challenges facing our great country ” .
Loyalists and rivals tipped for powerful roles in Trump 's cabinet Read more
The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared . Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team , New Jersey governor Chris Christie , who is mired in political scandal , and replaced him with Pence .
NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “ Stalinesque purge ” of people close to Christie . “ Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs , ” the network reported .
Some Republicans who previously ostracised Trump are returning to the fold but not always with success . Eliot Cohen , a senior state department official under George W Bush , launched a stinging attack on the transition effort . He tweeted :
“ After exchange [ with ] Trump transition team , changed my recommendation : stay away . They ’ re angry , arrogant , screaming ‘ you LOST ! ’ Will be ugly . ”
A few days ago , Cohen had encouraged the suspicious Republican foreign policy establishment to rally around the president-elect .
Adding to the sense of chaos , both the state department and Pentagon said they were yet to hear from the incoming administration , while rumours swirled over whether Trump ’ s children – Donald Jr , Eric and Ivanka , and her husband Jared Kushner – would seek top security clearances . Kushner was said to have been instrumental in the departures of Christie and Rogers .
Barack Obama told reporters at the White House on Monday that he believed Trump was a pragmatist , not an ideologue , and reiterated his commitment to a smooth handover . But the Associated Press reported that coordination between Trump ’ s transition team and White House staff is on hold until Trump ’ s team signs a memorandum of understanding .
Speculation over cabinet appointments intensified on Tuesday . Ben Carson , a retired neurosurgeon and former Republican candidate for president tipped to be health secretary , has dropped out of the running . “ I want to have the freedom to work on many issues and not be pigeonholed into one particular area , ” Carson , who is Trump ’ s most prominent African American supporter , told the Washington Post .
The New York Times reported that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani , an old friend of Trump , is the frontrunner for the prize job of secretary of state . He has no foreign policy experience beyond strong advocacy for the war on terror following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks , which gave him global prominence .
Samantha Bee on Trump 's cabinet list : 'Deplorables , zealots and extremists ' Read more
But the political action committee Correct the Record argued that Giuliani , 72 , had a “ long history of business ties to enemies of America ” . He was reportedly paid to advocate on behalf of an Iranian dissident group while it was listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation and worked for a law firm whose clients included Saddam Hussein , terrorist Abu Nidal and an oil company controlled by the then Venezuelan president , Hugo Chávez . All these are potential red flags if he goes before the Senate for confirmation .
Trump ’ s children will take over the running of his business while he is in the White House , raising the prospect of a conflict of interest . Responding to claims that they are already exploiting his new status for commercial ends , the former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted : “ Free advice : Stop it . Don ’ t do this . The presidency is bigger than the family business . Just stop it . ”
Trump , a tycoon , reality TV star and political novice , has a long history of pitting rivals against one another , both in business and during his election campaign . He has appointed Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Reince Priebus as chief of staff , an unprecedented arrangement that threatens to create competing centers of power .
The inclusion of Bannon , executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News , provoked a furious backlash from progressives . The House Democratic leader , Nancy Pelosi , said : “ There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump administration . ”
Departing US Senate minority leader Harry Reid on Tuesday called on the president to rescind Bannon ’ s appointment , which he said has only “ deepened ” the country ’ s divisions since the election .
“ By placing a champion of white supremacists a step away from the Oval Office , what message does Trump send to the young girl who woke up Wednesday morning in Rhode Island afraid to be a woman of color in America ? ” Reid said , speaking on the Senate floor .
Reid had previously lashed out at the businessman in a powerful statement last week that referred to the president-elect as “ a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate ” .
In response to his criticism , Kellyanne Conway , Trump ’ s former campaign manager and current transition team adviser , appeared to threaten legal action against Reid and warned that the Democrat should be “ very careful ” in his criticism of the president-elect .
But on Tuesday Paul Ryan , the House speaker who is attempting to overcome past disagreements with Trump , refused to condemn the appointment . “ The president is going to be judged on his results , ” he told reporters . “ [ Bannon ] is a person who helped him win an incredible victory and an incredible campaign .
Ryan promised that Trump and a unified Republican Congress would mean that “ a better way , better days lie ahead for our country ” . He pledged to work “ hand in glove ” with the incoming administration .
The House speaker was on course to be re-elected by Republicans on Tuesday afternoon but House Democrats postponed leadership elections that had been scheduled for Thursday until 30 November amid signs of discontent with Pelosi .
Ongoing vote counts show Democrat Hillary Clinton pulling away from Trump in the popular vote , although he won the electoral college vote . Trump tweeted on Tuesday : “ If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in NY , Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily . ”
Despite previously labelling the electoral college a “ disaster ” , he tweeted that it was “ actually genius in that it brings all states , including the smaller ones , into play . Campaigning is much different ! ”
Trump ’ s inauguration will take place in Washington on 20 January .
|
Donald Trump’s transition to the White House appeared to be in disarray on Tuesday after the abrupt departure of a top national security adviser and amid continuing questions over the role of his three children and son-in-law.
Former Republican congressman Mike Rogers stepped down from the president-elect’s transition team without explanation, but one report attributed it to a “Stalinesque purge”.
Late on Tuesday, Trump attempted to paint a less chaotic picture, tweeting that the transition process was “very organized”. He also wrote that only he knew who “the finalists” were – seemingly an attempt to liken the process to his reality TV show The Apprentice.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Very organized process taking place as I decide on Cabinet and many other positions. I am the only one who knows who the finalists are!
A week after his election, Trump and vice-president-elect Mike Pence were huddled at Trump Tower in New York to work on key appointments as the US Senate was due to resume business in a still shellshocked Washington.
Rogers chaired the House intelligence committee and is a former army officer and FBI special agent. He said he was proud of the work his team had done to produce policy and personnel guidance “on the complex national security challenges facing our great country”.
Loyalists and rivals tipped for powerful roles in Trump's cabinet Read more
The departure offered the latest clue that the transition is going to be every bit as bumpy as feared. Last week the president-elect ditched the head of the team, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is mired in political scandal, and replaced him with Pence.
NBC News quoted a source as saying Rogers was the victim of a “Stalinesque purge” of people close to Christie. “Two sources close to the situation described an atmosphere of sniping and backbiting as Trump loyalists position themselves for key jobs,” the network reported.
Some Republicans who previously ostracised Trump are returning to the fold but not always with success. Eliot Cohen, a senior state department official under George W Bush, launched a stinging attack on the transition effort. He tweeted:
“After exchange [with] Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They’re angry, arrogant, screaming ‘you LOST!’ Will be ugly.”
A few days ago, Cohen had encouraged the suspicious Republican foreign policy establishment to rally around the president-elect.
Adding to the sense of chaos, both the state department and Pentagon said they were yet to hear from the incoming administration, while rumours swirled over whether Trump’s children – Donald Jr, Eric and Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner – would seek top security clearances. Kushner was said to have been instrumental in the departures of Christie and Rogers.
Barack Obama told reporters at the White House on Monday that he believed Trump was a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and reiterated his commitment to a smooth handover. But the Associated Press reported that coordination between Trump’s transition team and White House staff is on hold until Trump’s team signs a memorandum of understanding.
Speculation over cabinet appointments intensified on Tuesday. Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and former Republican candidate for president tipped to be health secretary, has dropped out of the running. “I want to have the freedom to work on many issues and not be pigeonholed into one particular area,” Carson, who is Trump’s most prominent African American supporter, told the Washington Post.
The New York Times reported that former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, an old friend of Trump, is the frontrunner for the prize job of secretary of state. He has no foreign policy experience beyond strong advocacy for the war on terror following the 11 September 2001 terror attacks, which gave him global prominence.
Samantha Bee on Trump's cabinet list: 'Deplorables, zealots and extremists' Read more
But the political action committee Correct the Record argued that Giuliani, 72, had a “long history of business ties to enemies of America”. He was reportedly paid to advocate on behalf of an Iranian dissident group while it was listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation and worked for a law firm whose clients included Saddam Hussein, terrorist Abu Nidal and an oil company controlled by the then Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez. All these are potential red flags if he goes before the Senate for confirmation.
Trump’s children will take over the running of his business while he is in the White House, raising the prospect of a conflict of interest. Responding to claims that they are already exploiting his new status for commercial ends, the former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted: “Free advice: Stop it. Don’t do this. The presidency is bigger than the family business. Just stop it.”
Trump, a tycoon, reality TV star and political novice, has a long history of pitting rivals against one another, both in business and during his election campaign. He has appointed Steve Bannon as chief strategist and Reince Priebus as chief of staff, an unprecedented arrangement that threatens to create competing centers of power.
The inclusion of Bannon, executive chairman of the far-right Breitbart News, provoked a furious backlash from progressives. The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, said: “There must be no sugarcoating the reality that a white nationalist has been named chief strategist for the Trump administration.”
Departing US Senate minority leader Harry Reid on Tuesday called on the president to rescind Bannon’s appointment, which he said has only “deepened” the country’s divisions since the election.
“By placing a champion of white supremacists a step away from the Oval Office, what message does Trump send to the young girl who woke up Wednesday morning in Rhode Island afraid to be a woman of color in America?” Reid said, speaking on the Senate floor.
Reid had previously lashed out at the businessman in a powerful statement last week that referred to the president-elect as “a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate”.
In response to his criticism, Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager and current transition team adviser, appeared to threaten legal action against Reid and warned that the Democrat should be “very careful” in his criticism of the president-elect.
But on Tuesday Paul Ryan, the House speaker who is attempting to overcome past disagreements with Trump, refused to condemn the appointment. “The president is going to be judged on his results,” he told reporters. “[Bannon] is a person who helped him win an incredible victory and an incredible campaign.
Ryan promised that Trump and a unified Republican Congress would mean that “a better way, better days lie ahead for our country”. He pledged to work “hand in glove” with the incoming administration.
The House speaker was on course to be re-elected by Republicans on Tuesday afternoon but House Democrats postponed leadership elections that had been scheduled for Thursday until 30 November amid signs of discontent with Pelosi.
Ongoing vote counts show Democrat Hillary Clinton pulling away from Trump in the popular vote, although he won the electoral college vote. Trump tweeted on Tuesday: “If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in NY, Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily.”
Despite previously labelling the electoral college a “disaster”, he tweeted that it was “actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!”
Trump’s inauguration will take place in Washington on 20 January.
Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino
|
www.theguardian.com
| 0left
|
GMKMVvuGL5tI5hDB
|
fiscal_cliff
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17/obama-gives-ground-on-tax-rates-in-latest-offer-as-boehner-office-calls-it/
|
Obama gives ground on taxes in latest offer, as Boehner's office calls it 'right direction'
|
2012-12-17
|
Both sides in the federal talks to avert a year-end fiscal crisis signaled late Monday that significant progress had been made , with sources saying President Obama had offered a higher threshold for tax rate increases and with House Speaker Boehner 's office calling it `` a step in the right direction . ''
The late-day developments followed a 45-minute meeting between Obama and Boehner at the White House , underscoring the seriousness of the talks as the deadline approaches for a deal to stop massive automatic spending cuts and tax hikes from kicking in at the start of the new year .
Obama 's most recent offer included $ 1.2 trillion in increased revenue over 10 years , with tax rate hikes on individual income above $ 400,000 , a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News . That would be a sharp departure from the president 's past stance against maintaining the existing low tax rates on any income above $ 200,000 , or $ 250,000 for couples . The latest offer would cut the deficit an estimated $ 2.4 trillion over a decade .
The two sides are getting close , but significant issues remain , a Republican source told Fox Business . They are said to have agreed to at least $ 1 trillion in spending cuts and at least $ 1 trillion in new revenue through a mix of tax rate increases on top incomes and tax code reform , though the details have yet to be worked out .
`` Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction , '' Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said , though he also criticized the specific mix of spending cuts and tax hikes Obama has proposed , saying it `` can not be considered balanced . ''
The speaker last week offered Obama a compromise by proposing a tax rate hike on those making over $ 1 million .
Raising the debt ceiling also is emerging a sticking point in negotiations , and indeed , a large part of the looming fiscal crisis stems from Congress ' past failure to agree upon an adequate deficit-reduction plan , as mandated by the previous deal to raise the debt ceiling .
The speaker 's office insists that Boehner will stand by his condition that the debt ceiling be raised only if Washington cuts spending by an amount greater than the increase .
Boehner 's office tried to assure conservatives on Sunday that he was not backing off his debt-ceiling demands , following a report in The Washington Post that he offered to push off any battle over the debt ceiling for another year .
Boehner and other Republicans have so far refused Obama 's demand that he be given the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants . At issue , though , appears to be whether to include a one-time increase in the debt ceiling as part of this deal . While Boehner may be offering to include an increase that lasts a year , Obama 's latest proposal called for a two-year extension .
Boehner is asking for $ 1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years from government benefit programs like Medicare , the federal health care program for the elderly . Those cuts would defer most of a painful set of across-the-board spending cuts set to slash many domestic programs and the defense budget by 8-9 percent , starting in January .
On the revenue side , Boehner 's offer calls for about $ 450 billion in revenue from increasing the top rate on million-dollar-plus income from 35 percent to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent . The additional revenue required to meet Boehner 's $ 1 trillion target would be collected through a rewrite of the tax code next year and by slowing the inflation adjustments made to tax brackets .
If no deal is reached , the Bush-era tax rates will expire , resulting in a significant tax hike on nearly all Americans next year .
Both sides are caught between the demands of the other , and their own parties . Many congressional Democrats want to raise taxes on households making more than $ 250,000 . Boehner 's offer marks a much higher threshold than they prefer .
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated Monday that Obama believes the only plan that achieves the `` balance '' Obama wants is the plan the president has put forward . Still , he said , Obama `` believes that a deal is possible . ''
Obama also faces opposition from many Democrats to any substantive cuts in Medicare .
For his part , Boehner faces another problem . Even if he extracts $ 1 trillion in spending cuts from the president , some Republicans are likely to see this as a trade-off for tax increases -- not a trade-off for a debt ceiling increase .
|
Both sides in the federal talks to avert a year-end fiscal crisis signaled late Monday that significant progress had been made, with sources saying President Obama had offered a higher threshold for tax rate increases and with House Speaker Boehner's office calling it "a step in the right direction."
The late-day developments followed a 45-minute meeting between Obama and Boehner at the White House, underscoring the seriousness of the talks as the deadline approaches for a deal to stop massive automatic spending cuts and tax hikes from kicking in at the start of the new year.
Obama's most recent offer included $1.2 trillion in increased revenue over 10 years, with tax rate hikes on individual income above $400,000, a source familiar with the negotiations told Fox News. That would be a sharp departure from the president's past stance against maintaining the existing low tax rates on any income above $200,000, or $250,000 for couples. The latest offer would cut the deficit an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade.
The two sides are getting close, but significant issues remain, a Republican source told Fox Business. They are said to have agreed to at least $1 trillion in spending cuts and at least $1 trillion in new revenue through a mix of tax rate increases on top incomes and tax code reform, though the details have yet to be worked out.
"Any movement away from the unrealistic offers the president has made previously is a step in the right direction," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said, though he also criticized the specific mix of spending cuts and tax hikes Obama has proposed, saying it "cannot be considered balanced."
The speaker last week offered Obama a compromise by proposing a tax rate hike on those making over $1 million.
Raising the debt ceiling also is emerging a sticking point in negotiations, and indeed, a large part of the looming fiscal crisis stems from Congress' past failure to agree upon an adequate deficit-reduction plan, as mandated by the previous deal to raise the debt ceiling.
The speaker's office insists that Boehner will stand by his condition that the debt ceiling be raised only if Washington cuts spending by an amount greater than the increase.
Boehner's office tried to assure conservatives on Sunday that he was not backing off his debt-ceiling demands, following a report in The Washington Post that he offered to push off any battle over the debt ceiling for another year.
Boehner's office called the story "highly misleading."
Boehner and other Republicans have so far refused Obama's demand that he be given the authority to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants. At issue, though, appears to be whether to include a one-time increase in the debt ceiling as part of this deal. While Boehner may be offering to include an increase that lasts a year, Obama's latest proposal called for a two-year extension.
Boehner is asking for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years from government benefit programs like Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly. Those cuts would defer most of a painful set of across-the-board spending cuts set to slash many domestic programs and the defense budget by 8-9 percent, starting in January.
On the revenue side, Boehner's offer calls for about $450 billion in revenue from increasing the top rate on million-dollar-plus income from 35 percent to the Clinton-era rate of 39.6 percent. The additional revenue required to meet Boehner's $1 trillion target would be collected through a rewrite of the tax code next year and by slowing the inflation adjustments made to tax brackets.
If no deal is reached, the Bush-era tax rates will expire, resulting in a significant tax hike on nearly all Americans next year.
Both sides are caught between the demands of the other, and their own parties. Many congressional Democrats want to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000. Boehner's offer marks a much higher threshold than they prefer.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated Monday that Obama believes the only plan that achieves the "balance" Obama wants is the plan the president has put forward. Still, he said, Obama "believes that a deal is possible."
Obama also faces opposition from many Democrats to any substantive cuts in Medicare.
For his part, Boehner faces another problem. Even if he extracts $1 trillion in spending cuts from the president, some Republicans are likely to see this as a trade-off for tax increases -- not a trade-off for a debt ceiling increase.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
xoDtSkyLg7TMqrjX
|
|
us_senate
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/21/democrats-end-senate-tradition-trigger-nuclear-opt/
|
Democrats end Senate tradition, trigger 'nuclear option' to ram through Obama?s judicial nominees
|
2013-11-21
|
Stephen Dinan, Jacqueline Klimas
|
Senate Democrats triggered the “ nuclear option ” Thursday , using a shortcut to undercut the chamber ’ s filibuster rules and giving President Obama a clear path to stack the federal judiciary with ideological allies .
In a tense 52-48 vote , Democrats overturned decades of precedent and reduced the number of votes needed to cut off the filibuster of a nominee from 60 to a simple majority — and in the process tinkering with a tool that has made the Senate unique .
Republicans were hinting at retaliation and said the move further poisoned the atmosphere on Capitol Hill .
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , Nevada Democrat , said he didn ’ t fear retaliation . He said he reached a tipping point after Republicans filibustered three of Mr. Obama ’ s nominees to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington , which is considered the second most important court in the country because it hears cases involving key federal agencies .
“ It ’ s time to change . It ’ s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete , ” Mr. Reid said as he pushed his colleagues to coalesce on the critical vote .
Indeed , it was a vote many of them — particularly the newer Democratic members — have been anticipating . Frustrated by Republicans ’ repeated ability to thwart Mr. Obama through the filibuster , they have been pushing Mr. Reid to limit filibusters of nominees and legislation .
The action , however , limits filibusters to nominees and doesn ’ t apply to Supreme Court picks , which Democrats deemed important enough to be subject to a 60-vote threshold .
Indeed , hours after the rules change , Republicans and Democrats filibustered the annual defense policy bill , saying they wanted to extend the debate to make sure their amendments get fair consideration .
Thirty-two senators , more than half of the 52 who voted for the rule change , have never served in a Republican-majority Senate . Of those , 11 took office in January and have not served for even a year in the chamber .
“ They don ’ t know what it ’ s like to be in the minority , so they want to have a majority that will ride roughshod over the wishes and views and input of the minority , ” Sen. John McCain , Arizona Republican , told reporters .
“ Now because of the partisanship and the new people who have never been in the minority , we are proving one thing , and that is , if the majority only can change the rules , then there are no rules , ” Mr. McCain said . “ That ’ s the lesson here . ”
Exactly how far Mr. Reid ’ s move reverberates will depend on Republicans . Even without a full filibuster , the minority has plenty of other tools to slow operations in the Senate .
The level of partisanship Thursday seemed to remain . Despite the heated floor speeches , Republicans and Democrats chatted amicably with one another on the floor , and the top lawmakers on various committees were talking through details .
At the White House , President Obama welcomed the change . As a senator , he regularly participated in filibusters , including when Democrats pioneered the blockade of judicial nominees under President George W. Bush .
But Mr. Obama said Republicans ’ use of the filibuster is worse .
“ It ’ s no longer used in a responsible way to govern . It ’ s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt . And that ’ s not what our founders intended , and it ’ s certainly not what our country needs right now , ” he said .
In the near term , the move will help speed through Mr. Obama ’ s nominees for chairman of the Federal Reserve and secretary of the Homeland Security Department .
Down the road , the changes could help Mr. Obama win confirmation on some of the more obscure but powerful federal boards that issue rules and decisions that make up much of the work of the federal government .
The timing of the vote struck Republicans as suspicious , particularly because the numbers show that Republicans have not filibustered many of Mr. Obama ’ s judicial picks .
Indeed , until the most recent push to put judges on the D.C. appeals court , Republicans had helped confirm 215 judges and filibustered just two .
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , Kentucky Republican , said Democrats are reeling from a disastrous rollout of Obamacare and needed to try to change the headlines .
“ There ’ s a lot of nervousness on the Democrat side . They ’ re in a panic about Obamacare . The majority leader is desperately trying to change the subject . We want to get back on the subject , ” Mr. McConnell said .
Three Democrats voted against the change : Michigan ’ s Carl Levin , Arkansas ’ Mark L. Pryor and West Virginia ’ s Joe Manchin III .
“ Today ’ s use of the ‘ nuclear option ’ could permanently damage the Senate and have negative ramifications for the American people , ” Mr. Pryor said . “ During my time in the Senate , I ’ ve played key roles in the Gang of 14 and other bipartisan coalitions to help us reach common-sense solutions that both sides of the aisle can support . This institution was designed to protect — not stamp out — the voices of the minority . ”
Mr. Reid ’ s move is known as the nuclear option because it requires complex parliamentary procedures and changing the rules in the middle of the session through a simple majority vote . The Senate usually must change its rules through a two-thirds vote , which is one way the chamber enforces comity — something that sets it apart from the partisan House of Representatives .
The new rules don ’ t technically end the filibuster , but they reduce the vote total needed to cut off a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority — the same level needed for confirmation .
The chamber still will have to abide by the time limits that accompany filibusters , which allow for up to 30 hours of debate once a filibuster has been defeated .
Senate Republicans came close to doing a similar sort of rules change in 2005 , when Democrats pioneered the practice of filibustering Mr. Bush ’ s appeals court nominees .
Republicans backed down when a bipartisan group emerged and settled on a gentleman ’ s agreement that headed off the rules change but preserved the right to filibuster .
|
Senate Democrats triggered the “nuclear option” Thursday, using a shortcut to undercut the chamber’s filibuster rules and giving President Obama a clear path to stack the federal judiciary with ideological allies.
In a tense 52-48 vote, Democrats overturned decades of precedent and reduced the number of votes needed to cut off the filibuster of a nominee from 60 to a simple majority — and in the process tinkering with a tool that has made the Senate unique.
Republicans were hinting at retaliation and said the move further poisoned the atmosphere on Capitol Hill.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he didn’t fear retaliation. He said he reached a tipping point after Republicans filibustered three of Mr. Obama’s nominees to serve on the federal appeals court in Washington, which is considered the second most important court in the country because it hears cases involving key federal agencies.
“It’s time to change. It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Mr. Reid said as he pushed his colleagues to coalesce on the critical vote.
Indeed, it was a vote many of them — particularly the newer Democratic members — have been anticipating. Frustrated by Republicans’ repeated ability to thwart Mr. Obama through the filibuster, they have been pushing Mr. Reid to limit filibusters of nominees and legislation.
The action, however, limits filibusters to nominees and doesn’t apply to Supreme Court picks, which Democrats deemed important enough to be subject to a 60-vote threshold.
Indeed, hours after the rules change, Republicans and Democrats filibustered the annual defense policy bill, saying they wanted to extend the debate to make sure their amendments get fair consideration.
Thirty-two senators, more than half of the 52 who voted for the rule change, have never served in a Republican-majority Senate. Of those, 11 took office in January and have not served for even a year in the chamber.
“They don’t know what it’s like to be in the minority, so they want to have a majority that will ride roughshod over the wishes and views and input of the minority,” Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, told reporters.
“Now because of the partisanship and the new people who have never been in the minority, we are proving one thing, and that is, if the majority only can change the rules, then there are no rules,” Mr. McCain said. “That’s the lesson here.”
Exactly how far Mr. Reid’s move reverberates will depend on Republicans. Even without a full filibuster, the minority has plenty of other tools to slow operations in the Senate.
The level of partisanship Thursday seemed to remain. Despite the heated floor speeches, Republicans and Democrats chatted amicably with one another on the floor, and the top lawmakers on various committees were talking through details.
At the White House, President Obama welcomed the change. As a senator, he regularly participated in filibusters, including when Democrats pioneered the blockade of judicial nominees under President George W. Bush.
But Mr. Obama said Republicans’ use of the filibuster is worse.
“It’s no longer used in a responsible way to govern. It’s rather used as a reckless and relentless tool to grind all business to a halt. And that’s not what our founders intended, and it’s certainly not what our country needs right now,” he said.
In the near term, the move will help speed through Mr. Obama’s nominees for chairman of the Federal Reserve and secretary of the Homeland Security Department.
Down the road, the changes could help Mr. Obama win confirmation on some of the more obscure but powerful federal boards that issue rules and decisions that make up much of the work of the federal government.
The timing of the vote struck Republicans as suspicious, particularly because the numbers show that Republicans have not filibustered many of Mr. Obama’s judicial picks.
Indeed, until the most recent push to put judges on the D.C. appeals court, Republicans had helped confirm 215 judges and filibustered just two.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said Democrats are reeling from a disastrous rollout of Obamacare and needed to try to change the headlines.
“There’s a lot of nervousness on the Democrat side. They’re in a panic about Obamacare. The majority leader is desperately trying to change the subject. We want to get back on the subject,” Mr. McConnell said.
Three Democrats voted against the change: Michigan’s Carl Levin, Arkansas’ Mark L. Pryor and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III.
“Today’s use of the ‘nuclear option’ could permanently damage the Senate and have negative ramifications for the American people,” Mr. Pryor said. “During my time in the Senate, I’ve played key roles in the Gang of 14 and other bipartisan coalitions to help us reach common-sense solutions that both sides of the aisle can support. This institution was designed to protect — not stamp out — the voices of the minority.”
Mr. Reid’s move is known as the nuclear option because it requires complex parliamentary procedures and changing the rules in the middle of the session through a simple majority vote. The Senate usually must change its rules through a two-thirds vote, which is one way the chamber enforces comity — something that sets it apart from the partisan House of Representatives.
The new rules don’t technically end the filibuster, but they reduce the vote total needed to cut off a filibuster from 60 to a simple majority — the same level needed for confirmation.
The chamber still will have to abide by the time limits that accompany filibusters, which allow for up to 30 hours of debate once a filibuster has been defeated.
Senate Republicans came close to doing a similar sort of rules change in 2005, when Democrats pioneered the practice of filibustering Mr. Bush’s appeals court nominees.
Republicans backed down when a bipartisan group emerged and settled on a gentleman’s agreement that headed off the rules change but preserved the right to filibuster.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
L4Ytw4BxD1GzHUaa
|
economy_and_jobs
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN18T0BT
|
U.S. job growth slows; unemployment rate drops to 4.3 percent
|
2017-06-02
|
Lucia Mutikani
|
WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - U.S. job growth slowed in May and employment gains in the prior two months were not as strong as previously reported , suggesting the labor market was losing momentum despite the unemployment rate falling to a 16-year low of 4.3 percent .
Nonfarm payrolls increased 138,000 last month as the manufacturing , government and retail sectors lost jobs , the Labor Department said on Friday . The economy created 66,000 fewer jobs than previously reported in March and April .
Last month ’ s job gains could still be sufficient for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at its June 13-14 policy meeting . The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population .
“ While the message was a little muddied today , the evidence generally suggests the labor market is cyclically tightening , and the Fed will need to continue to lean against that , ” said Michael Feroli , an economist at JPMorgan in New York .
“ We still believe it is very likely that the Fed will hike later this month . Perhaps more in question is the signal coming out of that meeting regarding subsequent hikes . ”
Details of the employment report were weak . Though the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percentage point to its lowest level since May 2001 , that was because 429,000 people dropped out of the labor force .
The survey of households from which the unemployment rate is derived also showed a drop in employment . The jobless rate has declined five-tenths of a percentage point this year .
Average hourly earnings rose 4 cents or 0.2 percent in May after a similar gain in April , leaving the year-on-year increase in wages at 2.5 percent .
Job growth has decelerated from the 181,000 monthly average over the past 12 months as the labor market nears full employment . There is growing anecdotal evidence of companies struggling to find qualified workers .
Economists also believe that companies might be holding off hiring amid worries political scandals engulfing President Donald Trump could imperil his economic agenda , including tax cuts and infrastructure spending .
“ Political uncertainty in Washington is another factor holding back the job market , ” said Sung Won Sohn , an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo . “ The probability that any of the Trump stimulus would become reality has decreased significantly in recent weeks . ”
Economists had forecast payrolls increasing 185,000 last month and the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.4 percent .
The Fed raised interest rates in March . A ███ survey of banks that do business directly with the Fed , conducted after the employment report , showed all 18 primary dealers polled expected the U.S. central bank to raise rates this month .
Ten forecast further monetary policy tightening in September and only six saw a rate hike in December .
The dollar hit a seven-month low against a basket of currencies on the diminishing rate hike prospects in the second half of the year . Long-dated U.S. Treasury yields fell to nearly seven-month lows , and short-dated yields touched their lowest in more than two weeks . U.S. stocks closed at new highs . [ MKTS/GLOB ]
The modest payrolls gain could temper expectations of a sharp acceleration in economic growth in the second quarter after gross domestic product increased at a tepid 1.2 percent annualized rate at the start of the year .
While consumer spending picked up in April , a second report on Friday showed the trade deficit widening 5.2 percent to $ 47.6 billion . The Atlanta Fed is forecasting GDP increasing at a 3.4 percent pace in the second quarter .
There was some good news in the employment report . A broad measure of unemployment , which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they can not find full-time employment , fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 8.4 percent , the lowest since November 2007 .
As a result , the spread between the jobless rate and this broad unemployment gauge , considered a better measure of labor market slack , was the smallest since early 2008 .
But the labor force participation rate , or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job , fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 62.7 percent . The volatile 16-24 age group accounted for much of the drop in the participation rate last month , suggesting a rebound is likely .
Manufacturing employment fell by 1,000 jobs last month as payrolls in the automobile sector dropped 1,500 amid declining sales . Ford Motor Co ( F.N ) said last month it planned to cut 1,400 salaried jobs in North America and Asia through voluntary early retirement and other financial incentives .
FILE PHOTO - People wait in line to attend TechFair LA , a technology job fair , in Los Angeles , California , U.S. on January 26 , 2017 . ███/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo
Construction payrolls rose 11,000 last month after decreasing by 1,000 jobs in April . Retail employment fell 6,100 , declining for a fourth straight month , with department stores shedding 3,700 jobs .
Department store chains like J.C. Penney Co Inc ( JCP.N ) , Macy ’ s Inc ( M.N ) and Abercrombie & Fitch ( ANF.N ) are struggling against stiff competition from online retailers led by Amazon ( AMZN.O ) . Nonstore retailers , including online merchants , hired 2,900 workers last month .
Government employment decreased 9,000 last month , with state and local governments accounting for all the decrease .
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. job growth slowed in May and employment gains in the prior two months were not as strong as previously reported, suggesting the labor market was losing momentum despite the unemployment rate falling to a 16-year low of 4.3 percent.
Nonfarm payrolls increased 138,000 last month as the manufacturing, government and retail sectors lost jobs, the Labor Department said on Friday. The economy created 66,000 fewer jobs than previously reported in March and April.
Last month’s job gains could still be sufficient for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at its June 13-14 policy meeting. The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population.
“While the message was a little muddied today, the evidence generally suggests the labor market is cyclically tightening, and the Fed will need to continue to lean against that,” said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan in New York.
“We still believe it is very likely that the Fed will hike later this month. Perhaps more in question is the signal coming out of that meeting regarding subsequent hikes.”
Details of the employment report were weak. Though the unemployment rate fell one-tenth of a percentage point to its lowest level since May 2001, that was because 429,000 people dropped out of the labor force.
The survey of households from which the unemployment rate is derived also showed a drop in employment. The jobless rate has declined five-tenths of a percentage point this year.
Average hourly earnings rose 4 cents or 0.2 percent in May after a similar gain in April, leaving the year-on-year increase in wages at 2.5 percent.
Job growth has decelerated from the 181,000 monthly average over the past 12 months as the labor market nears full employment. There is growing anecdotal evidence of companies struggling to find qualified workers.
Economists also believe that companies might be holding off hiring amid worries political scandals engulfing President Donald Trump could imperil his economic agenda, including tax cuts and infrastructure spending.
“Political uncertainty in Washington is another factor holding back the job market,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands in Camarillo. “The probability that any of the Trump stimulus would become reality has decreased significantly in recent weeks.”
Economists had forecast payrolls increasing 185,000 last month and the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.4 percent.
The Fed raised interest rates in March. A Reuters survey of banks that do business directly with the Fed, conducted after the employment report, showed all 18 primary dealers polled expected the U.S. central bank to raise rates this month.
Ten forecast further monetary policy tightening in September and only six saw a rate hike in December.
The dollar hit a seven-month low against a basket of currencies on the diminishing rate hike prospects in the second half of the year. Long-dated U.S. Treasury yields fell to nearly seven-month lows, and short-dated yields touched their lowest in more than two weeks. U.S. stocks closed at new highs.[MKTS/GLOB]
SHRINKING LABOR MARKET SLACK
The modest payrolls gain could temper expectations of a sharp acceleration in economic growth in the second quarter after gross domestic product increased at a tepid 1.2 percent annualized rate at the start of the year.
While consumer spending picked up in April, a second report on Friday showed the trade deficit widening 5.2 percent to $47.6 billion. The Atlanta Fed is forecasting GDP increasing at a 3.4 percent pace in the second quarter.
There was some good news in the employment report. A broad measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part-time because they cannot find full-time employment, fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 8.4 percent, the lowest since November 2007.
As a result, the spread between the jobless rate and this broad unemployment gauge, considered a better measure of labor market slack, was the smallest since early 2008.
But the labor force participation rate, or the share of working-age Americans who are employed or at least looking for a job, fell two-tenths of a percentage point to 62.7 percent. The volatile 16-24 age group accounted for much of the drop in the participation rate last month, suggesting a rebound is likely.
Manufacturing employment fell by 1,000 jobs last month as payrolls in the automobile sector dropped 1,500 amid declining sales. Ford Motor Co (F.N) said last month it planned to cut 1,400 salaried jobs in North America and Asia through voluntary early retirement and other financial incentives.
FILE PHOTO - People wait in line to attend TechFair LA, a technology job fair, in Los Angeles, California, U.S. on January 26, 2017. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson/File Photo
Construction payrolls rose 11,000 last month after decreasing by 1,000 jobs in April. Retail employment fell 6,100, declining for a fourth straight month, with department stores shedding 3,700 jobs.
Department store chains like J.C. Penney Co Inc (JCP.N), Macy’s Inc (M.N) and Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF.N) are struggling against stiff competition from online retailers led by Amazon (AMZN.O). Nonstore retailers, including online merchants, hired 2,900 workers last month.
Government employment decreased 9,000 last month, with state and local governments accounting for all the decrease.
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
zsJXNAq7YPlOrW61
|
us_house
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doug-collins-calls-house-vote-to-make-mueller-report-public-a-democrat-political-stunt
|
Doug Collins: House vote to make Mueller report public a failed stunt by Dems
|
Frank Miles
|
The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee , Georgia Rep. Doug Collins , voted for the resolution calling for any final report in Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s Russia investigation to be made public , but told Fox News on Sunday it was unnecessary .
“ It was a political stunt by the Democrats who felt that they could divide Republicans into voting no upon it because at the end of the day after I looked at it , when they dropped it … they said this is nothing but simply a first-year law student ’ s restatement of what the regular regulations say that Mr. ( Attorney General William ) Barr is going to have to do , ” he said on “ Sunday Morning Futures ” with Maria Bartiromo .
The House voted unanimously Thursday for the resolution , a symbolic action designed to urge Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the investigation is concluded .
The Democratic-backed resolution , which passed 420-0 , comes as Mueller appears to be nearing an end to his investigation . Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side .
Four Republicans voted present : Michigan Rep. Justin Amash , Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz , Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie .
The nonbinding House resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr , with an exception for classified material . The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress .
“ We know and you know , as you said earlier , that there 's not going to be collusion here . This is where it is going to be … very hard for the Democrats . All this was . Do n't be fooled by this . This was simply a stunt because they thought they could divide Republicans to make us look bad as not being transparent , ” Collins said Sunday . “ I have no problem being transparent with what we see is coming forward , and it 's within the regulation to say that this was nothing more than a political stunt . ”
“ This is the sad part we 're at right now , Maria , ” he told Bartiromo . “ They have no agenda , they have nothing that they can actually put on the floor , so they wasted an entire week of the American taxpayers ’ dollar to actually put a report on the floor that said nothing , basically except the same thing the regulations say that Mr. Barr needs to do so . ”
President Trump tweeted Saturday : “ I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency . Makes us all look good and doesn ’ t matter . Play along with the game ! ”
It ’ s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia , and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see . Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr , and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly .
Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he took seriously the department regulations that said Mueller ’ s report should be confidential . Those regulations required only that the report explain decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions , which could be as simple as a bullet-point list or as lengthy as a report running hundreds of pages .
“ I don ’ t know what , at the end of the day , what will be releasable . I don ’ t know what Bob Mueller is writing , ” Barr said at the hearing .
Democrats said they were unsatisfied with Barr ’ s answers and wanted a stronger commitment to releasing the full report , along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence .
Republicans have agreed — to a point . In making an argument for transparency , Republican leaders have pointed to Barr ’ s comments and the existing regulations , without explicitly pressing for the underlying evidence .
Collins concluded Sunday to Bartiromo : “ We just call their bluff , and just say , fine we can vote for this , because this is actually what Bill Barr said he is going to do . Why are we wasting the American people 's time ? ”
|
The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, voted for the resolution calling for any final report in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation to be made public, but told Fox News on Sunday it was unnecessary.
“It was a political stunt by the Democrats who felt that they could divide Republicans into voting no upon it because at the end of the day after I looked at it, when they dropped it … they said this is nothing but simply a first-year law student’s restatement of what the regular regulations say that Mr. (Attorney General William) Barr is going to have to do,” he said on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo.
The House voted unanimously Thursday for the resolution, a symbolic action designed to urge Barr into releasing as much information as possible when the investigation is concluded.
The Democratic-backed resolution, which passed 420-0, comes as Mueller appears to be nearing an end to his investigation. Lawmakers in both parties have maintained there will have to be some sort of public resolution when the report is done — and privately hope that a report shows conclusions that are favorable to their own side.
Four Republicans voted present: Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
The nonbinding House resolution calls for the public release of any report Mueller provides to Barr, with an exception for classified material. The resolution also calls for the full report to be released to Congress.
“We know and you know, as you said earlier, that there's not going to be collusion here. This is where it is going to be … very hard for the Democrats. All this was. Don't be fooled by this. This was simply a stunt because they thought they could divide Republicans to make us look bad as not being transparent,” Collins said Sunday. “I have no problem being transparent with what we see is coming forward, and it's within the regulation to say that this was nothing more than a political stunt.”
He called the resolution an act of nothingness.
“This is the sad part we're at right now, Maria,” he told Bartiromo. “They have no agenda, they have nothing that they can actually put on the floor, so they wasted an entire week of the American taxpayers’ dollar to actually put a report on the floor that said nothing, basically except the same thing the regulations say that Mr. Barr needs to do so.”
WORLD LEADERS INCLUDING TRUMP ANGERED BY NEW ZEALAND VIOLENCE
President Trump tweeted Saturday: “I told leadership to let all Republicans vote for transparency. Makes us all look good and doesn’t matter. Play along with the game!”
It’s unclear exactly what documentation will be produced at the end of the probe into possible coordination between Trump associates and Russia, and how much of that the Justice Department will allow people to see. Mueller is required to submit a report to Barr, and then Barr can decide how much of that is released publicly.
Barr said at his confirmation hearing in January that he took seriously the department regulations that said Mueller’s report should be confidential. Those regulations required only that the report explain decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions, which could be as simple as a bullet-point list or as lengthy as a report running hundreds of pages.
“I don’t know what, at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don’t know what Bob Mueller is writing,” Barr said at the hearing.
Democrats said they were unsatisfied with Barr’s answers and wanted a stronger commitment to releasing the full report, along with interview transcripts and other underlying evidence.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Republicans have agreed — to a point. In making an argument for transparency, Republican leaders have pointed to Barr’s comments and the existing regulations, without explicitly pressing for the underlying evidence.
Collins concluded Sunday to Bartiromo: “We just call their bluff, and just say, fine we can vote for this, because this is actually what Bill Barr said he is going to do. Why are we wasting the American people's time?”
Fox Business Network's Maria Bartiromo and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
VuDQFk8j5CnQWwzK
|
|
healthcare
|
Michelle Malkin
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/09/25/obama-lied-my-health-plan-died-n1708856
|
Michelle Malkin - Obama Lied, My Health Plan Died
|
2013-09-25
|
"Cortney OBrien", Julio Rosas, Guy Benson, Timothy Meads
|
Like an estimated 22 million other Americans , I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market . We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors .
Last week , our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of `` changes from health care reform ( also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA ) . '' The letter informed us that `` ( t ) o meet the requirements of the new laws , your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date . ''
Remember ? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised : `` If you like your doctor , you will be able to keep your doctor . Period . If you like your health care plan , you will be able to keep your health care plan . Period . No one will take it away . No matter what . ''
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , also lied when she pledged : `` Keep your doctor , and your current plan , if you like them . ''
This is n't just partisan business . It 's personal . Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is `` not going to be selling new individual PPO plans . '' When we asked whether we could keep our children 's doctors , an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she did n't know . The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they 'll be offering . We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime ( launching October 1 ) , a severely limited HMO plan , or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer . If they even exist .
My family is not alone . Across the country , insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market . Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases :
Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state : `` 63 percent jump , old policy of 15 yrs . cancelled . '' Karen J. Dugan wrote : `` Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business . Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down . '' Chris Birk wrote : `` Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant . New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage . '' Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added : `` I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan . ''
Few among Washington 's protected political class are paying attention , because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare 's destructive consequences . But one of my state 's congressional representatives , GOP Rep. Cory Gardner , also lost his individual market plan . Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill , Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program . He told me that he opted to participate in the private market `` because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents . And now that boat is sinking ! ''
Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado . `` After my current plan is discontinued , '' he wrote last week , `` the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more , going from roughly $ 650 a month to $ 1,480 per month . '' He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats ' ultimate deception .
Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent . The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide . One of the reasons for those rate hikes , of course , is that Obamacare 's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo .
Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices . This includes a whole class of musicians , photographers , artists , writers , actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations . As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard , groups like the College Art Association , Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans . Young , healthy members of these groups `` are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties . ''
Thanks to Obama , access is down . Premiums and health care spending are up . Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down . Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies , according to Investor 's Business Daily . And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims .
Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design , not accident . For hundreds of thousands , if not millions , of self-employed job creators , three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama 's growing nose : 1 ) You ca n't keep it . 2 ) We 're screwed . 3 ) The do-gooders do n't care .
|
Like an estimated 22 million other Americans, I am a self-employed small-business owner who buys health insurance for my family directly on the individual market. We have a high-deductible PPO plan that allows us to choose from a wide range of doctors.
Or rather, we had such a plan.
Last week, our family received notice from Anthem BlueCross BlueShield of Colorado that we can no longer keep the plan we like because of "changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA)." The letter informed us that "(t)o meet the requirements of the new laws, your current plan can no longer be continued beyond your 2014 renewal date."
In short: Obama lied. My health plan died.
Remember? Our president looked America straight in the eye and promised: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also lied when she pledged: "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."
This isn't just partisan business. It's personal. Our cancellation letter states that Anthem is "not going to be selling new individual PPO plans." When we asked whether we could keep our children's doctors, an agent for Anthem told my husband and me she didn't know. The insurer has no details available yet on what exactly they'll be offering. We either will be herded into the Obamacare federal health insurance exchange regime (launching October 1), a severely limited HMO plan, or presented with costlier alternatives from another insurer. If they even exist.
My family is not alone. Across the country, insurers are sending out Obamacare-induced health plan death notices to untold tens of thousands of other customers in the individual market. Twitter users are posting their Obamacare cancellation notices and accompanying rate increases:
Linda Deright posted her letter from Regency of Washington state: "63 percent jump, old policy of 15 yrs. cancelled." Karen J. Dugan wrote: "Received same notice from Blue Shield CA for our small business. Driving into exchange and no info since online site is down." Chris Birk wrote: "Got notice from BCBS that my current health plan is not ACA compliant. New plan 2x as costly for worse coverage." Small-business owner Villi Wilson posted his letter from HMSA Blue Cross Blue Shield canceling his individual plan and added: "I thought Obama said if I like my health care plan I can keep my health care plan."
Few among Washington's protected political class are paying attention, because they enjoy their lucrative government benefits and are exempted from Obamacare's destructive consequences. But one of my state's congressional representatives, GOP Rep. Cory Gardner, also lost his individual market plan. Unlike most politicians on Capitol Hill, Gardner chose not to enroll in the federal health insurance program. He told me that he opted to participate in the private market "because I wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents. And now that boat is sinking!"
Gardner points to recent analysis showing individual market rate increases of 23 percent to 25 percent in Colorado. "After my current plan is discontinued," he wrote last week, "the closest comparable plan through our current provider will cost over 100 percent more, going from roughly $650 a month to $1,480 per month." He now carries his Obamacare cancellation notice with him as hardcore proof of the Democrats' ultimate deception.
Maryland announced that its post-Obamacare individual market rates could also rise by a whopping 25 percent. The National Association for the Self-Employed is recommending that its small-business owners and freelancers plan for at least a 15 percent increase nationwide. One of the reasons for those rate hikes, of course, is that Obamacare's mandated benefits provisions force insurers to carry coverage for items that individual market consumers had deliberately chosen to forgo.
Americans who had opted for affordable catastrophic coverage-style plans now have fewer and fewer choices. This includes a whole class of musicians, photographers, artists, writers, actors and other creative people who purchased health plans through the individual market or through small professional organizations. As St. Vincent College arts professor Ben Schachter reports in the Weekly Standard, groups like the College Art Association, Modern Language Association and the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust are dropping their plans. Young, healthy members of these groups "are far more likely to see their rates go up -- or to face the individual mandate penalties."
Thanks to Obama, access is down. Premiums and health care spending are up. Research and development on lifesaving drugs and medical devices are down. Hours and benefits have been cut because of Obamacare costs and regulatory burdens by at least 300 American companies, according to Investor's Business Daily. And the Obamacare layoff bomb continues to claim victims.
Obamacare is destroying the private individual market for health insurance by design, not accident. For hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of self-employed job creators, three fundamental Obamacare truths are becoming as clear as Obama's growing nose: 1) You can't keep it. 2) We're screwed. 3) The do-gooders don't care.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
Z01cEtZh8zw0Pg25
|
politics
|
Michael Brendan Dougherty
| 22
|
http://theweek.com/articles/569184/astonishing-weakness-hillary-clinton
|
The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton
|
2015-07-31
|
Joel Mathis, Allan Ripp, Brendan Morrow
|
Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been . Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent . Her campaign is already heading south , even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign , both Democratic and Republican .
Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat . Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns , but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition . Martin O'Malley 's record , shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse , has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says , `` All Lives Matter . '' Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them .
Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions , Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform , while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue . She can run against Trump on immigration , against Huckabee on social issues , against Walker on foreign policy .
But it 's an opportunity that she has so far passed over . Perhaps she does n't want to get bogged down in actual policy details , always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details .
Still , it means that the entirety of Clinton 's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name , and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another . In the first category , she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband . She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was , according to Clinton , rooted in timeless religious principles . She has joined the new gender politics , despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband 's mistresses . Calling Bill 's pump-and-dump paramours `` trailer trash '' and `` narcissistic loony tunes '' is understandable in my own view , but considered impolitic today .
Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election . This ca n't be repeated enough . She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000 . And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006 . In her first competitive race , the 2008 Democratic presidential primary , she began as a heavy favorite and she lost .
What has she done to improve her chances in that time ? She 's aged well , I guess . And she served without distinction as secretary of state . The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya , which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS . In turn , Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her .
She has high name-recognition . Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans . She has the Obama coalition , and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups . But boy , it all seems underwhelming . What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era ? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission ?
After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care , the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman , what are the Democrats to do ? Are they pro-globalization ? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years ? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class ? Are they for reforming any of America 's major institutions ?
Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment . The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality . The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs . The `` Smart Power '' leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush . A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern . The wife of a man who flies on the `` Lolita Express '' with a porn star that was booked for `` massages . '' The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor .
Is this really the best the Democrats can do ? Yes , and that should worry them .
|
ADVERTISEMENT
Hillary Clinton is as unpopular as she ever has been. Her favorability ratings have fallen to just 40 percent. Her campaign is already heading south, even though she has serious advantages over everyone else in the campaign, both Democratic and Republican.
Her opponents in the Democratic field do not pose a plausible mathematical threat. Bernie Sanders can attract huge crowds in college towns, but he is going nowhere with the African-American voters who would be key to building an anti-Clinton Democratic primary coalition. Martin O'Malley's record, shaped by his transition from the Baltimore mayoralty to the Maryland statehouse, has made him radioactive to an activist Democratic base that wants criminal justice reform and that winces when a politician like him says, "All Lives Matter." Clinton is thus free to define her agenda apart from them.
Because the Republican field is startlingly unanimous in its positions, Clinton has the opportunity of running against a coherent platform, while picking out its weakest spokesperson on every individual issue. She can run against Trump on immigration, against Huckabee on social issues, against Walker on foreign policy.
But it's an opportunity that she has so far passed over. Perhaps she doesn't want to get bogged down in actual policy details, always unpopular with an electorate that grows fat on cliché but retches at details.
Still, it means that the entirety of Clinton's campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband's mistresses. Calling Bill's pump-and-dump paramours "trailer trash" and "narcissistic loony tunes" is understandable in my own view, but considered impolitic today.
Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can't be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost.
What has she done to improve her chances in that time? She's aged well, I guess. And she served without distinction as secretary of state. The most notable addition to her CV was her strenuous support of military intervention in Libya, which has left that nation in ruins and vulnerable to ISIS. In turn, Libya has left Clinton with a new scandal about her home-brew email server and the deletion of thousands of emails that congressional oversight might have used against her.
She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans. She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission?
After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America's major institutions?
Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.
Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them.
|
www.theweek.com
| 1right
|
L1ea9jIQS3xtXwbJ
|
media_bias
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/07/normalizing_trump_demonizing_hillary_the_medias_shameful_strategy_for_the_2016_election/
|
Normalizing Trump, demonizing Hillary: The media’s shameful strategy
|
2016-06-07
|
One of the most vexing challenges of the Trump phenomenon is how the press should deal with it . There 's never been anything quite like it and journalism is having to try to navigate this campaign as the rules are being rewritten on the fly . Back in the beginning , The Huffington Post had tried to keep the whole thing in perspective by relegating the campaign to their entertainment pages but eventually had to move it back to the politics section when it became clear that Republican voters were actually taking Trump seriously . Today they cover him like a normal politician but append a standard disclaimer at the end of their articles about him pointing out that he 's an extremist with noxious views .
Trump has brought the tabloids into the race already , with his good friend David Pecker , the publisher of the National Enquirer , helpfully providing smears of his rival Ted Cruz during the primary . Now Pecker has hired notorious Clinton hater Dick Morris as the Enquirer 's chief political correspondent so it 's likely Trump will be fed a steady diet of tabloid tid-bits which he will undoubtedly share with his adoring fans . So far , the mainstream media has resisted the temptation to run with Clinton gossip stories mainly because there 's so much coming over the transom about Trump . But they are out there and are likely to seep into the coverage as the Hillary smear industry gets up and running . There 's nothing new in that but Trump is a master of tabloid media so we can probably expect this to play a different role than it has in the past .
TV news organizations , meanwhile , have been notorious for allowing Trump to flout their rules . They happily let him call in rather than appear on camera and give him hours of airtime in the hope that he 'll say something news worthy which , to be honest , he often does . His lies and reversals are so constant and so blatant that reporters seem to be almost paralyzed as he slithers and slides out of their grasp . He is sui generis and nobody knows quite what to do about it .
Media critics have been weighing in recently as the situation has become acute . NPR 's `` On the Media '' correspondent Bob Garfield has been particularly vociferous lately imploring the media to recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses to America . In this column he takes them to task for covering the Trump candidacy `` like a bemused recap of House of Cards . '' He wrote :
The rapacious CBS Chairman Les Moonves and the cable-newslike channels are delighted at the spectacle ; disaster is always great for ratings . But this is not a show , to be consumed and titillated by and parsed . It is a conflagration of hatred and authoritarianism on its way to consuming us , or at least that which makes us us . Trumpism is raging out of control and the Fourth Estate responds how ? By going through the motions . The usual false balance . The usual staged cable bickering . The usual dry contextual analysis . The usual intermittent truth-squading to garnish our careless daily servings of uncontested hate speech , incitement and manifest lies . The usual reluctance to “ be part of the story ” -- which , in fact , we are inextricably part of because we in large measure created it by giving oxygen to his every incendiary outrage and being our soundbitten , compulsively enabling selves ... [ the ] reflexive focus on the latest development , the political ebb and flow and the architecture of the coming election simply buries the lede -- that the man is monstrously unfit and un-American -- and normalizes the grossly , tragically abnormal .
And then he tells them what he really thinks which is that they are falling into the trap of false equivalence between the parties , fear of right-wing pressure and a reluctance to call a fascist a fascist .
Margaret Sullivan , former NY Times ombudsman and current media columnist for The Washington Post has similar concerns , particularly the notion that the media is pursuing a `` false equivalence '' rather than simple truth-telling :
[ T ] his perceived need to push for “ fairness ” for Trump — as if he has been mistreated or put at a disadvantage — baffles me . Trump gets far more media attention than other candidates , if only because he says such outrageous things , commanding the daily news cycle over and over . [ ... ] Wayne Barrett , the investigative reporter who has been covering Trump for 40 years ( and whose reporting brought about Trump ’ s first federal grand jury investigation ) told me in an interview : “ The great failing is not in print media . But the campaigns occur on the screen. ” ... Many hard-hitting stories from the New York Times , The Washington Post , the Daily Beast and elsewhere have received little follow-up on TV — “ not one minute of air time that I ’ ve seen ” — but the slightest hint of a new angle on Hillary Clinton ’ s email practices can occupy most of a news cycle . ( An exception was TV ’ s attention , last week , to complaints about Trump University . ) Jay Rosen , the New York University professor and author of the PressThink blog , is concerned about how this concept of fairness might play out . “ Does it mean ‘ we can ’ t take sides , ’ or does it mean ‘ let ’ s treat unequal things equally ’ ? ” The latter , which he called “ distortion toward the middle , ” ought to be prevented , he said .
The Nation 's Eric Alterman wrote about the print media 's propensity for false equivalence as well , focusing particularly on the New York Times :
From the earliest days of this campaign , Times reporters have been transparently eager to blame “ both sides , ” often regardless of circumstance . Last November , Times reporter Michael Barbaro devoted a lengthy article to the GOP candidates ’ most brazen lies , albeit one filled with euphemisms for the word “ lie. ” Carly Fiorina “ refused ” to back down from a story about Planned Parenthood that was “ roundly disputed , ” he wrote . Ben Carson “ harshly turned the questions ” about inconsistencies in his life story “ back on the reporters who asked them. ” Donald Trump “ utters plenty of refutable claims ” and “ set the tone for the embroidery ” by creating “ an entirely new category of overstatement in American politics. ” But guess what ? “ The tendency to bend facts is bipartisan. ” How do we know ? Well , Gary Hart and Bill Clinton chose not to confess their infidelities to the nation during election cycles that took place a generation ago . And apparently Hillary Clinton once mistakenly described herself as being the granddaughter of four immigrants when , in fact , her paternal grandmother was born shortly after her family arrived in the United States—an error she quickly corrected . Barbaro also found Clinton ’ s explanations about her personal and State Department e-mail accounts to be unsatisfactory . He wrote that she had “ used multiple devices , like an iPad , to read and send e-mail , ” even though she ’ d said she “ preferred ” to read them all on a single device . He failed to note that the iPad didn ’ t even exist when Clinton set up her e-mail account , nor did he explain why expressing a preference counts as bending the truth
Here is an example of false equivalence from just this week . Nobody has done more to probe Donald Trump 's noxious views than CNN 's Jake Tapper . His grilling of the candidate over his bigoted comments about the federal judge overseeing his Trump University lawsuit in California was as good as it gets and he received many kudos for his aggressive journalism .
He continued to report on Trump on his show Monday but also featured this harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton in which he lambasted the State Department 's stated inability to release emails pertaining to her work on the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal to reporter David Sirota until after the election . He took on a very aggressive tone , editorializing about the importance of releasing this important information when people are deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump . However , he notes that while Clinton was President Obama 's Secretary of State she openly advocated for the deal in glowing terms , even calling it the `` gold standard '' , facts which have been known for years and have been well hashed out on the campaign trail and in the debates with Bernie Sanders . Now she says she has changed her mind and is against the deal . Politifact called it a flip-flop .
So what exactly do they think they will learn about her position that they do n't already know ? Maybe she was more involved than she says she was , which would be interesting , but somewhat meaningless since we know she advocated strongly for it all over the world . In the end , you either believe she 's really changed her mind or you do n't and these documents from years ago will not shed any new light on that . And yet the implication was that Clinton was up to something nefarious with those `` damn emails '' again .
I do n't mean to pick on Tapper . He 's a great journalist , one of the best on cable news . The temptation to try to `` even things out '' with this sort of coverage has to be overwhelming when a personality like Trump dominates the coverage the way he does . It must feel to a straight mainstream journalist as if they 're piling on him every day and it looks like they 're being partisan and unfair . Certainly the right wing is accusing them of that non-stop -- - as they have been for more than 30 years .
But the result of this `` distortion toward the middle '' as Jay Rosen calls it , has the perverse effect of normalizing Trump and pathologizing Clinton in a way that equalizes them to Trump 's advantage . There is no equivalence between them . He is an unqualified , unfit , unhinged authoritarian demagogue and she is a mainstream Democratic party politician . Let 's hope the press listens to some of these critics and does a serious gut check whenever they are tempted to `` balance '' the coverage in this election by going easy on Trump and hard on Clinton . It 's dangerous .
|
One of the most vexing challenges of the Trump phenomenon is how the press should deal with it. There's never been anything quite like it and journalism is having to try to navigate this campaign as the rules are being rewritten on the fly. Back in the beginning, The Huffington Post had tried to keep the whole thing in perspective by relegating the campaign to their entertainment pages but eventually had to move it back to the politics section when it became clear that Republican voters were actually taking Trump seriously. Today they cover him like a normal politician but append a standard disclaimer at the end of their articles about him pointing out that he's an extremist with noxious views.
Trump has brought the tabloids into the race already, with his good friend David Pecker, the publisher of the National Enquirer, helpfully providing smears of his rival Ted Cruz during the primary. Now Pecker has hired notorious Clinton hater Dick Morris as the Enquirer's chief political correspondent so it's likely Trump will be fed a steady diet of tabloid tid-bits which he will undoubtedly share with his adoring fans. So far, the mainstream media has resisted the temptation to run with Clinton gossip stories mainly because there's so much coming over the transom about Trump. But they are out there and are likely to seep into the coverage as the Hillary smear industry gets up and running. There's nothing new in that but Trump is a master of tabloid media so we can probably expect this to play a different role than it has in the past.
Advertisement:
TV news organizations, meanwhile, have been notorious for allowing Trump to flout their rules. They happily let him call in rather than appear on camera and give him hours of airtime in the hope that he'll say something news worthy which, to be honest, he often does. His lies and reversals are so constant and so blatant that reporters seem to be almost paralyzed as he slithers and slides out of their grasp. He is sui generis and nobody knows quite what to do about it.
Media critics have been weighing in recently as the situation has become acute. NPR's "On the Media" correspondent Bob Garfield has been particularly vociferous lately imploring the media to recognize the threat that Donald Trump poses to America. In this column he takes them to task for covering the Trump candidacy "like a bemused recap of House of Cards." He wrote:
The rapacious CBS Chairman Les Moonves and the cable-newslike channels are delighted at the spectacle; disaster is always great for ratings. But this is not a show, to be consumed and titillated by and parsed. It is a conflagration of hatred and authoritarianism on its way to consuming us, or at least that which makes us us. Trumpism is raging out of control and the Fourth Estate responds how? By going through the motions. The usual false balance. The usual staged cable bickering. The usual dry contextual analysis. The usual intermittent truth-squading to garnish our careless daily servings of uncontested hate speech, incitement and manifest lies. The usual reluctance to “be part of the story” -- which, in fact, we are inextricably part of because we in large measure created it by giving oxygen to his every incendiary outrage and being our soundbitten, compulsively enabling selves...[the]reflexive focus on the latest development, the political ebb and flow and the architecture of the coming election simply buries the lede -- that the man is monstrously unfit and un-American -- and normalizes the grossly, tragically abnormal.
And then he tells them what he really thinks which is that they are falling into the trap of false equivalence between the parties, fear of right-wing pressure and a reluctance to call a fascist a fascist.
Margaret Sullivan, former NY Times ombudsman and current media columnist for The Washington Post has similar concerns, particularly the notion that the media is pursuing a "false equivalence" rather than simple truth-telling:
[T]his perceived need to push for “fairness” for Trump — as if he has been mistreated or put at a disadvantage — baffles me. Trump gets far more media attention than other candidates, if only because he says such outrageous things, commanding the daily news cycle over and over. [...] Wayne Barrett, the investigative reporter who has been covering Trump for 40 years (and whose reporting brought about Trump’s first federal grand jury investigation) told me in an interview: “The great failing is not in print media. But the campaigns occur on the screen.”... Many hard-hitting stories from the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Daily Beast and elsewhere have received little follow-up on TV — “not one minute of air time that I’ve seen” — but the slightest hint of a new angle on Hillary Clinton’s email practices can occupy most of a news cycle. (An exception was TV’s attention, last week, to complaints about Trump University.) Jay Rosen, the New York University professor and author of the PressThink blog, is concerned about how this concept of fairness might play out. “Does it mean ‘we can’t take sides,’ or does it mean ‘let’s treat unequal things equally’?” The latter, which he called “distortion toward the middle,” ought to be prevented, he said.
The Nation's Eric Alterman wrote about the print media's propensity for false equivalence as well, focusing particularly on the New York Times:
From the earliest days of this campaign, Times reporters have been transparently eager to blame “both sides,” often regardless of circumstance. Last November, Times reporter Michael Barbaro devoted a lengthy article to the GOP candidates’ most brazen lies, albeit one filled with euphemisms for the word “lie.” Carly Fiorina “refused” to back down from a story about Planned Parenthood that was “roundly disputed,” he wrote. Ben Carson “harshly turned the questions” about inconsistencies in his life story “back on the reporters who asked them.” Donald Trump “utters plenty of refutable claims” and “set the tone for the embroidery” by creating “an entirely new category of overstatement in American politics.” But guess what? “The tendency to bend facts is bipartisan.” How do we know? Well, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton chose not to confess their infidelities to the nation during election cycles that took place a generation ago. And apparently Hillary Clinton once mistakenly described herself as being the granddaughter of four immigrants when, in fact, her paternal grandmother was born shortly after her family arrived in the United States—an error she quickly corrected. Barbaro also found Clinton’s explanations about her personal and State Department e-mail accounts to be unsatisfactory. He wrote that she had “used multiple devices, like an iPad, to read and send e-mail,” even though she’d said she “preferred” to read them all on a single device. He failed to note that the iPad didn’t even exist when Clinton set up her e-mail account, nor did he explain why expressing a preference counts as bending the truth
Here is an example of false equivalence from just this week. Nobody has done more to probe Donald Trump's noxious views than CNN's Jake Tapper. His grilling of the candidate over his bigoted comments about the federal judge overseeing his Trump University lawsuit in California was as good as it gets and he received many kudos for his aggressive journalism.
Advertisement:
He continued to report on Trump on his show Monday but also featured this harsh criticism of Hillary Clinton in which he lambasted the State Department's stated inability to release emails pertaining to her work on the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal to reporter David Sirota until after the election. He took on a very aggressive tone, editorializing about the importance of releasing this important information when people are deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. However, he notes that while Clinton was President Obama's Secretary of State she openly advocated for the deal in glowing terms, even calling it the "gold standard", facts which have been known for years and have been well hashed out on the campaign trail and in the debates with Bernie Sanders. Now she says she has changed her mind and is against the deal. Politifact called it a flip-flop.
So what exactly do they think they will learn about her position that they don't already know? Maybe she was more involved than she says she was, which would be interesting, but somewhat meaningless since we know she advocated strongly for it all over the world. In the end, you either believe she's really changed her mind or you don't and these documents from years ago will not shed any new light on that. And yet the implication was that Clinton was up to something nefarious with those "damn emails" again.
I don't mean to pick on Tapper. He's a great journalist, one of the best on cable news. The temptation to try to "even things out" with this sort of coverage has to be overwhelming when a personality like Trump dominates the coverage the way he does. It must feel to a straight mainstream journalist as if they're piling on him every day and it looks like they're being partisan and unfair. Certainly the right wing is accusing them of that non-stop --- as they have been for more than 30 years.
But the result of this "distortion toward the middle" as Jay Rosen calls it, has the perverse effect of normalizing Trump and pathologizing Clinton in a way that equalizes them to Trump's advantage. There is no equivalence between them. He is an unqualified, unfit, unhinged authoritarian demagogue and she is a mainstream Democratic party politician. Let's hope the press listens to some of these critics and does a serious gut check whenever they are tempted to "balance" the coverage in this election by going easy on Trump and hard on Clinton. It's dangerous.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
6FrneeAgk2a9QrLm
|
|
white_house
|
Guest Writer - Left
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08/politics/donald-trump-prime-time-address-immigration-wall/index.html
|
OPINION: Prime-time Trump faces credibility crisis
|
2019-01-08
|
Analysis Stephen Collinson
|
Washington ( CNN ) President Donald Trump will face one huge obstacle when he appeals to Americans in a prime-time Oval Office address Tuesday to unite behind his crusade for a border wall : Himself .
Trump has spent years exploiting immigration -- one of the nation 's most divisive fault lines -- during an insurgent campaign and a presidency sustained by the fervor of his committed political base .
But now , the downside of that strategy is becoming evident . In his attempt to convince the nation that a genuine crisis is unfolding at the southern border , the President 's arguments face extreme skepticism from those not already in his camp .
About 57 % of Americans oppose Trump 's wall compared with 38 % in favor , according to a December CNN poll conducted by SSRS . Those numbers are similar to where they were just after Trump took office in 2017 .
On Tuesday night , Trump will commandeer the symbolic might of his office in an effort to bolster a political approach that has failed to force Democrats to cave to his demand for $ 5 billion in wall funding amid a government shutdown now in its third week .
He will hold forth on a deeply contentious issue from the spot where President Ronald Reagan eulogized the Challenger space shuttle crew and where other predecessors gave notice of the start or ends of wars .
The historically resonant stagecraft represents an attempt to convince the country -- with scant hard evidence -- that a real threat is unfolding on the frontier of the US and Mexico border , including drug trafficking , rising sickness among migrants , increasing border crossings and a busted asylum system .
`` The American people will hear from the President tonight that we have a crisis , '' Vice President Mike Pence told `` CBS This Morning '' Tuesday , part of a series of appearances on network morning shows to make the administration 's case . He urged Democrats to `` come to the table '' to make a deal but did not indicate that the administration 's funding demand was negotiable .
Trump 's capacity to make a similar argument is complicated by his choice not to broaden his support beyond his loyalist base in two years in office . And he 's often used immigration as a cudgel to attack Democrats and moderate Republicans .
The address promises to be yet another extraordinary moment in a singular presidency . When news broke of his prime-time appearance , a remarkable debate broke out in Washington about whether the President of the United States can be trusted to tell the truth in an address to the nation .
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer demanded the right of reply .
`` Now that the television networks have decided to air the President 's address , which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation , Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime , '' they said in a joint press release .
Pelosi and Schumer will deliver the response for the Democrats , which CNN will carry live .
Many Trump supporters do believe that the border is being besieged by criminals , is easily penetrated by drugs and gangs , and share his view that `` without borders , we do n't have a country . ''
And the President can clearly argue that he won election by promising to purge deep concern about a broken immigration system . At almost every rally , Trump beams as the crowd chants `` build the wall , build the wall . '' The border issue has become an almost mystical symbol of Trump 's appeal to his supporters .
But Trump has also stigmatized Mexicans and other immigrants and his dark vision of a nation under siege from hordes of invaders has turned a border security dispute into a political quarrel that tears at American cultural and racial divides .
The wall is just as powerful a metaphor for liberals , including Democratic leaders he now wants to fund the project after failing to get it built during two years of GOP control on Capitol Hill .
For Trump 's critics , the wall is a metaphor for an inhumane and un-American approach to immigration that has seen undocumented migrant families separated and several detained children die of illnesses .
So , when the President seeks to corral public opinion behind him Tuesday , he will be operating on scorched political ground and will require something extraordinary to shift opinion .
That is especially the case since Trump 's hardline rhetoric on immigration was seen by critics inside and outside of the GOP as a key factor in the party 's loss of the House in the midterm elections .
The risk for Trump is that after the fire and fury of his relentless immigration rhetoric , anyone left who has an open mind simply will not believe him .
`` I expect the President to lie to the American people , '' said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler , the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday .
`` Why do I expect this ? Because he 's been lying to the American people and his spokespeople continue lying to the American people , '' he said .
In the latest notorious case of the administration peddling untruths , White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders was caught on Fox News implying falsely that up to 4,000 terrorists have poured over the southern border .
In an annual terrorism report published in July 2017 , the State Department reported that there was `` no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States . ''
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Monday night that Sanders got `` confused '' and made an `` unfortunate misstatement . ''
`` So , I think , it got unfortunately confused by my colleague , '' she said . `` That was an unfortunate misstatement and everybody makes mistakes . ''
Conway said the nearly 4,000 people Sanders was referring to are known or suspected terrorists prevented from entering or traveling to the US via any means - not just over the southern border .
Trump has claimed that a wall is needed to deter `` drug dealers , human traffickers and criminals . ''
He also argued without evidence that a caravan of migrants from Central America that headed to the border last year included `` unknown Middle Easterners '' -- another reference to terrorism .
Such a record will complicate Trump 's attempts and those of his key aides , such as Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen , who are due on Capitol Hill Tuesday to sell his message before the President heads to the border on Thursday .
CNN 's Kevin Liptak reported on Monday that Trump 's decision to deliver a prime-time address followed warnings from advisers that his arguments about immigration -- delivered in tweets and impromptu media scrums in recent days -- are not resonating amid the shutdown .
But if Tuesday 's speech is pockmarked with factual errors and easily discredited spin , any hope the President has of influencing anyone other than his supporters will likely be dashed .
The President 's set piece speeches have rarely succeeded in changing public opinion on a key issue or easing tensions in a political standoff ; in fact , the opposite is more often the case .
Trump 's decision to trigger a shutdown , apparently fearing anger from conservative pundits if he folded over wall funding , left an impression that he is covering up his embarrassment over his so-far failed campaign promise .
Given his hyper political approach in the past , it 's always possible that Trump has no expectation of changing the partisan brew over immigration , but just wants to show his supporters he 's ready to fight .
Trump 's most difficult assignment will be to make a case that the situation at the US-Mexico border really amounts to a genuine crisis .
Apprehensions of undocumented migrants coming across the border did rise by about 100,000 in the 2018 fiscal year to nearly 400,000 . The administration has also warned of a rise in families crossing the border illegally . The numbers reached more than 51,000 families in October and November . But the figures are still nowhere near record-setting levels of up to 100,000 families a month in the early 2000s .
Nielsen told reporters at the White House that the asylum system , which was designed to process far fewer applications was `` bogged down . ''
But the White House 's critics are more likely to put those failures down to the administration 's draconian approach and mismanagement than to an outside crisis that truly threatens US national security .
|
Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump will face one huge obstacle when he appeals to Americans in a prime-time Oval Office address Tuesday to unite behind his crusade for a border wall: Himself.
Trump has spent years exploiting immigration -- one of the nation's most divisive fault lines -- during an insurgent campaign and a presidency sustained by the fervor of his committed political base.
But now, the downside of that strategy is becoming evident. In his attempt to convince the nation that a genuine crisis is unfolding at the southern border , the President's arguments face extreme skepticism from those not already in his camp.
About 57% of Americans oppose Trump's wall compared with 38% in favor, according to a December CNN poll conducted by SSRS . Those numbers are similar to where they were just after Trump took office in 2017.
On Tuesday night, Trump will commandeer the symbolic might of his office in an effort to bolster a political approach that has failed to force Democrats to cave to his demand for $5 billion in wall funding amid a government shutdown now in its third week.
He will hold forth on a deeply contentious issue from the spot where President Ronald Reagan eulogized the Challenger space shuttle crew and where other predecessors gave notice of the start or ends of wars.
The historically resonant stagecraft represents an attempt to convince the country -- with scant hard evidence -- that a real threat is unfolding on the frontier of the US and Mexico border, including drug trafficking, rising sickness among migrants, increasing border crossings and a busted asylum system.
"The American people will hear from the President tonight that we have a crisis," Vice President Mike Pence told "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, part of a series of appearances on network morning shows to make the administration's case. He urged Democrats to "come to the table" to make a deal but did not indicate that the administration's funding demand was negotiable.
Trump's capacity to make a similar argument is complicated by his choice not to broaden his support beyond his loyalist base in two years in office. And he's often used immigration as a cudgel to attack Democrats and moderate Republicans.
The address promises to be yet another extraordinary moment in a singular presidency. When news broke of his prime-time appearance, a remarkable debate broke out in Washington about whether the President of the United States can be trusted to tell the truth in an address to the nation.
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer demanded the right of reply.
"Now that the television networks have decided to air the President's address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime," they said in a joint press release.
Pelosi and Schumer will deliver the response for the Democrats, which CNN will carry live.
'Build the wall'
Many Trump supporters do believe that the border is being besieged by criminals, is easily penetrated by drugs and gangs, and share his view that "without borders, we don't have a country."
And the President can clearly argue that he won election by promising to purge deep concern about a broken immigration system. At almost every rally, Trump beams as the crowd chants "build the wall, build the wall." The border issue has become an almost mystical symbol of Trump's appeal to his supporters.
But Trump has also stigmatized Mexicans and other immigrants and his dark vision of a nation under siege from hordes of invaders has turned a border security dispute into a political quarrel that tears at American cultural and racial divides.
The wall is just as powerful a metaphor for liberals, including Democratic leaders he now wants to fund the project after failing to get it built during two years of GOP control on Capitol Hill.
For Trump's critics, the wall is a metaphor for an inhumane and un-American approach to immigration that has seen undocumented migrant families separated and several detained children die of illnesses.
So, when the President seeks to corral public opinion behind him Tuesday, he will be operating on scorched political ground and will require something extraordinary to shift opinion.
That is especially the case since Trump's hardline rhetoric on immigration was seen by critics inside and outside of the GOP as a key factor in the party's loss of the House in the midterm elections.
The risk for Trump is that after the fire and fury of his relentless immigration rhetoric, anyone left who has an open mind simply will not believe him.
"I expect the President to lie to the American people," said New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Monday.
"Why do I expect this? Because he's been lying to the American people and his spokespeople continue lying to the American people," he said.
In the latest notorious case of the administration peddling untruths, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders was caught on Fox News implying falsely that up to 4,000 terrorists have poured over the southern border.
In an annual terrorism report published in July 2017, the State Department reported that there was "no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States."
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News Monday night that Sanders got "confused" and made an "unfortunate misstatement."
"So, I think, it got unfortunately confused by my colleague," she said. "That was an unfortunate misstatement and everybody makes mistakes."
Conway said the nearly 4,000 people Sanders was referring to are known or suspected terrorists prevented from entering or traveling to the US via any means - not just over the southern border.
'Immigration arguments not landing'
Trump has claimed that a wall is needed to deter "drug dealers, human traffickers and criminals."
He also argued without evidence that a caravan of migrants from Central America that headed to the border last year included "unknown Middle Easterners" -- another reference to terrorism.
Such a record will complicate Trump's attempts and those of his key aides, such as Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who are due on Capitol Hill Tuesday to sell his message before the President heads to the border on Thursday.
CNN's Kevin Liptak reported on Monday that Trump's decision to deliver a prime-time address followed warnings from advisers that his arguments about immigration -- delivered in tweets and impromptu media scrums in recent days -- are not resonating amid the shutdown.
But if Tuesday's speech is pockmarked with factual errors and easily discredited spin, any hope the President has of influencing anyone other than his supporters will likely be dashed.
The President's set piece speeches have rarely succeeded in changing public opinion on a key issue or easing tensions in a political standoff; in fact, the opposite is more often the case.
Trump's decision to trigger a shutdown, apparently fearing anger from conservative pundits if he folded over wall funding, left an impression that he is covering up his embarrassment over his so-far failed campaign promise.
Given his hyper political approach in the past, it's always possible that Trump has no expectation of changing the partisan brew over immigration, but just wants to show his supporters he's ready to fight.
Trump's most difficult assignment will be to make a case that the situation at the US-Mexico border really amounts to a genuine crisis.
Apprehensions of undocumented migrants coming across the border did rise by about 100,000 in the 2018 fiscal year to nearly 400,000. The administration has also warned of a rise in families crossing the border illegally. The numbers reached more than 51,000 families in October and November. But the figures are still nowhere near record-setting levels of up to 100,000 families a month in the early 2000s.
Nielsen told reporters at the White House that the asylum system, which was designed to process far fewer applications was "bogged down."
But the White House's critics are more likely to put those failures down to the administration's draconian approach and mismanagement than to an outside crisis that truly threatens US national security.
CNN's Tammy Kupperman, Geneva Sands, Jim Acosta and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
86kgngV7QPfpZC9H
|
middle_east
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/24/emails-us-officials-militants-hours-benghazi/
|
GOP on attack over new Benghazi emails
|
2012-10-24
|
Guy Taylor, Shaun Waterman
|
Congressional Republicans on Wednesday spotlighted a newly revealed email that shows Obama administration officials were told within hours of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi , Libya , that an al-Qaeda-inspired militant group had claimed responsibility for the assault .
After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of the email Wednesday , Republican Sens . John McCain , Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to President Obama asking why U.S. officials “ described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video . ”
“ These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia , a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda , had claimed responsibility for it , ” the senators ’ letter states . “ This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi , when you knew it , and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did . ”
Earlier Wednesday , administration officials said the email , which was first reported by Reuters , was just part of an initial scramble of communications about the assault that killed U.S . Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
“ Hosting something on Facebook is not , in and of itself , evidence , ” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters after the email was leaked to news outlets and posted online . “ I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and contended for some time . ”
Her assertion matched that of White House press secretary Jay Carney , who said “ there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack. ” He noted that within hours of the email , Ansar al-Shariah “ claimed that it had not been responsible — neither should be taken as fact . ”
The Tunisian government said Wednesday that it had arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian man who is suspected to have participated in the consulate attack . An Interior Ministry spokesman told The Associated Press that Ali Harzi was being held in the nation ’ s capital , Tunis .
Tunisia sits between Libya and Algeria in North Africa , where authorities regularly cite the threat of al Qaeda-inspired militants .
The State Department declined to comment on the extent to which Tunisian authorities are cooperating with U.S. and Libyan authorities investigating the Benghazi attack .
One U.S. intelligence official has described Mr. Harzi as a member of violent extremist networks in the region , according to an article by The Daily Beast , which first reported his arrest Tuesday .
The developments amplified an already politically charged debate over why the White House was initially unwilling to characterize the Benghazi attack as one carried out by Islamic extremists .
Rep. Peter T. King , New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee , said the new email undermines “ any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that [ the attack occurred ] in a ‘ spontaneous reaction ’ to a film trailer posted on the Internet. ” He called on the president to release all intelligence reports and analyses about the attack .
Although Mr. Obama used the words “ acts of terror ” to describe the attack in prepared remarks Sept. 12 , other administration officials maintained in ensuing days that the assault — by heavily armed men with mortar support — had grown out of a spontaneous protest against an American-made video disparaging Islam ’ s Prophet Muhammad .
The Benghazi attack happened just hours after demonstrators had stormed the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo . Although there has been no evidence of a similar protest preceding the attack in Benghazi , some in the intelligence community continue to say the incidents in Libya and Egypt are connected .
One U.S. intelligence official recently told The ███ that “ there was and still is information that suggests the attackers in Benghazi were influenced by the scenes they saw in Cairo of protesters scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy . ”
The Times reported Oct. 3 that U.S. military intelligence was spreading the word inside the Pentagon the day after the attack that an al Qaeda-linked group was likely responsible for the assault .
Independent analysts cited confusion Wednesday over the initial email circulated among administration officials on the night of the attack .
The email focused on Ansar al-Shariah , an Arabic name that means “ supporters of Islamic law ” and is thought to be used by al Qaeda supporters in Libya and other parts of the Middle East .
Aaron Y. Zelin , a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors Arabic-language websites tied to extremist groups in the region , said he had no record of any direct claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Shariah that night .
“ I was following that specific Facebook page very closely because this was considered to be the official page of Ansar al-Shariah , and I don ’ t have any archived record of that posting at that time , ” he said , adding that the email ’ s authors “ could have been mistaken or they could be referring to something else completely . ”
He said that on Sept. 12 — several hours after the initial email circulated among Obama administration officials — Ansar al-Shariah did make a Facebook posting in which it said it had not ordered the attack .
“ They said that they were not involved in an official manner but they applauded the attack , ” said Mr. Zelin , who added that the Facebook page for the group has since been removed .
Bill Roggio , editor of The Long War Journal and a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , said the group may have posted and then deleted a statement on its Facebook page in hopes that the attack would appear as a popular expression of rage rather than a militarized assault that involved at least some planning and reconnaissance .
The statement that did appear on the group ’ s Facebook page Sept. 12 , Mr. Roggio said , “ was that their members took part but they were trying to portray it as a popular uprising-type event . ”
The fact that Ansar al-Shariah ultimately said it wasn ’ t part of the attack in an “ official manner ” suggests “ there were members in the group that were involved in an individual capacity in the attack insofar as that it wasn ’ t ordered from the top of the group , ” Mr. Zelin said .
As for the apparent inaccuracies in the initial swirl of emails among the Obama administration ’ s national security officials in Libya and in Washington , retired Army Col. Thomas F. Lynch III said that during the first 24 hours after such an attack , “ You wind up with a lot of reporting ” from different people and “ some of it inevitably [ is ] contradictory or ambiguous . ”
Col. Lynch , who served until July 2010 as a special adviser on counterterrorism to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now is a research scholar at the National Defense University , said understanding the significance of the newly revealed email will require knowing certain answers .
“ How many different lines of reporting were there that evening ? ” he asked . “ How many mentioned whether or not there had been a reliable claim of responsibility ? ”
Answers were hard to find Wednesday at the State Department , where officials stressed that the point of the federally mandated Accountability Review Board now investigating the Benghazi attack is to examine such questions in an environment free of election-year politics .
“ Look , I ’ ve said it and I ’ ll say it one more time , ” Mrs. Clinton said . “ No one wants to find out what happened more than I do . We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people because not only they but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world deserve no less . ”
|
Congressional Republicans on Wednesday spotlighted a newly revealed email that shows Obama administration officials were told within hours of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that an al-Qaeda-inspired militant group had claimed responsibility for the assault.
After the White House and State Department downplayed the significance of the email Wednesday, Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to President Obama asking why U.S. officials “described the attack for days afterward as a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video.”
“These emails make clear that your administration knew within two hours of the attack that it was a terrorist act and that Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan militant group with links to al Qaeda, had claimed responsibility for it,” the senators’ letter states. “This latest revelation only adds to the confusion surrounding what you and your administration knew about the attacks in Benghazi, when you knew it, and why you responded to those tragic events in the ways that you did.”
Earlier Wednesday, administration officials said the email, which was first reported by Reuters, was just part of an initial scramble of communications about the assault that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“Hosting something on Facebook is not, in and of itself, evidence,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters after the email was leaked to news outlets and posted online. “I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and contended for some time.”
Her assertion matched that of White House press secretary Jay Carney, who said “there were emails about all sorts of information that was coming available in the aftermath of the attack.” He noted that within hours of the email, Ansar al-Shariah “claimed that it had not been responsible — neither should be taken as fact.”
What did they know and when?
The Tunisian government said Wednesday that it had arrested a 28-year-old Tunisian man who is suspected to have participated in the consulate attack. An Interior Ministry spokesman told The Associated Press that Ali Harzi was being held in the nation’s capital, Tunis.
Tunisia sits between Libya and Algeria in North Africa, where authorities regularly cite the threat of al Qaeda-inspired militants.
The State Department declined to comment on the extent to which Tunisian authorities are cooperating with U.S. and Libyan authorities investigating the Benghazi attack.
One U.S. intelligence official has described Mr. Harzi as a member of violent extremist networks in the region, according to an article by The Daily Beast, which first reported his arrest Tuesday.
The developments amplified an already politically charged debate over why the White House was initially unwilling to characterize the Benghazi attack as one carried out by Islamic extremists.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the new email undermines “any administration claim to have ever believed in good faith that [the attack occurred] in a ‘spontaneous reaction’ to a film trailer posted on the Internet.” He called on the president to release all intelligence reports and analyses about the attack.
Although Mr. Obama used the words “acts of terror” to describe the attack in prepared remarks Sept. 12, other administration officials maintained in ensuing days that the assault — by heavily armed men with mortar support — had grown out of a spontaneous protest against an American-made video disparaging Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.
The Benghazi attack happened just hours after demonstrators had stormed the grounds of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Although there has been no evidence of a similar protest preceding the attack in Benghazi, some in the intelligence community continue to say the incidents in Libya and Egypt are connected.
One U.S. intelligence official recently told The Washington Times that “there was and still is information that suggests the attackers in Benghazi were influenced by the scenes they saw in Cairo of protesters scaling the walls of the U.S. Embassy.”
The Times reported Oct. 3 that U.S. military intelligence was spreading the word inside the Pentagon the day after the attack that an al Qaeda-linked group was likely responsible for the assault.
Analysts note confusion
Independent analysts cited confusion Wednesday over the initial email circulated among administration officials on the night of the attack.
The email focused on Ansar al-Shariah, an Arabic name that means “supporters of Islamic law” and is thought to be used by al Qaeda supporters in Libya and other parts of the Middle East.
Aaron Y. Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who monitors Arabic-language websites tied to extremist groups in the region, said he had no record of any direct claim of responsibility by Ansar al-Shariah that night.
“I was following that specific Facebook page very closely because this was considered to be the official page of Ansar al-Shariah, and I don’t have any archived record of that posting at that time,” he said, adding that the email’s authors “could have been mistaken or they could be referring to something else completely.”
He said that on Sept. 12 — several hours after the initial email circulated among Obama administration officials — Ansar al-Shariah did make a Facebook posting in which it said it had not ordered the attack.
“They said that they were not involved in an official manner but they applauded the attack,” said Mr. Zelin, who added that the Facebook page for the group has since been removed.
Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal and a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the group may have posted and then deleted a statement on its Facebook page in hopes that the attack would appear as a popular expression of rage rather than a militarized assault that involved at least some planning and reconnaissance.
The statement that did appear on the group’s Facebook page Sept. 12, Mr. Roggio said, “was that their members took part but they were trying to portray it as a popular uprising-type event.”
The fact that Ansar al-Shariah ultimately said it wasn’t part of the attack in an “official manner” suggests “there were members in the group that were involved in an individual capacity in the attack insofar as that it wasn’t ordered from the top of the group,” Mr. Zelin said.
As for the apparent inaccuracies in the initial swirl of emails among the Obama administration’s national security officials in Libya and in Washington, retired Army Col. Thomas F. Lynch III said that during the first 24 hours after such an attack, “You wind up with a lot of reporting” from different people and “some of it inevitably [is] contradictory or ambiguous.”
Col. Lynch, who served until July 2010 as a special adviser on counterterrorism to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now is a research scholar at the National Defense University, said understanding the significance of the newly revealed email will require knowing certain answers.
“How many different lines of reporting were there that evening?” he asked. “How many mentioned whether or not there had been a reliable claim of responsibility?”
Answers were hard to find Wednesday at the State Department, where officials stressed that the point of the federally mandated Accountability Review Board now investigating the Benghazi attack is to examine such questions in an environment free of election-year politics.
“Look, I’ve said it and I’ll say it one more time,” Mrs. Clinton said. “No one wants to find out what happened more than I do. We are holding ourselves accountable to the American people because not only they but our brave diplomats and development experts serving in dangerous places around the world deserve no less.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
NDlMEuyDDN4ROhIt
|
immigration
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/30/491804727/is-trump-flip-flopping-on-immigration-yes-or-no-its-sure-been-confusing
|
Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration? Yes Or No, It's Sure Been Confusing
|
2016-08-30
|
Danielle Kurtzleben
|
Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration ? Yes Or No , It 's Sure Been Confusing
Donald Trump will give a speech Wednesday outlining his immigration stance . Given the last week of news coverage , he could have some serious explaining to do .
An immigration policy centered around extreme positions — mass deportation of 11 million immigrants in the country illegally , plus building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — initially helped Trump stand out in the massive Republican primary field .
So it was a surprise when , last week , the Trump campaign seemed to change direction , indicating that he was open to `` softening '' his immigration position , and even at one point that he might be open to a path to legalization for some of those immigrants . Here 's a quick rundown of some of the things the campaign has said about immigration in the past week .
Aug. 20 — Members of Donald Trump 's Hispanic advisory council said Trump was open to relaxing his immigration stance , Buzzfeed reports . Trump said his solution for how to deal with 11 million people in the country illegally `` must be something that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner , '' according to immigration attorney Jacob Monty , who attended the meeting . The Trump campaign later released a statement dismissing the Buzzfeed report , saying that Trump 's position had not changed .
Aug. 21 — CNN 's Dana Bash asks Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway about Trump 's November promise to create a deportation force . Conway first demurs , then says it 's still `` to be determined . ''
Meanwhile , members of Trump 's Hispanic advisory council do not verify to NBC News that Trump would advocate a legalization plan . Immigration lawyer Monty says he is hoping for specific policies like a guest-worker program and a `` touchback '' system , in which immigrants in the U.S. illegally would go back to their home countries and then come back through the visa process . ( Another version of `` touchbacks '' is for immigrants to not go back to a home country but to go to a consulate or embassy of that country to apply . )
Aug. 22 — Trump postpones a planned immigration speech in Colorado . In an email explaining the postponement , the Trump campaign says the speech `` is still being modified , '' according to the Denver Post .
Trump tells Fox & Friends that he 's not reversing his position . `` No , I 'm not flip-flopping , '' he said . `` We want to come up with a really fair , but firm , answer . That 's — it has to be very firm . But we want to come up with something fair . ''
Aug. 23 — In a town hall with Fox 's Sean Hannity , Trump says `` there could certainly be a softening '' in his stance on immigration , adding that `` the bad ones '' need to be kicked out of the U.S . Meanwhile , he says there could be some leniency for law-abiding immigrants , intimating he would be open to legalization but not full citizenship .
`` No citizenship , '' he said , adding , `` Let me go a step further — they 'll pay back taxes ; they have to pay taxes ; there 's no amnesty , as such , there 's no amnesty , but we work with them . ''
Conway tells CNN that Trump 's `` softening '' response in the Hannity town hall is `` very consonant with what [ Trump ] said all along . '' She adds that Trump `` wants to find a fair and humane way and effective way to address the fact that roughly 11 million illegal immigrants live among us . ''
Wednesday — When a West Palm Beach , Fla. , CBS affiliate asks Trump about his shifting immigration policy , he insists that he still has a tough stance , but is vague on exactly what that stance is . `` Well , I 'm going to announce something over the next two weeks , '' he said , `` but it 's going to be a very firm policy . '' According to CBS , he later adds , `` We 're going to build a wall , it 's got to be a very powerful wall . But we want people to come into our country , but we want them to come in legally , but we 're going to be very , very strong on immigration . ''
Thursday — Trump tells CNN 's Anderson Cooper that he is actually not open to a pathway to legalization . `` There 's no path to legalization unless they leave the country , '' he said . `` When they come back in , then they can start paying taxes , but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and then come back . ''
Campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson tells CNN that it 's only Trump 's rhetoric — not policy — that has changed . `` He has n't changed his position on immigration , '' she contended . `` He 's changed the words that he is saying . ''
Saturday — In a speech in Des Moines , Iowa , Trump calls immigration a `` civil rights issue '' and emphasizes his plans to remove some — but not all — people who are in the country illegally . `` On Day One , '' he said , `` I am going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country , including removing the hundreds of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants that have been released into U.S. communities under the Obama-Clinton administration . ''
Sunday — Conway tells CBS ' John Dickerson that Trump 's position has n't changed , this time saying that Trump `` is not talking about a deportation force . ''
Trump 's vice presidential pick Mike Pence tells CNN 's Jake Tapper : `` There will be no path to legalization , no path to citizenship , unless people leave the country . ''
Trump also tweets that he will give a major immigration speech in Arizona on Wednesday .
Monday — New reports of policy specifics bounce around the media . Though Trump 's calls for a wall remained steady throughout this period , NBC 's Hallie Jackson reported that Trump may now be calling for a `` virtual wall , '' as MSNBC 's Ari Melber tweets :
CNN 's Jim Acosta also tweets that a Trump adviser told him that Trump now wants to `` Secure border first . Then have conversation on what to do with undocumented 'years from now . ' ``
However , Trump spokesman Jason Miller tells NPR that the `` virtual wall '' report is false — `` There 's going to be a physical wall '' — and that Acosta 's report is also `` erroneous . ''
One main message from the campaign : This is n't a change
These interviews , speeches and tweets do n't at all make it clear what Trump 's Wednesday speech will say . For now , at least two uniform messages are clear : ( 1 ) that Trump wants to be `` fair '' and `` humane '' in however he eventually deals with the 11 million people in the country illegally , and ( 2 ) that his immigration policy has not changed .
Should he eventually back away from a deportation force and push a path to legalization , as his campaign at times in the past two weeks has suggested he could do , it would be a seismic shift for a candidate who has made immigration a linchpin of his campaign . Trump has flip-flopped on a number of issues ( abortion , H1-B visas , Syrian refugees ) , but this would be a particularly massive change .
The label `` flip-flopper '' is a particularly sharp barb that can inflict irreparable damage on a campaign — just ask 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry . However , flip-flops are n't uniformly harmful , as NPR 's Mara Liasson wrote in 2008 . Occasionally , a flip-flop can even be a positive — if not , ever-calculating politicians would n't commit this political sin so often .
Liasson pointed to William Safire 's New Political Dictionary , which acknowledges the potential upside of a flip-flop :
`` Although the term is always pejorative and brings an irate denial , a refusal to flip-flop in the light of changing circumstances can be a sign of rigidity ; a willingness to flip-flop is expressed by supporters as evidence of flexibility . ''
Should Trump overhaul his immigration policy , it would show he 's willing to gamble that that flexibility will draw in some Hispanics ( and perhaps moderate Republicans ) without scaring off his most loyal supporters .
Many Trump supporters would seem to be fans of at least some rigidity ( see : ever-present chants of `` build the wall '' ) . However , others say they not only want Trump to be flexible on his policies , but believe he already is quite flexible .
`` [ N ] ot everything Trump says is true — I mean , it 's not true like it 's in concrete , '' Nevada voter Judy Callahan told NPR 's Sarah McCammon recently . `` He said he would stop the border flow , he would build some kind of wall , and he would work on the people that are here . That 's all there is ; the rest of it 's kind of fluff . ''
Others said they assume his policy positions are merely starting points for a negotiation . This has been a popular theme among his voters , reported by other outlets , as well .
Trump seems to bank on some voters being OK with fuzzy positions ; as he told Time , `` My voters do n't care , and the public does n't care '' about specific policy proposals . He may not want to be saddled with the flip-flopper label , but he has indicated that he 's happy to shift his positions . And as he told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos on his shifting economic policy proposals , `` Sure , it 's a change . I 'm allowed to change . You need flexibility , George , whether it 's a tax plan , where you 're going — where you know you 're going to negotiate . ''
Trump has many , many flip-flops to his name , but he is n't alone in shifting positions ; Hillary Clinton has famously pulled a U-turn on the Asia trade deal , the Trans-Pacific Partnership , or TPP . She moved from supporting it years ago to saying she does n't support it in its current form . Many perceived that as a reaction to Bernie Sanders ' successful populist campaign . Making matters worse for Clinton , Virginia Gov . Terry McAuliffe ( a longtime Clinton associate ) suggested that she might change her position again ( though he later clarified that he does n't expect her position to change ) .
Should that happen , Clinton 's supporters likewise might not punish her — 55 percent of Clinton supporters say the deal would be a `` good thing '' for the U.S. , according to the Pew Research Center , compared with only 24 percent who say it would be a `` bad thing . ''
All of which is to say that Safire 's `` changing circumstances '' certainly seem capable of changing even a candidate 's most significant policy positions . And given the overhaul of Trump 's campaign leadership amid a persistent polling deficit , the Trump campaign has had plenty of `` changing circumstances '' this summer .
|
Is Trump Flip-Flopping On Immigration? Yes Or No, It's Sure Been Confusing
Enlarge this image toggle caption Stephen Maturen/Getty Images Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
Donald Trump will give a speech Wednesday outlining his immigration stance. Given the last week of news coverage, he could have some serious explaining to do.
An immigration policy centered around extreme positions — mass deportation of 11 million immigrants in the country illegally, plus building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — initially helped Trump stand out in the massive Republican primary field.
So it was a surprise when, last week, the Trump campaign seemed to change direction, indicating that he was open to "softening" his immigration position, and even at one point that he might be open to a path to legalization for some of those immigrants. Here's a quick rundown of some of the things the campaign has said about immigration in the past week.
Aug. 20 — Members of Donald Trump's Hispanic advisory council said Trump was open to relaxing his immigration stance, Buzzfeed reports. Trump said his solution for how to deal with 11 million people in the country illegally "must be something that respects border security but deals with this in a humane and efficient manner," according to immigration attorney Jacob Monty, who attended the meeting. The Trump campaign later released a statement dismissing the Buzzfeed report, saying that Trump's position had not changed.
Aug. 21 — CNN's Dana Bash asks Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway about Trump's November promise to create a deportation force. Conway first demurs, then says it's still "to be determined."
Meanwhile, members of Trump's Hispanic advisory council do not verify to NBC News that Trump would advocate a legalization plan. Immigration lawyer Monty says he is hoping for specific policies like a guest-worker program and a "touchback" system, in which immigrants in the U.S. illegally would go back to their home countries and then come back through the visa process. (Another version of "touchbacks" is for immigrants to not go back to a home country but to go to a consulate or embassy of that country to apply.)
Aug. 22 — Trump postpones a planned immigration speech in Colorado. In an email explaining the postponement, the Trump campaign says the speech "is still being modified," according to the Denver Post.
Trump tells Fox & Friends that he's not reversing his position. "No, I'm not flip-flopping," he said. "We want to come up with a really fair, but firm, answer. That's — it has to be very firm. But we want to come up with something fair."
Aug. 23 — In a town hall with Fox's Sean Hannity, Trump says "there could certainly be a softening" in his stance on immigration, adding that "the bad ones" need to be kicked out of the U.S. Meanwhile, he says there could be some leniency for law-abiding immigrants, intimating he would be open to legalization but not full citizenship.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
"No citizenship," he said, adding, "Let me go a step further — they'll pay back taxes; they have to pay taxes; there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them."
Conway tells CNN that Trump's "softening" response in the Hannity town hall is "very consonant with what [Trump] said all along." She adds that Trump "wants to find a fair and humane way and effective way to address the fact that roughly 11 million illegal immigrants live among us."
Wednesday — When a West Palm Beach, Fla., CBS affiliate asks Trump about his shifting immigration policy, he insists that he still has a tough stance, but is vague on exactly what that stance is. "Well, I'm going to announce something over the next two weeks," he said, "but it's going to be a very firm policy." According to CBS, he later adds, "We're going to build a wall, it's got to be a very powerful wall. But we want people to come into our country, but we want them to come in legally, but we're going to be very, very strong on immigration."
Thursday — Trump tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that he is actually not open to a pathway to legalization. "There's no path to legalization unless they leave the country," he said. "When they come back in, then they can start paying taxes, but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and then come back."
Campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson tells CNN that it's only Trump's rhetoric — not policy — that has changed. "He hasn't changed his position on immigration," she contended. "He's changed the words that he is saying."
Saturday — In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Trump calls immigration a "civil rights issue" and emphasizes his plans to remove some — but not all — people who are in the country illegally. "On Day One," he said, "I am going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country, including removing the hundreds of thousands of criminal illegal immigrants that have been released into U.S. communities under the Obama-Clinton administration."
Sunday — Conway tells CBS' John Dickerson that Trump's position hasn't changed, this time saying that Trump "is not talking about a deportation force."
Trump's vice presidential pick Mike Pence tells CNN's Jake Tapper: "There will be no path to legalization, no path to citizenship, unless people leave the country."
Trump also tweets that he will give a major immigration speech in Arizona on Wednesday.
Monday — New reports of policy specifics bounce around the media. Though Trump's calls for a wall remained steady throughout this period, NBC's Hallie Jackson reported that Trump may now be calling for a "virtual wall," as MSNBC's Ari Melber tweets:
CNN's Jim Acosta also tweets that a Trump adviser told him that Trump now wants to "Secure border first. Then have conversation on what to do with undocumented 'years from now.' "
However, Trump spokesman Jason Miller tells NPR that the "virtual wall" report is false — "There's going to be a physical wall" — and that Acosta's report is also "erroneous."
One main message from the campaign: This isn't a change
These interviews, speeches and tweets don't at all make it clear what Trump's Wednesday speech will say. For now, at least two uniform messages are clear: (1) that Trump wants to be "fair" and "humane" in however he eventually deals with the 11 million people in the country illegally, and (2) that his immigration policy has not changed.
Should he eventually back away from a deportation force and push a path to legalization, as his campaign at times in the past two weeks has suggested he could do, it would be a seismic shift for a candidate who has made immigration a linchpin of his campaign. Trump has flip-flopped on a number of issues (abortion, H1-B visas, Syrian refugees), but this would be a particularly massive change.
The label "flip-flopper" is a particularly sharp barb that can inflict irreparable damage on a campaign — just ask 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. However, flip-flops aren't uniformly harmful, as NPR's Mara Liasson wrote in 2008. Occasionally, a flip-flop can even be a positive — if not, ever-calculating politicians wouldn't commit this political sin so often.
Liasson pointed to William Safire's New Political Dictionary, which acknowledges the potential upside of a flip-flop:
"Although the term is always pejorative and brings an irate denial, a refusal to flip-flop in the light of changing circumstances can be a sign of rigidity; a willingness to flip-flop is expressed by supporters as evidence of flexibility."
Should Trump overhaul his immigration policy, it would show he's willing to gamble that that flexibility will draw in some Hispanics (and perhaps moderate Republicans) without scaring off his most loyal supporters.
Some Trump voters don't even expect firm policies
Many Trump supporters would seem to be fans of at least some rigidity (see: ever-present chants of "build the wall"). However, others say they not only want Trump to be flexible on his policies, but believe he already is quite flexible.
"[N]ot everything Trump says is true — I mean, it's not true like it's in concrete," Nevada voter Judy Callahan told NPR's Sarah McCammon recently. "He said he would stop the border flow, he would build some kind of wall, and he would work on the people that are here. That's all there is; the rest of it's kind of fluff."
Others said they assume his policy positions are merely starting points for a negotiation. This has been a popular theme among his voters, reported by other outlets, as well.
Trump seems to bank on some voters being OK with fuzzy positions; as he told Time, "My voters don't care, and the public doesn't care" about specific policy proposals. He may not want to be saddled with the flip-flopper label, but he has indicated that he's happy to shift his positions. And as he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos on his shifting economic policy proposals, "Sure, it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility, George, whether it's a tax plan, where you're going — where you know you're going to negotiate."
Trump has many, many flip-flops to his name, but he isn't alone in shifting positions; Hillary Clinton has famously pulled a U-turn on the Asia trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. She moved from supporting it years ago to saying she doesn't support it in its current form. Many perceived that as a reaction to Bernie Sanders' successful populist campaign. Making matters worse for Clinton, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (a longtime Clinton associate) suggested that she might change her position again (though he later clarified that he doesn't expect her position to change).
Should that happen, Clinton's supporters likewise might not punish her — 55 percent of Clinton supporters say the deal would be a "good thing" for the U.S., according to the Pew Research Center, compared with only 24 percent who say it would be a "bad thing."
All of which is to say that Safire's "changing circumstances" certainly seem capable of changing even a candidate's most significant policy positions. And given the overhaul of Trump's campaign leadership amid a persistent polling deficit, the Trump campaign has had plenty of "changing circumstances" this summer.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
fwQaIWV4c8c6CtJp
|
white_house
|
Newsmax
| 22
|
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-approval-rating-plummets/2013/10/09/id/530025
|
AP Poll: Obama Approval Plummets to 37
|
2013-10-09
|
Todd Beamon
|
Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare ? Vote Here .
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh attacked survey results released on Wednesday that blamed Republicans for the federal shutdown while burying the news that President Barack Obama 's approval ratings had plunged to 37 percent among Americans surveyed . `` The point is , once again , there is no media , there is no news , '' the conservative host said , according to a transcript of his afternoon program . `` This is the Democrat Party with activists disguised as journalists . Thirty-seven percent approval . `` And it 's not some outlier poll , '' Limbaugh continued . `` You have to read over halfway down into that story to learn that . I have n't seen it anywhere else . It 's been on AP , but have you seen anybody else pick that up ? It 's just classic . `` The article was on the Associated Press-GfK survey of 1,227 probable voters conducted Oct. 3-7 , with a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points . `` Americans are holding Republicans primarily responsible for the partial government shutdown as public esteem sinks for all players in the impasse , President Barack Obama among them , according to a new poll , '' the report began . `` It 's a struggle with no heroes . `` The article then disclosed that 62 percent of respondents `` mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown '' and that `` the poll found that the tea party is more than a gang of malcontents in the political landscape , as its supporters in Congress have been portrayed by Democrats . `` Rather , it 's a sizable — and divisive — force among Republicans , '' the AP report said.But in the seventh paragraph appears the first — and only — reference to Obama 's new approval ratings : `` Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job , the poll suggests , with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it . `` Congress is scraping rock bottom , with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent . `` The report was published by such mainstream media outlets as The Washington Post The Huffington Post , andThe information appeared in the seventh paragraph of The Huffington Post 's story and in the eighth paragraph of those published in The Washington Post and on NPR.Limbaugh charged that such coverage was wrong about what was actually occurring in Washington . `` If you are a conservative media guy inside the Beltway , you 're convinced that Obama 's winning everything , '' he said . `` If you 're a conservative media guy inside the Beltway and you 're subjected to that narrative each and every day , you think the Republicans are really getting shellacked . You think they 're taking it on the chin . `` It 's the exact opposite , '' Limbaugh said . `` It 's the exact opposite of what 's happening outside the Beltway . `` `` The president 's at 37 percent . The shutdown is going on . Now we learn that five military families were insulted profoundly with the way the deaths of their service-member relatives were treated . `` It is obvious that this administration is acting purposely to inconvenience and to harm people it considers its political enemies , '' Limbaugh said.Further , Limbaugh contrasted the coverage of Obama 's new 37 percent rating with coverage by Wolf Blitzer of CNN of its poll on March 13 , 2006 , when Republican President George W. Bush 's rating hit a new low of 36 percent . `` The president 's job-approval rating has taken a downward turn again , falling to only 36 percent , '' the Blitzer excerpt began , according to the Limbaugh transcript . `` This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll … The president 's poll numbers are pretty bad , pretty awful right now , rock bottom … '' '' Today , Barack Obama 's approval number 's at 37 percent , and they are not talking about it , '' Limbaugh said Wednesday . `` The AP story in which that poll result is announced has the following headline : `` Poll : GOP Gets the Blame in Shutdown . '' They have a poll that shows that 71 percent of the American people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown . `` In the same poll , 50 percent are blaming the Democrats for something , but the media says : `` Look , 20 percent spread . Boy , the Republicans are really taking it on the chin for the government shutdown . ' But the poll does not say people are upset with the shutdown . `` It 's journalistic malpractice , '' Limbaugh concluded , `` except it 's not — because it 's not journalism . `` Among other findings , the AP poll showed that more than 4 in 10 Republicans identified with the tea party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff over reopening government and avoiding a default of the nation 's debt in coming weeks .
Indeed , the poll showed that everyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for their trouble , whether Democrat Harry Reid , the Senate majority leader , or Republican John Boehner , the House speaker , both with favorability ratings of 18 percent .
And much of the country draws a blank on Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas despite his 21-hour Senate speech before the shutdown . Only half of the poll respondents were familiar enough with him to register an opinion . Among those who did , 32 percent viewed him unfavorably , 16 percent favorably .
Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country , including majorities of Republicans ( 58 percent ) , Democrats ( 82 percent ) and independents ( 57 percent ) .
Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown ; 63 percent say Republicans are n't doing enough to cooperate with him .
Republicans are split on just how much cooperation they want . Among those who do not back the tea party , fully 48 percent say their party should be doing more with Obama to find a solution . But only 15 percent of tea-party Republicans want that outreach . The vast majority of them say GOP leaders are doing what they should with the president , or should do even less with him .
People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit . Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government 's ability to borrow is n't renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit — an expectation widely shared by economists . Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit ; 46 percent were neutral on the question .
More than 4 in 5 poll respondents felt no personal impact from the shutdown . For those who did , thwarted vacations to national parks , difficulty getting work done without federal contacts at their desks , and hitches in government benefits were among the complaints .
`` So frustrating , '' Martha Blair , 71 , of Kerrville , Texas , said of the fiscal paralysis as her scheduled national parks vacation sits in limbo . `` Somebody needs to jerk those guys together to get a solution , instead of just saying no . ''
Blair 's nine-day trip to national parks with a tour group wo n't happen if the parks are still closed next month . `` I 'm concerned , '' she said , `` but it seems kind of trivial to people who are being shut out of work . ''
In Mount Prospect , Ill. , Barbara Olpinski , 51 , a Republican who blames Obama and both parties for the shutdown , said her family is already seeing an impact and that will worsen if the impasse goes on . She 's an in-home elderly-care director , her daughter is a physician 's assistant at a rural clinic that treats patients who rely on government coverage , and her husband is a doctor who ca n't get flu vaccines for patients on public assistance because deliveries have stopped .
`` People do n't know how they are going to pay for things , and what will be covered , '' she said . `` Everybody is kind of like holding their wallets . ''
Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare ? Vote Here .
|
Urgent:
Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare? Vote Here.
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh attacked survey results released on Wednesday that blamed Republicans for the federal shutdown while burying the news that President Barack Obama's approval ratings had plunged to 37 percent among Americans surveyed."The point is, once again, there is no media, there is no news," the conservative host said, according to a transcript of his afternoon program. "This is the Democrat Party with activists disguised as journalists. Thirty-seven percent approval."And it's not some outlier poll," Limbaugh continued. "You have to read over halfway down into that story to learn that. I haven't seen it anywhere else. It's been on AP, but have you seen anybody else pick that up? It's just classic."The article was on the Associated Press-GfK survey of 1,227 probable voters conducted Oct. 3-7, with a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points."Americans are holding Republicans primarily responsible for the partial government shutdown as public esteem sinks for all players in the impasse, President Barack Obama among them, according to a new poll," the report began. "It's a struggle with no heroes."The article then disclosed that 62 percent of respondents "mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown" and that "the poll found that the tea party is more than a gang of malcontents in the political landscape, as its supporters in Congress have been portrayed by Democrats."Rather, it's a sizable — and divisive — force among Republicans," the AP report said.But in the seventh paragraph appears the first — and only — reference to Obama's new approval ratings: "Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it."Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent."The report was published by such mainstream media outlets as The Washington Post The Huffington Post , andThe information appeared in the seventh paragraph of The Huffington Post's story and in the eighth paragraph of those published in The Washington Post and on NPR.Limbaugh charged that such coverage was wrong about what was actually occurring in Washington."If you are a conservative media guy inside the Beltway, you're convinced that Obama's winning everything," he said. "If you're a conservative media guy inside the Beltway and you're subjected to that narrative each and every day, you think the Republicans are really getting shellacked. You think they're taking it on the chin."It's the exact opposite," Limbaugh said. "It's the exact opposite of what's happening outside the Beltway.""The president's at 37 percent. The shutdown is going on. Now we learn that five military families were insulted profoundly with the way the deaths of their service-member relatives were treated."It is obvious that this administration is acting purposely to inconvenience and to harm people it considers its political enemies," Limbaugh said.Further, Limbaugh contrasted the coverage of Obama's new 37 percent rating with coverage by Wolf Blitzer of CNN of its poll on March 13, 2006, when Republican President George W. Bush's rating hit a new low of 36 percent."The president's job-approval rating has taken a downward turn again, falling to only 36 percent," the Blitzer excerpt began, according to the Limbaugh transcript. "This represents his lowest rating ever in the CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll … The president's poll numbers are pretty bad, pretty awful right now, rock bottom …""Today, Barack Obama's approval number's at 37 percent, and they are not talking about it," Limbaugh said Wednesday. "The AP story in which that poll result is announced has the following headline: "Poll: GOP Gets the Blame in Shutdown." They have a poll that shows that 71 percent of the American people are blaming the Republicans for the shutdown."In the same poll, 50 percent are blaming the Democrats for something, but the media says: ''Look, 20 percent spread. Boy, the Republicans are really taking it on the chin for the government shutdown.' But the poll does not say people are upset with the shutdown."It's journalistic malpractice," Limbaugh concluded, "except it's not — because it's not journalism."Among other findings, the AP poll showed that more than 4 in 10 Republicans identified with the tea party and were more apt than other Republicans to insist that their leaders hold firm in the standoff over reopening government and avoiding a default of the nation's debt in coming weeks.
Indeed, the poll showed that everyone making headlines in the dispute has earned poor marks for their trouble, whether Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, or Republican John Boehner, the House speaker, both with favorability ratings of 18 percent.
And much of the country draws a blank on Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas despite his 21-hour Senate speech before the shutdown. Only half of the poll respondents were familiar enough with him to register an opinion. Among those who did, 32 percent viewed him unfavorably, 16 percent favorably.
Sixty-eight percent said the shutdown is a major problem for the country, including majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (82 percent) and independents (57 percent).
Fifty-two percent said Obama is not doing enough to cooperate with Republicans to end the shutdown; 63 percent say Republicans aren't doing enough to cooperate with him.
Republicans are split on just how much cooperation they want. Among those who do not back the tea party, fully 48 percent say their party should be doing more with Obama to find a solution. But only 15 percent of tea-party Republicans want that outreach. The vast majority of them say GOP leaders are doing what they should with the president, or should do even less with him.
People seem conflicted or confused about the showdown over the debt limit. Six in 10 predict an economic crisis if the government's ability to borrow isn't renewed later this month with an increase in the debt limit — an expectation widely shared by economists. Yet only 30 percent say they support raising the limit; 46 percent were neutral on the question.
More than 4 in 5 poll respondents felt no personal impact from the shutdown. For those who did, thwarted vacations to national parks, difficulty getting work done without federal contacts at their desks, and hitches in government benefits were among the complaints.
"So frustrating," Martha Blair, 71, of Kerrville, Texas, said of the fiscal paralysis as her scheduled national parks vacation sits in limbo. "Somebody needs to jerk those guys together to get a solution, instead of just saying no."
Blair's nine-day trip to national parks with a tour group won't happen if the parks are still closed next month. "I'm concerned," she said, "but it seems kind of trivial to people who are being shut out of work."
In Mount Prospect, Ill., Barbara Olpinski, 51, a Republican who blames Obama and both parties for the shutdown, said her family is already seeing an impact and that will worsen if the impasse goes on. She's an in-home elderly-care director, her daughter is a physician's assistant at a rural clinic that treats patients who rely on government coverage, and her husband is a doctor who can't get flu vaccines for patients on public assistance because deliveries have stopped.
"People don't know how they are going to pay for things, and what will be covered," she said. "Everybody is kind of like holding their wallets."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Urgent:
Should GOP Stick to Its Guns on Obamacare? Vote Here.
|
www.newsmax.com
| 1right
|
BdiRCf8vio28EAki
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/11/trump-data-card-key-to-winning-white-house.html
|
The Trump data card: Key to winning the White House
|
2015-12-11
|
Sreedhar Potarazu, Chairman Of Wellzone
|
You can call Donald Trump a lot of things – and heaven knows almost everyone has – but you can ’ t call him stupid . He ’ s the lead story on every newscast , the hashtag of all hashtags on social media . And he ’ s gotten there by defying every convention .
The bombastic billionaire has generated controversy and widespread contempt since he announced his candidacy for president in June , yet the latest New York Times/CBS News poll gives him 35 percent of the Republican vote – more than double the 16 percent of runner-up Ted Cruz . Trump has defied the experts for six months , so have no doubt about it : He is very , very smart . He knows exactly what he ’ s doing .
The Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary are right around the corner , but two months is an eternity in American politics . There ’ s nothing that can ’ t be turned upside down in a few short weeks . And that ’ s why every other candidate for president , whether Democrat or Republican , should be spending a lot less time right now condemning what Trump is saying . Instead , they should be devoting their time and effort to learning why he ’ s winning .
All they need to do is look at the data .
Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don ’ t like – and why . From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims , all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on .
Politics is all about data now , and Trump is generating more of it every day than all the other candidates combined in a week . But every time he says something provocative – which is pretty much every time he speaks – he creates data that can be captured , analyzed and turned against him .
We live in a world where data controls everything , and I spend all my time studying how and why . In my case , because I ’ m a physician , it ’ s health data . But the principles are the same , and they ’ re why whoever best corrals the data Trump is generating will be the next president of the United States .
In an analysis of his strategy on Thursday , the Washington Post reported that “ Trump uses his Instagram account , which has more than 650,000 followers , to deliver snarky messages and short videos of him scowling as he delivers pronouncements from his Trump Tower desk . On Twitter … Trump has posted more than 6,000 tweets since launching his campaign in June . ”
There ’ s your data . Trump – @ realDonaldTrump – has 5.2 million followers on Twitter . Every tweet and retweet , every Facebook post and share , every Instagram blast , every newscast lead , every comment on everything … Everyone ’ s talking about Donald Trump , which means he ’ s generating a trove of data that his opponents should be mining to their advantage .
Instead of climbing all over each other every day to condemn him , the other candidates should lean back , take a deep breath and learn from him – because the next president of the United States will be the man or woman who is smart enough to invest in the infrastructure that ’ s needed to organize and analyze the Trump data trove . And with Iowa and New Hampshire coming up fast , the time to make that investment is now .
Does data analysis really work ? Ask Barack Obama ; it ’ s why he ’ s been living in the White House for the last seven years . He is the master of using data to win elections by analyzing and identifying undecided voters , learning everything he could about each and every one of them , and then persuading them to vote for him in the final days of the campaign . Jim Messina , who headed Obama ’ s re-election campaign in 2012 , said recently that “ Every night for 18 months , we did 66,000 computer simulations of the election , and that ’ s how we based our tactics… . [ W ] e based it all on big data . ”
Obama is the Big Data president , and Trump gets that . The other candidates think traditional rhetoric and campaign slogans appeal to voters , but Trump has tapped into something every TV producer and ad executive knows : Times have changed . To get the ratings or to make the sale , you need to know the audience and make it yours .
When advertisers want you to buy something , they provoke you . They grab your attention and use the data on what you ’ re watching to understand your behavior and reel you in . The same applies in television . Nobody ’ s watching `` Little House on the Prairie '' anymore . The shows that get the ratings are the ones that are provocative , edgy , controversial .
Trump gets that , and he ’ s brought it to the presidential race . He ’ s shaking up the electorate , forcing them to react . You may not like what he ’ s saying , but you can ’ t deny that it ’ s working . He ’ s been at the top of the polls for months .
But that , oddly enough , opens a door for whoever is smart enough to walk through it . A savvy opponent , instead of jumping on what Trump is saying , should be jumping on how people are reacting to what he ’ s saying . Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don ’ t like – and why . From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims , all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on . It ’ s there for anyone who knows how to use it .
“ We spent two years and about $ 400 million trying to build up a capacity to predict people ’ s behaviors and match that with social media , ” Messina said , reflecting on Obama ’ s re-election . “ The final 96 hours of the 2012 race , a majority of Americans , for the first time since 1972 , went to the incumbent . And when you ask them why : 76 percent of those said because their friend or family member talked to them on social media and told them why they had to support Barack Obama . ”
Any candidate who wants to be standing when Trump falls should memorize those words . Use the data he ’ s generating to learn everything you can about his supporters , and then make them yours .
Trump is smart . To beat him , an opponent has to be smart enough to move away from the chorus of critics and use the data he ’ s generating to defeat him .
Keep your base , analyze the data , win over his supporters … and the White House will be yours .
|
You can call Donald Trump a lot of things – and heaven knows almost everyone has – but you can’t call him stupid. He’s the lead story on every newscast, the hashtag of all hashtags on social media. And he’s gotten there by defying every convention.
The bombastic billionaire has generated controversy and widespread contempt since he announced his candidacy for president in June, yet the latest New York Times/CBS News poll gives him 35 percent of the Republican vote – more than double the 16 percent of runner-up Ted Cruz. Trump has defied the experts for six months, so have no doubt about it: He is very, very smart. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
The Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 9 New Hampshire primary are right around the corner, but two months is an eternity in American politics. There’s nothing that can’t be turned upside down in a few short weeks. And that’s why every other candidate for president, whether Democrat or Republican, should be spending a lot less time right now condemning what Trump is saying. Instead, they should be devoting their time and effort to learning why he’s winning.
All they need to do is look at the data.
Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don’t like – and why. From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims, all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on.
Politics is all about data now, and Trump is generating more of it every day than all the other candidates combined in a week. But every time he says something provocative – which is pretty much every time he speaks – he creates data that can be captured, analyzed and turned against him.
We live in a world where data controls everything, and I spend all my time studying how and why. In my case, because I’m a physician, it’s health data. But the principles are the same, and they’re why whoever best corrals the data Trump is generating will be the next president of the United States.
In an analysis of his strategy on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that “Trump uses his Instagram account, which has more than 650,000 followers, to deliver snarky messages and short videos of him scowling as he delivers pronouncements from his Trump Tower desk. On Twitter … Trump has posted more than 6,000 tweets since launching his campaign in June.”
There’s your data. Trump – @realDonaldTrump – has 5.2 million followers on Twitter. Every tweet and retweet, every Facebook post and share, every Instagram blast, every newscast lead, every comment on everything … Everyone’s talking about Donald Trump, which means he’s generating a trove of data that his opponents should be mining to their advantage.
Instead of climbing all over each other every day to condemn him, the other candidates should lean back, take a deep breath and learn from him – because the next president of the United States will be the man or woman who is smart enough to invest in the infrastructure that’s needed to organize and analyze the Trump data trove. And with Iowa and New Hampshire coming up fast, the time to make that investment is now.
Does data analysis really work? Ask Barack Obama; it’s why he’s been living in the White House for the last seven years. He is the master of using data to win elections by analyzing and identifying undecided voters, learning everything he could about each and every one of them, and then persuading them to vote for him in the final days of the campaign. Jim Messina, who headed Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012, said recently that “Every night for 18 months, we did 66,000 computer simulations of the election, and that’s how we based our tactics…. [W]e based it all on big data.”
Obama is the Big Data president, and Trump gets that. The other candidates think traditional rhetoric and campaign slogans appeal to voters, but Trump has tapped into something every TV producer and ad executive knows: Times have changed. To get the ratings or to make the sale, you need to know the audience and make it yours.
When advertisers want you to buy something, they provoke you. They grab your attention and use the data on what you’re watching to understand your behavior and reel you in. The same applies in television. Nobody’s watching "Little House on the Prairie" anymore. The shows that get the ratings are the ones that are provocative, edgy, controversial.
Trump gets that, and he’s brought it to the presidential race. He’s shaking up the electorate, forcing them to react. You may not like what he’s saying, but you can’t deny that it’s working. He’s been at the top of the polls for months.
But that, oddly enough, opens a door for whoever is smart enough to walk through it. A savvy opponent, instead of jumping on what Trump is saying, should be jumping on how people are reacting to what he’s saying. Trump has opened up a gold mine of data that any of his opponents can analyze to understand what people like – or don’t like – and why. From Mexicans to McCain to Muslims, all the trash talk and all the responses to it create data that a tech-savvy opponent should pounce on. It’s there for anyone who knows how to use it.
“We spent two years and about $400 million trying to build up a capacity to predict people’s behaviors and match that with social media,” Messina said, reflecting on Obama’s re-election. “The final 96 hours of the 2012 race, a majority of Americans, for the first time since 1972, went to the incumbent. And when you ask them why: 76 percent of those said because their friend or family member talked to them on social media and told them why they had to support Barack Obama.”
Any candidate who wants to be standing when Trump falls should memorize those words. Use the data he’s generating to learn everything you can about his supporters, and then make them yours.
Trump is smart. To beat him, an opponent has to be smart enough to move away from the chorus of critics and use the data he’s generating to defeat him.
Keep your base, analyze the data, win over his supporters … and the White House will be yours.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
kMDFJP2dMbu9DBzf
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/01/three-numbers-that-could-hold-key-to-romney-win/
|
Three Numbers That Could Hold the Key to a Romney Win
|
2012-11-01
|
Chris Stirewalt, In July Of
|
“ We ’ ve got to make people understand that what they ’ re seeing is not the real Mitt Romney . ”
-- President Obama ’ s top political adviser , David Plouffe , describing the president ’ s re-election message , according to top campaign advisers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for the piece “ Obama Adviser ’ s Strategy Is High Risk , High Reward . ”
A deadlocked race on the first day of November means a wild ride for Election Day and a boost for antacid sales in Boston and Chicago .
With five days to go , both campaigns can make a convincing argument for why they will have the edge on Tuesday .
Team Obama says that the tide came in for Romney , but not high enough to carry him to an electoral victory in Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt . A slew of polls that show Romney falling just short in this region make a powerful argument for the president ’ s closing theory of the race . Those polls provide fresh fodder for the establishment press narrative that holds that Obama will be re-elected .
Team Romney can argue just as convincingly that close is good enough for the Republican nominee . Romney ’ s advisers point to high voter intensity on the Republican side and a strong performance for the GOP nominee with several groups that were key to Obama ’ s 2008 victory . The Romney theory is that they have the edge in a race that goes down to the wire .
Either side could be right , and unlike the previous two elections , the polls don ’ t give us a clear indication of where this race is heading .
But if the challenger is going to win , it will be because of these three things :
The riskiest part of President Obama ’ s re-election strategy was to spend so much of his campaign and his campaign ’ s money on the attack . Knowing that voters remained unsatisfied with the status quo , Obamaland focused on disqualifying Mitt Romney , often to the detriment of making the president ’ s own case .
But it didn ’ t work . The latest ███ poll shows Romney and Obama tied on favorability , and both over 50 percent . The same is true in most polls . After all of the millions in negative advertising spent attacking Romney ’ s character , he survived ( as did his running mate , Paul Ryan ) .
Obama will spend the final five days making a more positive closing argument , but he will do so in an atmosphere in which he and his challenger are both deemed plausible .
Democrats have been suffering with an enthusiasm gap since the early days of the Obama era . The president ’ s decision to move left after taking office and stay there hardened Republican opposition and boosted a traditional turnout advantage for the Red Team .
The Obama Democrats argued that superior resources and a community organizing approach to governance and campaigning would allow Obama to overwhelm the organic advantage of the Republicans . The GOP may have a more fired-up base , argued Team Obama , but time and money would allow Democrats to close the gap .
Early voting is the best indicator we have for base enthusiasm . The weeks of early voting that now precede Election Day are the best chance for Democrats to win elections . This is not a time when undecided or even many persuadable voters go to the polls , but instead partisans show their ardor .
The latest Pew study and a slew of others show that what had been a huge advantage for Obama has been erased and maybe even reversed .
In 2008 , Obama led Republican nominee John McCain 52 percent to 34 percent among early voters ( 19 percent then as it is now ) in the Pew survey . Now , Romney leads 50 percent to 42 percent .
Democrats have long assumed that Romney would win among the votes cast on Election Day but were counting on early votes to carry Obama through . If the early vote in swing states is even close , it will be hard for Obama to win .
Romney leads widely among the most passionate voters – 9 points in the most recent Politico/George Washington University survey of battleground state voters – and Republicans have managed to match Democrats when it comes to contacting voters directly .
Team Obama staked nearly as much on ground game superiority and getting out the vote as it did on the “ kill Mitt ” strategy . Again , the Blue Team did not deliver .
Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades .
Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative . The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate , but more unpredictable in voting habits .
But with both parties dug in deeply , the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters .
Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans . Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections . That ’ s certainly the case this year .
If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage , then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top .
And in that measure , Romney is succeeding by a wide margin .
In the latest ███ poll , Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters , with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate . Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent .
But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining . Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided , the challenger , especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach , has a clear advantage over the incumbent .
“ The Axelrod mustache promise has doubled my intensity . I 'm going to go out there and vote twice on Election Day . ”
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for ███ , and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com . Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http : live.foxnews.com .
|
“We’ve got to make people understand that what they’re seeing is not the real Mitt Romney.”
-- President Obama’s top political adviser, David Plouffe, describing the president’s re-election message, according to top campaign advisers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for the piece “Obama Adviser’s Strategy Is High Risk, High Reward.”
A deadlocked race on the first day of November means a wild ride for Election Day and a boost for antacid sales in Boston and Chicago.
With five days to go, both campaigns can make a convincing argument for why they will have the edge on Tuesday.
Team Obama says that the tide came in for Romney, but not high enough to carry him to an electoral victory in Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt. A slew of polls that show Romney falling just short in this region make a powerful argument for the president’s closing theory of the race. Those polls provide fresh fodder for the establishment press narrative that holds that Obama will be re-elected.
Team Romney can argue just as convincingly that close is good enough for the Republican nominee. Romney’s advisers point to high voter intensity on the Republican side and a strong performance for the GOP nominee with several groups that were key to Obama’s 2008 victory. The Romney theory is that they have the edge in a race that goes down to the wire.
Either side could be right, and unlike the previous two elections, the polls don’t give us a clear indication of where this race is heading.
But if the challenger is going to win, it will be because of these three things:
Mitt Lives
The riskiest part of President Obama’s re-election strategy was to spend so much of his campaign and his campaign’s money on the attack. Knowing that voters remained unsatisfied with the status quo, Obamaland focused on disqualifying Mitt Romney, often to the detriment of making the president’s own case.
But it didn’t work. The latest FOX News poll shows Romney and Obama tied on favorability, and both over 50 percent. The same is true in most polls. After all of the millions in negative advertising spent attacking Romney’s character, he survived (as did his running mate, Paul Ryan).
Obama will spend the final five days making a more positive closing argument, but he will do so in an atmosphere in which he and his challenger are both deemed plausible.
Ground Out
Democrats have been suffering with an enthusiasm gap since the early days of the Obama era. The president’s decision to move left after taking office and stay there hardened Republican opposition and boosted a traditional turnout advantage for the Red Team.
[pullquote]
The Obama Democrats argued that superior resources and a community organizing approach to governance and campaigning would allow Obama to overwhelm the organic advantage of the Republicans. The GOP may have a more fired-up base, argued Team Obama, but time and money would allow Democrats to close the gap.
That didn’t happen either.
Early voting is the best indicator we have for base enthusiasm. The weeks of early voting that now precede Election Day are the best chance for Democrats to win elections. This is not a time when undecided or even many persuadable voters go to the polls, but instead partisans show their ardor.
The latest Pew study and a slew of others show that what had been a huge advantage for Obama has been erased and maybe even reversed.
In 2008, Obama led Republican nominee John McCain 52 percent to 34 percent among early voters (19 percent then as it is now) in the Pew survey. Now, Romney leads 50 percent to 42 percent.
Democrats have long assumed that Romney would win among the votes cast on Election Day but were counting on early votes to carry Obama through. If the early vote in swing states is even close, it will be hard for Obama to win.
Romney leads widely among the most passionate voters – 9 points in the most recent Politico/George Washington University survey of battleground state voters – and Republicans have managed to match Democrats when it comes to contacting voters directly.
Team Obama staked nearly as much on ground game superiority and getting out the vote as it did on the “kill Mitt” strategy. Again, the Blue Team did not deliver.
Independents’ Day
Americans have grown largely frustrated with both parties and the trend toward political independence is really the biggest political story of the past two decades.
Independent is not synonymous with moderate since voters disaffected with the partisan status quo range from very liberal to very conservative. The universe of independents is a parallel to the overall electorate, but more unpredictable in voting habits.
But with both parties dug in deeply, the independent vote is the most promising field of persuadable voters.
Self-identified Democrats usually outnumber self-identified Republicans. Republicans therefore rely on the aforementioned turnout advantage combined with support from independents to win elections. That’s certainly the case this year.
If the combination of organic enthusiasm and effective ground game for Republicans can offset the Democrats numerical advantage, then it would be support from independents that could put Romney over the top.
And in that measure, Romney is succeeding by a wide margin.
In the latest FOX News poll, Romney holds a 7-point lead among independent voters, with 16 percent on the fence or supporting a marginal candidate. Romney lost 2 points of his advantage with the group from the beginning of the month as the pool of undecided voters shrank from 25 percent.
But it seems highly unlikely that the incumbent will get half of those remaining. Of those who consider themselves unaffiliated and undecided, the challenger, especially one with majority favorability and an equally matched voter outreach, has a clear advantage over the incumbent.
And Now, A Word From Charles
“The Axelrod mustache promise has doubled my intensity. I'm going to go out there and vote twice on Election Day.”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
YbaUDSbd6ukluqhi
|
coronavirus
|
Al Jazeera
| 00
|
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/india-hospital-segregates-muslim-hindu-coronavirus-patients-200416080547650.html
|
India hospital segregates Muslim and Hindu coronavirus patients
|
Parth Mn
|
In what many are calling a case of `` apartheid '' during a global pandemic , a government-run hospital in Ahmedabad , the main city in the western Indian state of Gujarat , has segregated coronavirus patients based on their religion , claiming the order came from the government .
`` Generally , there are separate wards for male and female patients . But here , we have made separate wards for Hindu and Muslim patients . It is a decision of the government and you can ask them , '' Dr Gunvant H Rathod , the medical superintendent of Ahmedabad Civil Hospital , told The Indian Express newspaper in its report on Wednesday .
The Gujarat state is governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) , which also governs the country . Narendra Modi was the state 's chief minister for nearly 13 straight years from 2001 before he became India 's prime minister in 2014 .
When ███ called Jayanti Ravi , the principal secretary of health in the Gujarat government , about the segregation of patients on religious lines , her personal assistant took the call and suggested we speak to Dr Sanjay Solanki , the resident medical officer at the hospital .
`` I have no idea , '' said the personal assistant , without revealing his name .
Solanki , in turn , asked ███ to speak to Rathod . `` He is the right person to talk to , '' he said .
Rathod did not answer the phone calls made by ███ .
USCIRF is concerned with reports of Hindu & Muslim patients separated into separate hospital wards in # Gujarat . Such actions only help to further increase ongoing stigmatization of Muslims in # India and exacerbate false rumors of Muslims spreading # COVID19 https : //t.co/GXigs4w5na — USCIRF ( @ USCIRF ) April 15 , 2020
Meanwhile , Gujarat 's Health Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel told ███ that nothing of that sort had happened .
`` Whatever is needed to give people the best possible treatment is being done , '' he said and hung up .
The state 's health department also put out an official statement , calling reports of separate wards for Muslims and Hindus `` baseless '' .
`` Patients are kept in different wards based on their medical condition , severity of the symptoms and age , purely based on the advice of the treating doctors . Therefore , reports appearing in certain media are totally baseless and misleading , '' it said .
However , in The Indian Express report , a patient was quoted as saying , `` On Sunday night , the names of 28 men admitted in the first ward ( A-4 ) were called out . We were then shifted to another ward ( C-4 ) . ''
`` While we were not told why we were being shifted , all the names that were called out belonged to one community . We spoke to one staff member in our ward and he said this had been done for 'the comfort of both communities ' . ''
A family is transported to a quarantine centre after one of the members tested positive for coronavirus in Ahmedabad [ Amit Dave/Reuters ]
According to a doctor quoted in another report by The Hindu newspaper , `` Certain patients from the majority community were not comfortable being in the same ward with patients of the minority community . ''
`` After some patients complained , it was decided to segregate them on temporary basis , '' the doctor told the newspaper on condition of anonymity .
When Ahmedabad-based sociologist Ghanashyam Shah was asked by ███ if the hospital segregating patients according to their religion amounted to apartheid , he replied , `` Absolutely . ''
`` Knowing Gujarat , I am not surprised it has happened , '' he said .
`` It is a very obvious kind of thing . The fake news propaganda around Muslims spreading the virus is probably rampant across India . But I can see it is visible in Gujarat . ''
Shah was alluding to a widespread Islamophobia fuelled by the coronavirus pandemic , especially after Tablighi Jamaat , a Muslim missionary group , organised a congregation in New Delhi in March .
The congregation was later linked to hundreds of COVID-19 positive cases across the country , triggering a nationwide hunt to trace the attendees .
On Wednesday , Tablighi Jamaat chief Maulana Saad Kandhalvi was charged with `` culpable homicide '' .
Earlier this month , the World Health Organization had warned against any religious profiling of coronavirus patients by the governments across the world .
`` Having COVID-19 is not anybody 's fault . Every case is a victim . It is very important that we do not profile the cases on the basis of racial , religious and ethnic lines , '' WHO 's emergency programme director Mike Ryan had said .
According to media reports , more than half of the nearly 500 cases of coronavirus in Ahmedabad have come from Muslim-majority neighbourhoods .
The city has long been a hotbed of communal divide , with separate localities marked for Hindus and Muslims .
In 2002 , Ahmedabad was one of the main sites of state-wide religious violence , in which nearly 2,000 Muslims were killed , dozens of women raped , and thousands others displaced .
The violence followed the outbreak of fire on a passenger train , in which 60 Hindu pilgrims were killed .
|
In what many are calling a case of "apartheid" during a global pandemic, a government-run hospital in Ahmedabad, the main city in the western Indian state of Gujarat, has segregated coronavirus patients based on their religion, claiming the order came from the government.
"Generally, there are separate wards for male and female patients. But here, we have made separate wards for Hindu and Muslim patients. It is a decision of the government and you can ask them," Dr Gunvant H Rathod, the medical superintendent of Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, told The Indian Express newspaper in its report on Wednesday.
More:
The Gujarat state is governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also governs the country. Narendra Modi was the state's chief minister for nearly 13 straight years from 2001 before he became India's prime minister in 2014.
When Al Jazeera called Jayanti Ravi, the principal secretary of health in the Gujarat government, about the segregation of patients on religious lines, her personal assistant took the call and suggested we speak to Dr Sanjay Solanki, the resident medical officer at the hospital.
"I have no idea," said the personal assistant, without revealing his name.
Solanki, in turn, asked Al Jazeera to speak to Rathod. "He is the right person to talk to," he said.
Rathod did not answer the phone calls made by Al Jazeera.
USCIRF is concerned with reports of Hindu & Muslim patients separated into separate hospital wards in #Gujarat. Such actions only help to further increase ongoing stigmatization of Muslims in #India and exacerbate false rumors of Muslims spreading #COVID19 https://t.co/GXigs4w5na — USCIRF (@USCIRF) April 15, 2020
'Knowing Gujarat, I am not surprised'
Meanwhile, Gujarat's Health Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel told Al Jazeera that nothing of that sort had happened.
"Whatever is needed to give people the best possible treatment is being done," he said and hung up.
The state's health department also put out an official statement, calling reports of separate wards for Muslims and Hindus "baseless".
"Patients are kept in different wards based on their medical condition, severity of the symptoms and age, purely based on the advice of the treating doctors. Therefore, reports appearing in certain media are totally baseless and misleading," it said.
However, in The Indian Express report, a patient was quoted as saying, "On Sunday night, the names of 28 men admitted in the first ward (A-4) were called out. We were then shifted to another ward (C-4)."
"While we were not told why we were being shifted, all the names that were called out belonged to one community. We spoke to one staff member in our ward and he said this had been done for 'the comfort of both communities'."
A family is transported to a quarantine centre after one of the members tested positive for coronavirus in Ahmedabad [Amit Dave/Reuters]
According to a doctor quoted in another report by The Hindu newspaper, "Certain patients from the majority community were not comfortable being in the same ward with patients of the minority community."
"After some patients complained, it was decided to segregate them on temporary basis," the doctor told the newspaper on condition of anonymity.
When Ahmedabad-based sociologist Ghanashyam Shah was asked by Al Jazeera if the hospital segregating patients according to their religion amounted to apartheid, he replied, "Absolutely."
"Knowing Gujarat, I am not surprised it has happened," he said.
"It is a very obvious kind of thing. The fake news propaganda around Muslims spreading the virus is probably rampant across India. But I can see it is visible in Gujarat."
Shah was alluding to a widespread Islamophobia fuelled by the coronavirus pandemic, especially after Tablighi Jamaat, a Muslim missionary group, organised a congregation in New Delhi in March.
The congregation was later linked to hundreds of COVID-19 positive cases across the country, triggering a nationwide hunt to trace the attendees.
On Wednesday, Tablighi Jamaat chief Maulana Saad Kandhalvi was charged with "culpable homicide".
Earlier this month, the World Health Organization had warned against any religious profiling of coronavirus patients by the governments across the world.
"Having COVID-19 is not anybody's fault. Every case is a victim. It is very important that we do not profile the cases on the basis of racial, religious and ethnic lines," WHO's emergency programme director Mike Ryan had said.
According to media reports, more than half of the nearly 500 cases of coronavirus in Ahmedabad have come from Muslim-majority neighbourhoods.
The city has long been a hotbed of communal divide, with separate localities marked for Hindus and Muslims.
In 2002, Ahmedabad was one of the main sites of state-wide religious violence, in which nearly 2,000 Muslims were killed, dozens of women raped, and thousands others displaced.
The violence followed the outbreak of fire on a passenger train, in which 60 Hindu pilgrims were killed.
|
www.aljazeera.com
| 0left
|
gvrNyGCCfohKrweW
|
|
elections
|
Guest Writer - Right
| 22
|
https://reason.com/2019/08/26/elizabeth-warrens-pitch-for-economic-patriotism-is-full-of-intellectual-dishonesty-and-economic-fallacies/
|
Elizabeth Warren's Pitch for 'Economic Patriotism' Is Full of Intellectual Dishonesty and Economic Fallacies
|
2019-08-26
|
Eric Boehm, Josh Blackman, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Brian Doherty, Charles Oliver, Scott Shackford, Noah Shepardson
|
Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D–Mass . ) is promising to protect Americans from the scourge of…pencils ?
In a new video posted to Twitter over the weekend , the presidential candidate promises to create a new federal agency that would expand on the protectionist measures undertaken by Donald Trump . She 's even borrowing Trumpian rhetoric for the project , which she calls `` economic patriotism , '' as she promises that a Warren administration would put the interests of American workers first .
Warren 's attack on corporations that supposedly harm Americans by shifting jobs overseas is full of intellectual dishonesty and economic fallacies . Rather than making a case for greater government involvement in the corporate boardrooms of America , the video succeeds only at highlighting how misinformed and misguided such interventions are , regardless of whether they are executed by Trump or Warren .
`` There are a lot of giant companies who like to call themselves 'American , ' but face it : they have no loyalty or allegiance to America , '' she says in the video .
A lot of giant companies refer to themselves as `` American . '' But let 's face it , they only have one real loyalty : Their shareholders . A Warren administration will halt the hollowing out of American cities and create good American jobs . Here 's how . pic.twitter.com/pX0VpRXqqR — Elizabeth Warren ( @ ewarren ) August 25 , 2019
As proof , Warren points to the `` famous no . 2 pencil , '' which is mostly manufactured in Mexico and China . Her video does n't make clear why pencils should have to be made in America—or why that lack of good , pencil-making jobs in America is a problem .
That Warren chose to use pencils to illustrate the supposed need for `` economic patriotism '' is darkly hilarious to anyone familiar with `` I , Pencil , '' Leonard Read 's 1958 parable about the merits of free markets and comparative advantage . Reed 's lesson is that no one on the planet has the means or knowledge to make an item as mundane and ubiquitous as a simple pencil . A pencil requires wood , graphite , brass , and rubber , but each component part is the result of supply chains that might stretch around the world—from the forests of the Pacific Northwest to the mines of Mexico to the factories of Indonesia .
`` Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me , '' Read wrote in the role of the eponymous pencil . `` Each one wants me less , perhaps , than does a child in the first grade . ''
And yet we have pencils . Tons of them . Not only that , but the process for obtaining and combining those various component parts is so efficient—despite `` the absence of a master mind '' directing all those activities , Read notes—that you can buy dozens of pencils for no more than a few dollars . The simple pencil is a miracle of the modern world , and of trade that crisscrosses national borders .
What is true about pencils is true about almost everything else you buy too . There 's not really any such thing as an `` American '' or `` foreign '' automobile anymore . Not when the world 's biggest BMW plant is in South Carolina , and when the assembly line for a single car seat might zig-zag across the U.S.-Mexico border five or six times . The iPhone is engineered in the United States , is manufactured in China , and contains components sourced all over the world .
That Warren fails to grasp this—or that she cynically believes voters do n't grasp it—makes her no better than Trump when it comes to trade policy . Indeed , Trump 's use ( and abuse ) of executive power to implement his own myopic and self-defeating trade policies may have only paved the way for a more competent protectionist like Warren , if she ends up in the White House .
It 's worth noting that Warren 's proposal for a new federal department to oversee her `` economic patriotism '' scheme would potentially streamline some government functions . She says the new Department of Economic Development would replace the Commerce Department and `` a handful of other government agencies . '' Consolidation of the federal bureaucracy can be a good way to root out unnecessary overlap between existing agencies , but this seems like an effort at reorganizing a bunch of things the feds should n't be doing in the first place .
Beyond that , there 's little truth to the claim that American manufacturing has been hollowed out by trade . Foreign investment in American manufacturing reached record highs in 2018 , and American manufacturing output has tripled since 1980 .
Warren 's proposal smacks of a disingenuous attack on the benefits of free markets , with Warren trying—and failing—to make American corporations seem like a foreign threat .
`` The truth is , '' she claims in the video , '' these American companies have only one real loyalty , and that 's to their shareholders , a third of whom are foreign investors . ''
What about other two-thirds of those shareholders Warren is trying to demonize ? Well , they would be Americans , of course .
|
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) is promising to protect Americans from the scourge of…pencils?
In a new video posted to Twitter over the weekend, the presidential candidate promises to create a new federal agency that would expand on the protectionist measures undertaken by Donald Trump. She's even borrowing Trumpian rhetoric for the project, which she calls "economic patriotism," as she promises that a Warren administration would put the interests of American workers first.
Warren's attack on corporations that supposedly harm Americans by shifting jobs overseas is full of intellectual dishonesty and economic fallacies. Rather than making a case for greater government involvement in the corporate boardrooms of America, the video succeeds only at highlighting how misinformed and misguided such interventions are, regardless of whether they are executed by Trump or Warren.
"There are a lot of giant companies who like to call themselves 'American,' but face it: they have no loyalty or allegiance to America," she says in the video.
A lot of giant companies refer to themselves as "American." But let's face it, they only have one real loyalty: Their shareholders. A Warren administration will halt the hollowing out of American cities and create good American jobs. Here's how. pic.twitter.com/pX0VpRXqqR — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 25, 2019
As proof, Warren points to the "famous no. 2 pencil," which is mostly manufactured in Mexico and China. Her video doesn't make clear why pencils should have to be made in America—or why that lack of good, pencil-making jobs in America is a problem.
That Warren chose to use pencils to illustrate the supposed need for "economic patriotism" is darkly hilarious to anyone familiar with "I, Pencil," Leonard Read's 1958 parable about the merits of free markets and comparative advantage. Reed's lesson is that no one on the planet has the means or knowledge to make an item as mundane and ubiquitous as a simple pencil. A pencil requires wood, graphite, brass, and rubber, but each component part is the result of supply chains that might stretch around the world—from the forests of the Pacific Northwest to the mines of Mexico to the factories of Indonesia.
"Neither the worker in the oil field nor the chemist nor the digger of graphite or clay nor any who mans or makes the ships or trains or trucks nor the one who runs the machine that does the knurling on my bit of metal nor the president of the company performs his singular task because he wants me," Read wrote in the role of the eponymous pencil. "Each one wants me less, perhaps, than does a child in the first grade."
And yet we have pencils. Tons of them. Not only that, but the process for obtaining and combining those various component parts is so efficient—despite "the absence of a master mind" directing all those activities, Read notes—that you can buy dozens of pencils for no more than a few dollars. The simple pencil is a miracle of the modern world, and of trade that crisscrosses national borders.
What is true about pencils is true about almost everything else you buy too. There's not really any such thing as an "American" or "foreign" automobile anymore. Not when the world's biggest BMW plant is in South Carolina, and when the assembly line for a single car seat might zig-zag across the U.S.-Mexico border five or six times. The iPhone is engineered in the United States, is manufactured in China, and contains components sourced all over the world.
That Warren fails to grasp this—or that she cynically believes voters don't grasp it—makes her no better than Trump when it comes to trade policy. Indeed, Trump's use (and abuse) of executive power to implement his own myopic and self-defeating trade policies may have only paved the way for a more competent protectionist like Warren, if she ends up in the White House.
It's worth noting that Warren's proposal for a new federal department to oversee her "economic patriotism" scheme would potentially streamline some government functions. She says the new Department of Economic Development would replace the Commerce Department and "a handful of other government agencies." Consolidation of the federal bureaucracy can be a good way to root out unnecessary overlap between existing agencies, but this seems like an effort at reorganizing a bunch of things the feds shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Beyond that, there's little truth to the claim that American manufacturing has been hollowed out by trade. Foreign investment in American manufacturing reached record highs in 2018, and American manufacturing output has tripled since 1980.
Warren's proposal smacks of a disingenuous attack on the benefits of free markets, with Warren trying—and failing—to make American corporations seem like a foreign threat.
"The truth is," she claims in the video," these American companies have only one real loyalty, and that's to their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors."
What about other two-thirds of those shareholders Warren is trying to demonize? Well, they would be Americans, of course.
|
www.reason.com
| 1right
|
b4u4z1vNKI9nnDh6
|
white_house
|
American Spectator
| 22
|
https://spectator.org/trump-finds-freedom-lacks-loyalty/
|
Trump Finds Freedom Lacks Loyalty
|
Debra J. Saunders, Jeffrey Lord, Brian Mcnicoll, Aymenn Al-Tamimi, Jared Whitley
|
President Donald Trump failed to persuade enough House Republicans to vote for his American Health Care Act , leading to its withdrawal from the House floor on Friday . How did the effort to pass a replacement for Obamacare go wrong ? Let me count the ways .
One . The GOP House has too many members who are like Trump was 2016 , when he acted as a Caucus of One . He bucked the GOP establishment and assured the party base that the path to victory was to shout over any and all voices of moderation . When critics said Trump was crossing the line , he rarely retreated . The House GOP Freedom Caucus — a right-of-right rump with close to 30 members —followed the same playbook . On the health care bill , members acted like 30 Trumps , pitted against one Trump .
After the vote , I talked to Hoover Institution wiseman Bill Whalen , who always knows how to put these things in perspective . The problem , as Whalen sees it , is this : “ How do you threaten people with political Siberia when they ’ re already proud of being Siberians ? ”
Two . The GOP actually did become the Party of No . “ We were a 10-year opposition party where being against things was the easy thing to do , ” Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Friday . And : “ Doing big things is hard . ”
Three . Democrats don ’ t look for the perfect today ; they ’ re in it for the long game . In 2010 , then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to corral enough Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama ’ s Affordable Care Act — even though it was not the single-payer plan that many Democrats preferred .
On the right , Whalen noted , many politicians have an “ Ivory soap standard ” — if a measure isn ’ t 99.44 percent pure , they ’ ll reject it .
Four . Once Washington gives something to people , woe to the party that tries to take it away .
Obama promised voters that he could offer health care to more people , including people with pre-existing conditions , and expand benefits – and that somehow his package would lower premiums and save American families $ 2,500 annually . It never ceases to amaze me how many smart people believed what shrinks rightly call magical thinking — that the public can save money paying for more services .
That unrealistic standard has become the floor to the mainstream media . One frequent meme is that Trump voters , who tend to be older , would get hit the hardest by the GOP plan . It ’ s true , the Trump plan would have changed the Obamacare formula that required insurers to charge older consumers no more than three times what they charge the youngest adults . The GOP package ’ s formula limited the ratio to 5-to-1 , which would have increased premiums for older people too young for Medicare . ( The GOP plan tried to soften that blow with higher tax credits for older Americans . )
Missing from reporting was reporting on how the old formula unfairly lowered premiums for older Americans — and I write this as someone in that older age bracket — by driving up premiums for young adults . And when young , healthy adults abstain from buying health care , premiums go up for everyone .
Five . Like Obama before him , Trump made the mistake of trying to pass his big health care package with votes from his party alone .
Obama succeeded . Trump failed , Whalen noted , because Trump had fewer Republicans , 237 , than Obama had Democrats , 253 , in 2010 . With that many more Democrats , Whalen noted , Obama could “ play ball. ” The Trump White House made concessions to woo Freedom Caucus votes , and then more concessions were sought — those concessions chased away moderate Republicans . As White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it , negotiations devolved to the point where , to get “ two members , you ’ re giving up 14 . ”
Friday afternoon , the president blamed Democrats for the bill ’ s demise , as not one Democrat would vote for it . But then , Trump didn ’ t reach out to the Democrats . Friday the president said he expects Democrats to reach out to him when Obamacare “ explodes ” — and that he was open to working with them .
Trump seems to have learned his lesson . He isn ’ t trying to woo GOP votes over the weekend . He ’ s done . “ We learned a lot about loyalty , ” the president said . Methinks the Freedom Caucus is dead to him .
|
Washington
President Donald Trump failed to persuade enough House Republicans to vote for his American Health Care Act, leading to its withdrawal from the House floor on Friday. How did the effort to pass a replacement for Obamacare go wrong? Let me count the ways.
One. The GOP House has too many members who are like Trump was 2016, when he acted as a Caucus of One. He bucked the GOP establishment and assured the party base that the path to victory was to shout over any and all voices of moderation. When critics said Trump was crossing the line, he rarely retreated. The House GOP Freedom Caucus — a right-of-right rump with close to 30 members —followed the same playbook. On the health care bill, members acted like 30 Trumps, pitted against one Trump.
After the vote, I talked to Hoover Institution wiseman Bill Whalen, who always knows how to put these things in perspective. The problem, as Whalen sees it, is this: “How do you threaten people with political Siberia when they’re already proud of being Siberians?”
Two. The GOP actually did become the Party of No. “We were a 10-year opposition party where being against things was the easy thing to do,” Speaker Paul Ryan admitted Friday. And: “Doing big things is hard.”
Three. Democrats don’t look for the perfect today; they’re in it for the long game. In 2010, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to corral enough Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act — even though it was not the single-payer plan that many Democrats preferred.
On the right, Whalen noted, many politicians have an “Ivory soap standard” — if a measure isn’t 99.44 percent pure, they’ll reject it.
Four. Once Washington gives something to people, woe to the party that tries to take it away.
Obama promised voters that he could offer health care to more people, including people with pre-existing conditions, and expand benefits – and that somehow his package would lower premiums and save American families $2,500 annually. It never ceases to amaze me how many smart people believed what shrinks rightly call magical thinking — that the public can save money paying for more services.
That unrealistic standard has become the floor to the mainstream media. One frequent meme is that Trump voters, who tend to be older, would get hit the hardest by the GOP plan. It’s true, the Trump plan would have changed the Obamacare formula that required insurers to charge older consumers no more than three times what they charge the youngest adults. The GOP package’s formula limited the ratio to 5-to-1, which would have increased premiums for older people too young for Medicare. (The GOP plan tried to soften that blow with higher tax credits for older Americans.)
Missing from reporting was reporting on how the old formula unfairly lowered premiums for older Americans — and I write this as someone in that older age bracket — by driving up premiums for young adults. And when young, healthy adults abstain from buying health care, premiums go up for everyone.
Five. Like Obama before him, Trump made the mistake of trying to pass his big health care package with votes from his party alone.
Obama succeeded. Trump failed, Whalen noted, because Trump had fewer Republicans, 237, than Obama had Democrats, 253, in 2010. With that many more Democrats, Whalen noted, Obama could “play ball.” The Trump White House made concessions to woo Freedom Caucus votes, and then more concessions were sought — those concessions chased away moderate Republicans. As White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it, negotiations devolved to the point where, to get “two members, you’re giving up 14.”
Friday afternoon, the president blamed Democrats for the bill’s demise, as not one Democrat would vote for it. But then, Trump didn’t reach out to the Democrats. Friday the president said he expects Democrats to reach out to him when Obamacare “explodes” — and that he was open to working with them.
Trump seems to have learned his lesson. He isn’t trying to woo GOP votes over the weekend. He’s done. “We learned a lot about loyalty,” the president said. Methinks the Freedom Caucus is dead to him.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
|
www.spectator.org
| 1right
|
TGFOcn0chUB6m0GP
|
|
polarization
|
BBC News
| 11
|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41543631
|
White nationalists return to Charlottesville
|
White nationalist protesters have returned to the US town Charlottesville two months after violent clashes there saw a woman killed .
The town 's mayor said the small group 's appearance at the statue of a Confederate general was `` another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards '' .
The brief torch-lit rally was organised by far-right figure Richard Spencer .
In videos he posted protesters can be heard chanting `` You will not replace us '' and `` we will be back '' .
The statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee was also the venue for the `` Unite the Right '' rally in August , held to oppose plans to remove it .
Counter-demonstrator Heather Heyer , 32 , was killed when a participant drove into a group of counter-protesters at high speed .
Between 40 and 50 people are thought to have attended the rally in Emancipation Park by the statue of Gen Lee , which has been covered up while a legal challenge to its removal takes place .
In the video live-streamed by Mr Spencer , he said Charlottesville had become a symbol of the suppression of free speech and destruction of historical monuments .
The group , all dressed similarly and holding lit torches , could be heard chanting `` the south will rise again '' and `` Russia is our friend '' .
Another speaker said the group was there to `` represent white America 's interests '' and criticised the local community and the media .
Police said the group left the park shortly before 20:00 ( 0:00 GMT ) . Mayor Mike Signer said officials were looking at legal ways to prevent further events .
Mr Spencer is the founder of a right-wing website and think-tank and has made a series of controversial comments at public events , including allegedly advocating `` peaceful '' ethnic cleansing .
The US has been gripped by a national debate on whether to remove Confederate symbols from the US civil war because of their association with slavery .
After the violence in Charlottesville , many local governments acted to remove Confederate monuments .
|
Image copyright Reuters Image caption In August white nationalist protesters held tiki torches at the Lee monument
White nationalist protesters have returned to the US town Charlottesville two months after violent clashes there saw a woman killed.
The town's mayor said the small group's appearance at the statue of a Confederate general was "another despicable visit by neo-Nazi cowards".
The brief torch-lit rally was organised by far-right figure Richard Spencer.
In videos he posted protesters can be heard chanting "You will not replace us" and "we will be back".
The statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee was also the venue for the "Unite the Right" rally in August, held to oppose plans to remove it.
Counter-demonstrator Heather Heyer, 32, was killed when a participant drove into a group of counter-protesters at high speed.
Between 40 and 50 people are thought to have attended the rally in Emancipation Park by the statue of Gen Lee, which has been covered up while a legal challenge to its removal takes place.
In the video live-streamed by Mr Spencer, he said Charlottesville had become a symbol of the suppression of free speech and destruction of historical monuments.
The group, all dressed similarly and holding lit torches, could be heard chanting "the south will rise again" and "Russia is our friend".
Another speaker said the group was there to "represent white America's interests" and criticised the local community and the media.
Police said the group left the park shortly before 20:00 (0:00 GMT). Mayor Mike Signer said officials were looking at legal ways to prevent further events.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Mr Spencer (pictured here during the August rally) live-streamed the latest protest
Mr Spencer is the founder of a right-wing website and think-tank and has made a series of controversial comments at public events, including allegedly advocating "peaceful" ethnic cleansing.
The US has been gripped by a national debate on whether to remove Confederate symbols from the US civil war because of their association with slavery.
After the violence in Charlottesville, many local governments acted to remove Confederate monuments.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
xdXjLdDxRSZT7MRO
|
||
federal_budget
|
Christian Science Monitor
| 11
|
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/1002/Government-shutdown-White-House-meeting-with-lawmakers-goes-nowhere
|
Government shutdown: White House meeting with lawmakers goes nowhere
|
2013-10-02
|
Brad Knickerbocker
|
For 90 minutes late Wednesday afternoon , the leaders of the House and Senate met with President Obama at the White House , looking to resolve a government shutdown headed into its third day while also averting what would be an even costlier default on US debt .
The meeting failed to do that , and both sides appear as intransigent as ever .
Obama `` refuses to negotiate , '' House Speaker John Boehner ( R ) of Ohio told reporters as he left the White House . `` All we 're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare . ”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ( D ) of Nevada said , `` We 're locked in tight on Obamacare '' and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress will accept changes in that health-care law as the price for spending legislation needed to reopen the government .
In an interview with CNBC before meeting with lawmakers , Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans until the government is reopened and Congress votes to raise the debt limit .
`` If we get in the habit where a few folks , an extremist wing of one party , whether it 's Democrat or Republican , are allowed to extort concessions based on a threat to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States , then any president who comes after me , not just me , will find themselves unable to govern effectively , '' he said .
Warnings about the impact of the government shutdown and – less than two weeks from now ( Oct. 17 ) – the potential failure to raise the US debt limit mounted up Wednesday .
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the shutdown , together with the recent sequestration , “ seriously damages our ability to protect the security and safety of this nation and its citizens . ”
“ This is not just a Beltway issue , ” he said . “ This affects our global capability . ''
Mr. Clapper also warned that the shutdown ( which has furloughed about 70 percent of intelligence agency civilians , including thousands at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency ) “ is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit . ”
US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said the shutdown “ impacts significantly day-to-day operations , '' forcing the military to cut training and other important programs .
`` The longer it goes on , the worse it gets , ” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from Germany , where he was attending a conference . “ Every day that goes by , we are losing manpower , we are losing capability , so in my mind it is important we get this resolved . ”
Meanwhile , Wall Street jitters continued the second day of the shutdown . The Dow Jones industrial average fell 58.56 points , the Standard & Poor 's 500 index dropped 1.13 , and the NASDAQ composite index fell 2.96 points .
`` Everyone is very cautious about how to react to the US shutdown , '' Andrew Sullivan at Kim Eng Securities in Hong Kong told USA Today . `` There 's a lot for people to worry about . ''
In Washington , where they had just met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden , Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein , Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan , and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned of the adverse consequences of default .
“ You can re-litigate these policy issues [ such as Obamacare ] in the political forum , but they shouldn ’ t use the threat of causing the US to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel , ” Mr. Blankfein told reporters .
“ There ’ s precedent for a government shutdown . There ’ s no precedent for a default , ” he said . “ We ’ re the most important economy in the world . We ’ re the reserve currency of the world . Payments have to go out to people . If money doesn ’ t flow in , then money doesn ’ t flow out . We really haven ’ t seen this before and I ’ m not anxious to be a part of the process that witnesses it . ”
Polls continue to show that while Americans consider this to be a “ plague on both your houses ” situation , they are more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the current impasse .
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy
A CNN/ORC International poll regarding the debt ceiling impasse released Wednesday finds that Republicans are seen as “ more responsible ” than Obama 53 to 31 percent . Most of those surveyed ( 56 to 38 percent ) also believe that failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Oct. 17 deadline would be a “ bad thing . ”
Regarding the Affordable Care Act , a majority ( 51 to 43 percent ) also thinks that “ raising the debt ceiling to make sure the government has enough money to pay its debts ” is more important than “ delaying the date on which major provisions in the new health care law will take effect . ”
|
For 90 minutes late Wednesday afternoon, the leaders of the House and Senate met with President Obama at the White House, looking to resolve a government shutdown headed into its third day while also averting what would be an even costlier default on US debt.
The meeting failed to do that, and both sides appear as intransigent as ever.
Obama "refuses to negotiate," House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio told reporters as he left the White House. "All we're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare.”
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada said, "We're locked in tight on Obamacare" and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress will accept changes in that health-care law as the price for spending legislation needed to reopen the government.
In an interview with CNBC before meeting with lawmakers, Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans until the government is reopened and Congress votes to raise the debt limit.
"If we get in the habit where a few folks, an extremist wing of one party, whether it's Democrat or Republican, are allowed to extort concessions based on a threat to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States, then any president who comes after me, not just me, will find themselves unable to govern effectively," he said.
Warnings about the impact of the government shutdown and – less than two weeks from now (Oct. 17) – the potential failure to raise the US debt limit mounted up Wednesday.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the shutdown, together with the recent sequestration, “seriously damages our ability to protect the security and safety of this nation and its citizens.”
“This is not just a Beltway issue,” he said. “This affects our global capability."
Mr. Clapper also warned that the shutdown (which has furloughed about 70 percent of intelligence agency civilians, including thousands at the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency) “is a dreamland for foreign intelligence services to recruit.”
US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said the shutdown “impacts significantly day-to-day operations," forcing the military to cut training and other important programs.
"The longer it goes on, the worse it gets,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from Germany, where he was attending a conference. “Every day that goes by, we are losing manpower, we are losing capability, so in my mind it is important we get this resolved.”
Meanwhile, Wall Street jitters continued the second day of the shutdown. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 58.56 points, the Standard & Poor's 500 index dropped 1.13, and the NASDAQ composite index fell 2.96 points.
"Everyone is very cautious about how to react to the US shutdown," Andrew Sullivan at Kim Eng Securities in Hong Kong told USA Today. "There's a lot for people to worry about."
In Washington, where they had just met with the president and Vice President Joe Biden, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned of the adverse consequences of default.
“You can re-litigate these policy issues [such as Obamacare] in the political forum, but they shouldn’t use the threat of causing the US to fail on its obligations to repay its debt as a cudgel,” Mr. Blankfein told reporters.
“There’s precedent for a government shutdown. There’s no precedent for a default,” he said. “We’re the most important economy in the world. We’re the reserve currency of the world. Payments have to go out to people. If money doesn’t flow in, then money doesn’t flow out. We really haven’t seen this before and I’m not anxious to be a part of the process that witnesses it.”
Polls continue to show that while Americans consider this to be a “plague on both your houses” situation, they are more inclined to blame Republicans than Democrats for the current impasse.
Get the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy
A CNN/ORC International poll regarding the debt ceiling impasse released Wednesday finds that Republicans are seen as “more responsible” than Obama 53 to 31 percent. Most of those surveyed (56 to 38 percent) also believe that failure to raise the debt ceiling by the Oct. 17 deadline would be a “bad thing.”
Regarding the Affordable Care Act, a majority (51 to 43 percent) also thinks that “raising the debt ceiling to make sure the government has enough money to pay its debts” is more important than “delaying the date on which major provisions in the new health care law will take effect.”
|
www.csmonitor.com
| 2center
|
5vx2yyweJsvsiS7W
|
democratic_party
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/04/are-democrats-ditching-the-war-on-women-n1874301
|
Are Democrats 'Ditching' The War On Women?
|
2014-08-04
|
Matt Vespa, Beth Baumann, Bronson Stocking
|
With the recent Hobby Lobby decision , one would think this legal victory for conservatives could galvanize single women into turning out for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections . It ’ s still a possibility . After all , the Daily Beast is running op-eds showing how women are driving the Democratic Party ’ s agenda :
My friend Doug Sosnik has forgotten more about analyzing polling data than most of us will ever know , but he mistakes the wave for the currents in his POLITICO Magazine cover story , “ Blue Crush : How the left took over the Democratic Party. ” By focusing on ideology , Sosnik ’ s analysis ignores what is driving the power shift in the Democratic electorate . The reason that Democrats have achieved a consensus supporting LGBT rights , marijuana legalization and immigration reform is because they now enjoy a double-digit lead among women , especially unmarried women . The left hasn ’ t taken over the Democratic Party . Women have . Sosnik does write that he can ’ t imagine “ a viable Democratic presidential candidate , ” much less a nominee , “ who isn ’ t willing to take clear positions on … supporting women ’ s health and their reproductive rights , ” but this core value is embedded among positions on hydraulic fracking and the minimum wage . In that word salad , it ’ s hard to tell the side dish from the entree . Put simply , when polls show a double-digit gender gap — and women turn out — we know who ’ s going to win and why .
The Democrat ’ s so-called “ war on women ” has surely helped mobilize these ladies into a juggernaut of a voting bloc . So , why are Democrats shying away from their signature slogan ? The National Journal reported on July 31 that this narrative may have run its course – and that Hobby Lobby might not bring it back with a vengeance ( emphasis mine ) :
Democrats want to talk about `` personhood '' and reproductive freedom . They want to tell voters about a stubborn pay gap and women hurt by a low minimum wage . But what they do n't want to do is talk about a `` war on women . '' Indeed , the party that so effectively deployed the `` war '' rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase , dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that , in so many other ways , is still very much about women 's issues . `` [ Saying ] 'Republicans are waging a war on women ' actually does n't test very well , '' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake . `` Women find it divisive , political—they do n't like it . '' … `` We are on much stronger ground when we talk about the specifics than when we talk about the category , '' said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman . `` And so when we talk about Republicans who want to make abortion illegal , Republicans who want to ban equal pay for equal work … the specific policy issues matter . That 's where the power is . ''
The Journal piece also noted that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes , who thinks Israel ’ s Iron Dome protects it from underground attacks , is using Senator Mitch McConnell ’ s votes against the Violence Against Women Act and Equal Pay as an example of this shift in messaging strategy . At the same time , McConnell and Grimes are polling even with Kentucky women .
Nevertheless , it still means Republicans should get more aggressive in debunking these disingenuous attacks , reaching out to single women by showing we ’ re , amongst other things , not insensitive towards their needs , and sharpening our messaging to avoid more Todd Akin moments .
On the other hand , there are other voting blocs that have just as much sway in elections . But , let 's not discount that `` war on women '' tactics could return in an ugly way .
|
With the recent Hobby Lobby decision, one would think this legal victory for conservatives could galvanize single women into turning out for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. It’s still a possibility. After all, the Daily Beast is running op-eds showing how women are driving the Democratic Party’s agenda:
My friend Doug Sosnik has forgotten more about analyzing polling data than most of us will ever know, but he mistakes the wave for the currents in his POLITICO Magazine cover story, “Blue Crush: How the left took over the Democratic Party.” By focusing on ideology, Sosnik’s analysis ignores what is driving the power shift in the Democratic electorate. The reason that Democrats have achieved a consensus supporting LGBT rights, marijuana legalization and immigration reform is because they now enjoy a double-digit lead among women, especially unmarried women. The left hasn’t taken over the Democratic Party. Women have. Sosnik does write that he can’t imagine “a viable Democratic presidential candidate,” much less a nominee, “who isn’t willing to take clear positions on … supporting women’s health and their reproductive rights,” but this core value is embedded among positions on hydraulic fracking and the minimum wage. In that word salad, it’s hard to tell the side dish from the entree. Put simply, when polls show a double-digit gender gap — and women turn out — we know who’s going to win and why.
The Democrat’s so-called “war on women” has surely helped mobilize these ladies into a juggernaut of a voting bloc. So, why are Democrats shying away from their signature slogan? The National Journal reported on July 31 that this narrative may have run its course – and that Hobby Lobby might not bring it back with a vengeance (emphasis mine) :
Democrats want to talk about "personhood" and reproductive freedom. They want to tell voters about a stubborn pay gap and women hurt by a low minimum wage. But what they don't want to do is talk about a "war on women." Indeed, the party that so effectively deployed the "war" rhetoric to help defeat Mitt Romney in 2012 has now sworn off its catch phrase, dropping it almost completely from a campaign strategy that, in so many other ways, is still very much about women's issues. "[Saying] 'Republicans are waging a war on women' actually doesn't test very well," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "Women find it divisive, political—they don't like it." … "We are on much stronger ground when we talk about the specifics than when we talk about the category," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "And so when we talk about Republicans who want to make abortion illegal, Republicans who want to ban equal pay for equal work … the specific policy issues matter. That's where the power is."
The Journal piece also noted that Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, who thinks Israel’s Iron Dome protects it from underground attacks, is using Senator Mitch McConnell’s votes against the Violence Against Women Act and Equal Pay as an example of this shift in messaging strategy. At the same time, McConnell and Grimes are polling even with Kentucky women.
Nevertheless, it still means Republicans should get more aggressive in debunking these disingenuous attacks, reaching out to single women by showing we’re, amongst other things, not insensitive towards their needs, and sharpening our messaging to avoid more Todd Akin moments.
On the other hand, there are other voting blocs that have just as much sway in elections. But, let's not discount that "war on women" tactics could return in an ugly way.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
1hlRhnbo0mVe5LnS
|
justice
|
Breitbart News
| 22
|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/03/donald-trump-justice-department-hillary-clinton/
|
Donald Trump Challenges Jeff Sessions: ‘Where Is Our Justice Department’ on Hillary Clinton?
|
2017-11-03
|
Charlie Spiering
|
President Donald Trump signaled frustration with the Justice Department ’ s failure to respond to the ongoing scandals involving the Clinton family , the DNC , the FBI , and the “ phony ” Russian sourced dossier .
“ A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department , including me , ” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday morning before leaving for his trip to Asia .
Trump said that the Justice Department should be investigating Democrats and the Clintons , sharing several observations on Twitter .
“ This is real collusion and dishonesty , ” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday night , responding to Donna Brazile ’ s revelation that Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign was controlling DNC operations and fundraising well before winning her primary .
….This is real collusion and dishonesty . Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department ? — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 3 , 2017
“ Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department ? ” Trump wondered .
The president appears unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions failure to investigate the Clintons , despite recent revelations about their “ crooked ” behavior .
Trump said he thought Clinton ’ s “ deleted E-mails , Uranium , Podesta , the Server , plus , plus… ” all deserved closer scrutiny .
“ People are angry , ” Trump continued on Twitter . “ At some point the Justice Department , and the FBI , must do what is right and proper . The American public deserves it ! ”
Trump also spoke about his frustration with the Justice Department in an interview with WMAL ’ s Larry O ’ Connor .
“ The saddest thing is because I ’ m the President of the United States , I ’ m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department , I am not supposed to be involved in the FBI , ” Trump said . “ I ’ m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I ’ m very frustrated by it . ”
Trump indicated that he wanted the Justice Department to investigate the Clintons .
“ I look at what ’ s going on with the Justice Department , well , why aren ’ t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and dossier ? ” he asked . “ It ’ s very discouraging to me . To be honest , I ’ m very unhappy about it . ”
Trump signaled frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to target the Clintons .
“ Everybody is asking why the Justice Department ( and FBI ) isn ’ t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems , ” Trump wrote on Twitter .
Everybody is asking why the Justice Department ( and FBI ) is n't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems .. — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) November 3 , 2017
The president , however , appeared to be aware that he could not order the Justice Department to investigate .
“ As a president , you ’ re not supposed to be involved in that process , ” he admitted to Ingraham . “ But hopefully are doing something . At some point , maybe we ’ re going to have it out . ”
|
President Donald Trump signaled frustration with the Justice Department’s failure to respond to the ongoing scandals involving the Clinton family, the DNC, the FBI, and the “phony” Russian sourced dossier.
“A lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday morning before leaving for his trip to Asia.
Trump said that the Justice Department should be investigating Democrats and the Clintons, sharing several observations on Twitter.
“This is real collusion and dishonesty,” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday night, responding to Donna Brazile’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was controlling DNC operations and fundraising well before winning her primary.
….This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2017
“Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering – where is our Justice Department?” Trump wondered.
The president appears unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions failure to investigate the Clintons, despite recent revelations about their “crooked” behavior.
Trump said he thought Clinton’s “deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus…” all deserved closer scrutiny.
“People are angry,” Trump continued on Twitter. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”
Trump also spoke about his frustration with the Justice Department in an interview with WMAL’s Larry O’Connor.
“The saddest thing is because I’m the President of the United States, I’m not supposed to be involved in the Justice Department, I am not supposed to be involved in the FBI,” Trump said. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kinds of things I would love to be doing and I’m very frustrated by it.”
Trump indicated that he wanted the Justice Department to investigate the Clintons.
“I look at what’s going on with the Justice Department, well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails and dossier?” he asked. “It’s very discouraging to me. To be honest, I’m very unhappy about it.”
Trump signaled frustration with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for failing to target the Clintons.
“Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2017
The president, however, appeared to be aware that he could not order the Justice Department to investigate.
“As a president, you’re not supposed to be involved in that process,” he admitted to Ingraham. “But hopefully are doing something. At some point, maybe we’re going to have it out.”
|
www.breitbart.com
| 1right
|
dD1DQWJE2UQV7u7B
|
middle_east
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/12/donald-trump-warns-iran-do-not-kill-your-protester/
|
Trump warns Iran: 'Do not kill your protesters'
|
2020-01-12
|
Ben Wolfgang
|
Amid growing protests and anger in the streets of Iran , President Trump on Sunday delivered a blunt warning to the government in Tehran .
“ To the leaders of Iran - DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS , ” Mr. Trump said in a Sunday morning Twitter post . “ Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you , and the World is watching . More importantly , the USA is watching . Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free ! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people ! ”
Protests across Iran grew on Sunday after the Iranian government was forced to admit that it accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner last week , killing all 176 people abroad and sparking outrage around the world . The shootdown came just after Iran launched ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq , bringing Washington and Tehran to the brink of all-out war .
The demonstrations across Iran highlight how anger inside the country is now turning on the Iranian government itself . Leaders in Tehran first denied that they were responsible for the downing of the plane only to reverse course as the truth became clear .
“ They are lying that our enemy is America , our enemy is right here , ” a group of Iranian protesters shouted on Sunday during a demonstration in Tehran , according to Reuters .
Demonstrators also reportedly chanted “ Death to the dictator , ” referring to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei .
Iranian leaders have apologized for the mistake and vowed that those responsible will be prosecuted .
Trump administration officials on Sunday reiterated that they ’ re willing to sit down with the Iranian government and negotiate for a permanent end to the country ’ s nuclear weapons program . At the same time , U.S. officials tried to capitalize on the growing protests and drive a wedge between the government in Tehran and Iranian citizens .
“ They want the same things that most people around the world want . They want prosperity , ” Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” program on Sunday . “ They want the ability to live their lives , to raise their children . And we do support those same aspirations for people wherever they are . I just think you see a very corrupt regime that the Iranian people are finally standing up and trying to hold them accountable . ”
|
Amid growing protests and anger in the streets of Iran, President Trump on Sunday delivered a blunt warning to the government in Tehran.
“To the leaders of Iran - DO NOT KILL YOUR PROTESTERS,” Mr. Trump said in a Sunday morning Twitter post. “Thousands have already been killed or imprisoned by you, and the World is watching. More importantly, the USA is watching. Turn your internet back on and let reporters roam free! Stop the killing of your great Iranian people!”
Protests across Iran grew on Sunday after the Iranian government was forced to admit that it accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner last week, killing all 176 people abroad and sparking outrage around the world. The shootdown came just after Iran launched ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq, bringing Washington and Tehran to the brink of all-out war.
The demonstrations across Iran highlight how anger inside the country is now turning on the Iranian government itself. Leaders in Tehran first denied that they were responsible for the downing of the plane only to reverse course as the truth became clear.
“They are lying that our enemy is America, our enemy is right here,” a group of Iranian protesters shouted on Sunday during a demonstration in Tehran, according to Reuters.
Demonstrators also reportedly chanted “Death to the dictator,” referring to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iranian leaders have apologized for the mistake and vowed that those responsible will be prosecuted.
Trump administration officials on Sunday reiterated that they’re willing to sit down with the Iranian government and negotiate for a permanent end to the country’s nuclear weapons program. At the same time, U.S. officials tried to capitalize on the growing protests and drive a wedge between the government in Tehran and Iranian citizens.
“They want the same things that most people around the world want. They want prosperity,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper told CBS’ “Face the Nation” program on Sunday. “They want the ability to live their lives, to raise their children. And we do support those same aspirations for people wherever they are. I just think you see a very corrupt regime that the Iranian people are finally standing up and trying to hold them accountable.”
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
gPSoXQ4vIhozUmgN
|
us_house
|
The Hill
| 11
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444975-pelosi-trump-is-engaged-in-a-cover-up
|
Pelosi: Trump 'is engaged in a cover up'
|
2019-05-22
|
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOvernight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Speaker Pelosi , it 's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Why Americans must tune in to the Trump impeachment hearings MORE ( D-Calif. ) on Wednesday accused President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans ' votes MORE of being `` engaged in a cover-up '' following a special meeting of House Democrats focused on ongoing congressional investigations into the Trump administration .
`` We do believe that it is important to follow the facts , we believe that no one is above the law , including the president of the United States , and we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up , in a cover-up , '' Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill .
Her broadside came just moments before she , Senate Minority Chuck Schumer Charles ( Chuck ) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care : Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight , seeking larger action MORE ( D-N.Y. ) and other Democrats headed to the White House to meet with Trump on a possible $ 2 trillion infrastructure package . But the meeting quickly went off the rails after Trump learned of Pelosi ’ s “ cover-up ” remarks ; the president told the Democrats he couldn ’ t work with them until they halted all of their `` phony investigations . ''
`` I don ’ t do cover-ups , '' Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden .
Democrats certainly won ’ t stop their probes into the president . But inside the closed-door Democratic meeting in the Capitol , Pelosi continued to urge caution about rushing down the path of impeachment , pointing to recent court victories in Democrats ' fight to obtain testimony and documents from the Trump administration and his business entities .
A district court this week issued a ruling upholding Democrats ’ subpoena ordering Trump ’ s accounting firm , Mazars , to hand over financial documents .
JUST IN : Speaker Pelosi says `` we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover up '' by stonewalling testimony for ongoing congressional investigations . pic.twitter.com/ncU6SegLrP — MSNBC ( @ MSNBC ) May 22 , 2019
Pelosi has been facing rising calls from members of her own party to launch impeachment proceedings to investigate potential obstruction of justice by Trump ; 10 examples of possible obstruction were outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller Robert ( Bob ) Swan MuellerSpeier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery ' by Trump Gowdy : I '100 percent ' still believe public congressional hearings are ' a circus ' Comey : Mueller 'did n't succeed in his mission because there was inadequate transparency ' MORE ’ s report .
Some House Democratic chairmen also have grown more open to impeachment as they deal with the Trump administration stonewalling their probes and issuing a near-blanket refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas .
In the closed-door meeting Wednesday , Financial Services Chairwoman 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. ) continued to bang the drum for impeachment , saying Congress had a “ responsibility ” to uphold the Constitution and provide a check on the president .
`` We need to stand up for ourselves , '' said 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. ) , a Judiciary Committee member who 's endorsed launching an impeachment inquiry . He estimated that a half dozen Democrats spoke up in favor of impeachment in the meeting .
But many other speakers in the meeting rushed to Pelosi ’ s defense . Rep. Zoe Lofgren Zoe Ellen LofgrenHillicon Valley : TikTok faces lawmaker anger over China ties | FCC formally approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Silicon Valley lawmakers introduce tough privacy bill | AT & T in M settlement with FTC Silicon Valley lawmakers introduce tough privacy bill to regulate top social media platforms Bipartisan group reveals agricultural worker immigration bill MORE ( D-Calif. ) , a fellow Bay Area lawmaker who serves on the Judiciary panel , told Pelosi that having a House impeachment inquiry “ doesn ’ t change a darn thing , ” according to a source in the room .
“ We still have to go to court to get our subpoenas enforced . You know , we are winning those battles now , ” Lofgren continued , adding that impeachment “ just muddies the issue and damages us . ”
As he updated members on his panel ’ s probes into Trump , Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler Jerrold ( Jerry ) Lewis NadlerHouse to vote on bill to ensure citizenship for children of overseas service members As impeachment goes public , forget 'conventional wisdom ' What this 'impeachment ' is really about — and it 's not the Constitution MORE ( D-N.Y. ) said the full House should immediately vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress next month when lawmakers return from the Memorial Day recess , sources in the meeting said .
Barr has refused to testify before the Judiciary panel over a dispute with Nadler and Democrats who want staff attorneys to be able to question Trump 's new attorney general . Nadler also insisted that Mueller 's testimony before his committee needs to be public , a response to reports that Mueller and the Justice Department want some of the questioning to take place behind closed doors .
Pelosi 's public remarks Wednesday marked her strongest yet on Trump following the release of Mueller 's report earlier this year . Pelosi said earlier this month that she agreed with Nadler 's assertion that the U.S. was facing a `` constitutional crisis '' after the panel voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress after he refused to turn over Mueller 's full report to lawmakers .
Pelosi has long viewed impeachment proceedings as a potential political trap heading into the 2020 election , with the potential to alienate swing voters and gin up enthusiasm among the president 's base .
That view was echoed by other Pelosi allies in Wednesday ’ s meeting .
“ I , right now , feel that we ’ re meeting our responsibility to defend the Constitution through the process that we ’ ve heard about today . I don ’ t in any way feel like we ’ re being timid , I don ’ t stand in front of any crowd and feel weak , but I point to all of the work that ’ s happening in these various Committees and I think that meets the bar that I set for defending the Constitution , ” Rep. John Sarbanes John Peter Spyros SarbanesHouse to vote this month on legislation to combat foreign interference in elections Hillicon Valley : Zuckerberg to testify on Libra | Extremists find home on Telegram app | Warren blasts Facebook for not removing anti-Biden ad | California outlaws facial recognition in police body cameras | China rips US tech sanctions House Democrats introduce new legislation to combat foreign election interference MORE ( D-Md . ) , a Baltimore native like Pelosi , told his colleagues in the room .
“ I do worry that if we move to impeachment , it ’ s going to make it harder , not easier , for us to beat the President for a whole variety of different reasons , ” “ So , because I believe that the current process — not an impeachment inquiry — is sufficient to put the pressure on , to be strong , on the one hand , and I believe that an impeachment proceeding is not going to help us in terms of defeating the President . ”
|
Speaker Nancy Pelosi Nancy PelosiOvernight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Speaker Pelosi, it's time to throw American innovators a lifeline Why Americans must tune in to the Trump impeachment hearings MORE (D-Calif.) on Wednesday accused President Trump Donald John TrumpGOP senators balk at lengthy impeachment trial Warren goes local in race to build 2020 movement 2020 Democrats make play for veterans' votes MORE of being "engaged in a cover-up" following a special meeting of House Democrats focused on ongoing congressional investigations into the Trump administration.
"We do believe that it is important to follow the facts, we believe that no one is above the law, including the president of the United States, and we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover-up, in a cover-up," Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill.
ADVERTISEMENT
Her broadside came just moments before she, Senate Minority Chuck Schumer Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerOvernight Health Care: Trump officials making changes to drug pricing proposal | House panel advances flavored e-cig ban | Senators press FDA tobacco chief on vaping ban Chad Wolf becomes acting DHS secretary Schumer blocks drug pricing measure during Senate fight, seeking larger action MORE (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats headed to the White House to meet with Trump on a possible $2 trillion infrastructure package. But the meeting quickly went off the rails after Trump learned of Pelosi’s “cover-up” remarks; the president told the Democrats he couldn’t work with them until they halted all of their "phony investigations."
"I don’t do cover-ups," Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden.
Democrats certainly won’t stop their probes into the president. But inside the closed-door Democratic meeting in the Capitol, Pelosi continued to urge caution about rushing down the path of impeachment, pointing to recent court victories in Democrats' fight to obtain testimony and documents from the Trump administration and his business entities.
A district court this week issued a ruling upholding Democrats’ subpoena ordering Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, to hand over financial documents.
JUST IN: Speaker Pelosi says "we believe the president of the United States is engaged in a cover up" by stonewalling testimony for ongoing congressional investigations. pic.twitter.com/ncU6SegLrP — MSNBC (@MSNBC) May 22, 2019
Pelosi has been facing rising calls from members of her own party to launch impeachment proceedings to investigate potential obstruction of justice by Trump; 10 examples of possible obstruction were outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) Swan MuellerSpeier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump Gowdy: I '100 percent' still believe public congressional hearings are 'a circus' Comey: Mueller 'didn't succeed in his mission because there was inadequate transparency' MORE’s report.
Some House Democratic chairmen also have grown more open to impeachment as they deal with the Trump administration stonewalling their probes and issuing a near-blanket refusal to respond to congressional subpoenas.
In the closed-door meeting Wednesday, Financial Services Chairwoman 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.) continued to bang the drum for impeachment, saying Congress had a “responsibility” to uphold the Constitution and provide a check on the president.
"We need to stand up for ourselves," said 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.), a Judiciary Committee member who's endorsed launching an impeachment inquiry. He estimated that a half dozen Democrats spoke up in favor of impeachment in the meeting.
But many other speakers in the meeting rushed to Pelosi’s defense. Rep. Zoe Lofgren Zoe Ellen LofgrenHillicon Valley: TikTok faces lawmaker anger over China ties | FCC formally approves T-Mobile-Sprint merger | Silicon Valley lawmakers introduce tough privacy bill | AT&T in M settlement with FTC Silicon Valley lawmakers introduce tough privacy bill to regulate top social media platforms Bipartisan group reveals agricultural worker immigration bill MORE (D-Calif.), a fellow Bay Area lawmaker who serves on the Judiciary panel, told Pelosi that having a House impeachment inquiry “doesn’t change a darn thing,” according to a source in the room.
“Nothing,” the Speaker agreed.
“We still have to go to court to get our subpoenas enforced. You know, we are winning those battles now,” Lofgren continued, adding that impeachment “just muddies the issue and damages us.”
As he updated members on his panel’s probes into Trump, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler Jerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerHouse to vote on bill to ensure citizenship for children of overseas service members As impeachment goes public, forget 'conventional wisdom' What this 'impeachment' is really about — and it's not the Constitution MORE (D-N.Y.) said the full House should immediately vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress next month when lawmakers return from the Memorial Day recess, sources in the meeting said.
Barr has refused to testify before the Judiciary panel over a dispute with Nadler and Democrats who want staff attorneys to be able to question Trump's new attorney general. Nadler also insisted that Mueller's testimony before his committee needs to be public, a response to reports that Mueller and the Justice Department want some of the questioning to take place behind closed doors.
Pelosi's public remarks Wednesday marked her strongest yet on Trump following the release of Mueller's report earlier this year. Pelosi said earlier this month that she agreed with Nadler's assertion that the U.S. was facing a "constitutional crisis" after the panel voted to hold Barr in contempt of Congress after he refused to turn over Mueller's full report to lawmakers.
Pelosi has long viewed impeachment proceedings as a potential political trap heading into the 2020 election, with the potential to alienate swing voters and gin up enthusiasm among the president's base.
That view was echoed by other Pelosi allies in Wednesday’s meeting.
“I, right now, feel that we’re meeting our responsibility to defend the Constitution through the process that we’ve heard about today. I don’t in any way feel like we’re being timid, I don’t stand in front of any crowd and feel weak, but I point to all of the work that’s happening in these various Committees and I think that meets the bar that I set for defending the Constitution,” Rep. John Sarbanes John Peter Spyros SarbanesHouse to vote this month on legislation to combat foreign interference in elections Hillicon Valley: Zuckerberg to testify on Libra | Extremists find home on Telegram app | Warren blasts Facebook for not removing anti-Biden ad | California outlaws facial recognition in police body cameras | China rips US tech sanctions House Democrats introduce new legislation to combat foreign election interference MORE (D-Md.), a Baltimore native like Pelosi, told his colleagues in the room.
“I do worry that if we move to impeachment, it’s going to make it harder, not easier, for us to beat the President for a whole variety of different reasons,” “So, because I believe that the current process — not an impeachment inquiry — is sufficient to put the pressure on, to be strong, on the one hand, and I believe that an impeachment proceeding is not going to help us in terms of defeating the President.”
—Cristina Marcos contributed. Updated at 12:14 p.m.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
pF6bZPF04cn5vOvK
|
|
politics
|
Yahoo! The 360
| 11
|
https://news.yahoo.com/why-havent-we-had-a-woman-president-220522743.html
|
Why haven't we had a woman president?
|
2020-03-10
|
Mike Bebernes
|
“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates .
Less than a year ago , the Democratic presidential field featured a record number of female candidates , many of them with credentials as strong as any of the men in the race . As the primary carried on , however , the women in the contest gradually fell off one by one .
Elizabeth Warren , the last woman with a realistic shot at winning , dropped out last week after a poor showing on Super Tuesday . Her withdrawal ended the chance that the first woman president would be elected in 2020 . Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the running but trails Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders by more than 500 delegates .
Women have been running for the presidency since 1872 , when Victoria Woodhull launched an ill-fated challenge to incumbent Ulysses S. Grant . Female candidates became increasingly competitive in recent decades , culminating in Hillary Clinton ’ s narrow loss to Donald Trump in 2016 . More than 50 countries around the world have had a female leader .
The narrowing of the Democratic field to two male competitors , four years after Clinton ’ s surprise defeat , has led to discussion about the barriers that prevent women from winning the presidency .
Overt sexism certainly exists — globally women are seen as inferior political leaders — but experts say a subtler form of sexism is more widespread and damaging in the U.S . This sexism arises in the standards that female candidates are held to , which some argue are higher than those placed on their male competitors . Women also face disproportionate pressure to be “ likable , ” a burden that can create a difficult balancing act between projecting competence and not coming off as too severe . Research also suggests that women are seen as less electable than men , a handicap that ’ s even more pronounced in a year when beating Trump is the top priority for Democratic voters .
Discussing these issues can itself be a hurdle for female candidates . “ If you say , ‘ Yeah — there was sexism in this race , ’ everyone says , ‘ Whiner. ’ And if you say , ‘ No , there was no sexism , ’ about a bazillion women think , ‘ What planet do you live on ? ’ ” Warren said .
Some pundits make the counterargument that the impact of sexism is overstated and can sometimes be used as an excuse to cover up the more tangible shortcomings of failed campaigns . Others say disappointment at the presidential level shouldn ’ t overshadow the many victories women have claimed in congressional and state elections .
Many prominent Democrats have called for Biden and Sanders to commit to naming a woman as their running mate for the general election . A female vice president would be a first for America , if Democrats take the White House in November .
America ’ s system of direct elections makes it harder for women
“ The parliamentary system allows parties to be more intentional about advancing women leaders . … Under a parliamentary system , the head of state is not decided by whether a particular group of voters — say , white working-class voters in Michigan — identify with a particular candidate . If the U.S. had a parliamentary system , then Nancy Pelosi might be president of the United States. ” — Charlotte Alter , Time
Denying that sexism is a problem makes it more difficult to combat
“ You can ’ t meaningfully address a problem like gender bias that half of the population refuses to acknowledge even exists. ” — Tessa Stuart , Rolling Stone
“ The problem goes beyond voters who hold traditional views of gender roles or admit that they wouldn ’ t be comfortable with a Madam President . More subtly , ambitious women are viewed more negatively than men , while women leaders are often considered less legitimate than men , in the United States , at least. ” — Michelle Cottle , New York Times
America is ready for a woman president but hasn ’ t been presented with the right candidate
“ If there is one thing Americans are prepared to do is vote for a female president . … I have no doubt about it . You find the right person with the right set of ideas and leadership style , it ’ s over — it becomes an advantage. ” — Pete Hegseth , Fox News
The burden of potentially being the first woman president hinders candidates
|
“The 360” shows you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories and debates.
What’s happening
Less than a year ago, the Democratic presidential field featured a record number of female candidates, many of them with credentials as strong as any of the men in the race. As the primary carried on, however, the women in the contest gradually fell off one by one.
Elizabeth Warren, the last woman with a realistic shot at winning, dropped out last week after a poor showing on Super Tuesday. Her withdrawal ended the chance that the first woman president would be elected in 2020. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the running but trails Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders by more than 500 delegates.
Women have been running for the presidency since 1872, when Victoria Woodhull launched an ill-fated challenge to incumbent Ulysses S. Grant. Female candidates became increasingly competitive in recent decades, culminating in Hillary Clinton’s narrow loss to Donald Trump in 2016. More than 50 countries around the world have had a female leader.
Why there’s debate
The narrowing of the Democratic field to two male competitors, four years after Clinton’s surprise defeat, has led to discussion about the barriers that prevent women from winning the presidency.
Overt sexism certainly exists — globally women are seen as inferior political leaders — but experts say a subtler form of sexism is more widespread and damaging in the U.S. This sexism arises in the standards that female candidates are held to, which some argue are higher than those placed on their male competitors. Women also face disproportionate pressure to be “likable,” a burden that can create a difficult balancing act between projecting competence and not coming off as too severe. Research also suggests that women are seen as less electable than men, a handicap that’s even more pronounced in a year when beating Trump is the top priority for Democratic voters.
Discussing these issues can itself be a hurdle for female candidates. “If you say, ‘Yeah — there was sexism in this race,’ everyone says, ‘Whiner.’ And if you say, ‘No, there was no sexism,’ about a bazillion women think, ‘What planet do you live on?’” Warren said.
Some pundits make the counterargument that the impact of sexism is overstated and can sometimes be used as an excuse to cover up the more tangible shortcomings of failed campaigns. Others say disappointment at the presidential level shouldn’t overshadow the many victories women have claimed in congressional and state elections.
What’s next
Many prominent Democrats have called for Biden and Sanders to commit to naming a woman as their running mate for the general election. A female vice president would be a first for America, if Democrats take the White House in November.
Perspectives
America’s system of direct elections makes it harder for women
“The parliamentary system allows parties to be more intentional about advancing women leaders. … Under a parliamentary system, the head of state is not decided by whether a particular group of voters — say, white working-class voters in Michigan — identify with a particular candidate. If the U.S. had a parliamentary system, then Nancy Pelosi might be president of the United States.” — Charlotte Alter, Time
Denying that sexism is a problem makes it more difficult to combat
“You can’t meaningfully address a problem like gender bias that half of the population refuses to acknowledge even exists.” — Tessa Stuart, Rolling Stone
The issue goes deeper than overt sexism
“The problem goes beyond voters who hold traditional views of gender roles or admit that they wouldn’t be comfortable with a Madam President. More subtly, ambitious women are viewed more negatively than men, while women leaders are often considered less legitimate than men, in the United States, at least.” — Michelle Cottle, New York Times
America is ready for a woman president but hasn’t been presented with the right candidate
“If there is one thing Americans are prepared to do is vote for a female president. … I have no doubt about it. You find the right person with the right set of ideas and leadership style, it’s over — it becomes an advantage.” — Pete Hegseth, Fox News
The burden of potentially being the first woman president hinders candidates
|
www.news.yahoo.com
| 2center
|
v22JublKdSYW55ke
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/mike-pence-foreign-policy-vp-pick/index.html
|
Pence might share a ticket with Trump but not a worldview
|
2016-07-15
|
Ryan Browne
|
Washington ( CNN ) Donald Trump 's vice presidential pick , Mike Pence , has held wildly different views on trade , Russia , Iraq and Muslims than the billionaire businessman .
Throughout his 16-year political career , the 57-year-old Indiana governor has adhered to traditionally muscular Republican policies on foreign affairs .
Trump , however , has taken a more isolationist approach and placed less emphasis on foreign issues . The issues that he has put at the center of his campaign are largely the ones he and his running mate disagree on .
Trump made his opposition to the Iraq intervention a major theme , criticizing Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote backing the war when she was in the Senate .
Pence , near the beginning of his 12-year tenure in the U.S. House , voted for the resolution authorizing the 2003 Iraq invasion as well .
Pence , who chaired the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East , was also a prominent backer of the 2007 `` surge '' strategy sending more U.S. troops to the faltering effort in Iraq , telling CNN 's Wolf Blitzer at the time that `` the surge is working '' while also defending the original decision to invade despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction .
Pence has also struck a harder line on Russia than Trump , whose authoritarian president , Vladimir Putin , the presumptive GOP presidential nominee has praised .
Trump asked an audience at a California rally in May , `` Would n't it be nice if we could get along with Russia ? Would n't that be nice ? ''
Pence has opted for stronger rhetoric , telling the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015 that , `` A new Iron Curtain is descending down the spine of Europe as modern Russia seeks to redraw the map of Europe by force . ''
He added , `` Putin 's Russia ignores talk of sanctions , claims land and supports rebels in Ukraine with impunity . ''
And Pence has previously taken issue with some of Trump 's national security proposals , calling his proposal to ban Muslim foreigners from entering the U.S. `` offensive and unconstitutional '' in a December tweet .
Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional . — Governor Mike Pence ( @ GovPenceIN ) December 8 , 2015
Trump has since refined the proposal , saying it would only apply to citizens from countries with connections to terrorism .
Perhaps more than any other international issue , Trump has made global trade a defining aspect of his campaign -- yet Pence has taken a diametrically opposed position .
The real estate mogul has frequently called NAFTA , which regulates trade between U.S. , Canada and Mexico , `` a disaster . '' During a Republican primary debate in February , he declared , `` We are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers . ''
JUST WATCHED Meet Indiana Gov . Mike Pence Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Meet Indiana Gov . Mike Pence 00:57
Pence , in contrast , praised the role of global trade and slammed protectionism in a 2010 speech to the Detroit Economic Club .
`` Protectionism and closing our doors to other countries does not help us , or people in the rest of the world , '' he said . `` We must support expanded free trade to renew American exceptionalism and create jobs . ''
Pence also backed free trade deals with Panama , Colombia and South Korea while in Congress .
Potentially most problematic for Trump , Pence has been a strong proponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership , a regional trade deal involving 12 countries pushed by the Obama administration .
`` The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country -- just a continuing rape of our country . It 's a harsh word , but it 's true , '' Trump said in a speech last month in Ohio .
The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension . TPP is a terrible deal . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) October 5 , 2015
But in a September 2014 tweet , Pence gave the deal a ringing endorsement and called for its `` swift adoption . ''
Trade means jobs , but trade also means security . The time has come for all of us to urge the swift adoption of the Trans Pacific Partnership — Governor Mike Pence ( @ GovPenceIN ) September 8 , 2014
However , the Indiana governor has found common ground with Trump on some national security issues -- especially when it comes to criticizing President Barack Obama .
Like Trump , Pence has slammed Obama for reductions in the size of the American military .
`` This administration has reduced our Army , now its smallest size since 1940 . The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916 , and our Air Force has its smallest tactical fighter force in history , '' Pence said at the Conservative Political Action Conference .
Trump made similar statements in an April foreign policy address .
`` Our active-duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today . The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time . The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991 , '' Trump said .
The Indiana governor has also echoed Trump 's critique of the President 's preferred terminology for terrorist groups .
`` Lecturing the American people about the crusades while refusing to call Islamic extremism by name is an abdication of leadership , '' Pence told CPAC .
Pence is an avid backer of the Middle Eastern ally , telling the CPAC audience , `` Israel 's cause is our cause '' and voicing approval of the decision by then-House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress to lobby against the Iran nuclear deal the White House was then negotiating with Tehran .
Trump has also blasted the deal , and has recently staked out an aggressively pro-Israel stance .
`` Israel is a very , very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100 % , '' he said last week , rebuffing an audience member 's criticism of the country .
But last winter , Trump was castigated by many Republicans for declining to promise to keep Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel . He also said peace would depend on whether Israel is willing to make sacrifices and that he would remain `` neutral '' in negotiations .
|
Washington (CNN) Donald Trump's vice presidential pick , Mike Pence, has held wildly different views on trade, Russia, Iraq and Muslims than the billionaire businessman.
Throughout his 16-year political career, the 57-year-old Indiana governor has adhered to traditionally muscular Republican policies on foreign affairs.
Trump, however, has taken a more isolationist approach and placed less emphasis on foreign issues. The issues that he has put at the center of his campaign are largely the ones he and his running mate disagree on.
Trump made his opposition to the Iraq intervention a major theme, criticizing Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for her 2002 vote backing the war when she was in the Senate.
Pence backed Iraq war
Pence, near the beginning of his 12-year tenure in the U.S. House, voted for the resolution authorizing the 2003 Iraq invasion as well.
Pence, who chaired the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East, was also a prominent backer of the 2007 "surge" strategy sending more U.S. troops to the faltering effort in Iraq, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer at the time that "the surge is working" while also defending the original decision to invade despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction.
Pence has also struck a harder line on Russia than Trump, whose authoritarian president, Vladimir Putin, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee has praised.
Trump asked an audience at a California rally in May, "Wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with Russia? Wouldn't that be nice?"
Pence has opted for stronger rhetoric, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015 that, "A new Iron Curtain is descending down the spine of Europe as modern Russia seeks to redraw the map of Europe by force."
He added, "Putin's Russia ignores talk of sanctions, claims land and supports rebels in Ukraine with impunity."
And Pence has previously taken issue with some of Trump's national security proposals, calling his proposal to ban Muslim foreigners from entering the U.S. "offensive and unconstitutional" in a December tweet.
Calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional. — Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) December 8, 2015
Trump has since refined the proposal, saying it would only apply to citizens from countries with connections to terrorism.
Opposing views on trade
Perhaps more than any other international issue, Trump has made global trade a defining aspect of his campaign -- yet Pence has taken a diametrically opposed position.
The real estate mogul has frequently called NAFTA, which regulates trade between U.S., Canada and Mexico, "a disaster." During a Republican primary debate in February, he declared, "We are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers."
JUST WATCHED Meet Indiana Gov. Mike Pence Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Meet Indiana Gov. Mike Pence 00:57
Pence, in contrast, praised the role of global trade and slammed protectionism in a 2010 speech to the Detroit Economic Club.
"Protectionism and closing our doors to other countries does not help us, or people in the rest of the world," he said. "We must support expanded free trade to renew American exceptionalism and create jobs."
Pence also backed free trade deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea while in Congress.
Potentially most problematic for Trump, Pence has been a strong proponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional trade deal involving 12 countries pushed by the Obama administration.
"The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country -- just a continuing rape of our country. It's a harsh word, but it's true," Trump said in a speech last month in Ohio.
The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP is a terrible deal. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2015
But in a September 2014 tweet, Pence gave the deal a ringing endorsement and called for its "swift adoption."
Trade means jobs, but trade also means security. The time has come for all of us to urge the swift adoption of the Trans Pacific Partnership — Governor Mike Pence (@GovPenceIN) September 8, 2014
However, the Indiana governor has found common ground with Trump on some national security issues -- especially when it comes to criticizing President Barack Obama.
Like Trump, Pence has slammed Obama for reductions in the size of the American military.
Shared stances on the size of the military
"This administration has reduced our Army, now its smallest size since 1940. The Navy has fewer ships than at any time since 1916, and our Air Force has its smallest tactical fighter force in history," Pence said at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Trump made similar statements in an April foreign policy address.
"Our active-duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today. The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991," Trump said.
The Indiana governor has also echoed Trump's critique of the President's preferred terminology for terrorist groups.
"Lecturing the American people about the crusades while refusing to call Islamic extremism by name is an abdication of leadership," Pence told CPAC.
They also largely agree on Israel -- nowadays.
Pence is an avid backer of the Middle Eastern ally, telling the CPAC audience, "Israel's cause is our cause" and voicing approval of the decision by then-House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress to lobby against the Iran nuclear deal the White House was then negotiating with Tehran.
Trump has also blasted the deal, and has recently staked out an aggressively pro-Israel stance.
"Israel is a very, very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100%," he said last week, rebuffing an audience member's criticism of the country.
But last winter, Trump was castigated by many Republicans for declining to promise to keep Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. He also said peace would depend on whether Israel is willing to make sacrifices and that he would remain "neutral" in negotiations.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
C2r51AjwH4hOI8mg
|
us_house
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/3/jerrold-nadler-says-democrats-not-ready-trump-impe/
|
Jerrold Nadler says Dems not ready for impeachment bid: ‘It is a high bar … We may not get there’
|
2019-03-03
|
Tom Howell Jr.
|
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler on Sunday said Democrats will do whatever it takes to reveal the results of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe and will request documents from dozens of people close to the White House this week , though he downplayed talk of impeaching President Trump .
“ We do not now have the evidence all sorted out to do an impeachment , ” Mr. Nadler , of New York , told ABC ’ s This Week . “ Before you impeach somebody , you have to persuade the American people that it ought to happen . ”
He said Congress also has an obligation to convince Trump supporters they aren ’ t trying to overturn the last election — something host George Stephanopoulos called a “ high bar . ”
“ Yeah , it is a high bar , ” Mr. Nadler said . “ We may or may not get there . ”
The chairman said Democrats on Monday will request documents from 60 people , including Donald Trump Jr. and Trump Organization chief financial officer Allan Weisselberg , as part of investigations into what Mr. Nadler called obstruction of justice , corruption and abuse of power .
And the chairman thinks the public and Congress deserve to see what the special counsel uncovers in terms of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign , so he will subpoena that information if the Justice Department keeps it under wraps .
“ We do want the underlying evidence , ” he said . “ The American people are entitled to know . ”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Democrats are on a fishing expedition and , despite Mr. Nadler ’ s claims , will latch onto whatever they can to impeach the president .
“ There ’ s no collusion , so they want to build something else , ” Mr. McCarthy said .
Mr. Nadler said his side is conducting due diligence after Mr. Trump ’ s former attorney and “ fixer , ” Michael Cohen , used high-profile testimony to implicate the president in crimes , including pay-offs to a porn actress Stormy Daniels on the cusp of the election to cover up an alleged affair .
“ Seeking to sabotage a fair election would be an impeachable offense , ” Mr. Nadler told ABC . “ We ’ ll see about that , but we ’ re far from making decisions about that . ”
Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Cohen , as an attorney , had a responsibility to advise Mr. Trump on the law and that any violations would not be impeachable .
|
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler on Sunday said Democrats will do whatever it takes to reveal the results of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and will request documents from dozens of people close to the White House this week, though he downplayed talk of impeaching President Trump.
“We do not now have the evidence all sorted out to do an impeachment,” Mr. Nadler, of New York, told ABC’s This Week. “Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American people that it ought to happen.”
He said Congress also has an obligation to convince Trump supporters they aren’t trying to overturn the last election — something host George Stephanopoulos called a “high bar.”
“Yeah, it is a high bar,” Mr. Nadler said. “We may or may not get there.”
The chairman said Democrats on Monday will request documents from 60 people, including Donald Trump Jr. and Trump Organization chief financial officer Allan Weisselberg, as part of investigations into what Mr. Nadler called obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.
And the chairman thinks the public and Congress deserve to see what the special counsel uncovers in terms of Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign, so he will subpoena that information if the Justice Department keeps it under wraps.
“We do want the underlying evidence,” he said. “The American people are entitled to know.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said Democrats are on a fishing expedition and, despite Mr. Nadler’s claims, will latch onto whatever they can to impeach the president.
“There’s no collusion, so they want to build something else,” Mr. McCarthy said.
Mr. Nadler said his side is conducting due diligence after Mr. Trump’s former attorney and “fixer,” Michael Cohen, used high-profile testimony to implicate the president in crimes, including pay-offs to a porn actress Stormy Daniels on the cusp of the election to cover up an alleged affair.
“Seeking to sabotage a fair election would be an impeachable offense,” Mr. Nadler told ABC. “We’ll see about that, but we’re far from making decisions about that.”
Mr. McCarthy said Mr. Cohen, as an attorney, had a responsibility to advise Mr. Trump on the law and that any violations would not be impeachable.
“Those are fines,” Mr. McCarthy said.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
1WL6VCiNX1CCX7Rm
|
politics
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/26/mueller-report-trump-allies-offense-against-democrats-media/3268972002/
|
Donald Trump, GOP look to settle score with Democrats, media over Mueller investigation
|
2019-03-26
|
WASHINGTON –Emboldened by special counsel Robert Mueller 's finding that there was no collusion with Russia in the 2016 election , President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are going on offense over the issue as he heads into next year 's campaign .
After Attorney General William Barr 's summary of Mueller 's conclusions exonerated Trump on the question of collusion , White House aides and Trump surrogates came out swinging in an effort to discredit Democratic critics , the media and the Justice Department over the now-completed 22-month probe .
Trump described Mueller 's probe as an `` illegal take-down that failed '' and urged `` somebody '' to look into the origins of the collusion allegations . On Thursday , he will have a chance to tout the outcome and press his criticisms when he heads to Michigan for one of the first rallies of his reelection campaign .
`` After all this politically commissioned investigation has put Trump associates through , it 's clear the bogus inquiry requires scrutiny , '' said Michael Caputo , a former Trump campaign aide . `` If there is no investigation to get to the bottom of this , there is no real justice in America at all . ''
Nearly 500 witnesses , 675 days : The Mueller investigation by the numbers
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said that both he and the president would continue to hammer Democrats and reporters who promoted what they regard as a bogus conspiracy theory of a conspiracy with Russia .
`` I wish they would slow down one bit and say , ' I 'm sorry , ' '' Giuliani said . `` We 're going to keep demanding that . ''
Democrats disagreed with Trump 's claim of full vindication . The Mueller investigation did not `` exonerate '' the president of obstruction , although it did not conclude that he had done so , according to Barr 's four-page summary .
Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that after reviewing the report , they determined there was not enough evidence to establish obstruction of justice .
Democrats have demanded the full Mueller report and questioned whether political motivations played a role in Barr 's determination to clear Trump on obstruction of justice .
The impact on 2020 : Donald Trump takes victory lap over Mueller result . Will it help him in 2020 ?
The rest of the Mueller report : DOJ offers no clue when full report could be released ; House leaders want it April 2
Combined with claims of vindication emanating ever more loudly from Trump 's orbit , some White House aides have criticized individual Democrats – most notably Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – while others have called for additional investigations into how and why the Justice Department began its probe into Russia in the first place .
The strategy `` is a bracketing attempt to extinguish any hope that congressional Democrats will continue to try to use this to damage the president over the next 18 months , '' said Ron Bonjean , a longtime GOP political strategist .
Trump allies have raised the prospect of an investigation into the Justice Department and contend that the president was the victim of a `` witch hunt , '' even though House Republicans spent months investigating similar questions and found no direct evidence the department 's conduct was motivated by politics .
Vindication ? : Mueller ’ s report found no Russia collusion , but vindication remains elusive for Trump
Schiff : Republicans call for Rep. Adam Schiff to resign , step down from intelligence committee
`` What they should really be investigating is who started all this , '' Giuliani said Monday , echoing what has become a leading refrain for Trump surrogates . `` This was a classic frame-up . It did n't come out of thin air . ''
Trump wants to `` definitely find out how all this happened , so it wo n't happen again , '' Giuliani said . `` He has said , publicly and privately , that this should not happen to a future president . ''
As of yet , there has been no indication that the White House is weighing action to punish the FBI or to use exoneration on collusion to interfere with separate investigations into Trump 's business dealings that are being led by state and federal prosecutors in New York .
Beyond using the Mueller conclusion as campaign fodder , Trump 's ability to punch back against the inquiry is limited , experts said . The president could fire Justice Department officials , including U.S. attorneys , but such acts carry new legal and political risks for the White House . Trump threatened to fire former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for months before finally forcing his resignation in November .
Trump could pardon any of the half-dozen former associates who have been caught up in Mueller 's probe or ongoing investigations by federal prosecutors in New York , though neither Trump nor his aides have offered any indication he would do so . Neither Trump nor his aides have ruled out pardons at some point in the future .
“ Haven ’ t thought about it , ” Trump said Monday when asked about pardons .
Brian Kalt , a constitutional law professor and presidential pardon expert at the Michigan State University School of Law , said Trump has enormous discretion to grant pardons of those convicted of federal crimes . More problematic , Kalt said , would be any attempt to try to curtail federal investigations under way in New York .
Those investigations continue to threaten people close to the president , including his son , Donald Trump Jr. , and longtime Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg . His former personal attorney , Michael Cohen , who faces three years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and orchestrating illegal payments to women who have claimed to have had sex with Trump , is cooperating with prosecutors .
“ He can fire the U.S. Attorney , '' Kalt said , but “ he can ’ t fire individual prosecutors in the office – they are civil servants , not presidential appointees . ”
Jonathan Turley , a constitutional law expert at George Washington University in Washington , said a president ’ s pardon authority “ does not give Trump license to use his power as chief executive to hinder or stop investigations into his own alleged crimes in offices like the Southern District of New York . ''
Trump promises : Did Trump keep his 19 promises to insulate himself from his business ? Only he knows .
' I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore ' : Michael Cohen ties the president to ongoing criminal probes
Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , indicated Monday he intends to spearhead another review of the origins of the collusion narrative . That approach could let Trump continue to use the investigation as a campaign talking point while leaving the more risky work of attempting to prove political bias at the Justice Department to others .
Graham , the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , said he wants to explore the justification for surveillance warrants against Carter Page , a foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign that were based in part on a `` dossier '' of salacious material collected by former British intelligence worker Christopher Steele .
Hillary Clinton 's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped to fund Steele 's research .
Trump and other Republicans have focused on the fact that Steele 's controversial dossier alleging links between Russia and Trump 's campaign made up part of the evidence investigators used to obtain a wiretap on Page . A trove of FBI documents made public last year showed the FBI disclosed Steele 's motives when they requested the wiretap but nevertheless found the material credible .
Graham urged Trump to focus on an agenda for the country , rather than trying to settle a score .
`` I ’ m going to look at the FISA abuse or the FISA warrant process , I ’ m going to do it working with Democrats , I hope , '' Graham said . `` And if I were you Mr. President , I would focus on what ’ s next for the country . ''
|
John Fritze and Ledyard King and David Jackson
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON –Emboldened by special counsel Robert Mueller's finding that there was no collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are going on offense over the issue as he heads into next year's campaign.
After Attorney General William Barr's summary of Mueller's conclusions exonerated Trump on the question of collusion, White House aides and Trump surrogates came out swinging in an effort to discredit Democratic critics, the media and the Justice Department over the now-completed 22-month probe.
Trump described Mueller's probe as an "illegal take-down that failed" and urged "somebody" to look into the origins of the collusion allegations. On Thursday, he will have a chance to tout the outcome and press his criticisms when he heads to Michigan for one of the first rallies of his reelection campaign.
"After all this politically commissioned investigation has put Trump associates through, it's clear the bogus inquiry requires scrutiny," said Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign aide. "If there is no investigation to get to the bottom of this, there is no real justice in America at all."
Nearly 500 witnesses, 675 days:The Mueller investigation by the numbers
Post-Mueller report:Senate moves to investigate the Russia probe
Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said that both he and the president would continue to hammer Democrats and reporters who promoted what they regard as a bogus conspiracy theory of a conspiracy with Russia.
"I wish they would slow down one bit and say, 'I'm sorry,'" Giuliani said. "We're going to keep demanding that."
Democrats disagreed with Trump's claim of full vindication. The Mueller investigation did not "exonerate" the president of obstruction, although it did not conclude that he had done so, according to Barr's four-page summary.
Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said that after reviewing the report, they determined there was not enough evidence to establish obstruction of justice.
Democrats have demanded the full Mueller report and questioned whether political motivations played a role in Barr's determination to clear Trump on obstruction of justice.
The impact on 2020:Donald Trump takes victory lap over Mueller result. Will it help him in 2020?
The rest of the Mueller report:DOJ offers no clue when full report could be released; House leaders want it April 2
Trump on offense
Combined with claims of vindication emanating ever more loudly from Trump's orbit, some White House aides have criticized individual Democrats – most notably Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee – while others have called for additional investigations into how and why the Justice Department began its probe into Russia in the first place.
The strategy "is a bracketing attempt to extinguish any hope that congressional Democrats will continue to try to use this to damage the president over the next 18 months," said Ron Bonjean, a longtime GOP political strategist.
Trump allies have raised the prospect of an investigation into the Justice Department and contend that the president was the victim of a "witch hunt," even though House Republicans spent months investigating similar questions and found no direct evidence the department's conduct was motivated by politics.
Vindication?:Mueller’s report found no Russia collusion, but vindication remains elusive for Trump
Schiff:Republicans call for Rep. Adam Schiff to resign, step down from intelligence committee
'Classic frame-up'
"What they should really be investigating is who started all this," Giuliani said Monday, echoing what has become a leading refrain for Trump surrogates. "This was a classic frame-up. It didn't come out of thin air."
Trump wants to "definitely find out how all this happened, so it won't happen again," Giuliani said. "He has said, publicly and privately, that this should not happen to a future president."
As of yet, there has been no indication that the White House is weighing action to punish the FBI or to use exoneration on collusion to interfere with separate investigations into Trump's business dealings that are being led by state and federal prosecutors in New York.
Pardon push back
Beyond using the Mueller conclusion as campaign fodder, Trump's ability to punch back against the inquiry is limited, experts said. The president could fire Justice Department officials, including U.S. attorneys, but such acts carry new legal and political risks for the White House. Trump threatened to fire former Attorney General Jeff Sessions for months before finally forcing his resignation in November.
Trump could pardon any of the half-dozen former associates who have been caught up in Mueller's probe or ongoing investigations by federal prosecutors in New York, though neither Trump nor his aides have offered any indication he would do so. Neither Trump nor his aides have ruled out pardons at some point in the future.
“Haven’t thought about it,” Trump said Monday when asked about pardons.
Brian Kalt, a constitutional law professor and presidential pardon expert at the Michigan State University School of Law, said Trump has enormous discretion to grant pardons of those convicted of federal crimes. More problematic, Kalt said, would be any attempt to try to curtail federal investigations under way in New York.
Those investigations continue to threaten people close to the president, including his son, Donald Trump Jr., and longtime Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg. His former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who faces three years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and orchestrating illegal payments to women who have claimed to have had sex with Trump, is cooperating with prosecutors.
“He can fire the U.S. Attorney," Kalt said, but “he can’t fire individual prosecutors in the office – they are civil servants, not presidential appointees.”
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University in Washington, said a president’s pardon authority “does not give Trump license to use his power as chief executive to hinder or stop investigations into his own alleged crimes in offices like the Southern District of New York."
Trump promises:Did Trump keep his 19 promises to insulate himself from his business? Only he knows.
'I am not protecting Mr. Trump anymore':Michael Cohen ties the president to ongoing criminal probes
Graham review
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., indicated Monday he intends to spearhead another review of the origins of the collusion narrative. That approach could let Trump continue to use the investigation as a campaign talking point while leaving the more risky work of attempting to prove political bias at the Justice Department to others.
Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he wants to explore the justification for surveillance warrants against Carter Page, a foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign that were based in part on a "dossier" of salacious material collected by former British intelligence worker Christopher Steele.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped to fund Steele's research.
Trump and other Republicans have focused on the fact that Steele's controversial dossier alleging links between Russia and Trump's campaign made up part of the evidence investigators used to obtain a wiretap on Page. A trove of FBI documents made public last year showed the FBI disclosed Steele's motives when they requested the wiretap but nevertheless found the material credible.
Graham urged Trump to focus on an agenda for the country, rather than trying to settle a score.
"I’m going to look at the FISA abuse or the FISA warrant process, I’m going to do it working with Democrats, I hope," Graham said. "And if I were you Mr. President, I would focus on what’s next for the country."
Contributing: Bart Jansen, Michael Collins and Eliza Collins
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
TVcJZNw6J66LaVkc
|
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/30/politics/donald-trump-michigan-speech-annotation/index.html
|
OPINION: The 57 most outlandish, outrageous and offensive lines from Trump's Michigan rally
|
2018-04-30
|
Analysis Chris Cillizza, Cnn Editor-At-Large
|
( CNN ) On Saturday night , even as comedian Michelle Wolf was roasting him in Washington , President Donald Trump was in another Washington -- this one in Michigan -- where he was delivering a roast all his own : Of elites , the media , Democrats and anyone else he could think of .
I went through the transcript of Trump 's Michigan speech and picked out the most eye-catching lines . They 're below .
1 . `` You want to see a lot of people ? Go outside . We could have filled this place up five or six times . ''
Heeeeeeeeere 's Donald ! And , yes , within 20 seconds of taking the stage , Trump was talking about how the crowd was huge -- and could have been far bigger .
2 . `` I said , could n't you have gotten one larger ? That would 've been nice . ''
Reminder : LOTS of people are there but even MORE wanted to be there . Why did n't these Michigan people think of that ? ? ?
3 . `` Where is Bill ? Where ? All right . Wherever the hell he is . ''
Trump is looking , unsuccessfully , for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette . Wherever the hell he is .
4 . `` I wish you could have given us a larger arena but what are you going to do ? ''
For the third time in his first few minutes on stage , Trump is talking about the size if the crowd -- and why it could have been much bigger . Big is good . Bigger is better . His calculus is n't more complicated than that .
5 . `` They said , 'Donald Trump has won the state of Michigan ' -- won the state of Michigan . And we won a lot of other states also . That was some night . ''
The 2016 election ended 536 days before Trump took the stage Saturday night . As you may have heard , he won . And he carried Michigan . No one said he could do it . But he did .
6 . `` We are appointing judges like never before . Great conservative , Republican judges . We 're setting records . By the time we finish , I think we will have the all-time record . ''
7 . `` We have the worst laws anywhere in the world . ''
9 . `` I said , 'Let 's not do it there . Let 's let them put pressure on Gov . Jerry Brown . Moonbeam . ' ''
So : Trump says San Diego is begging for the wall . And the money for it has been secured . But that maybe he wo n't do it to force a political opponent to feel some pain . So , OK .
JUST WATCHED Trump : I know things I could say about Tester Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump : I know things I could say about Tester 01:03
11 . `` Big areas do n't want sanctuary cities . They want to be safe . They do n't want them . We had to fund our military . Our military was depleted . ''
This is not edited . These sentences followed directly on one another . Stream . Of . Consciousness .
I wonder if new airplanes have a `` new airplane '' smell . I love that smell .
13 . `` Mad dog Mattis could not be happier . Can not be happier . ''
I maintain that if James Mattis 's nickname was `` Short Stuff , '' Trump does n't choose him for secretary of defense . `` Mad Dog '' is the sort of stuff that Trump likes . It 's tough-sounding .
14 . `` The Democrats do n't care about our military . They do n't . They do n't care about our borders or crime . ''
Yes , this is a campaign rally . But , even for campaign rhetoric this runs pretty , pretty hot . Democrats do n't care about the military or the border or crime ? Really ?
15 . `` You people just keep putting her back against him again -- again and again . It is your fault . ''
Trump is referring to Sen. Debbie Stabenow here . And , a line like this is a reminder of his uniqueness as a politician : Scolding people at his rally for voting for her !
18 . `` They were saying , 'What you think President Trump had to do with it ? ' I will do you what . How about , everything -- I will tell you what . How about , everything ? ''
Nothing irks Trump more than not getting full credit for things he believes he deserves full credit for -- which is all things . He 's specifically referencing the talks between North Korea and South Korea over the past week .
JUST WATCHED Crowd chants 'Nobel ! ' mid-North Korea talks Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Crowd chants 'Nobel ! ' mid-North Korea talks 01:37
19 . `` I know things about the senator I can say , too . If I said them , he would never be elected again . ''
Trump is insinuating he has dirt on Sen. Jon Tester that would destroy the Montana Democrat 's career . Does he actually have that dirt ? Count me as very , very skeptical .
19 . `` A woman lawyer , she said , ' I know nothing . ' Now , she supposedly -- you know why ? Putin and the group said , 'Trump is killing us . Why do n't you say you are involved with government so that we can go and make their life in the United States even more chaotic ? ' ''
OK , stick with me here as we trace Trump 's logic . The `` woman lawyer '' in question is Natalia Veselnitskaya , who met with Donald Trump Jr and other top campaign officials at Trump Tower in the summer of 2016 -- promising dirt on Hillary Clinton . Although Veselnitskaya denied at the time that she had any ties to the Russian government , she has now acknowledged ties to the country 's legal office . That admission , according to Trump , is because Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks Trump is being so hard on Russia that the only way to relieve pressure is to get Veselnitskaya to say she worked with the Russian government .
20 . `` Look at how these politicians have fallen for this job . ''
This is classic Trump . No one sees the conspiracy theory except him and the people in the room where he is speaking . All of these politicians do n't see it . But he sees it .
21 . `` The only collusion is the Democrats colluding with the Russians , the Democrats colluding with lots of other people . ''
JUST WATCHED Trump : I 'm tougher on Russia Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump : I 'm tougher on Russia 00:57
I 've often compared Trump to a comedian -- setting up his lines and priming his audience . This is perfect example . `` What 's the deal with this weather , amirite ? ''
23 . `` They start something based on a document that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton . ''
For the billionth time : The FBI investigation , which became the special counsel 's investigation , was not launched because of the Steele dossier . Multiple intelligence officials have made this clear -- over and over again . Also , we know for a fact that the FBI investigation was launched in July 2016 because of information regarding Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian official that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton
24 . `` They did that to Admiral Jackson . They are doing it for a lot of people . ''
25 . `` In the old days , when the newspapers used to write , they would ( put ) names down . Today they say , sources have said that President Trump -- sources . They never say who the source is . ''
26 . `` They do n't have sources . The sources do n't exist in many cases . The sources in many cases do n't exist . ''
This is simply not true . Every mainstream media organization has a rigorous process to ensure not only that their sources exist but that the sources are in position to know of what they speak .
27 . `` You remember Jon Lovitz ? A liar . Comey 's worse . He is a liar and a leaker . ''
28 . `` I did you a great favor when I fired this guy . I 'll tell you . I did you a great favor . ''
29 . `` What about the guy who took $ 700,000 for his wife 's campaign . Nobody even talks about . Nobody even talks about it . ''
A total and complete distortion of facts . Trump is referencing former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe , whose wife ran for the Virginia state Senate in 2015 . Then-Virginia Gov . Terry McAuliffe moved several hundred thousand dollars via an allied super PAC . Andrew McCabe never received any of the money -- as Trump , of course , knows .
Look , at the end of the day , it it what it is . Also , farmers !
34 . `` Six years ago , I was n't even running . The Republican of the year award . Maybe they knew what was going to happen . ''
35 . `` Nobody in the first year of office has done what we have done . ''
It 's very , very hard to fact-check this claim given that we do n't know what metric Trump is using to measure having done more than anyone ever . But , by virtually any metric , it 's not true .
36 . `` After years of rebuilding other countries , we are finally going to rebuild our country . ''
I actually think this is one of Trump 's best lines of the speech -- and his presidency . If he just focused on rebuilding infrastructure and reinvesting in America , this presidency could look very different .
37 . `` We have spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East . ''
38 . `` We have a great site that we are going to buy . The best site . ''
He 's talking about the site of the planned US embassy in Jerusalem . And , yes , of course it is the best site in all of Israel .
39 . `` Now , as you know , in the UK , in London , we have the best site in all of London . The best site . ''
The best site . In every city . And on every planet .
40 . `` We are at the top of the charts . And they are talking about it all over the world . ''
The top of the pops . The highest heights . The summit . The acme . Everyone is talking about it .
41 . `` Our laws are so corrupt and so stupid -- I call them the dumbest immigration laws anywhere on Earth . ''
42 . `` And the laws are so corrupt , they are so corrupt ''
43 . `` If we do n't get border security , we 'll have no choice . We 'll close down the country . ''
Trump threatens that unless he gets full funding for the border wall this fall , he will force a government shutdown . Mark that down .
JUST WATCHED Trump floats shutdown for border security Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump floats shutdown for border security 00:57
44 . `` Be careful of your 2nd Amendment . OK , be careful . Be careful of your 2nd Amendment if they get in . ''
Trump regularly floats this idea that Democrats , if they gain control of Congress , will work to abolish the 2nd Amendment . There 's absolutely no evidence to suggest that a ) is something Democrats would try to do and b ) that they could possibly do it legislatively even if they wanted to .
Five hundred and thirty-six days since the 2016 election . Also , Trump was first Republican to win Michigan since George H.W . Bush in 1988 .
46 . `` There were 32,000 people . I finished speaking at 1:00 in the morning on Election Day . Thirty-two thousand people . ''
The rally Trump is talking about was in Grand Rapids on the night before/early morning of Election Day . There were 4,200 people there . Not 32,000 .
47 . `` We have to win the House . We are going to win the House . ''
`` Here 's the thing . If you ca n't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table , then you are the sucker . '' -- Mike McDermott
49 . `` We are getting rid of Obamacare . Some people would say that we have essentially gotten rid of it . ''
51 . `` Not come in based on some random lottery system . ''
I know it was n't , but I am going to tell myself Trump made a purposeful Ron Paul meme reference .
53 . `` We will have crystal clean water . We will have beautiful , clean air . We will be great . ''
JUST WATCHED Trump slams correspondents ' dinner at rally Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump slams correspondents ' dinner at rally 00:52
54 . `` When the President of France came in to see me , President Macron , wonderful guy . We like to shake each other 's hand . ''
Remember that last month , Trump said this : `` Very soon we are going to Mars . You would n't have been going to Mars if my opponent won , that I can tell you . You would n't even be thinking about it . Would n't be thinking about it . ''
Trump is talking about the media here . And , no , the media does n't `` hate your guts . '' And Donald Trump knows it .
57 . `` We are higher now than we were on Election Day . We are higher now . ''
|
(CNN) On Saturday night, even as comedian Michelle Wolf was roasting him in Washington , President Donald Trump was in another Washington -- this one in Michigan -- where he was delivering a roast all his own : Of elites, the media, Democrats and anyone else he could think of.
I went through the transcript of Trump's Michigan speech and picked out the most eye-catching lines. They're below.
1. "You want to see a lot of people? Go outside. We could have filled this place up five or six times."
Heeeeeeeeere's Donald! And, yes, within 20 seconds of taking the stage, Trump was talking about how the crowd was huge -- and could have been far bigger.
2. "I said, couldn't you have gotten one larger? That would've been nice."
Reminder: LOTS of people are there but even MORE wanted to be there. Why didn't these Michigan people think of that???
3. "Where is Bill? Where? All right. Wherever the hell he is."
Trump is looking, unsuccessfully, for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. Wherever the hell he is.
4. "I wish you could have given us a larger arena but what are you going to do?"
For the third time in his first few minutes on stage, Trump is talking about the size if the crowd -- and why it could have been much bigger. Big is good. Bigger is better. His calculus isn't more complicated than that.
5. "They said, 'Donald Trump has won the state of Michigan' -- won the state of Michigan. And we won a lot of other states also. That was some night."
The 2016 election ended 536 days before Trump took the stage Saturday night. As you may have heard, he won. And he carried Michigan. No one said he could do it. But he did.
6. "We are appointing judges like never before. Great conservative, Republican judges. We're setting records. By the time we finish, I think we will have the all-time record."
7. "We have the worst laws anywhere in the world."
... Says the President of the United States.
8. "We don't have borders."
... Says the President of the United States.
9. "I said, 'Let's not do it there. Let's let them put pressure on Gov. Jerry Brown. Moonbeam.'"
So: Trump says San Diego is begging for the wall. And the money for it has been secured. But that maybe he won't do it to force a political opponent to feel some pain. So, OK.
10. "I can't pay the extras. I hate extras."
Same.
JUST WATCHED Trump: I know things I could say about Tester Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: I know things I could say about Tester 01:03
11. "Big areas don't want sanctuary cities. They want to be safe. They don't want them. We had to fund our military. Our military was depleted."
This is not edited. These sentences followed directly on one another. Stream. Of. Consciousness.
12. "We are ordering brand-new airplanes. Brand-new everything."
I wonder if new airplanes have a "new airplane" smell. I love that smell.
13. "Mad dog Mattis could not be happier. Cannot be happier."
I maintain that if James Mattis's nickname was "Short Stuff," Trump doesn't choose him for secretary of defense. "Mad Dog" is the sort of stuff that Trump likes. It's tough-sounding.
14. "The Democrats don't care about our military. They don't. They don't care about our borders or crime."
Yes, this is a campaign rally. But, even for campaign rhetoric this runs pretty, pretty hot. Democrats don't care about the military or the border or crime? Really?
15. "You people just keep putting her back against him again -- again and again. It is your fault."
Trump is referring to Sen. Debbie Stabenow here. And, a line like this is a reminder of his uniqueness as a politician: Scolding people at his rally for voting for her!
16. "We are doing things that are good."
I like good things. And doing good things.
17. "Whatever happens, happens."
[Nods head knowingly]
18. "They were saying, 'What you think President Trump had to do with it?' I will do you what. How about, everything -- I will tell you what. How about, everything?"
Nothing irks Trump more than not getting full credit for things he believes he deserves full credit for -- which is all things. He's specifically referencing the talks between North Korea and South Korea over the past week.
JUST WATCHED Crowd chants 'Nobel!' mid-North Korea talks Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Crowd chants 'Nobel!' mid-North Korea talks 01:37
19. "I know things about the senator I can say, too. If I said them, he would never be elected again."
Trump is insinuating he has dirt on Sen. Jon Tester that would destroy the Montana Democrat's career. Does he actually have that dirt? Count me as very, very skeptical.
19. "A woman lawyer, she said, 'I know nothing.' Now, she supposedly -- you know why? Putin and the group said, 'Trump is killing us. Why don't you say you are involved with government so that we can go and make their life in the United States even more chaotic?'"
OK, stick with me here as we trace Trump's logic. The "woman lawyer" in question is Natalia Veselnitskaya, who met with Donald Trump Jr and other top campaign officials at Trump Tower in the summer of 2016 -- promising dirt on Hillary Clinton. Although Veselnitskaya denied at the time that she had any ties to the Russian government, she has now acknowledged ties to the country's legal office. That admission, according to Trump, is because Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks Trump is being so hard on Russia that the only way to relieve pressure is to get Veselnitskaya to say she worked with the Russian government.
See? See? It's all falling into place ...
20. "Look at how these politicians have fallen for this job."
This is classic Trump. No one sees the conspiracy theory except him and the people in the room where he is speaking. All of these politicians don't see it. But he sees it.
21."The only collusion is the Democrats colluding with the Russians, the Democrats colluding with lots of other people."
NO COLLUSION! YOU'RE THE COLLUSION!
JUST WATCHED Trump: I'm tougher on Russia Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: I'm tougher on Russia 00:57
22. "Comey, how about this guy Comey?"
I've often compared Trump to a comedian -- setting up his lines and priming his audience. This is perfect example. "What's the deal with this weather, amirite?"
23. "They start something based on a document that was paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton."
For the billionth time: The FBI investigation, which became the special counsel's investigation, was not launched because of the Steele dossier. Multiple intelligence officials have made this clear -- over and over again. Also, we know for a fact that the FBI investigation was launched in July 2016 because of information regarding Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian official that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton
24. "They did that to Admiral Jackson. They are doing it for a lot of people."
So:
a) Who is "they"?
b) What "lot of people" are we talking about?
25. "In the old days, when the newspapers used to write, they would (put) names down. Today they say, sources have said that President Trump -- sources. They never say who the source is."
Anonymous sources have existed since the start of journalism.
26. "They don't have sources. The sources don't exist in many cases. The sources in many cases don't exist."
This is simply not true. Every mainstream media organization has a rigorous process to ensure not only that their sources exist but that the sources are in position to know of what they speak.
27. "You remember Jon Lovitz? A liar. Comey's worse. He is a liar and a leaker."
28. "I did you a great favor when I fired this guy. I'll tell you. I did you a great favor."
29. "What about the guy who took $700,000 for his wife's campaign. Nobody even talks about. Nobody even talks about it."
A total and complete distortion of facts. Trump is referencing former deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife ran for the Virginia state Senate in 2015 . Then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe moved several hundred thousand dollars via an allied super PAC. Andrew McCabe never received any of the money -- as Trump, of course, knows.
30. "Ultimately, I love my farmers."
Look, at the end of the day, it it what it is. Also, farmers!
31. "Long-term, you are going to be so happy."
Short-term and medium-term would like a word.
32. "Chrysler is moving back to Michigan from Mexico."
33. "Cars are coming back to Michigan."
34. "Six years ago, I wasn't even running. The Republican of the year award. Maybe they knew what was going to happen."
35. "Nobody in the first year of office has done what we have done."
It's very, very hard to fact-check this claim given that we don't know what metric Trump is using to measure having done more than anyone ever. But, by virtually any metric, it's not true.
36. "After years of rebuilding other countries, we are finally going to rebuild our country."
I actually think this is one of Trump's best lines of the speech -- and his presidency. If he just focused on rebuilding infrastructure and reinvesting in America, this presidency could look very different.
37. "We have spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East."
38. "We have a great site that we are going to buy. The best site."
He's talking about the site of the planned US embassy in Jerusalem. And, yes, of course it is the best site in all of Israel.
39. "Now, as you know, in the UK, in London, we have the best site in all of London. The best site."
The best site. In every city. And on every planet.
40. "We are at the top of the charts. And they are talking about it all over the world."
The top of the pops. The highest heights. The summit. The acme. Everyone is talking about it.
41. "Our laws are so corrupt and so stupid -- I call them the dumbest immigration laws anywhere on Earth."
... Says the President of the United States.
42. "And the laws are so corrupt, they are so corrupt"
... Says the President of the United States.
43. "If we don't get border security, we'll have no choice. We'll close down the country."
Trump threatens that unless he gets full funding for the border wall this fall, he will force a government shutdown. Mark that down.
JUST WATCHED Trump floats shutdown for border security Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump floats shutdown for border security 00:57
44. "Be careful of your 2nd Amendment. OK, be careful. Be careful of your 2nd Amendment if they get in."
Trump regularly floats this idea that Democrats, if they gain control of Congress, will work to abolish the 2nd Amendment. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that a) is something Democrats would try to do and b) that they could possibly do it legislatively even if they wanted to.
45. "Michigan had not been won in many years."
Five hundred and thirty-six days since the 2016 election. Also, Trump was first Republican to win Michigan since George H.W. Bush in 1988.
46. "There were 32,000 people. I finished speaking at 1:00 in the morning on Election Day. Thirty-two thousand people."
The rally Trump is talking about was in Grand Rapids on the night before/early morning of Election Day. There were 4,200 people there . Not 32,000.
47. "We have to win the House. We are going to win the House."
48. "We are not the patsies anymore."
"Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker." -- Mike McDermott
49. "We are getting rid of Obamacare. Some people would say that we have essentially gotten rid of it."
50. "And nobody knows what a community college is."
Huh. Um. Huh.
51. "Not come in based on some random lottery system."
[narrator voice] It's not a random lottery system.
52. "It is all happening."
I know it wasn't, but I am going to tell myself Trump made a purposeful Ron Paul meme reference.
53. "We will have crystal clean water. We will have beautiful, clean air. We will be great."
This all checks out.
JUST WATCHED Trump slams correspondents' dinner at rally Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump slams correspondents' dinner at rally 00:52
54. "When the President of France came in to see me, President Macron, wonderful guy. We like to shake each other's hand."
55. "Mars is waiting for us."
Remember that last month , Trump said this: "Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn't have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn't even be thinking about it. Wouldn't be thinking about it."
Hillary Clinton was very anti-Mars. Everyone is saying it.
56. "They hate your guts."
Trump is talking about the media here. And, no, the media doesn't "hate your guts." And Donald Trump knows it.
57. "We are higher now than we were on Election Day. We are higher now."
No comment.
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
e4UgulPT7qOI68rH
|
culture
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/02/18/jussie-smollett-everything-we-know-case-police-chicago-investigation/2903410002/
|
Jussie Smollett case: Police investigating tip actor was seen with alleged assailants
|
2019-02-18
|
Developments over the weekend `` shifted the trajectory '' of the investigation into the Jan. 29 attack on `` Empire '' actor Jussie Smollett .
The actor told police last month he was attacked in Chicago in the early hours of the morning by two masked men who shouted `` racial and homophobic slurs . '' Police said Smollett described the assailants punching him in the face , pouring a chemical on him and wrapping a rope around his neck .
Police are still waiting to hear from the actor regarding a follow-up interview so they can ask him questions relating to the claim of two brothers who say they were paid by the actor to orchestrate the attack .
California police : Smollett posed as his brother during suspected DUI stop in 2007
Smollett 's credibility came under attack again Tuesday when the Los Angeles City Attorney 's Office confirmed an NBC News report that the actor posed as his brother Jake when stopped for a suspected DUI in Los Angeles in July 2007 and signed his brother 's name on the summons promising to appear in court .
Frank Mateljan , a public information officer in that office , confirmed to ███ Wednesday that Smollett pleaded no contest to driving under the influence , driving without a license and providing false information to law enforcement in September of that year . He was sentenced to three years ' probation plus fines or three days in jail .
███ has requested comment from Smollett 's representatives and his brother .
Cook County State ’ s Attorney Kim Foxx announced she was recusing herself from the investigation on Tuesday .
“ Out of an abundance of caution , the decision to recuse herself was made to address potential questions of impartiality based upon familiarity with potential witnesses in the case , ” Tandra Simonton , a spokeswoman for Foxx , said in a statement .
Simonton declined to comment on which potential witnesses Foxx was referencing .
FBI is looking into whether Smollett had a hand in threatening letter
The FBI is probing whether Smollett had any role in sending a threatening letter that was mailed to the actor at the Chicago studio where `` Empire '' is filmed a week before the alleged assault , a federal government official who has been briefed on the investigation told ███ .
The official , who was not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation , said the FBI probe is still in the preliminary stages .
Last week , Chicago police officer Michael Carroll confirmed to ███ that the mail , received Jan. 22 , contained a white substance . The powder was later determined to be acetaminophen , or Tylenol .
Smollett said in an interview with “ Good Morning America ” last week that he believes the letter was linked to the alleged assault on him .
He said the letter “ had a stick figure hanging from a tree with a gun pointing towards it with the words that said 'Smollett , Jussie you will die , ' `` he said , adding that the return address area simply said `` MAGA . ''
Police say a tip Smollett was seen in an elevator with alleged attackers is 'unfounded '
Police investigated a tip that on the night Smollett reported being attacked , he was in an elevator of his apartment building with two brothers who were later arrested and released from custody in the probe .
Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi tweeted Tuesday night that the tip `` is unfounded as it was not supported by video evidence obtained by detectives . ''
Guglielmi said a person who lives in the building or was visiting someone there reported seeing the three together that night . .
Smollett ’ s case could be headed toward a grand jury soon , a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told ███ .
The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing deliberations .
TMZ reported Monday that the case could head to a grand jury next week . But the law enforcement official told ███ that investigators have no firm date for referring the case .
“ We ’ re still hopeful he ’ ll come in and talk to us , ” the official said .
After being arrested , a pair of Nigerian siblings in their late 20s who reside in Chicago told detectives that they were paid to stage the attack , a person familiar with the investigation but not authorized to speak publicly told ███ .
Police also found records in the Chicago home of one of the men that showed they purchased rope from a hardware store that was used in the alleged attack , the source told ███ .
The brothers were released Friday with police citing new evidence in the case . They were not charged .
Police spokesman Tom Ahernsaid the brothers met with police and prosecutors Tuesday . They did not testify before a grand jury .
Smollett , 36 , who is black and gay , said he was attacked while walking home through Chicago ’ s Streeterville neighborhood . He told police masked men tied a noose around his neck and yelled , `` This is MAGA country '' before leaving the scene .
Smollett case : Two men released after police interrogation reveals 'new evidence '
Police : Two brothers told investigators they were paid by Jussie Smollett to stageattack
In a statement issued late Saturday , the actor 's attorneys , Todd Pugh and Victor P. Henderson , confirmed to ███ that the star knew the brothers and employed one as his trainer to get him physically ready for a music video .
Smollett was `` angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with , '' his attorneys said in a statement .
Pugh and Henderson added , `` He has been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack . Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying . ''
On Sunday , Guglielmi confirmed that detectives had requested a follow-up interview with the actor , tweeting , `` There are some developments in this investigation and detectives have some follow-ups to complete which include speaking to the individual who reported the incident . ''
Pamela Sharp , Smollett ’ s spokeswoman , issued a statement to ███ Monday from her client 's attorneys , Todd S. Pugh and Victor P. Henderson , who said Smollett had no plans to meet with authorities that day .
“ There are no plans for Jussie Smollett to meet with Chicago police today , '' the statement read . `` Any news reports suggesting otherwise are inaccurate . Smollett 's attorneys will keep an active dialogue going with Chicago police on his behalf . We have no further comment today . ”
Fox rejects theory Smollett staged attack to avoid being written off 'Empire '
In a statement issued late Thursday , the network shot down a story by ABC7 Chicago alleging the actor was trying to garner sympathy to convince the network not to write him off the show .
`` The idea that Jussie Smollett has been , or would be , written off of 'Empire ' is patently ridiculous , '' the network told ███ Thursday . `` He remains a core player on this very successful series and we continue to stand behind him . ''
In a lengthy interview with `` Good Morning America '' host Robin Roberts Thursday , Smollett spoke of his frustration not just with his assailants but those who have attacked him in the press and on social media , saying that they not only `` do n't believe this is the truth '' but `` do n't even want to see this is the truth . ''
However , his doubters grew louder over the weekend following the announcement that the police are now actively investigating the hoax angle .
Former Obama strategist David Axelrod summed up the fears of many Sunday when he tweeted , `` The racist/homophobic attack @ JussieSmollett alleged was horrific . But if this story turns out to be a hoax , orchestrated by Smollett to boost his career , he will have cynically betrayed supporters across the country . ''
REGARDLESS OF SMOLLETT : Crimes against blacks , gays are up , according to FBI ( Jan. 31 )
Meanwhile , Donald Trump Jr. went after Smollett , whom he said `` tried to manufacture a hate crime '' to make his father 's supporters look bad and the media who , `` not only uncritically accepted his lies as facts for weeks , but attacked those who questioned the validity of his false story . '' He also took aim at 2020 Democratic contender Sen. Kamala Harris and various `` Hollywood and media types , '' asking if they still wanted `` # JusticeforJussie . ''
Director Ava DuVernay said Sunday that despite any inconsistencies in Smollett 's story , she `` ca n't blindly believe the Chicago PD '' given its handling of Laquan McDonald 's shooting death and its past use of torture .
`` He might have lied . He might not have . I don ’ t know . But what I do know ? '' the `` Wrinkle in Time '' director wrote . `` I never believe police on general principle just ‘ cause they say so . My experience , our history , makes it impossible for me to do so . ''
Jussie Smollett : 'Empire ' producer stands bystar , DuVernay says , 'He might have lied '
Smollett recounts violent attack on 'GMA ' : I saw the rope 'and I started screaming '
|
Jayme Deerwester and Aamer Madhani
USA TODAY
Developments over the weekend "shifted the trajectory" of the investigation into the Jan. 29 attack on "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett.
The actor told police last month he was attacked in Chicago in the early hours of the morning by two masked men who shouted "racial and homophobic slurs." Police said Smollett described the assailants punching him in the face, pouring a chemical on him and wrapping a rope around his neck.
Police are still waiting to hear from the actor regarding a follow-up interview so they can ask him questions relating to the claim of two brothers who say they were paid by the actor to orchestrate the attack.
Here are the most recent developments in the case:
California police: Smollett posed as his brother during suspected DUI stop in 2007
Smollett's credibility came under attack again Tuesday when the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office confirmed an NBC News report that the actor posed as his brother Jake when stopped for a suspected DUI in Los Angeles in July 2007 and signed his brother's name on the summons promising to appear in court.
Frank Mateljan, a public information officer in that office, confirmed to USA TODAY Wednesday that Smollett pleaded no contest to driving under the influence, driving without a license and providing false information to law enforcement in September of that year. He was sentenced to three years' probation plus fines or three days in jail.
USA TODAY has requested comment from Smollett's representatives and his brother.
Chicago prosecutor Kim Foxx recuses herself from Smollett case
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announced she was recusing herself from the investigation on Tuesday.
“Out of an abundance of caution, the decision to recuse herself was made to address potential questions of impartiality based upon familiarity with potential witnesses in the case,” Tandra Simonton, a spokeswoman for Foxx, said in a statement.
Simonton declined to comment on which potential witnesses Foxx was referencing.
FBI is looking into whether Smollett had a hand in threatening letter
The FBI is probing whether Smollett had any role in sending a threatening letter that was mailed to the actor at the Chicago studio where "Empire" is filmed a week before the alleged assault, a federal government official who has been briefed on the investigation told USA TODAY.
The official, who was not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation, said the FBI probe is still in the preliminary stages.
FBI officials declined to comment.
Last week, Chicago police officer Michael Carroll confirmed to USA TODAY that the mail, received Jan. 22, contained a white substance. The powder was later determined to be acetaminophen, or Tylenol.
Smollett said in an interview with “Good Morning America” last week that he believes the letter was linked to the alleged assault on him.
He said the letter “had a stick figure hanging from a tree with a gun pointing towards it with the words that said 'Smollett, Jussie you will die,' " he said, adding that the return address area simply said "MAGA."
Police say a tip Smollett was seen in an elevator with alleged attackers is 'unfounded'
Police investigated a tip that on the night Smollett reported being attacked, he was in an elevator of his apartment building with two brothers who were later arrested and released from custody in the probe.
Department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi tweeted Tuesday night that the tip "is unfounded as it was not supported by video evidence obtained by detectives."
Guglielmi said a person who lives in the building or was visiting someone there reported seeing the three together that night. .
Smollett case could go to a grand jury
Smollett’s case could be headed toward a grand jury soon, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told USA TODAY.
The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing deliberations.
TMZ reported Monday that the case could head to a grand jury next week. But the law enforcement official told USA TODAY that investigators have no firm date for referring the case.
“We’re still hopeful he’ll come in and talk to us,” the official said.
Brothers say Smollett paid them to carry out assault
After being arrested, a pair of Nigerian siblings in their late 20s who reside in Chicago told detectives that they were paid to stage the attack, a person familiar with the investigation but not authorized to speak publicly told USA TODAY.
Police also found records in the Chicago home of one of the men that showed they purchased rope from a hardware store that was used in the alleged attack, the source told USA TODAY.
The brothers were released Friday with police citing new evidence in the case. They were not charged.
Police spokesman Tom Ahernsaid the brothers met with police and prosecutors Tuesday. They did not testify before a grand jury.
Smollett, 36, who is black and gay, said he was attacked while walking home through Chicago’s Streeterville neighborhood. He told police masked men tied a noose around his neck and yelled, "This is MAGA country" before leaving the scene.
Smollett case:Two men released after police interrogation reveals 'new evidence'
Police:Two brothers told investigators they were paid by Jussie Smollett to stageattack
Smollett acknowledges knowing the brothers but denies involvement
In a statement issued late Saturday, the actor's attorneys, Todd Pugh and Victor P. Henderson, confirmed to USA TODAY that the star knew the brothers and employed one as his trainer to get him physically ready for a music video.
Smollett was "angered and devastated by recent reports that the perpetrators are individuals he is familiar with," his attorneys said in a statement.
Pugh and Henderson added, "He has been further victimized by claims attributed to these alleged perpetrators that Jussie played a role in his own attack. Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying."
Detectives want to interview Smollett again
On Sunday, Guglielmi confirmed that detectives had requested a follow-up interview with the actor, tweeting, "There are some developments in this investigation and detectives have some follow-ups to complete which include speaking to the individual who reported the incident."
Pamela Sharp, Smollett’s spokeswoman, issued a statement to USA TODAY Monday from her client's attorneys, Todd S. Pugh and Victor P. Henderson, who said Smollett had no plans to meet with authorities that day.
“There are no plans for Jussie Smollett to meet with Chicago police today," the statement read. "Any news reports suggesting otherwise are inaccurate. Smollett's attorneys will keep an active dialogue going with Chicago police on his behalf. We have no further comment today.”
Fox rejects theory Smollett staged attack to avoid being written off 'Empire'
In a statement issued late Thursday, the network shot down a story by ABC7 Chicago alleging the actor was trying to garner sympathy to convince the network not to write him off the show.
"The idea that Jussie Smollett has been, or would be, written off of 'Empire' is patently ridiculous," the network told USA TODAY Thursday. "He remains a core player on this very successful series and we continue to stand behind him."
Backlash grows
In a lengthy interview with "Good Morning America" host Robin Roberts Thursday, Smollett spoke of his frustration not just with his assailants but those who have attacked him in the press and on social media, saying that they not only "don't believe this is the truth" but "don't even want to see this is the truth."
However, his doubters grew louder over the weekend following the announcement that the police are now actively investigating the hoax angle.
Former Obama strategist David Axelrod summed up the fears of many Sunday when he tweeted, "The racist/homophobic attack @JussieSmollett alleged was horrific. But if this story turns out to be a hoax, orchestrated by Smollett to boost his career, he will have cynically betrayed supporters across the country."
REGARDLESS OF SMOLLETT: Crimes against blacks, gays are up, according to FBI (Jan. 31)
Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. went after Smollett, whom he said "tried to manufacture a hate crime" to make his father's supporters look bad and the media who, "not only uncritically accepted his lies as facts for weeks, but attacked those who questioned the validity of his false story." He also took aim at 2020 Democratic contender Sen. Kamala Harris and various "Hollywood and media types," asking if they still wanted "#JusticeforJussie."
Director Ava DuVernay said Sunday that despite any inconsistencies in Smollett's story, she "can't blindly believe the Chicago PD" given its handling of Laquan McDonald's shooting death and its past use of torture.
"He might have lied. He might not have. I don’t know. But what I do know?" the "Wrinkle in Time" director wrote. "I never believe police on general principle just ‘cause they say so. My experience, our history, makes it impossible for me to do so."
Jussie Smollett: 'Empire' producer stands bystar, DuVernay says, 'He might have lied'
Smollett recounts violent attack on 'GMA': I saw the rope 'and I started screaming'
Contributing: Aamer Madhani, Bill Keveney and The Associated Press
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
FN3uCjVnXsYBHbLT
|
|
elections
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/politics/gop-debate-wednesday-what-to-watch/index.html
|
7 things to watch at the CNN Republican debate
|
2015-09-16
|
Mj Lee, Cnn Politics Reporter
|
Simi Valley , California ( CNN ) Donald Trump will play the lead role in the second Republican presidential debate tonight -- but his rivals are jockeying to steal his spotlight .
As the GOP 's frontrunner , Trump will once again take center stage at CNN 's debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library . With Reagan 's Air Force One as the backdrop , Trump will be flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida Gov . Jeb Bush , who has been increasingly eager to take on the combative businessman .
Meanwhile , one newcomer to the prime-time debate -- Carly Fiorina -- seems poised and ready to take on Trump directly .
With the Iowa caucuses less than five months away and pressure mounting for the middle-tier candidates , the CNN debate offers an opening for candidates to deliver a presidential performance -- and avoid getting lost in the Donald Trump show . But a misstep could damage their presidential prospects .
The question is n't whether Trump will shock and awe -- but how ?
At last month 's GOP debate , the wealthy real estate magnate had the audience both booing and cheering within minutes of taking the stage , when he refused to rule out a third-party run and took a shot at comedian Rosie O'Donnell .
His unorthodox performance has only fueled his popularity -- his national numbers have gone up and he 's leading in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire .
But while Trump will no doubt deliver another explosive performance Wednesday , the debate stage this week will probably feel more hostile than last time .
In the six weeks since the first debate in Ohio , Trump 's rivals including Bush , Carson , Fiorina and Rand Paul have grown more confrontational , more willing to air their grievances against the frontrunner .
`` Donald Trump is the debate 's Rorschach test -- every competitor sees something different in him , '' said Ron Nehring , Ted Cruz 's California state chairman . `` Now that things are getting more serious and some of the weaker candidates are under financial pressure to move up or drop out , it will be interesting to see how they respond . ''
In a Tuesday interview on CNN 's `` The Lead , '' Paul said he would highlight Trump 's past positions on issues like eminent domain , Obamacare and taxes that will make conservatives uncomfortable .
`` When Americans know that , when conservatives know that , they 're going to run away with their hair on fire , '' Paul said .
Can Fiorina do the impossible -- and upstage The Donald ?
With a standout performance at the first GOP debate and a subsequent uptick in the polls , the former Hewlett-Packard CEO won a spot at the main debate alongside her top-ranking rivals . With her quick , effortless delivery and sharp attack lines , Fiorina seems one of the best equipped in Wednesday 's lineup to take Trump head-on .
Dan Pfeiffer , former adviser to President Barack Obama , said Monday on `` The Lead '' that Trump may be better off staying away from Fiorina altogether .
`` She is potentially the biggest threat to his being the nominee because she has all the resume of the outsider , not in elected office , but has more traditional experience -- seems less risky than Donald Trump or Ben Carson , '' Pfeiffer said .
Off stage , a battle between the two rivals is already brewing . Trump seemingly mocked Fiorina 's looks in a recent Rolling Stone magazine interview , saying : `` Look at that face ! Would anyone vote for that ? ''
Fiorina shot back : `` I am proud of every year and every wrinkle . ''
It 's not just Fiorina 's face that has come under Trump 's attacks .
`` She goes down as one of the worst ( CEOs ) ever , '' Trump said last week , a reference to Fiorina 's controversial tenure as the CEO of HP .
The company was back in the headlines Tuesday , announcing plans to slash some 25,000 to 30,000 jobs .
Carson 's devout faith is one of his most powerful political assets .
A Seventh Day Adventist , Carson speaks openly about his spiritual beliefs on the campaign trail . His appeal to evangelicals is proving to be particularly potent in a state like Iowa , which has a sizeable population of born-again Christians .
It 's also providing a contrast against Trump , whose religious background has recently come under scrutiny .
`` By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life and that 's a very big part of who I am . I do n't get that impression with him , '' Carson said of Trump last week . `` Maybe I 'm wrong , but I do n't get that . ''
Although Carson quickly walked back those remarks , he nevertheless exposed an area of potential vulnerability for Trump that any of his rivals could choose to revive at this week 's debate .
Under fire from Trump for lacking charisma , Bush is trying to ditch his old self . The new Bush is more confrontational , personable and energetic .
The reboot signals an acknowledgment that taking the backseat and waiting for Trump 's campaign to implode is -- at least right now -- a losing game .
The second debate comes at a particularly crucial time for Bush . Once presumed to be the party 's frontrunner , his national numbers are now stuck in the single digits . The question is whether his efforts will translate in front of the cameras on Wednesday , particularly next to Trump 's colorful personality .
As Bush attempts to be a more assertive candidate on the trail , the pro-Bush super PAC , Right to Rise , is laying down $ 24 million for ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire .
A new Web video from the group offers a glimpse of the contrast Bush may try to draw between himself and Trump . It labels Trump as a candidate `` in a very dark place '' -- then presents Bush as the candidate choosing a `` brighter path . ''
But these days , Walker is simply trying to stop the slide in his poll numbers .
The Wisconsin governor has lost his lead in Iowa , a state now dominated by Trump . Only 3 % of GOP caucus-goers in the Hawkeye State said they were supporting Walker in a recent Quinnipiac University poll .
His national prospects have also taken a serious hit : His support has dropped to 2 % from 11 % earlier in the summer , according to a new ABC News/Washington Post survey .
Walker is promising a more memorable performance tonight : `` We 're going to step it up and be more aggressive this time , '' he told CNN over the weekend .
The alarming headlines emerging from Europe about a deteriorating refugee crisis will serve as a real-time foreign policy test tonight .
It 's a politically thorny issue for both Republicans and Democrats , with the public split on how the country should respond to the flood of migrants fleeing chaos in countries such as Syria and Iraq . While more than half of Americans support the U.S. taking in some of the refugees , that view is far less popular among Republicans , with 55 % of them opposing that idea , according to a new CNN poll this week .
The issue will be more challenging for political newcomers like Trump and Carson to navigate than some of their more seasoned policymaker rivals like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham .
Asked whether the U.S. should consider letting more refugees enter the country on CNN 's `` The Lead '' on Monday , Carson warned that doing so would pose a terrorism risk .
`` We do n't know who those people are , and the majority of them are young males , and they could easily be people who could be infiltrated by terrorists , '' Carson said .
Former Texas Gov . Rick Perry became the first GOP candidate to end his White House campaign last week after languishing for months at the bottom of the polls . His exit , coming just a few months out from the first caucus , was a gut-check moment for the other bottom-tier hopefuls : The clock is ticking .
The four lowest polling candidates to participate in the 6 p.m. `` undercard '' debate are Graham , Rick Santorum , Bobby Jindal and George Pataki .
A lackluster performance Wednesday could doom these underfunded and lesser-known candidates .
`` The JV debate is likely the last , '' said Katie Packer Gage , deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney 's 2012 campaign . Packer Gage is neutral in the race , but she is founding partner of WWP Strategies , which works for GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio in Michigan .
`` There will be so little attention to those folks that the networks wo n't continue it , '' she said . `` So this is the last chance for the lesser known candidates to make a move . ''
|
Simi Valley, California (CNN) Donald Trump will play the lead role in the second Republican presidential debate tonight -- but his rivals are jockeying to steal his spotlight.
As the GOP's frontrunner, Trump will once again take center stage at CNN's debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. With Reagan's Air Force One as the backdrop, Trump will be flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has been increasingly eager to take on the combative businessman.
Meanwhile, one newcomer to the prime-time debate -- Carly Fiorina -- seems poised and ready to take on Trump directly.
With the Iowa caucuses less than five months away and pressure mounting for the middle-tier candidates, the CNN debate offers an opening for candidates to deliver a presidential performance -- and avoid getting lost in the Donald Trump show. But a misstep could damage their presidential prospects.
Here are seven things to watch in tonight's debate:
What will Trump say this time?
The question isn't whether Trump will shock and awe -- but how?
At last month's GOP debate, the wealthy real estate magnate had the audience both booing and cheering within minutes of taking the stage, when he refused to rule out a third-party run and took a shot at comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
His unorthodox performance has only fueled his popularity -- his national numbers have gone up and he's leading in key states like Iowa and New Hampshire.
But while Trump will no doubt deliver another explosive performance Wednesday, the debate stage this week will probably feel more hostile than last time.
Photos: Donald Trump's rise Photos: Donald Trump's rise President-elect Donald Trump has been in the spotlight for years. From developing real estate and producing and starring in TV shows, he became a celebrity long before winning the White House. Hide Caption 1 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump at age 4. He was born in 1946 to Fred and Mary Trump in New York City. His father was a real estate developer. Hide Caption 2 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, left, in a family photo. He was the second-youngest of five children. Hide Caption 3 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, center, stands at attention during his senior year at the New York Military Academy in 1964. Hide Caption 4 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, center, wears a baseball uniform at the New York Military Academy in 1964. After he graduated from the boarding school, he went to college. He started at Fordham University before transferring and later graduating from the Wharton School, the University of Pennsylvania's business school. Hide Caption 5 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump stands with Alfred Eisenpreis, New York's economic development administrator, in 1976 while they look at a sketch of a new 1,400-room renovation project of the Commodore Hotel. After graduating college in 1968, Trump worked with his father on developments in Queens and Brooklyn before purchasing or building multiple properties in New York and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Those properties included Trump Tower in New York and Trump Plaza and multiple casinos in Atlantic City. Hide Caption 6 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends an event to mark the start of construction of the New York Convention Center in 1979. Hide Caption 7 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump wears a hard hat at the Trump Tower construction site in New York in 1980. Hide Caption 8 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump was married to Ivana Zelnicek Trump from 1977 to 1990, when they divorced. They had three children together: Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric. Hide Caption 9 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise The Trump family, circa 1986. Hide Caption 10 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump uses his personal helicopter to get around New York in 1987. Hide Caption 11 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump stands in the atrium of the Trump Tower. Hide Caption 12 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends the opening of his new Atlantic City casino, the Taj Mahal, in 1989. Hide Caption 13 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump signs his second book, "Trump: Surviving at the Top," in 1990. Trump has published at least 16 other books, including "The Art of the Deal" and "The America We Deserve." Hide Caption 14 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump and singer Michael Jackson pose for a photo before traveling to visit Ryan White, a young child with AIDS, in 1990. Hide Caption 15 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump dips his second wife, Marla Maples, after the couple married in a private ceremony in New York in December 1993. The couple divorced in 1999 and had one daughter together, Tiffany. Hide Caption 16 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump putts a golf ball in his New York office in 1998. Hide Caption 17 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise An advertisement for the television show "The Apprentice" hangs at Trump Tower in 2004. The show launched in January of that year. In January 2008, the show returned as "Celebrity Apprentice." Hide Caption 18 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise A 12-inch talking Trump doll is on display at a toy store in New York in September 2004. Hide Caption 19 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends a news conference in 2005 that announced the establishment of Trump University. From 2005 until it closed in 2010, Trump University had about 10,000 people sign up for a program that promised success in real estate. Three separate lawsuits -- two class-action suits filed in California and one filed by New York's attorney general -- argued that the program was mired in fraud and deception. Trump's camp rejected the suits' claims as "baseless." And Trump has charged that the New York case against him is politically motivated. Hide Caption 20 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends the U.S. Open tennis tournament with his third wife, Melania Knauss-Trump, and their son, Barron, in 2006. Trump and Knauss married in 2005. Hide Caption 21 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump wrestles with "Stone Cold" Steve Austin at WrestleMania in 2007. Trump has close ties with the WWE and its CEO, Vince McMahon. Hide Caption 22 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise For "The Apprentice," Trump was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in January 2007. Hide Caption 23 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump appears on the set of "The Celebrity Apprentice" with two of his children -- Donald Jr. and Ivanka -- in 2009. Hide Caption 24 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump poses with Miss Universe contestants in 2011. Trump had been executive producer of the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants since 1996. Hide Caption 25 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise In 2012, Trump announces his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Hide Caption 26 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump speaks in Sarasota, Florida, after accepting the Statesman of the Year Award at the Sarasota GOP dinner in August 2012. It was shortly before the Republican National Convention in nearby Tampa. Hide Caption 27 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump appears on stage with singer Nick Jonas and television personality Giuliana Rancic during the 2013 Miss USA pageant. Hide Caption 28 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise In June 2015, during a speech from Trump Tower, Trump announced that he was running for President. He said he would give up "The Apprentice" to run. Hide Caption 29 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump -- flanked by U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio, left, and Ted Cruz -- speaks during a CNN debate in Miami on March 10. Trump dominated the GOP primaries and emerged as the presumptive nominee in May. Hide Caption 30 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise The Trump family poses for a photo in New York in April. Hide Caption 31 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump speaks during a campaign event in Evansville, Indiana, on April 28. After Trump won the Indiana primary, his last two competitors dropped out of the GOP race. Hide Caption 32 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump delivers a speech at the Republican National Convention in July, accepting the party's nomination for President. "I have had a truly great life in business," he said. "But now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country -- to go to work for you. It's time to deliver a victory for the American people." Hide Caption 33 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump faces Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate, which took place in Hempstead, New York, in September. Hide Caption 34 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump apologizes in a video, posted to his Twitter account in October, for vulgar and sexually aggressive remarks he made a decade ago regarding women. "I said it, I was wrong and I apologize," Trump said, referring to lewd comments he made during a previously unaired taping of "Access Hollywood." Multiple Republican leaders rescinded their endorsements of Trump after the footage was released. Hide Caption 35 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump walks on stage with his family after he was declared the election winner on November 9. "Ours was not a campaign, but rather, an incredible and great movement," he told his supporters in New York. Hide Caption 36 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump is joined by his family as he is sworn in as President on January 20. Hide Caption 37 of 37
In the six weeks since the first debate in Ohio, Trump's rivals including Bush, Carson, Fiorina and Rand Paul have grown more confrontational, more willing to air their grievances against the frontrunner.
"Donald Trump is the debate's Rorschach test -- every competitor sees something different in him," said Ron Nehring, Ted Cruz's California state chairman. "Now that things are getting more serious and some of the weaker candidates are under financial pressure to move up or drop out, it will be interesting to see how they respond."
In a Tuesday interview on CNN's "The Lead," Paul said he would highlight Trump's past positions on issues like eminent domain, Obamacare and taxes that will make conservatives uncomfortable.
"When Americans know that, when conservatives know that, they're going to run away with their hair on fire," Paul said.
Trump vs. Fiorina
Can Fiorina do the impossible -- and upstage The Donald?
With a standout performance at the first GOP debate and a subsequent uptick in the polls, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO won a spot at the main debate alongside her top-ranking rivals. With her quick, effortless delivery and sharp attack lines, Fiorina seems one of the best equipped in Wednesday's lineup to take Trump head-on.
Dan Pfeiffer, former adviser to President Barack Obama, said Monday on "The Lead" that Trump may be better off staying away from Fiorina altogether.
Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Former business executive Carly Fiorina speaks to guests gathered at the Point of Grace Church for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition 2015 Spring Kickoff on April 25, 2015, in Waukee, Iowa. Hide Caption 1 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina prepares to speak to guests gathered at the Point of Grace Church for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition 2015 Spring Kickoff on April 25, 2015, in Waukee, Iowa. Hide Caption 2 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina speaks to guests gathered at the Point of Grace Church for the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition 2015 Spring Kickoff on April 25, 2015, in Waukee, Iowa. Hide Caption 3 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina greets guests at the Johnson County Republicans Spaghetti Dinner at Clear Creek Amana High School on April 24, 2015, in Tiffin, Iowa. Hide Caption 4 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina, right, poses for a selfie with Joe Koberna at the Johnson County Republicans Spaghetti Dinner at Clear Creek Amana High School on April 24, 2015, in Tiffin, Iowa. Hide Caption 5 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Summit April 18, 2015, in Nashua, New Hampshire. Hide Caption 6 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina speaks during a forum on Capitol Hill March 16, 2015, in Washington. Fiorina spoke about what she calls the War on Women in politics. Hide Caption 7 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina delivers remarks at a discussion called "Welcoming Every Life: Choosing Life after an Unexpected Prenatal Diagnosis, focusing on caring for children with Down Syndrome," organized by the Heritage Foundation and the National Review Institute in Washington on January 20, 2015. Hide Caption 8 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina concedes defeat to her rival Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, during a news conference at her Irvine campaign headquarters on November 3, 2010, in Irvine, California. Hide Caption 9 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina, left, watches election results with granddaughter Kara Tribby, 7, in her hotel room at the Hyatt Regency Irvine, November 2, 2010, in Irvine, California. Hide Caption 10 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina, left, puts on headphones before participating in a radio debate with incumbent U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, in Washington, as co-moderator Gabriel Lerner, metro editor of La Opinion, does the same at local public-radio affiliate KPCC studios September 29, 2010, in Pasadena, California. Hide Caption 11 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina arrives for a news conference after participating in a debate with U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, in a radio debate hosted by La Opinion and public radio station KPCC on September 29, 2010, at the KPCC studios in Pasadena, California. Hide Caption 12 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Boxer, left, and Fiorina, center, greet moderator Randy Shandobil, right, after a debate on the campus of Saint Mary's College September 1, 2010, in Moraga, California. Hide Caption 13 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina, left, smiles with her husband Frank Fiorina, right, after casting their ballots at a polling place June 8, 2010, in Los Altos Hills, California. Hide Caption 14 of 15 Photos: Carly Fiorina's political career Fiorina greets supporters after announcing her candidacy for U.S. Senate at Earth Friendly Products packaging plant on November 4, 2009, in Garden Grove, California. Hide Caption 15 of 15
"She is potentially the biggest threat to his being the nominee because she has all the resume of the outsider, not in elected office, but has more traditional experience -- seems less risky than Donald Trump or Ben Carson," Pfeiffer said.
Off stage, a battle between the two rivals is already brewing. Trump seemingly mocked Fiorina's looks in a recent Rolling Stone magazine interview, saying: "Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?"
Fiorina shot back: "I am proud of every year and every wrinkle."
It's not just Fiorina's face that has come under Trump's attacks.
"She goes down as one of the worst (CEOs) ever," Trump said last week , a reference to Fiorina's controversial tenure as the CEO of HP.
The company was back in the headlines Tuesday, announcing plans to slash some 25,000 to 30,000 jobs.
What hand will Carson play?
Carson's devout faith is one of his most powerful political assets.
A Seventh Day Adventist, Carson speaks openly about his spiritual beliefs on the campaign trail. His appeal to evangelicals is proving to be particularly potent in a state like Iowa, which has a sizeable population of born-again Christians.
Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Ben Carson attends the National Action Network (NAN) national convention at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel on April 8, 2015, in New York City. Hide Caption 1 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson speaks during the 41st annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord International Hotel and Conference Center on March 8, 2014, in National Harbor, Maryland. Hide Caption 2 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson speaks to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit on January 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. Hide Caption 3 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson is surrounded by supporters as he waits to be interviewed at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Maryland, outside Washington on February 26, 2015. Hide Caption 4 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson speaks at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition convention on January 18, 2015, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. A variety of conservative presidential hopefuls spoke at the gathering on the second day of a three-day event. Hide Caption 5 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson delivers the keynote address at the Wake Up America gala event on September 5, 2014, in Scottsdale, Arizona. Hide Caption 6 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson speaks during the 41st annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord International Hotel and Conference Center on March 8, 2014, in National Harbor, Maryland. Hide Caption 7 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson speaks during the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton on February 7, 2013, in Washington. Hide Caption 8 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Honoree and director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University, Carson poses with actor James Pickens Jr. at the Jackie Robinson Foundation Annual Awards Dinner on March 16, 2009, in New York City. Hide Caption 9 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Before his jump into conservative politics, Carson was known for his work as a neurosurgeon. Carson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by then-President George W. Bush on June 19, 2008. At that time, he was the director of pediatric surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Hide Caption 10 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics In a story that garnered international attention, Carson was ready to separate a pair of 10-year-old Indian girls, Saba and Farah Shakeel, who are joined at the head in New Delhi, India. Here, he addresses a press conference at the Indraprashtra Apollo Hospital on October 4, 2005. Hide Caption 11 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson and a team of 20 specialists approved the procedure after studying the girls' brains; however, their parents were worried about their daughters' lives and did not give doctors permission to operate. The surgery did not happen. Hide Caption 12 of 13 Photos: Ben Carson's career in politics Carson observes the start of neurosurgery proceedings at the Raffles Hospital in Singapore on July 6, 2003. Carson and Dr. Keith Goh, left, performed a complex operation that was unsuccessful to separate 29-year-old twins Ladan And Laleh Bijani, who were joined at the head. Hide Caption 13 of 13
It's also providing a contrast against Trump, whose religious background has recently come under scrutiny.
"By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life and that's a very big part of who I am. I don't get that impression with him," Carson said of Trump last week. "Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get that."
Although Carson quickly walked back those remarks, he nevertheless exposed an area of potential vulnerability for Trump that any of his rivals could choose to revive at this week's debate.
The Bush reboot
Under fire from Trump for lacking charisma, Bush is trying to ditch his old self. The new Bush is more confrontational, personable and energetic.
The reboot signals an acknowledgment that taking the backseat and waiting for Trump's campaign to implode is -- at least right now -- a losing game.
Photos: Jeb Bush's life Photos: Jeb Bush's life Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush waves as he takes the stage as he formally announces he is joining the race for president with a speech June 15, 2015, at Miami Dade College in Miami. Hide Caption 1 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shakes hands with attendees after speaking at the 42nd annual Conservative Political Action Conference on February 27 in National Harbor, Maryland. Hide Caption 2 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush takes a selfie with a guest at a luncheon hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on February 18 in Chicago. Bush delivered his first major foreign policy speech at the event. Hide Caption 3 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush hands out items for Holiday Food Baskets to those in need outside the Little Havana offices of CAMACOL, the Latin American Chamber of Commerce on December 17 in Miami. Hide Caption 4 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush waves to the audience at the Tampa Bay Times Forum in Tampa, Florida, on August 30, 2012, on the final day of the Republican National Convention. Hide Caption 5 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush (left) and wife Columba Bush attend the 2012 Lincoln Center Institute Gala at Frederick P. Rose Hall, Jazz at Lincoln Center on March 7, 2012, in New York City. Hide Caption 6 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life President Barack Obama (left) speaks about Bush (center) while visiting Miami Central Senior High School on March 4, 2011 in Miami, Florida. The visit focused on education. Hide Caption 7 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush (left) speaks with Brazilian President in charge Jose Alancar during a meeting at Planalto Palace in Brasilia, April 17, 2007. Bush was in Brazil to speak about sugar and ethanol business. Hide Caption 8 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Then-Texas Governor Rick Perry (center) testifies as Bush (right) and then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (left) listen during a hearing before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Capitol Hill October 19, 2005. Hide Caption 9 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush gives a thumbs up signal from his car as he leaves a local polling station after casting his vote in Coral Gables, Florida, November 5, 2002. Hide Caption 10 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush walks out of the West Wing after meeting with his brother, then-President George W. Bush, at the White House January 9, 2002. Governor Bush participated in the signing ceremony of the Everglades Protection Agreement. Hide Caption 11 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Then-Mexican President Vincente Fox (left) and Bush hold a press conference September 7, 2001, in Miami. Fox visited Florida to attend the Americas Conference and deliver a speech to speak about issues such as immigration. Hide Caption 12 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Then-President George W. Bush (right) is greeted by Jeb Bush on March 21, 2001, at Orlando International Airport in Orlando, Florida. President Bush was in Orlando to attend the American College of Cardiology Annual Convention. Hide Caption 13 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush speaks during a press conference at the Carandolet Government Palace in Quito, January 18, 2006. Bush and a businessmen delegation were in a two-day visit to talk about a free trade agreement. Hide Caption 14 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Bush speaks to reporters after meeting with the Florida State Cabinet at the Florida State Capitol Building November 16, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hide Caption 15 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Then-President George W. Bush (left) and Jeb Bush (right), raise their arms onstage following a rally at the Florida State Fairgrounds, October 25, 2000, in Brandon, Florida. Hide Caption 16 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Jeb Bush (left) and then-President George W. Bush stand with their arms around each other's shoulders at a rally in Miami, Florida, September 22, 2000. Hide Caption 17 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Then-President George W. Bush (right) and Jeb Bush go through the line for strawberries during a stop at the Stawberry Festival March 12, 2000 in Plant City, Florida. Hide Caption 18 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life The Bush family, (left to right) former U.S. President George W., former Florida Governor Jeb, former President George H.W. and his wife Barbara, watch play during the Foursomes matches September 25, 1999 at The Country Club in Brookline, Massachusetts the site of the 33rd Ryder Cup Matches. Hide Caption 19 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Former President George H.W. Bush (second left), his wife Barbara Bush (left), their son Jeb Bush (center), then-first lady Hillary Clinton (second right), and former then-President Bill Clinton (right) look up to see the U.S. Army Golden Knights parachute team November 6, 1997 at the conclusion of the dedication ceremony of the George Bush Library in College Station, Texas. Hide Caption 20 of 21 Photos: Jeb Bush's life Portrait of the Bush family in front of their Kennebunkport, Maine house August 24, 1986. Pictured, back row: Margaret holding daughter Marshall, Marvin Bush, Bill LeBlond. Pictured, front row: Neil Bush holding son Pierce, Sharon, George W. Bush holding daughter Barbara, Laura Bush holding daughter Jenna, Barbara Bush, George Bush, Sam LeBlond, Doro Bush Lebond, George P. (Jeb's son), Jeb Bush holding son Jebby, Columba Bush and Noelle Bush. Hide Caption 21 of 21
The second debate comes at a particularly crucial time for Bush. Once presumed to be the party's frontrunner, his national numbers are now stuck in the single digits. The question is whether his efforts will translate in front of the cameras on Wednesday, particularly next to Trump's colorful personality.
As Bush attempts to be a more assertive candidate on the trail, the pro-Bush super PAC, Right to Rise, is laying down $24 million for ad buys in Iowa and New Hampshire.
A new Web video from the group offers a glimpse of the contrast Bush may try to draw between himself and Trump. It labels Trump as a candidate "in a very dark place" -- then presents Bush as the candidate choosing a "brighter path."
Can Scott Walker salvage his campaign?
He was supposed to be an A-list candidate.
But these days, Walker is simply trying to stop the slide in his poll numbers.
The Wisconsin governor has lost his lead in Iowa, a state now dominated by Trump. Only 3% of GOP caucus-goers in the Hawkeye State said they were supporting Walker in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
Photos: Scott Walker's career Photos: Scott Walker's career Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker dropped out of the presidential race on Monday, September 21. He was seeking the Republican Party's nomination. Hide Caption 1 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker fields questions from Bruce Rastetter at the Iowa Agriculture Summit on March 7, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. Hide Caption 2 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference at National Harbor, Maryland, outside Washington, D.C. on February 26, 2015. Hide Caption 3 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit on January 24, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. Hide Caption 4 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at his election night party November 4, 2014, in West Allis, Wisconsin. Walker defeated the Democratic challenger Mary Burke. Hide Caption 5 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker shakes hands with Democrat challenger Mary Burke before facing off in a debate at the WMVS-TV studios October, 17, 2014, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 6 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker has a scarf put on his head during a special service at the Sikh Religious Society of Wisconsin for the victims of the shooting at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin the previous day, on August 6, 2012, in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 7 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition spring leadership meeting at The Venetian Las Vegas on March 29, 2014. Hide Caption 8 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Scott Walker (left) shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping (center) before a meeting as Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (right) looks on at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on April 15, 2013. Hide Caption 9 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker poses with a woman during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012, in Tampa, Florida. Hide Caption 10 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker prepares to cast his ballot at Jefferson School to vote in the gubernatorial recall election June 5, 2012, in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 11 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker (right) listens to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal speak as they campaign at the Waukesha Victory Center on May 24, 2012, in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 12 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker addresses the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum April 13, 2012, in St. Louis, Missouri. Hide Caption 13 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker stands on the North Lawn of the White House before making remarks to the news media after a meeting of the National Governors Association with President Barack Obama on February 27, 2012. Hide Caption 14 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career President Barack Obama receives a Milwaukee Brewers baseball jersey from Walker (left) as he disembarks from Air Force One upon arrival at General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, February 15, 2012. Hide Caption 15 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker listens during the 2011 Governors Summit of U.S. Chamber of Commerce June 20, 2011, in Washington, D.C. Hide Caption 16 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Members of Code Pink (left to right) Medea Benjamin, Liz Hourican and Tighe Barry, hold signs to protest as Walker (center) takes his seat during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee April 14, 2011, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Hide Caption 17 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker holds a letter from democratic State Sen. Mark Miller, one of the fourteen Wisconsin state senators who fled the state over two weeks ago, during a press conference on March 7, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 18 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker holds up a 'Wisconsin is open for business' bumper sticker as he speaks during a ceremonial bill signing outside his office at the Wisconsin State Capitol on March 11, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 19 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker delivers his budget address to a joint session of the legislature at the capitol March 1, 2011 in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 20 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career Walker speaks at a news conference inside the Wisconsin State Capitol February 21, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin. Hide Caption 21 of 22 Photos: Scott Walker's career President Obama receives a Green Bay Packers NFL football team jersey with 'Obama #1' written on it from Walker (left) at Austin Straubel International Airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on January 26, 2011. Hide Caption 22 of 22
His national prospects have also taken a serious hit: His support has dropped to 2% from 11% earlier in the summer, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post survey.
Walker is promising a more memorable performance tonight: "We're going to step it up and be more aggressive this time," he told CNN over the weekend.
A spotlight on foreign policy
The alarming headlines emerging from Europe about a deteriorating refugee crisis will serve as a real-time foreign policy test tonight.
It's a politically thorny issue for both Republicans and Democrats, with the public split on how the country should respond to the flood of migrants fleeing chaos in countries such as Syria and Iraq. While more than half of Americans support the U.S. taking in some of the refugees, that view is far less popular among Republicans, with 55% of them opposing that idea, according to a new CNN poll this week.
Photos: Who's running for president? Photos: Who's running for president? Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Hide Caption 1 of 6 Photos: Who's running for president?
"So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again," Trump told the crowd at his announcement. Businessman Donald Trump announced June 16 at his Trump Tower in New York City that he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. This ends more than two decades of flirting with the idea of running for the White House."So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again," Trump told the crowd at his announcement. Hide Caption 2 of 6 Photos: Who's running for president?
"These are all of our stories," Cruz told the audience at Liberty University in Virginia. "These are who we are as Americans. And yet for so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant." Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has made a name for himself in the Senate, solidifying his brand as a conservative firebrand willing to take on the GOP's establishment. He announced he was seeking the Republican presidential nomination in a speech on March 23."These are all of our stories," Cruz told the audience at Liberty University in Virginia. "These are who we are as Americans. And yet for so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant." Hide Caption 3 of 6 Photos: Who's running for president? Ohio Gov. John Kasich joined the Republican field July 21 as he formally announced his White House bid.
"I am here to ask you for your prayers, for your support ... because I have decided to run for president of the United States," Kasich told his kickoff rally at the Ohio State University. Hide Caption 4 of 6 Photos: Who's running for president?
"Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion -- so you can do more than just get by -- you can get ahead. And stay ahead," she said in her announcement video. "Because when families are strong, America is strong. So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote, because it's your time. And I hope you'll join me on this journey." Hillary Clinton launched her presidential bid on April 12 through a video message on social media. The former first lady, senator and secretary of state is considered the front-runner among possible Democratic candidates."Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion -- so you can do more than just get by -- you can get ahead. And stay ahead," she said in her announcement video. "Because when families are strong, America is strong. So I'm hitting the road to earn your vote, because it's your time. And I hope you'll join me on this journey." Hide Caption 5 of 6 Photos: Who's running for president?
"This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their super PACs and their lobbyists," Sanders said at a rally in Vermont on May 26. Sen. Bernie Sanders , an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, announced his run in an email to supporters on April 30. He has said the United States needs a "political revolution" of working-class Americans to take back control of the government from billionaires."This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their super PACs and their lobbyists," Sanders said at a rally in Vermont on May 26. Hide Caption 6 of 6
The issue will be more challenging for political newcomers like Trump and Carson to navigate than some of their more seasoned policymaker rivals like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Asked whether the U.S. should consider letting more refugees enter the country on CNN's "The Lead" on Monday, Carson warned that doing so would pose a terrorism risk.
"We don't know who those people are, and the majority of them are young males, and they could easily be people who could be infiltrated by terrorists," Carson said.
Do or die for the undercards
And then there were 16.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry became the first GOP candidate to end his White House campaign last week after languishing for months at the bottom of the polls. His exit, coming just a few months out from the first caucus, was a gut-check moment for the other bottom-tier hopefuls: The clock is ticking.
Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 1 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 2 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 3 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 4 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 5 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 6 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 7 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 8 of 9 Photos: Behind the scenes photos of the CNN Debate setup Hide Caption 9 of 9
The four lowest polling candidates to participate in the 6 p.m. "undercard" debate are Graham, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal and George Pataki.
A lackluster performance Wednesday could doom these underfunded and lesser-known candidates.
"The JV debate is likely the last," said Katie Packer Gage, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign. Packer Gage is neutral in the race, but she is founding partner of WWP Strategies, which works for GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio in Michigan.
"There will be so little attention to those folks that the networks won't continue it," she said. "So this is the last chance for the lesser known candidates to make a move."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
Yy2cqwRSuj1vsE0G
|
culture
|
Salon
| 00
|
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/12/okcupid_founder_i_wish_people_exercised_more_humanity_on_okcupid/
|
OkCupid founder: “I wish people exercised more humanity” on OkCupid
|
2014-09-12
|
Andrew Leonard
|
In late July , Christian Rudder , a co-founder of the online dating site OkCupid , plunged himself into the middle of an Internet maelstrom when he published a post with a classic poke-the-anthill headline : `` We Experiment on Human Beings ! ''
The provocation came in the middle of a storm of commentary sparked by the revelations that Facebook had been purposefully manipulating its users ' emotions by tinkering with its news feed . Rudder contended that such tweaking was commonplace and normal . In OkCupid 's case , the company had temporarily adjusted its matching algorithm so that some people ended up with recommendations that the algorithm would normally have considered bad matches -- and vice versa , some people whom the algorithm should have concluded were good matches were told they were a bad fit . There was no ill will involved ; from Rudder 's perspective , it was just an experiment designed to serve the larger goal of improving the overall OkCupid user experience .
The Internet reacted harshly . But in an unplanned twist , the post turned out to be good publicity for Rudder 's new book , `` Dataclysm : Who We Are When We Think No One 's Looking . '' Case in point : I had an advance review copy of the book sitting on my desk , but it was only after the hoopla over Rudder 's blog post that I took a closer look and decided it was a must-read .
And indeed it is . `` Dataclysm '' is a well-written and funny look at what the numbers reveal about human behavior in the age of social media . It 's both profound and a bit disturbing , because , sad to say , we 're generally not the kind of people we like to think -- or say -- we are .
Rudder begins his book with a distressing opening salvo : two charts that reveal what age groups men and women generally find attractive . From age 20 to 50 , women are consistent -- they 're drawn to men who are in roughly the same age cohort . Men are equally consistent : From age 20-50 , they are attracted to 20-year-olds . The discussion is over : Men are dogs .
Rudder 's data on race leads to similar implications -- prejudice is alive and well on online dating states , and what we say -- and do n't say -- in our profiles offers impressive support for cultural stereotyping . Rudder does the math on what different groups are most or least likely to say in their profiles : Black men , for example , hardly ever mention Belle and Sebastian , snorkeling or `` Dr Horrible 's Sing Along Blog . '' White women do n't talk about slow jams , j-pop or Malcolm X . White guys , however , are really into mentioning their `` blue eyes , '' brewing beer , and Robert Heinlein . Asian men frequently say `` tall for an Asian , '' `` gangnam style '' and `` noodle soup . '' )
Rudder treats these insights into the human condition with bemused -- and very useful -- intelligence . We 're only just beginning to understand how much we can learn about ourselves and others from the data that is constantly being harvested from us . The more we know , the better armed we are to navigate the future .
Rudder spoke by phone to ███ from OkCupid 's offices in New York .
The more you look at the data , the more it does confirm the cynics ' intuition about humanity . People online are free to act out their worst impulses with very little incentive to act out their best . I guess it just goes to show how politeness or propriety keeps us decent human beings . Offline , society actually has a very good effect on behavior in a very large sense .
That raises an uncomfortable question : Does our wholesale move online undermine how society traditionally keeps us in line ?
I 'm not qualified to give a real opinion on where society as a whole is headed , but I think when you look at stuff like rage storms on Twitter , or even the thing that happened yesterday -- the celebrity nude photos being leaked -- you see that there are definitely some disgusting impulses that the Internet can gratify instantaneously . In the same way Cool Ranch Doritos gratify certain taste receptors that are probably not very good for my digestive tract , things like Twitter or Reddit or even OkCupid gratify our tastes in ways that should probably best be left unsated .
How does that make you feel as a researcher ? Have you become more cynical as a result of what you 've learned by watching how people behave on OkCupid ?
I definitely have a certain amount of ambivalence about the Internet generally and what we do at OkCupid . OkCupid does a lot of great things . We do find people love , we do create marriage and children and happiness in a pure sense , in a way that , say , Amazon does not . But there is a downside : In the process of finding that love or sex or whatever they 're looking for , people are able to be more judgmental . It 's a fraught thing . I can see the good and the bad in all this , but where it all comes out in the end , I 'm not sure . I think the existence of the Internet is a good thing , but I do wish people exercised more humanity in using these tools .
I 'd like to break the format of the typical Q & A a bit , and just read some lines from your book that jumped out at me , and see if I can prompt you to elaborate on them . For example , you wrote that `` the Internet will democratize our fundamental narrative . '' What does that mean ?
What I meant was that the Internet will enable , on a mass scale , something like what Howard Zinn was doing in his `` People 's History of the United States . '' Zinn 's trying to reach for what the common person thought about World War I or the Civil War , or go back and find out what a housewife in 1970 was thinking about her life . But by and large he had to put it all together from a few diaries and a ton of leg work and obviously there 's a lot of selection bias involved .
But in the future , as people continue to live out their lives through these technologies , all of our lives are almost by definition going to be captured . The computer that is crunching all that stuff pulls us all together . In a very real sense , we are all given the same weight in any of these calculations .
I guess that connects directly to another sentence that caught my eye : `` With data , history can become deeper , it can become more . ''
How about , `` It 's when people do n't understand their own hearts I get interested '' ?
I like it when you are able to look at a behavior in two ways . One : what people think they are doing or wish they were doing , and two : what they actually do . At OkCupid we have a great mechanism for looking at that : We have all these match questions where we ask people what they believe or what they think , and then we can go in and measure exactly what they are actually doing . I just think that the space between self-image and action is very interesting .
Well , the most obvious thing is racial messaging patterns . We asked people about race and everybody is like , yeah , interracial marriage is totally great . Something like 96 percent are totally fine with it , or support it . We also asked people questions like `` would you ever date someone who told a racist joke '' and the answers are very strongly liberal in the way you would expect . Everybody is fine with it , blah blah blah . But then you go out and look at what people do or who they choose for themselves , and you see that this is just not the case . Race is a huge factor and certain types of interracial relationships -- I would n't say are taboo , but certainly in the aggregate they are less desirable .
Again this gets back to what we were talking about at the very beginning . If that 's what I want why do n't I just put that into the form ? It would work better , if I was just honest with OkCupid and myself about what I wanted .
You mention Naomi Wolf 's `` The Beauty Myth '' and you wrote , `` for the beauty myth , social media signifies judgment day . '' Is this just a reflection of the fact that women who are considered highly attractive get by far the most messages from men ?
I was having a little bit of fun . There 's just so much judgment that goes on in social media . If most myths are built around some kind of cataclysm or apocalypse , then for the beauty myth , Ragnarok is social media . Men who are free to judge photos without conforming to social norms go crazy clicking girls in bikinis .
Maybe the most discomfiting point you make in your book is your acknowledgment that the kind of people who work for the NSA crunching our data are much smarter than you are and have access to far more information . Eventually , the sophistication of the algorithms will become so great that pretty much everything important about us will be inferred from just a few data points . That 's scarily determinist . Do we even have free will when our data trail tells employers or the government or prospective mates exactly who we are ?
That is a great question , and I do n't think I can give an answer that is both hopeful and honest . The tech industry side of me wants to say that this is n't just a problem of social media -- the same thing happens with your credit score , for example . But you are right . It is scary . There will always be highly motivated , powerful entities using this data for their own good , which often implies an adversarial relationship against you . I will say one thing : If we consider Facebook as stand-in for all this stuff , I think people have generally approached these social media networks with a level of naiveté that is changing . We 're beginning to understand the pitfalls of volunteering all this data about ourselves .
That 's why a book like `` Dataclysm '' is important . The more we know about what you guys are finding out , the easier it will be to set societal guidelines for how this information can be used , and to become masters of our information .
Exactly right . It 's a strange time for me and I 'm sure for you too and anybody else working in this milieu . The technologies are pervasive but comprehension of them is not .
Which leads me to my final question . Let 's revisit that experiment in which you tweaked the matching algorithm . I think for a lot of people that smacked of manipulation that crossed over the line . It seemed different than just changing the layout of a page to see what works better . It seemed like you were messing with people 's minds . Why did you do it ?
Let me just step back and add a little more context . So , we tweaked an algorithm . Now , some algorithms can be considered as a sort of fact . If you are trying to pull a record out of a database there is a canonical or fastest way or best way to do it and to deviate from that would be silly or would be wrong in a real sense . But when we describe people as good or bad matches -- the truth is for any two people on OkCupid , we just do n't know . We 're making a guess ; our algorithm is a version of a guess . It 's not a fact .
There are tons of different ways to bring people together . We often use common interests , like how well you and I satisfy each other . But there are other potentially workable heuristics , like , for example , `` opposites attract . '' The test I wrote about in that blog post was on a continuum of those kinds of tests : We were really genuinely trying to figure out what works best , how to improve the user experience .
What we were doing was different , to me , than `` lying . '' Lying would be distorting matters of fact , rather than opinion . I have no idea what your sexual orientation is , but just imagine if you were gay , and I go and tell people that you are straight . That 's very clearly false , and possibly harmful . We would never do that because that is altering a fact about people ... But with any algorithm that is about how to recommend something -- there is no canonical perfect way to do it . So we treat it sort of like an opinion .
But does n't that enter a fuzzy area ? A selling point of OkCupid is supposed to be that it actually works , which implies that your `` opinions '' as to who is a good match are actually facts ...
For sure . For sure . But part of what makes us sure that we can give people the best match , and that we can make good guesses about what two people are going to get along , is that we are constantly working on refining our methods .
Look , I definitely understand the feelings about what we did . Especially given the way that I first laid it out , and then later , in the way I reacted to the media . Both my presentation and reaction were flawed . But we did not do it to mess with people . Everything we do at OkCupid is done with discretion , and , I hope , some level of emotional intelligence .
|
In late July, Christian Rudder, a co-founder of the online dating site OkCupid, plunged himself into the middle of an Internet maelstrom when he published a post with a classic poke-the-anthill headline: "We Experiment on Human Beings!"
The provocation came in the middle of a storm of commentary sparked by the revelations that Facebook had been purposefully manipulating its users' emotions by tinkering with its news feed. Rudder contended that such tweaking was commonplace and normal. In OkCupid's case, the company had temporarily adjusted its matching algorithm so that some people ended up with recommendations that the algorithm would normally have considered bad matches -- and vice versa, some people whom the algorithm should have concluded were good matches were told they were a bad fit. There was no ill will involved; from Rudder's perspective, it was just an experiment designed to serve the larger goal of improving the overall OkCupid user experience.
Advertisement:
The Internet reacted harshly. But in an unplanned twist, the post turned out to be good publicity for Rudder's new book, "Dataclysm: Who We Are When We Think No One's Looking." Case in point: I had an advance review copy of the book sitting on my desk, but it was only after the hoopla over Rudder's blog post that I took a closer look and decided it was a must-read.
And indeed it is. "Dataclysm" is a well-written and funny look at what the numbers reveal about human behavior in the age of social media. It's both profound and a bit disturbing, because, sad to say, we're generally not the kind of people we like to think -- or say -- we are.
Rudder begins his book with a distressing opening salvo: two charts that reveal what age groups men and women generally find attractive. From age 20 to 50, women are consistent -- they're drawn to men who are in roughly the same age cohort. Men are equally consistent: From age 20-50, they are attracted to 20-year-olds. The discussion is over: Men are dogs.
Advertisement:
Rudder's data on race leads to similar implications -- prejudice is alive and well on online dating states, and what we say -- and don't say -- in our profiles offers impressive support for cultural stereotyping. Rudder does the math on what different groups are most or least likely to say in their profiles: Black men, for example, hardly ever mention Belle and Sebastian, snorkeling or "Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog." White women don't talk about slow jams, j-pop or Malcolm X. White guys, however, are really into mentioning their "blue eyes," brewing beer, and Robert Heinlein. Asian men frequently say "tall for an Asian," "gangnam style" and "noodle soup.")
Rudder treats these insights into the human condition with bemused -- and very useful -- intelligence. We're only just beginning to understand how much we can learn about ourselves and others from the data that is constantly being harvested from us. The more we know, the better armed we are to navigate the future.
Rudder spoke by phone to Salon from OkCupid's offices in New York.
Advertisement:
So men are sexists, and we're all racist?
The more you look at the data, the more it does confirm the cynics' intuition about humanity. People online are free to act out their worst impulses with very little incentive to act out their best. I guess it just goes to show how politeness or propriety keeps us decent human beings. Offline, society actually has a very good effect on behavior in a very large sense.
Advertisement:
That raises an uncomfortable question: Does our wholesale move online undermine how society traditionally keeps us in line?
I'm not qualified to give a real opinion on where society as a whole is headed, but I think when you look at stuff like rage storms on Twitter, or even the thing that happened yesterday -- the celebrity nude photos being leaked -- you see that there are definitely some disgusting impulses that the Internet can gratify instantaneously. In the same way Cool Ranch Doritos gratify certain taste receptors that are probably not very good for my digestive tract, things like Twitter or Reddit or even OkCupid gratify our tastes in ways that should probably best be left unsated.
How does that make you feel as a researcher? Have you become more cynical as a result of what you've learned by watching how people behave on OkCupid?
Advertisement:
I definitely have a certain amount of ambivalence about the Internet generally and what we do at OkCupid. OkCupid does a lot of great things. We do find people love, we do create marriage and children and happiness in a pure sense, in a way that, say, Amazon does not. But there is a downside: In the process of finding that love or sex or whatever they're looking for, people are able to be more judgmental. It's a fraught thing. I can see the good and the bad in all this, but where it all comes out in the end, I'm not sure. I think the existence of the Internet is a good thing, but I do wish people exercised more humanity in using these tools.
I'd like to break the format of the typical Q&A a bit, and just read some lines from your book that jumped out at me, and see if I can prompt you to elaborate on them. For example, you wrote that "the Internet will democratize our fundamental narrative." What does that mean?
What I meant was that the Internet will enable, on a mass scale, something like what Howard Zinn was doing in his "People's History of the United States." Zinn's trying to reach for what the common person thought about World War I or the Civil War, or go back and find out what a housewife in 1970 was thinking about her life. But by and large he had to put it all together from a few diaries and a ton of leg work and obviously there's a lot of selection bias involved.
Advertisement:
But in the future, as people continue to live out their lives through these technologies, all of our lives are almost by definition going to be captured. The computer that is crunching all that stuff pulls us all together. In a very real sense, we are all given the same weight in any of these calculations.
I guess that connects directly to another sentence that caught my eye: "With data, history can become deeper, it can become more."
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
How about, "It's when people don't understand their own hearts I get interested"?
Advertisement:
I like it when you are able to look at a behavior in two ways. One: what people think they are doing or wish they were doing, and two: what they actually do. At OkCupid we have a great mechanism for looking at that: We have all these match questions where we ask people what they believe or what they think, and then we can go in and measure exactly what they are actually doing. I just think that the space between self-image and action is very interesting.
What data points jumped out at you the most?
Well, the most obvious thing is racial messaging patterns. We asked people about race and everybody is like, yeah, interracial marriage is totally great. Something like 96 percent are totally fine with it, or support it. We also asked people questions like "would you ever date someone who told a racist joke" and the answers are very strongly liberal in the way you would expect. Everybody is fine with it, blah blah blah. But then you go out and look at what people do or who they choose for themselves, and you see that this is just not the case. Race is a huge factor and certain types of interracial relationships -- I wouldn't say are taboo, but certainly in the aggregate they are less desirable.
Again this gets back to what we were talking about at the very beginning. If that's what I want why don't I just put that into the form? It would work better, if I was just honest with OkCupid and myself about what I wanted.
Advertisement:
You mention Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth" and you wrote, "for the beauty myth, social media signifies judgment day." Is this just a reflection of the fact that women who are considered highly attractive get by far the most messages from men?
I was having a little bit of fun. There's just so much judgment that goes on in social media. If most myths are built around some kind of cataclysm or apocalypse, then for the beauty myth, Ragnarok is social media. Men who are free to judge photos without conforming to social norms go crazy clicking girls in bikinis.
Maybe the most discomfiting point you make in your book is your acknowledgment that the kind of people who work for the NSA crunching our data are much smarter than you are and have access to far more information. Eventually, the sophistication of the algorithms will become so great that pretty much everything important about us will be inferred from just a few data points. That's scarily determinist. Do we even have free will when our data trail tells employers or the government or prospective mates exactly who we are?
That is a great question, and I don't think I can give an answer that is both hopeful and honest. The tech industry side of me wants to say that this isn't just a problem of social media -- the same thing happens with your credit score, for example. But you are right. It is scary. There will always be highly motivated, powerful entities using this data for their own good, which often implies an adversarial relationship against you. I will say one thing: If we consider Facebook as stand-in for all this stuff, I think people have generally approached these social media networks with a level of naiveté that is changing. We're beginning to understand the pitfalls of volunteering all this data about ourselves.
Advertisement:
That's why a book like "Dataclysm" is important. The more we know about what you guys are finding out, the easier it will be to set societal guidelines for how this information can be used, and to become masters of our information.
Exactly right. It's a strange time for me and I'm sure for you too and anybody else working in this milieu. The technologies are pervasive but comprehension of them is not.
Which leads me to my final question. Let's revisit that experiment in which you tweaked the matching algorithm. I think for a lot of people that smacked of manipulation that crossed over the line. It seemed different than just changing the layout of a page to see what works better. It seemed like you were messing with people's minds. Why did you do it?
Let me just step back and add a little more context. So, we tweaked an algorithm. Now, some algorithms can be considered as a sort of fact. If you are trying to pull a record out of a database there is a canonical or fastest way or best way to do it and to deviate from that would be silly or would be wrong in a real sense. But when we describe people as good or bad matches -- the truth is for any two people on OkCupid, we just don't know. We're making a guess; our algorithm is a version of a guess. It's not a fact.
There are tons of different ways to bring people together. We often use common interests, like how well you and I satisfy each other. But there are other potentially workable heuristics, like, for example, "opposites attract." The test I wrote about in that blog post was on a continuum of those kinds of tests: We were really genuinely trying to figure out what works best, how to improve the user experience.
What we were doing was different, to me, than "lying." Lying would be distorting matters of fact, rather than opinion. I have no idea what your sexual orientation is, but just imagine if you were gay, and I go and tell people that you are straight. That's very clearly false, and possibly harmful. We would never do that because that is altering a fact about people ... But with any algorithm that is about how to recommend something -- there is no canonical perfect way to do it. So we treat it sort of like an opinion.
But doesn't that enter a fuzzy area? A selling point of OkCupid is supposed to be that it actually works, which implies that your "opinions" as to who is a good match are actually facts ...
For sure. For sure. But part of what makes us sure that we can give people the best match, and that we can make good guesses about what two people are going to get along, is that we are constantly working on refining our methods.
Look, I definitely understand the feelings about what we did. Especially given the way that I first laid it out, and then later, in the way I reacted to the media. Both my presentation and reaction were flawed. But we did not do it to mess with people. Everything we do at OkCupid is done with discretion, and, I hope, some level of emotional intelligence.
|
www.salon.com
| 0left
|
LCvdQQ4K5CSWmqrF
|
media_bias
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/11/social-media-bubbles-drive-opposing-views-george-floyd-protests-column/5332630002/
|
As America falls apart, we need to break out of our social media bubbles
|
2020-06-11
|
The other day a friend and I discussed the protests and riots in America in response to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis . He ’ s on the left and hears more about protests ; I ’ m on the right and hear more about riots . We have very different views about the current situation in America , from what has caused it to what should be done . And social media filter bubbles fuel our respective beliefs .
To make his point about the dangers of authoritarianism , my friend sent me a video of police corralling protesters with tear gas .
To make my point that sometimes force is necessary to keep order , I sent a number of videos in return — including one of a cop being run over .
My friend condemned the violence and said , “ I am glad we are sharing slices of each other 's bubbles . Because I would not be following this guy you just shared . ”
His comment underscored something AllSides has pointed out for a long time : Americans view the news — and now , videos about protests and riots — in partisan online filter bubbles .
It 's more crucial than ever to understand this as America falls apart . When online technology and partisan media are designed to feed us perspectives , people and information that confirm what we already think , they fuel contempt and divide us .
Are you a radical type who thinks “ all cops are bastards ” ( “ ACAB , ” as you may have seen spray painted in photos of vandalism in U.S. cities ) ? Or someone who thinks police are out of control ? You ’ ll find plenty of content to confirm those beliefs : Police deploying tear gas and flash grenades ; cops firing projectiles after ordering peaceful citizens to get inside their homes .
Maybe you think the majority of cops are good servants of their community . In that case , you may have seen or shared images of cops taking a knee , a police officer gently consoling a crying protester , a white officer helping a wounded African American woman .
It ’ s OK to have a perspective . I have my own biases about what is going on . Perhaps you adamantly believe just one of these narratives , or perhaps you see truth in all of them . The danger is when we refuse to acknowledge or see other perspectives at all , when we do not allow information to break through the hardened shells of our ideology , when nuanced thinking is inhibited .
I fell victim to that in college . Reading inside a filter bubble caused me to adopt radical political views . I was upset about student debt , and fell down a rabbit hole of thought that blamed an entire system that I felt treated my family and others unfairly . The state , capitalism , the police — I saw it all as evil and unjust . For the good of all , I thought , the entire system must be destroyed .
But a voice inside me wondered what other people thought about these issues , what perspectives I was missing . Despite my deeply held beliefs , something told me I didn ’ t have the full picture .
I started to force myself to read media outside of my bubble , to listen to commentators on the other side . I realized they weren ’ t all evil , heartless and cruel . They were actually constructing morality based on a wider range of foundational values than I was , and they made a lot of good points I hadn ’ t considered .
I changed my views . Western civilization , I decided , has many problems and needs many changes , but was largely built on good , not evil . Our society is definitely not worth tearing down and replacing with some utopian ideal .
Getting out of my filter bubble meant the difference between becoming someone who , eight years later , could have a respectful conversation with my friend or becoming someone who could dupe myself into thinking we were doing good by burning a police cruiser . ( I never thought violence was OK ) .
The point is , I am glad I exited that rabbit hole of thought before it led to further radicalization .
My friend said of one commentator whose tweets I had shared with him : “ His timeline seems so biased to me . I will try to take my filter glasses off , though . ”
Julie Mastrine is director of marketing at AllSides , which provides balanced news , media bias ratings and opportunities for civil discourse .
|
Julie Mastrine
Opinion contributor
The other day a friend and I discussed the protests and riots in America in response to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. He’s on the left and hears more about protests; I’m on the right and hear more about riots. We have very different views about the current situation in America, from what has caused it to what should be done. And social media filter bubbles fuel our respective beliefs.
To make his point about the dangers of authoritarianism, my friend sent me a video of police corralling protesters with tear gas.
To make my point that sometimes force is necessary to keep order, I sent a number of videos in return — including one of a cop being run over.
My friend condemned the violence and said, “I am glad we are sharing slices of each other's bubbles. Because I would not be following this guy you just shared.”
His comment underscored something AllSides has pointed out for a long time: Americans view the news — and now, videos about protests and riots — in partisan online filter bubbles.
It's more crucial than ever to understand this as America falls apart. When online technology and partisan media are designed to feed us perspectives, people and information that confirm what we already think, they fuel contempt and divide us.
Are you a radical type who thinks “all cops are bastards” (“ACAB,” as you may have seen spray painted in photos of vandalism in U.S. cities)? Or someone who thinks police are out of control? You’ll find plenty of content to confirm those beliefs: Police deploying tear gas and flash grenades; cops firing projectiles after ordering peaceful citizens to get inside their homes.
Maybe you think the majority of cops are good servants of their community. In that case, you may have seen or shared images of cops taking a knee, a police officer gently consoling a crying protester, a white officer helping a wounded African American woman.
Learn to listen to others' views
It’s OK to have a perspective. I have my own biases about what is going on. Perhaps you adamantly believe just one of these narratives, or perhaps you see truth in all of them. The danger is when we refuse to acknowledge or see other perspectives at all, when we do not allow information to break through the hardened shells of our ideology, when nuanced thinking is inhibited.
I fell victim to that in college. Reading inside a filter bubble caused me to adopt radical political views. I was upset about student debt, and fell down a rabbit hole of thought that blamed an entire system that I felt treated my family and others unfairly. The state, capitalism, the police — I saw it all as evil and unjust. For the good of all, I thought, the entire system must be destroyed.
But a voice inside me wondered what other people thought about these issues, what perspectives I was missing. Despite my deeply held beliefs, something told me I didn’t have the full picture.
I started to force myself to read media outside of my bubble, to listen to commentators on the other side. I realized they weren’t all evil, heartless and cruel. They were actually constructing morality based on a wider range of foundational values than I was, and they made a lot of good points I hadn’t considered.
Beliefs changed over time
I changed my views. Western civilization, I decided, has many problems and needs many changes, but was largely built on good, not evil. Our society is definitely not worth tearing down and replacing with some utopian ideal.
Getting out of my filter bubble meant the difference between becoming someone who, eight years later, could have a respectful conversation with my friend or becoming someone who could dupe myself into thinking we were doing good by burning a police cruiser. (I never thought violence was OK).
The point is, I am glad I exited that rabbit hole of thought before it led to further radicalization.
My friend said of one commentator whose tweets I had shared with him: “His timeline seems so biased to me. I will try to take my filter glasses off, though.”
Let's hope we all can.
Julie Mastrine is director of marketing at AllSides, which provides balanced news, media bias ratings and opportunities for civil discourse.
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
sGpDfdREBcR4XW1G
|
|
holidays
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/05/4th-july-trump-put-divisions-display-protest/1653535001/
|
‘Are you proud to be an American?’ Why Trump’s 4th of July was a tale of three different celebrations
|
2019-07-05
|
WASHINGTON – Fourth of July festivities in the nation 's capital were anything but typical this year . It was n't just the military tanks , jet flyovers or the speech by President Donald Trump .
The president 's role in what is usually a nonpartisan celebration created what felt like three different events : Protesters who decried his administration and its policies ; a campaign rally where supporters cheered for him to keep the White House for another term ; and those who simply wanted to enjoy hot dogs and fireworks with their families for the annual Independence Day festivities .
On a holiday marking America 's birthday , the country 's divisions were on full display .
There was a giant blimp depicting the president as an orange infant . There was also a sea of red , `` Make America Great Again '' hats . And there were families spread out along the National Mall with blankets and children anxiously awaiting the fireworks display and not focused on politics .
When the protesters and Trump supporters clashed over a flag burning in front of the White House , there were two arrests , although most confrontations did not go beyond shouting matches .
'Nothing America can not do ' : Donald Trump touts U.S. military strength in 4th of July speech
Uh-oh : Donald Trump trips up on history in 4th of July speech , mentions airports during Revolutionary War
Trump 's influence on the annual celebrations were easy to spot .
Supporters poured into the National Mall throughout the day , many waving `` Trump 2020 '' flags or wearing `` MAGA '' hats . They passed by the heckling of protesters with disgust , some yelling `` SNOWFLAKES ! '' to the crowds gathered in opposition of Trump .
In the afternoon at the National Independence Day Parade parade , thousands of people lined the streets of Washington to watch floats , drum lines and military units march by . As the parade marched on , the heat did too . Spectators migrated towards the shade , picking up ice-cold bottles of water from vendors , to watch the parade .
Hundreds of Trump supporters were part of the crowd that lined Constitution Avenue .
Trump ’ s new campaign slogan , ‘ Keep America Great , ’ also filled the surrounding streets of the parade . Vendor stands at nearly every corner pushed Trump hats and paraphernalia on energetic supporters .
'This says something ' : Thousands gather in Washington for Donald Trump 's 4th of July celebration
'Tanks ' a lot : Trump 4th of July celebration is n't first time armored vehicles have rumbled into DC
Jim Sutton usually attends the parade each year with his wife , Gigi . But the couple , who sported head-to-toe Trump gear , said something felt different this year .
“ It ’ s just fantastic , ” Gigi Sutton said , in her white Trump T-shirt and flag pants . The pair said the criticism of Trump ’ s use of military equipment in the event was unwarranted .
“ We ’ ve been having all these problems with Iran , North Korea . This says something , ” Gigi Sutton said . Her husband chimed in , “ It let ’ s the world know our nation ’ s defense is well at hand . ”
After watching Trump 's speech and the military aircraft flyovers for each branch of the military , Amiee LeDoux was left in tears .
`` That was the first time I ever cried during the Fourth of July , '' LeDoux , who traveled with her family from New Hampshire , said as she started to tear up again . `` I just felt like it really embraced who we are and it just felt like God was really honored , and America was honored and the military was honored . ''
Wearing a blue Trump hat , LeDoux said she thought Trump 's speech helped bring the country together .
`` I think there was a lot of unity and the mentioning of our history and how rich of a history we have , it was just so beautiful , '' she said .
While the event was mostly peaceful , a fight broke out at a flag burning event in front of the White House that led to at least two arrests .
Trump supporters , some wearing hats emblazoned with Trump 's `` Make America Great Again '' slogan , charged a circle of protesters who were burning a flag , causing the protesters to topple over . The Trump supporters , some of whom were wearing attire identifying themselves as Proud Boys , a far-right organization , attempted to stamp out the fire .
But the flag burning was far from the only act of protest happening in the heart of Washington . Many wore shirts about impeaching Trump or supporting Hillary Clinton , Trump 's Democratic rival in the 2016 election . They carried balloons depicting Trump as a small , orange baby — a miniature depiction of a famous blimp that was briefly inflated on the National Mall .
More : Flag burning in front of White House leads to scuffle amid 4th of July celebrations
More : 'Baby Trump ' blimp appears grounded for July 4 protest during president 's DC celebration
Along with the Baby Trump blimp , the liberal activist organization Code Pink also parked a 16-foot-tall `` Dumping Trump '' robot featuring the president sitting on a golden toilet wearing a MAGA-style hat saying `` Make America Great Again : Impeach Me . ''
The robot sporadically shouted out some of Trump ’ s most-used lines , including “ no collusion ” and “ witch hunt . ”
Nearby , Noel Eldridge gathered with the nearly 100 protesters , holding a sign plastered with photographs of migrant detention centers . It read `` Are you proud to be American ? Today ? ''
Eldridge said he grew up in the same New York neighborhood as Trump . `` I know the particular kind of bully and racist he is , '' Eldridge said .
Just yards away , a miniature baby Trump balloon was locked inside of a metal cage . Linda Berns said she has traveled from her home in Bethesda , Md . each year for 40 years to watch the fireworks along the National Mall . This year , she came to protest .
She said she joined the protest against Trump ’ s immigration policies because of her family ’ s history . `` This is a country of immigrants , '' Berns said . `` My grandparents were immigrants . ''
Anne and Emily Balderson , both waving mini-Trump-baby balloons , came to D.C. from Texas to experience the holiday in the capital but said Trump role in the event was unnecessary and causing more division in the country .
`` I think it ’ s making 4th of July more of a divisive holiday , '' Emily Balderson said . `` He ’ s making it about himself instead of the country and it should just be about how our country was founded . ''
At the opposite end of the National Mall , near the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument , things were different . There were no protests . Scarcely anyone wore Trump attire .
Instead , families , wearing red , white and blue , sat on blankets , held up small American flags and enjoyed the music from the `` A Capitol Fourth ” concert .
After the last of the military jets flew over the crowd and many left , families were left camped out on picnic blankets , and kids huddled together under umbrellas eager to watch the fireworks display . Some came more prepared than others , with plastic bags to put under their blankets and rain ponchos with hoods .
David Portis was among those camped out . He said there were remarkably fewer people along the Mall than he remembered in past years , which he blamed on the rain and not the additions to the program .
Portis said he was neutral on Trump ’ s presence during the holiday . `` I even brought my daughter and her friend , '' he said , pointing to an open grassy area near the Washington Monument where a group of children were playing ball barefooted .
Others also were n't preoccupied by the politics thrust into the event .
Mitchell Reed , the band director for a group of 99 Florida high school students who attended the concert and played during a parade earlier in the day , said the event took on a different meaning for his group .
`` It ’ s been crazy , '' he said as he watched the nearby concert . `` But it ’ s a day everyone in our band will never forget . ''
|
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON – Fourth of July festivities in the nation's capital were anything but typical this year. It wasn't just the military tanks, jet flyovers or the speech by President Donald Trump.
The president's role in what is usually a nonpartisan celebration created what felt like three different events: Protesters who decried his administration and its policies; a campaign rally where supporters cheered for him to keep the White House for another term; and those who simply wanted to enjoy hot dogs and fireworks with their families for the annual Independence Day festivities.
On a holiday marking America's birthday, the country's divisions were on full display.
There was a giant blimp depicting the president as an orange infant. There was also a sea of red, "Make America Great Again" hats. And there were families spread out along the National Mall with blankets and children anxiously awaiting the fireworks display and not focused on politics.
When the protesters and Trump supporters clashed over a flag burning in front of the White House, there were two arrests, although most confrontations did not go beyond shouting matches.
'Nothing America cannot do':Donald Trump touts U.S. military strength in 4th of July speech
Uh-oh:Donald Trump trips up on history in 4th of July speech, mentions airports during Revolutionary War
Trump supporters line parade route
Trump's influence on the annual celebrations were easy to spot.
Supporters poured into the National Mall throughout the day, many waving "Trump 2020" flags or wearing "MAGA" hats. They passed by the heckling of protesters with disgust, some yelling "SNOWFLAKES!" to the crowds gathered in opposition of Trump.
In the afternoon at the National Independence Day Parade parade, thousands of people lined the streets of Washington to watch floats, drum lines and military units march by. As the parade marched on, the heat did too. Spectators migrated towards the shade, picking up ice-cold bottles of water from vendors, to watch the parade.
Hundreds of Trump supporters were part of the crowd that lined Constitution Avenue.
Trump’s new campaign slogan, ‘Keep America Great,’ also filled the surrounding streets of the parade. Vendor stands at nearly every corner pushed Trump hats and paraphernalia on energetic supporters.
'This says something':Thousands gather in Washington for Donald Trump's 4th of July celebration
'Tanks' a lot:Trump 4th of July celebration isn't first time armored vehicles have rumbled into DC
Jim Sutton usually attends the parade each year with his wife, Gigi. But the couple, who sported head-to-toe Trump gear, said something felt different this year.
“It’s just fantastic,” Gigi Sutton said, in her white Trump T-shirt and flag pants. The pair said the criticism of Trump’s use of military equipment in the event was unwarranted.
“We’ve been having all these problems with Iran, North Korea. This says something,” Gigi Sutton said. Her husband chimed in, “It let’s the world know our nation’s defense is well at hand.”
After watching Trump's speech and the military aircraft flyovers for each branch of the military, Amiee LeDoux was left in tears.
"That was the first time I ever cried during the Fourth of July," LeDoux, who traveled with her family from New Hampshire, said as she started to tear up again. "I just felt like it really embraced who we are and it just felt like God was really honored, and America was honored and the military was honored."
Wearing a blue Trump hat, LeDoux said she thought Trump's speech helped bring the country together.
"I think there was a lot of unity and the mentioning of our history and how rich of a history we have, it was just so beautiful," she said.
Blimps, toilet robots, burning flags
While the event was mostly peaceful, a fight broke out at a flag burning event in front of the White House that led to at least two arrests.
Trump supporters, some wearing hats emblazoned with Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan, charged a circle of protesters who were burning a flag, causing the protesters to topple over. The Trump supporters, some of whom were wearing attire identifying themselves as Proud Boys, a far-right organization, attempted to stamp out the fire.
But the flag burning was far from the only act of protest happening in the heart of Washington. Many wore shirts about impeaching Trump or supporting Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival in the 2016 election. They carried balloons depicting Trump as a small, orange baby — a miniature depiction of a famous blimp that was briefly inflated on the National Mall.
More:Flag burning in front of White House leads to scuffle amid 4th of July celebrations
More:'Baby Trump' blimp appears grounded for July 4 protest during president's DC celebration
Along with the Baby Trump blimp, the liberal activist organization Code Pink also parked a 16-foot-tall "Dumping Trump" robot featuring the president sitting on a golden toilet wearing a MAGA-style hat saying "Make America Great Again: Impeach Me."
The robot sporadically shouted out some of Trump’s most-used lines, including “no collusion” and “witch hunt.”
Nearby, Noel Eldridge gathered with the nearly 100 protesters, holding a sign plastered with photographs of migrant detention centers. It read "Are you proud to be American? Today?"
Eldridge said he grew up in the same New York neighborhood as Trump. "I know the particular kind of bully and racist he is," Eldridge said.
Just yards away, a miniature baby Trump balloon was locked inside of a metal cage. Linda Berns said she has traveled from her home in Bethesda, Md. each year for 40 years to watch the fireworks along the National Mall. This year, she came to protest.
She said she joined the protest against Trump’s immigration policies because of her family’s history. "This is a country of immigrants," Berns said. "My grandparents were immigrants."
Anne and Emily Balderson, both waving mini-Trump-baby balloons, came to D.C. from Texas to experience the holiday in the capital but said Trump role in the event was unnecessary and causing more division in the country.
"I think it’s making 4th of July more of a divisive holiday," Emily Balderson said. "He’s making it about himself instead of the country and it should just be about how our country was founded."
An apolitical event for families
At the opposite end of the National Mall, near the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument, things were different. There were no protests. Scarcely anyone wore Trump attire.
Instead, families, wearing red, white and blue, sat on blankets, held up small American flags and enjoyed the music from the "A Capitol Fourth” concert.
After the last of the military jets flew over the crowd and many left, families were left camped out on picnic blankets, and kids huddled together under umbrellas eager to watch the fireworks display. Some came more prepared than others, with plastic bags to put under their blankets and rain ponchos with hoods.
David Portis was among those camped out. He said there were remarkably fewer people along the Mall than he remembered in past years, which he blamed on the rain and not the additions to the program.
Portis said he was neutral on Trump’s presence during the holiday. "I even brought my daughter and her friend," he said, pointing to an open grassy area near the Washington Monument where a group of children were playing ball barefooted.
Others also weren't preoccupied by the politics thrust into the event.
Mitchell Reed, the band director for a group of 99 Florida high school students who attended the concert and played during a parade earlier in the day, said the event took on a different meaning for his group.
"It’s been crazy," he said as he watched the nearby concert. "But it’s a day everyone in our band will never forget."
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
rhkgUQNZlUQBSwnG
|
|
violence_in_america
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/11/06/sutherland-springs-texan-johnnie-langendorff-hailed-american-hero-chasing-suspect/835018001/
|
Texas shooting: Hero Johnnie Langendorff on chasing Devin Kelley in Sutherland Springs
|
2017-11-06
|
An unnamed hero who heard gunshots at the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church on Sunday , grabbed a gun from his home and started shooting at the suspected gunman as he exited the church , according to an eyewitness .
Eyewitness Kevin Jordan who lives less than 50 yards from the church told KENS-TV that he was outside changing his car 's oil when the masked gunman started his deadly assault .
Jordan said his neighbor , who he described as a man who would do anything for anyone , ran over with a gun then shot at the suspect while taking cover behind a car .
`` If it was n't for him , the guy would n't have stopped , '' Jordan told KENS-TV . He explained that his neighbor also shot through the suspect 's car window as he sped off .
Freeman Martin , Texas Department of Public Safety regional director , confirmed that an armed resident engaged the suspect .
Another resident , Johnnie Langendorff , was driving his truck near the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church on Sunday morning when he saw the shooter and another man exchanging fire . Langendorff told The Caller-Times that the Good Samaritan hopped into his vehicle and they followed the gunman as he tried to escape .
`` The other gentleman got in my vehicle and said , ' [ the gunman ] just shot up the church . We 've got to get him . ' '' Langendorff told The Caller-Times . `` I said 'let 's go . ''
Langendorff and the other man followed the gunman until he lost control of his vehicle . Langendorff said he has n't had time to talk with the good samaritan and is not sure if he shot the gunman .
Langendorff said he was on the phone with 911 while they were chasing the gunman .
`` I was trying to keep the other gentleman calm , I told dispatch I was in pursuit of the ( gunman ) to make sure the cops knew exactly where he was , '' Langendorff .
Wilson County Sheriff Joe D. Tackitt Jr. said services were underway Sunday at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs when the gunman , Devin Kelley , 26 , dressed in black tactical gear , walked down the center aisle and began `` shooting on his way back out . '' Kelley killed at least 26 — including several children — and wounded at least 10 , law enforcement officials said .
More : Trump : 'Mental health ' is the issue behind the Texas shooting , not guns
The sheriff said he has spoken with the neighbor who is being credited with chasing the gunman down .
“ Other than he does not want to be talked to… he doesn ’ t believe he ’ s a hero , but I believe he is , ” Tackitt said , adding that the man doesn ’ t want to speak to any media .
Julius Kepper , 53 , heard the shots from his home about two blocks from the church . He said his next door neighbor is the man who fired at the shooter .
`` He 's a good working man , '' Kepper said , adding that he does not know him well . `` A union plumber . ''
In another interview , Langendorff told KSAT that the high-speed chase last five to seven minutes .
`` He got a little bit of a jump on us , '' he told the station . `` We were doing about 95 ( mph ) down ( Route ) 539 going around traffic and everything . Eventually he came to a kind of a slowdown and after that we got within just a few feet of him and then he got off the road . ''
Langendorff , whose Facebook page was filled with messages praising his courage and for being an `` American hero , '' added , `` I was trying to get him , to get him apprehended . It was strictly just acting on what the right thing to do was . ''
Authorities did not immediately identify a motive for the attack . Kelley served briefly in the Air Force but was court-martialed in 2012 , a military spokeswoman said . Texas Gov . Greg Abbott said officials were cautiously releasing information on the shooting as they confirmed it , including the names of victims , who ranged in age from 5 to 72 years old .
More : Texas gun laws are among most lax in the nation
Contributing : John C . Moritz ███ Network Austin Bureau ; Kevin Johnson , ███ ; Elly Dearman , Corpus Christie Caller-Times
|
Eleanor Dearman, John Bacon and John C . Moritz
USA TODAY Network
An unnamed hero who heard gunshots at the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church on Sunday, grabbed a gun from his home and started shooting at the suspected gunman as he exited the church, according to an eyewitness.
Eyewitness Kevin Jordan who lives less than 50 yards from the church told KENS-TV that he was outside changing his car's oil when the masked gunman started his deadly assault.
Jordan said his neighbor, who he described as a man who would do anything for anyone, ran over with a gun then shot at the suspect while taking cover behind a car.
"If it wasn't for him, the guy wouldn't have stopped," Jordan told KENS-TV. He explained that his neighbor also shot through the suspect's car window as he sped off.
Freeman Martin, Texas Department of Public Safety regional director, confirmed that an armed resident engaged the suspect.
Another resident, Johnnie Langendorff, was driving his truck near the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church on Sunday morning when he saw the shooter and another man exchanging fire. Langendorff told The Caller-Times that the Good Samaritan hopped into his vehicle and they followed the gunman as he tried to escape.
"The other gentleman got in my vehicle and said, '[the gunman] just shot up the church. We've got to get him.'" Langendorff told The Caller-Times. "I said 'let's go."
Langendorff and the other man followed the gunman until he lost control of his vehicle. Langendorff said he hasn't had time to talk with the good samaritan and is not sure if he shot the gunman.
Langendorff said he was on the phone with 911 while they were chasing the gunman.
"I was trying to keep the other gentleman calm, I told dispatch I was in pursuit of the (gunman) to make sure the cops knew exactly where he was," Langendorff.
Wilson County Sheriff Joe D. Tackitt Jr. said services were underway Sunday at First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs when the gunman, Devin Kelley, 26, dressed in black tactical gear, walked down the center aisle and began "shooting on his way back out." Kelley killed at least 26 — including several children — and wounded at least 10, law enforcement officials said.
More:Trump: 'Mental health' is the issue behind the Texas shooting, not guns
More:Sutherland Springs church shooting: What we know now
The sheriff said he has spoken with the neighbor who is being credited with chasing the gunman down.
“Other than he does not want to be talked to… he doesn’t believe he’s a hero, but I believe he is,” Tackitt said, adding that the man doesn’t want to speak to any media.
Julius Kepper, 53, heard the shots from his home about two blocks from the church. He said his next door neighbor is the man who fired at the shooter.
"He's a good working man," Kepper said, adding that he does not know him well. "A union plumber."
In another interview, Langendorff told KSAT that the high-speed chase last five to seven minutes.
"He got a little bit of a jump on us," he told the station. "We were doing about 95 (mph) down (Route) 539 going around traffic and everything. Eventually he came to a kind of a slowdown and after that we got within just a few feet of him and then he got off the road."
Langendorff, whose Facebook page was filled with messages praising his courage and for being an "American hero," added, "I was trying to get him, to get him apprehended. It was strictly just acting on what the right thing to do was."
Authorities did not immediately identify a motive for the attack. Kelley served briefly in the Air Force but was court-martialed in 2012, a military spokeswoman said. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said officials were cautiously releasing information on the shooting as they confirmed it, including the names of victims, who ranged in age from 5 to 72 years old.
More:Texas gun laws are among most lax in the nation
Contributing: John C . Moritz USA Today Network Austin Bureau; Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY; Elly Dearman, Corpus Christie Caller-Times
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
zi2nVc8zOAkR1yVC
|
|
politics
|
CNN (Web News)
| 00
|
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/top-republicans-slam-trump-saudi-arabia-khashoggi/index.html
|
Top Republicans slam Trump for statement backing Saudi Arabia
|
2018-11-20
|
Kate Sullivan
|
Washington ( CNN ) Top Senate Republicans slammed President Donald Trump for his statement backing Saudi Arabia in the wake of the death and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker , tweeted Tuesday , `` I never thought I 'd see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia . ''
The criticism follows an official statement the White House released Tuesday , under the subject line `` Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia . ''
`` Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information , but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event -- maybe he did and maybe he did n't ! '' Trump writes .
The President continues , `` we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi , '' and said , `` In any case , our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia . They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran . ''
Khashoggi , a Saudi journalist and Virginia resident , was killed last month at a Saudi consulate in Turkey . He was a frequent critic of the Saudi regime . The Saudis initially denied any knowledge of his death , but then later said a group of rogue operators were responsible for his killing . But US officials have speculated that such a mission -- including the 15 men sent from Riyadh , Saudi Arabia , to murder him -- could not have been carried out without the authorization of Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman .
Later in the day at a news conference , Trump said he was `` not going to destroy the economy of our country '' over Khashoggi 's death by giving up arms deals to Saudi Arabia .
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote in a series of tweets Tuesday , `` One thing I learned during the Obama years is that when you look the other way regarding problems in the Middle East , it seldom works out . ''
Graham said former President Barack Obama `` chose to look the other way as Iran took increasingly provocative actions , '' and said , `` Each time it led to even worse Iranian behavior and created even larger problems for the future . ''
`` Likewise , it is not in our national security interests to look the other way when it comes to the brutal murder of Mr. Jamal # Khashoggi , '' Graham continued .
After Saudi Arabia admitted that Khashoggi had been killed in its Istanbul consulate , five high-ranking officials were dismissed , including bin Salman 's media chief and the deputy head of the Saudi intelligence service .
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul , a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , voiced his disagreement with the President , and tweeted , `` The President indicates that Saudi Arabia is the lesser two evils compared to Iran and so the US wo n't punish Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing and dismemberment of a dissident journalist in their consulate . ''
`` We should , at the very least , NOT reward Saudi Arabia with our sophisticated armaments that they in turn use to bomb civilians , '' Paul continued .
He also said of the statement released today by the President , `` I 'm pretty sure this statement is Saudi Arabia First , not America First , '' and speculated that national security adviser John Bolton wrote the statement .
Paul said he would `` continue to press for legislation to stop the Saudi arms sales and the war in Yemen . ''
Former 2012 Republican presidential nominee and now Utah Senator-elect Mitt Romney , tweeted : `` America ca n't excuse & minimize the brutal & gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi , a US resident & columnist . Our country is defined by human values , by principle above convenience , & by commitment to morality . ''
`` We must subject the perpetrators of this outrage to withering sanction , '' Romney continued .
Corker and ranking Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Bob Menendez , a New Jersey Democrat , sent a letter to the President on Tuesday calling for him to officially determine whether the crown prince was directly involved in Khashoggi 's murder .
`` In light of recent developments , including the Saudi government 's acknowledgment that Saudi officials killed Mr. Khashoggi in its Istanbul consulate , '' the letter reads , `` we request that your determination specifically address whether Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is responsible for Mr. Khashoggi 's murder . ''
|
Washington (CNN) Top Senate Republicans slammed President Donald Trump for his statement backing Saudi Arabia in the wake of the death and dismemberment of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, tweeted Tuesday, "I never thought I'd see the day a White House would moonlight as a public relations firm for the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia."
The criticism follows an official statement the White House released Tuesday, under the subject line "Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia."
"Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event -- maybe he did and maybe he didn't!" Trump writes.
The President continues, "we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi," and said, "In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran."
Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and Virginia resident, was killed last month at a Saudi consulate in Turkey. He was a frequent critic of the Saudi regime. The Saudis initially denied any knowledge of his death, but then later said a group of rogue operators were responsible for his killing. But US officials have speculated that such a mission -- including the 15 men sent from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to murder him -- could not have been carried out without the authorization of Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Later in the day at a news conference, Trump said he was "not going to destroy the economy of our country" over Khashoggi's death by giving up arms deals to Saudi Arabia.
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote in a series of tweets Tuesday, "One thing I learned during the Obama years is that when you look the other way regarding problems in the Middle East, it seldom works out."
Graham said former President Barack Obama "chose to look the other way as Iran took increasingly provocative actions," and said, "Each time it led to even worse Iranian behavior and created even larger problems for the future."
"Likewise, it is not in our national security interests to look the other way when it comes to the brutal murder of Mr. Jamal #Khashoggi," Graham continued.
After Saudi Arabia admitted that Khashoggi had been killed in its Istanbul consulate, five high-ranking officials were dismissed, including bin Salman's media chief and the deputy head of the Saudi intelligence service.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voiced his disagreement with the President, and tweeted, "The President indicates that Saudi Arabia is the lesser two evils compared to Iran and so the US won't punish Saudi Arabia for the brutal killing and dismemberment of a dissident journalist in their consulate."
"We should, at the very least, NOT reward Saudi Arabia with our sophisticated armaments that they in turn use to bomb civilians," Paul continued.
He also said of the statement released today by the President, "I'm pretty sure this statement is Saudi Arabia First, not America First," and speculated that national security adviser John Bolton wrote the statement.
Paul said he would "continue to press for legislation to stop the Saudi arms sales and the war in Yemen."
Former 2012 Republican presidential nominee and now Utah Senator-elect Mitt Romney, tweeted : "America can't excuse & minimize the brutal & gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident & columnist. Our country is defined by human values, by principle above convenience, & by commitment to morality."
"We must subject the perpetrators of this outrage to withering sanction," Romney continued.
Corker and ranking Foreign Relations Committee member Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, sent a letter to the President on Tuesday calling for him to officially determine whether the crown prince was directly involved in Khashoggi's murder.
"In light of recent developments, including the Saudi government's acknowledgment that Saudi officials killed Mr. Khashoggi in its Istanbul consulate," the letter reads, "we request that your determination specifically address whether Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman is responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's murder."
|
www.cnn.com
| 0left
|
Mgelzictsn3qCrSj
|
free_speech
|
The Hill
| 11
|
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/360806-twitter-crackdown-sparks-free-speech-concerns
|
Twitter crackdown sparks free speech concerns
|
2017-11-17
|
Twitter 's verification program put the company at the center of another political headache this week , with the social media giant stuck between liberals who demand stricter rules about hate speech and misinformation and conservatives who fear the site will target them for their political views .
Twitter 's `` blue checkmark '' verification program is meant to authenticate the identities of high-profile users . But it 's also come to be seen as an endorsement or mark of approval from Twitter , sparking outrage when the checkmarks were bestowed on white nationalists like Richard Spencer or Charlottesville , Va. , `` Unite the Right '' rally organizer Jason Kessler .
The social media site responded to the criticism Wednesday by taking checkmarks away from several users affiliated with the far right or white nationalism , as well as kicking one prominent Charlottesville marcher off the platform permanently .
Further changes are expected next week , when Twitter says it will implement more rules . Twitter declined to comment on the changes .
While liberals cheered the crackdown , conservatives worried that they 'll be punished next . Describing the crackdown , a Breitbart headline declared that “ conservative figures ” had been “ purged . ”
One user who lost her verification , Laura Loomer , charged that Twitter was trying to “ annihilate conservatives from the internet . ”
“ They ’ re absolutely targeting people on the right , ” said Tim Gionet , an internet troll better known as Baked Alaska who attended the Charlottesville march with white supremacists and has made anti-Semitic statements on Twitter . “ Can you name one liberal that was deverified ? ”
While several far-right and white nationalist figures affected by Twitter ’ s policy change on Wednesday lost their verified checkmarks , Gionet appears to be the only one who was outright banned from the platform .
While the punishments focused on Twitter ’ s fringe right , some more mainstream conservatives raised concerns about taking away verifications .
`` If they want to ban people , ban them . But verification is to prevent fraud , not to endorse viewpoints , '' tweeted conservative pundit Ben Shapiro in response to the changes .
Others took issue with a specific provision in the company ’ s new rules , which states that Twitter can deverify users based on behavior that occurs off Twitter .
“ It 's worth noting that Twitter can remove your verified badge for behaviors made /off/ the platform , ” tweeted Ian Miles Cheong , a contributor to Tucker Carlson ’ s The Daily Caller . “ Just as well , the company can take action against your account for supporting any group or individual that it claims promote certain behaviors . ”
“ You know what this means for # MAGA , ” he warned , referring to President Trump ’ s campaign promise to “ make America great again . ”
Cheong told ███ that he doesn ’ t support the views of white nationalists like Spencer and Kessler , but argues that it ’ s damaging for Twitter to censor speech .
“ The reason why is : if you drive them underground ... they ’ re going to radicalize further , ” Cheong argued . “ The best way to counter arguments is to provide good arguments . ”
The Twitter crackdown comes amid concerns that other Silicon Valley firms are discriminating against the right .
Internet conservatives similarly fumed after YouTube began to strip their videos of ads , cutting into the revenue right-wing internet pundits receive from them . Some of the community ’ s most extreme members were also incensed when Reddit moved to purge Nazi subreddits from its site .
New decisions from tech companies are frustrating members of the fringe-right , whose communities had blossomed on sites like Reddit , Twitter and YouTube in recent years .
Twitter once declared itself “ the free speech wing of the free speech party. ” While the company still prides itself on being a forum for open discussions , it ’ s now less comfortable with that characterization .
“ I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas , the world is automatically going to be a better place , ” Twitter co-founder Evan Williams told The New York Times in May . “ I was wrong about that . ”
Gab — a Twitter rival with laxer content rules that British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and other fringe right figures have taken to after being banned from Twitter — agreed with calls from some right-wing figures for Twitter to be regulated as a utility .
“ Twitter essentially is like a telephone , ” Gab ’ s Chief Operating Officer Utsav Sanduja told ███ . “ It is a public utility and it needs to be regulated one . ”
Spencer made a similar argument , calling on “ Washington to regulate Silicon Valley ” on Twitter .
Their sentiments echo former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon ’ s push to regulate massive Silicon Valley tech firms like Google , Facebook and Amazon .
Such arguments have been made more typically by Democrats like Sen. Al Franken Alan ( Al ) Stuart FrankenAl Franken to host SiriusXM radio show ███ 's Morning Report - Presented by National Association of Manufacturers - The impeachment of President Trump has begun GOP Senate candidate said Republicans have 'dual loyalties ' to Israel MORE ( D-Minn. ) , who has advocated for net neutrality-styled regulations of major internet firms .
Despite increasing calls for tighter oversight of internet firms , such policies are still unlikely in the short term . In the meantime , some high-profile members of the online right see Gab as their next best bet — albeit one with far less reach than Twitter .
Gab says that Twitter ’ s stricter verification rules have benefited it . Sanduja said over email on Wednesday night that the platform saw a spike of 2,000 new user sign ups on Thursday , the day the new Twitter rules went into effect .
Gab platform has 310,000 users in total , according to Sanduja .
“ These unforced errors from Twitter have been fantastic for Gab , ” the company said in a statement .
|
Twitter's verification program put the company at the center of another political headache this week, with the social media giant stuck between liberals who demand stricter rules about hate speech and misinformation and conservatives who fear the site will target them for their political views.
Twitter's "blue checkmark" verification program is meant to authenticate the identities of high-profile users. But it's also come to be seen as an endorsement or mark of approval from Twitter, sparking outrage when the checkmarks were bestowed on white nationalists like Richard Spencer or Charlottesville, Va., "Unite the Right" rally organizer Jason Kessler.
ADVERTISEMENT
The social media site responded to the criticism Wednesday by taking checkmarks away from several users affiliated with the far right or white nationalism, as well as kicking one prominent Charlottesville marcher off the platform permanently.
Further changes are expected next week, when Twitter says it will implement more rules. Twitter declined to comment on the changes.
While liberals cheered the crackdown, conservatives worried that they'll be punished next. Describing the crackdown, a Breitbart headline declared that “conservative figures” had been “purged.”
One user who lost her verification, Laura Loomer, charged that Twitter was trying to “annihilate conservatives from the internet.”
“They’re absolutely targeting people on the right,” said Tim Gionet, an internet troll better known as Baked Alaska who attended the Charlottesville march with white supremacists and has made anti-Semitic statements on Twitter. “Can you name one liberal that was deverified?”
While several far-right and white nationalist figures affected by Twitter’s policy change on Wednesday lost their verified checkmarks, Gionet appears to be the only one who was outright banned from the platform.
While the punishments focused on Twitter’s fringe right, some more mainstream conservatives raised concerns about taking away verifications.
"If they want to ban people, ban them. But verification is to prevent fraud, not to endorse viewpoints," tweeted conservative pundit Ben Shapiro in response to the changes.
Others took issue with a specific provision in the company’s new rules, which states that Twitter can deverify users based on behavior that occurs off Twitter.
“It's worth noting that Twitter can remove your verified badge for behaviors made /off/ the platform,” tweeted Ian Miles Cheong, a contributor to Tucker Carlson’s The Daily Caller. “Just as well, the company can take action against your account for supporting any group or individual that it claims promote certain behaviors.”
“You know what this means for #MAGA,” he warned, referring to President Trump’s campaign promise to “make America great again.”
Cheong told The Hill that he doesn’t support the views of white nationalists like Spencer and Kessler, but argues that it’s damaging for Twitter to censor speech.
“The reason why is: if you drive them underground ... they’re going to radicalize further,” Cheong argued. “The best way to counter arguments is to provide good arguments.”
The Twitter crackdown comes amid concerns that other Silicon Valley firms are discriminating against the right.
Internet conservatives similarly fumed after YouTube began to strip their videos of ads, cutting into the revenue right-wing internet pundits receive from them. Some of the community’s most extreme members were also incensed when Reddit moved to purge Nazi subreddits from its site.
New decisions from tech companies are frustrating members of the fringe-right, whose communities had blossomed on sites like Reddit, Twitter and YouTube in recent years.
Twitter once declared itself “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” While the company still prides itself on being a forum for open discussions, it’s now less comfortable with that characterization.
“I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas, the world is automatically going to be a better place,” Twitter co-founder Evan Williams told The New York Times in May. “I was wrong about that.”
Gab — a Twitter rival with laxer content rules that British provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and other fringe right figures have taken to after being banned from Twitter — agreed with calls from some right-wing figures for Twitter to be regulated as a utility.
“Twitter essentially is like a telephone,” Gab’s Chief Operating Officer Utsav Sanduja told The Hill. “It is a public utility and it needs to be regulated one.”
Spencer made a similar argument, calling on “Washington to regulate Silicon Valley” on Twitter.
Their sentiments echo former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon’s push to regulate massive Silicon Valley tech firms like Google, Facebook and Amazon.
Such arguments have been made more typically by Democrats like Sen. Al Franken Alan (Al) Stuart FrankenAl Franken to host SiriusXM radio show The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by National Association of Manufacturers - The impeachment of President Trump has begun GOP Senate candidate said Republicans have 'dual loyalties' to Israel MORE (D-Minn.), who has advocated for net neutrality-styled regulations of major internet firms.
Despite increasing calls for tighter oversight of internet firms, such policies are still unlikely in the short term. In the meantime, some high-profile members of the online right see Gab as their next best bet — albeit one with far less reach than Twitter.
Gab says that Twitter’s stricter verification rules have benefited it. Sanduja said over email on Wednesday night that the platform saw a spike of 2,000 new user sign ups on Thursday, the day the new Twitter rules went into effect.
Gab platform has 310,000 users in total, according to Sanduja.
“These unforced errors from Twitter have been fantastic for Gab,” the company said in a statement.
|
www.thehill.com
| 2center
|
LSJ2bEOue8suB5xf
|
|
elections
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159915199/in-the-theater-of-politics-staging-is-everything
|
In The Theater Of Politics, Staging Is Everything
|
2012-08-23
|
Bob Mondello
|
During the next two weeks , the major political parties will assemble their faithful in Tampa , Fla. , and Charlotte , N.C. , to officially nominate their presidential tickets . These conventions were once places of high political drama . But over the decades , as the primary system has determined the candidates well in advance , conventions have become political theater . With that in mind , there 's much to be said on staging in politics — not substance , but style .
In the theater , stars are stars at least partly because of the way they 're presented — in brighter lighting , on higher platforms . Lesser characters can walk onstage ; stars make an entrance , preferably at the top of a staircase with the rest of the cast looking up , as Angela Lansbury did in Mame , or Richard Kiley did in Man of La Mancha .
And last week , when presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney introduced his running mate , Rep. Paul Ryan , in Norfolk , Va. , he took a page from that playbook .
There was a slight kink in the introduction — he left the `` vice '' out of `` vice president , '' essentially introducing Ryan as the next commander in chief — but Romney 's glitch ceased to matter the moment the camera zoomed out for a wide shot of the U.S.S . Wisconsin . High above the stage , heralded by a fanfare from the movie Air Force One , was Ryan .
And as he bounded down a staircase , it felt as if the technicians had learned from Romney 's entrance a few moments earlier . They 'd let their presidential candidate hit the stage during a musical lull , but for Ryan , they timed the music perfectly . It peaked just as he walked those last few steps to embrace his running mate .
Weeks of rehearsal could not have made it more effective . It 's soaring , emotionally resonant — because the music 's all but dictating your reaction .
The Republicans , let 's note , have not always been quite so securely at the top of their game . In the last presidential race , it was the Democrats who owned the political staging . Remember that football stadium they outfitted like a Greek amphitheater for their convention finale ? Then-candidate Barack Obama was framed for his acceptance speech by towering columns on a majestic , classical stage set to communicate the idea that history was being made .
A week later , the Republicans offered candidate Sen. John McCain far more simply in a spotlight on a bare stage . Though his teleprompter was silhouetted like a music stand so that it looked like he was about to give a concert , no music pumped up his arrival . There was an IMAX-sized screen behind him , though . When it filled with a billowing American flag , the flag looked fabulous , but as the cameras pulled back to capture the full effect , the candidate looked tiny .
Now , if you 're a theater nut , you know that , whether you 're talking classical theater or political theater , staging matters . That 's why campaigns seek picture-perfect backdrops for speeches — natural vistas when the subject is the environment , shuttered factories when talking unemployment .
And conventions are a campaign 's most controlled public space , the one spot where everything can be made to serve the message . So during the next two weeks , it 's likely to be instructive to turn down the sound on your TV and pay attention not to what the candidates are saying but to how they 're being framed . Rest assured , it 's all by design .
To counter perceptions that Romney is aloof and distant , for instance , Republican strategists are designing their stage in Tampa to have the warmth of a living room , with stairs running from the podium into the audience to convey the candidate 's approachability .
The Democrats , meanwhile , will return in Charlotte to what worked so well for them in Denver . Their supporting cast will play a 19,000-seat indoor arena , while their leading man will deliver his acceptance speech to a far larger crowd in the city 's 73,000-seat football stadium .
Will any of this matter ? Well , sure , in the sense that conventions can provide a temporary bounce in the polls . But in theatrical terms , a party 's convention is only its opening number : splashy spectacle designed to introduce the players and set the tone for what 's to come .
There 's still plenty of time on the campaign trail for falling in love with the hero , for hissing the villain , for building to that big number in the final act that seals the deal .
|
In The Theater Of Politics, Staging Is Everything
Enlarge this image toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
During the next two weeks, the major political parties will assemble their faithful in Tampa, Fla., and Charlotte, N.C., to officially nominate their presidential tickets. These conventions were once places of high political drama. But over the decades, as the primary system has determined the candidates well in advance, conventions have become political theater. With that in mind, there's much to be said on staging in politics — not substance, but style.
In the theater, stars are stars at least partly because of the way they're presented — in brighter lighting, on higher platforms. Lesser characters can walk onstage; stars make an entrance, preferably at the top of a staircase with the rest of the cast looking up, as Angela Lansbury did in Mame, or Richard Kiley did in Man of La Mancha.
And last week, when presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney introduced his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, in Norfolk, Va., he took a page from that playbook.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Max Whittaker/Getty Images Max Whittaker/Getty Images
There was a slight kink in the introduction — he left the "vice" out of "vice president," essentially introducing Ryan as the next commander in chief — but Romney's glitch ceased to matter the moment the camera zoomed out for a wide shot of the U.S.S. Wisconsin. High above the stage, heralded by a fanfare from the movie Air Force One, was Ryan.
And as he bounded down a staircase, it felt as if the technicians had learned from Romney's entrance a few moments earlier. They'd let their presidential candidate hit the stage during a musical lull, but for Ryan, they timed the music perfectly. It peaked just as he walked those last few steps to embrace his running mate.
Weeks of rehearsal could not have made it more effective. It's soaring, emotionally resonant — because the music's all but dictating your reaction.
The Republicans, let's note, have not always been quite so securely at the top of their game. In the last presidential race, it was the Democrats who owned the political staging. Remember that football stadium they outfitted like a Greek amphitheater for their convention finale? Then-candidate Barack Obama was framed for his acceptance speech by towering columns on a majestic, classical stage set to communicate the idea that history was being made.
A week later, the Republicans offered candidate Sen. John McCain far more simply in a spotlight on a bare stage. Though his teleprompter was silhouetted like a music stand so that it looked like he was about to give a concert, no music pumped up his arrival. There was an IMAX-sized screen behind him, though. When it filled with a billowing American flag, the flag looked fabulous, but as the cameras pulled back to capture the full effect, the candidate looked tiny.
Now, if you're a theater nut, you know that, whether you're talking classical theater or political theater, staging matters. That's why campaigns seek picture-perfect backdrops for speeches — natural vistas when the subject is the environment, shuttered factories when talking unemployment.
And conventions are a campaign's most controlled public space, the one spot where everything can be made to serve the message. So during the next two weeks, it's likely to be instructive to turn down the sound on your TV and pay attention not to what the candidates are saying but to how they're being framed. Rest assured, it's all by design.
To counter perceptions that Romney is aloof and distant, for instance, Republican strategists are designing their stage in Tampa to have the warmth of a living room, with stairs running from the podium into the audience to convey the candidate's approachability.
The Democrats, meanwhile, will return in Charlotte to what worked so well for them in Denver. Their supporting cast will play a 19,000-seat indoor arena, while their leading man will deliver his acceptance speech to a far larger crowd in the city's 73,000-seat football stadium.
Will any of this matter? Well, sure, in the sense that conventions can provide a temporary bounce in the polls. But in theatrical terms, a party's convention is only its opening number: splashy spectacle designed to introduce the players and set the tone for what's to come.
There's still plenty of time on the campaign trail for falling in love with the hero, for hissing the villain, for building to that big number in the final act that seals the deal.
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
R9OBzn0oL2fAf9HJ
|
energy
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/07/lawmakers-push-to-protect-electric-grid-after-report-on-attack/
|
Lawmakers push to protect electric grid after report on attack
|
2014-02-07
|
Lawmakers are pushing to impose federal standards for protecting the country 's electric grid from attack in the wake of a new report about a sniper assault on a California electrical substation last year that has raised fears the power grid is vulnerable to terrorism .
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , said she and fellow senators plan to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , which has jurisdiction over the electric grid 's reliability , to `` set minimum security standards for critical substations . ''
The April 16 , 2013 the attack on Pacific Gas & Electric ’ s Metcalf transmission substation involved snipping AT & T fiber-optic lines to knock out phone and 911 service , and firing shots into a PG & E substation , causing outages . The assault had not been widely publicized until The Wall Street Journal reported new details in a story on Wednesday .
The FBI is the lead agency in the investigation and an agency spokesman told the newspaper it doesn ’ t think the incident was a terror attack . However , Jon Wellinghoff , chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time , called it `` the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the U.S. power grid that has ever occurred . ''
The incident began when intruders lifted heavy manhole covers at about 1:30 a.m. in two places on Monterey Highway south of San Jose , climbed under the road , and cut AT & T fiber optic cables , temporarily knocking out 911 service and phone service .
In a 19-minute period , gunmen fired more than 100 rounds into substation equipment , disabling 17 of 20 big transformers , causing about $ 16 million in damage , according to The Wall Street Journal . No arrests have been made in the case .
In December , during an oversight hearing , Rep. Henry Waxman , D-Calif. , described `` an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons . Communications were disrupted . The attack inflicted substantial damage . ''
He said he would withhold details of the incident to avoid harming the investigation but added he had been in touch with the FBI about it .
One proposal being discussed in Congress is would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to write and impose interim rules on grid defenses . The utility industry would still be able to influence any permanent requirements , according to the Journal .
Rep. Trent Franks , R-Ariz. , said `` the last thing I want to do is regulate any industry . '' But he told the newspaper utilities must do more to protect the grid for the sake of national security .
Under current law , the commission has to accept or reject proposals written by an industry-dominated group , but can not alter them , according to the report .
Some utility industry executives told the Journal it would be difficult to come up with rules for improving security that would work in both urban and rural areas .
`` One size fits all may not get you true resiliency , '' said Lisa Barton , executive vice president of transmission for American Electric Power , adding that increasing protections could be costly . `` I 'm not saying it is n't worth it , '' she said .
|
Lawmakers are pushing to impose federal standards for protecting the country's electric grid from attack in the wake of a new report about a sniper assault on a California electrical substation last year that has raised fears the power grid is vulnerable to terrorism.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she and fellow senators plan to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has jurisdiction over the electric grid's reliability, to "set minimum security standards for critical substations."
The April 16, 2013 the attack on Pacific Gas & Electric’s Metcalf transmission substation involved snipping AT&T fiber-optic lines to knock out phone and 911 service, and firing shots into a PG&E substation, causing outages. The assault had not been widely publicized until The Wall Street Journal reported new details in a story on Wednesday.
The FBI is the lead agency in the investigation and an agency spokesman told the newspaper it doesn’t think the incident was a terror attack. However, Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time, called it "the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the U.S. power grid that has ever occurred."
The incident began when intruders lifted heavy manhole covers at about 1:30 a.m. in two places on Monterey Highway south of San Jose, climbed under the road, and cut AT&T fiber optic cables, temporarily knocking out 911 service and phone service.
In a 19-minute period, gunmen fired more than 100 rounds into substation equipment, disabling 17 of 20 big transformers, causing about $16 million in damage, according to The Wall Street Journal. No arrests have been made in the case.
In December, during an oversight hearing, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., described "an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons. Communications were disrupted. The attack inflicted substantial damage."
He said he would withhold details of the incident to avoid harming the investigation but added he had been in touch with the FBI about it.
One proposal being discussed in Congress is would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to write and impose interim rules on grid defenses. The utility industry would still be able to influence any permanent requirements, according to the Journal.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said "the last thing I want to do is regulate any industry." But he told the newspaper utilities must do more to protect the grid for the sake of national security.
Under current law, the commission has to accept or reject proposals written by an industry-dominated group, but cannot alter them, according to the report.
Some utility industry executives told the Journal it would be difficult to come up with rules for improving security that would work in both urban and rural areas.
"One size fits all may not get you true resiliency," said Lisa Barton, executive vice president of transmission for American Electric Power, adding that increasing protections could be costly. "I'm not saying it isn't worth it," she said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click here for more from The Wall Street Journal.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
i78lEDuECgWPJK5I
|
|
treasury
|
Vox
| 00
|
http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/25/13703286/hedge-fund-fsoc
|
Treasury officials are warning hedge funds could create the next big financial blowup
|
2016-11-25
|
Matthew Yglesias, Jen Kirby, Ezra Klein, Alissa Wilkinson, Sigal Samuel, Terry Nguyen, Rebecca Jennings
|
Hedge funds are essentially defined by their ability to slip through the cracks of the American financial regulatory system . They do n't do banking , so they do n't need a license from a bank regulator . They do n't underwrite securities , so they do n't warrant scrutiny from market regulators . And they are n't open to the mass public , so they evade consumer protection regulation too .
One big goal of post-crisis financial regulation was to create a council of all the different regulators — the Financial Stability Oversight Council — to make sure that individual regulators ' focus on the trees does n't lead them to miss a forest of potential disaster . That 's why FSOC decided to look at hedge funds , and its initial findings suggest a big possible problem in hedge land .
Or , rather , two different and related problems . One is that an excessively indebted hedge fund could go bust , leading to problems at the institutions that loaned it money . The other is that a large hedge fund could be forced into a “ fire sale ” of the assets it owns . In either case , the fund itself going bust wouldn ’ t necessarily be a problem for the economy , but the ripple effects it causes might be .
Thanks to new regulations put in place in the wake of the 2007- ’ 08 financial crisis , regulators are now able to see the outlines of where trouble might arise . But the Treasury Department is warning that unless regulators are able to persuade or cajole more information out of the industry , they could be left flying blind into the next financial crisis . And with a new administration coming to power in Washington , there ’ s a strong risk that these warning signs will go unheeded .
It ’ s easy to forget that the first great bailout of our era involved a hedge fund rather than an enormous `` too big to fail '' bank . The fund at issue , Long-Term Capital Management , had made some big debt-financed bets that went badly awry primarily as a result of Russia defaulting on its national debt in August 1998 .
This was an embarrassing failure for some of the hottest names on Wall Street , but also a potentially catastrophic situation for a wider range of economic actors . A number of East Asian countries had entered a financial crisis situation the previous year , and the Russian default had markets across the board jittery . Policymakers feared that LTCM ’ s total collapse would lead to a run on other similar firms and an escalating series of losses — and that this , in turn , could cause the entire credit system to freeze up the way it ultimately did in 2008 . In response , the Fed and the Treasury Department organized a rapid-fire $ 3.625 billion bailout of LTCM by a consortium of major banks as an alternative to an extended bankruptcy process .
At the time , it was widely remarked that since hedge funds had revealed themselves as being in need of occasional bailout , they should probably be brought under the regulatory umbrella .
But though this bailout involved the participation of government officials as organizers and guarantors , no actual taxpayer funds were expended and no congressional action was needed . Consequently , the political system moved on . Then when a financial crisis did hit in 2008 , it had very little to do with hedge funds . So we got a politically ambitious regulatory overhaul that did not specifically target hedge funds . But it did create FSOC with an institutional mandate to see the whole playing field , and FSOC officials are trying to draw attention to this piece of unfinished business .
Jonah Crane , the deputy assistant secretary in the Treasury Department who serves as the executive of FSOC , spoke on November 16 about two different forms of risk that hedge funds could pose to the broader economy .
One is forced asset sales , in which problems at a fund force it to rapidly sell its assets in a way that disrupts other markets . For example , “ positions held by a relatively small group of funds ” could constitute “ a meaningful share of certain key markets , relative to both market size and trading volume. ” This raises the risk that a failure at one fund could drastically drive down the value of other funds ’ assets , setting off a chain reaction in which an entire key market is devastated by mass selling .
The other is counterparty risk . Hedge funds that are not themselves significant to the overall operation of the economy nonetheless owe money to larger institutions . A hedge fund failure could end up “ transmitting stress to counterparties that are large , highly interconnected financial institutions . ”
Crane says that on both fronts the situation requires continued monitoring by FSOC , as well as a range of areas in which it could use more and better data from industry to understand exactly what ’ s going on .
One of the main areas in which Dodd-Frank has made advances relative to the pre-crisis situation is in providing much more data and situational awareness to regulators at various agencies so that they can better understand where risks exist . Ongoing data gaps are particularly worrying because financial regulation is a bit like squeezing a balloon , and the odds are good at any moment that the most alarming risks will have migrated to wherever it is you can ’ t see . This current work has been years in the making , and if momentum evaporates as a result of the transition , it could leave a significant lingering risk to the overall global economy .
|
Hedge funds are essentially defined by their ability to slip through the cracks of the American financial regulatory system. They don't do banking, so they don't need a license from a bank regulator. They don't underwrite securities, so they don't warrant scrutiny from market regulators. And they aren't open to the mass public, so they evade consumer protection regulation too.
One big goal of post-crisis financial regulation was to create a council of all the different regulators — the Financial Stability Oversight Council — to make sure that individual regulators' focus on the trees doesn't lead them to miss a forest of potential disaster. That's why FSOC decided to look at hedge funds, and its initial findings suggest a big possible problem in hedge land.
Or, rather, two different and related problems. One is that an excessively indebted hedge fund could go bust, leading to problems at the institutions that loaned it money. The other is that a large hedge fund could be forced into a “fire sale” of the assets it owns. In either case, the fund itself going bust wouldn’t necessarily be a problem for the economy, but the ripple effects it causes might be.
Thanks to new regulations put in place in the wake of the 2007-’08 financial crisis, regulators are now able to see the outlines of where trouble might arise. But the Treasury Department is warning that unless regulators are able to persuade or cajole more information out of the industry, they could be left flying blind into the next financial crisis. And with a new administration coming to power in Washington, there’s a strong risk that these warning signs will go unheeded.
Hedge fund blowups have caused trouble before
It’s easy to forget that the first great bailout of our era involved a hedge fund rather than an enormous "too big to fail" bank. The fund at issue, Long-Term Capital Management, had made some big debt-financed bets that went badly awry primarily as a result of Russia defaulting on its national debt in August 1998.
This was an embarrassing failure for some of the hottest names on Wall Street, but also a potentially catastrophic situation for a wider range of economic actors. A number of East Asian countries had entered a financial crisis situation the previous year, and the Russian default had markets across the board jittery. Policymakers feared that LTCM’s total collapse would lead to a run on other similar firms and an escalating series of losses — and that this, in turn, could cause the entire credit system to freeze up the way it ultimately did in 2008. In response, the Fed and the Treasury Department organized a rapid-fire $3.625 billion bailout of LTCM by a consortium of major banks as an alternative to an extended bankruptcy process.
At the time, it was widely remarked that since hedge funds had revealed themselves as being in need of occasional bailout, they should probably be brought under the regulatory umbrella.
But though this bailout involved the participation of government officials as organizers and guarantors, no actual taxpayer funds were expended and no congressional action was needed. Consequently, the political system moved on. Then when a financial crisis did hit in 2008, it had very little to do with hedge funds. So we got a politically ambitious regulatory overhaul that did not specifically target hedge funds. But it did create FSOC with an institutional mandate to see the whole playing field, and FSOC officials are trying to draw attention to this piece of unfinished business.
Two types of hedge fund risk
Jonah Crane, the deputy assistant secretary in the Treasury Department who serves as the executive of FSOC, spoke on November 16 about two different forms of risk that hedge funds could pose to the broader economy.
One is forced asset sales, in which problems at a fund force it to rapidly sell its assets in a way that disrupts other markets. For example, “positions held by a relatively small group of funds” could constitute “a meaningful share of certain key markets, relative to both market size and trading volume.” This raises the risk that a failure at one fund could drastically drive down the value of other funds’ assets, setting off a chain reaction in which an entire key market is devastated by mass selling.
The other is counterparty risk. Hedge funds that are not themselves significant to the overall operation of the economy nonetheless owe money to larger institutions. A hedge fund failure could end up “transmitting stress to counterparties that are large, highly interconnected financial institutions.”
Crane says that on both fronts the situation requires continued monitoring by FSOC, as well as a range of areas in which it could use more and better data from industry to understand exactly what’s going on.
One of the main areas in which Dodd-Frank has made advances relative to the pre-crisis situation is in providing much more data and situational awareness to regulators at various agencies so that they can better understand where risks exist. Ongoing data gaps are particularly worrying because financial regulation is a bit like squeezing a balloon, and the odds are good at any moment that the most alarming risks will have migrated to wherever it is you can’t see. This current work has been years in the making, and if momentum evaporates as a result of the transition, it could leave a significant lingering risk to the overall global economy.
|
www.vox.com
| 0left
|
6bW2e2PNWB7hthk1
|
mexico
|
BBC News
| 11
|
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48568389
|
US-Mexico talks: Trump hails deal on migrants to avoid tariffs
|
President Donald Trump has hailed a deal reached with Mexico to help stem the flow of migrants to the US after he threatened to impose trade tariffs .
Under the deal , in which Mexico agreed to take `` unprecedented steps '' , the duties that were due to come into effect on Monday have been suspended .
`` Mexico will try very hard , and if they do that , this will be a very successful agreement , '' said Mr Trump .
There were fears that the tariffs could hurt US businesses and consumers .
Under Mr Trump 's proposal , duties would have risen by 5 % every month on goods including cars , beer , tequila , fruit and vegetables until they hit 25 % in October .
The deal was reached at the end of three days of negotiations which saw Washington demand a crackdown on Central American migrants .
In a joint declaration released by the US state department , the two countries said Mexico would take `` unprecedented steps '' to curb irregular migration and human trafficking .
But it seems the US did not get one of its reported key demands , which would have required Mexico to take in asylum seekers heading for the US and process their claims on its own soil .
Deploy its National Guard throughout the country from Monday , pledging up to 6,000 additional troops along Mexico 's southern border with Guatemala
Expand its programme of sending asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await reviews of their claims . In return , the US will `` work to accelerate '' the adjudication process
Both countries pledged to `` strengthen bilateral co-operation '' over border security , including `` co-ordinated actions '' and information sharing .
The declaration added that discussions would continue , and final terms would be accepted and announced within 90 days .
Should Mexico 's actions `` not have the expected results '' , the agreement warned that additional measures could be taken but did not specify what these would be .
In one of a series of tweets about the deal , Mr Trump quoted National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd as saying : `` That 's going to be a huge deal because Mexico will be using their strong Immigration Laws - A game changer . People no longer will be released into the U.S . ''
Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard told journalists : `` I think it was a fair balance , because they have more drastic measures and proposals at the start , and we have reached some middle point . ''
Speaking at a separate news conference , US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said `` we could n't be more pleased with the agreement '' .
Mr Trump caught members of his own party unaware when he announced the proposed tariffs last week .
It 's still unclear whether it was internal pressure within his party or the measures being offered by Mexico that dissuaded Mr Trump from implementing the plan , or perhaps simply an appreciation of its potential consequences .
It became apparent during the talks just how intertwined the two neighbouring economies are , and many argued that a 5 % tax on all Mexican goods would hurt US suppliers and customers too . Furthermore , damaging the already fragile Mexican economy could have pushed it into a full recession and created more migrants heading north in search of work .
Still , some considered the bilateral meetings were useful , in part to recognise that both nations are facing a steep rise in undocumented immigration .
The plan to deploy military personnel to Mexico 's southern border may well have helped bring this dispute to an end . However , President Trump has now tied immigration to bilateral trade and could easily do so again in the future should the situation fail to improve .
Mexico is currently one of the largest trading partners of the US , just behind China and Canada - two countries also locked in trade disputes with the US .
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ran for office vowing to stand up to the US and once said he would not allow Mexico to be Mr Trump 's `` whipping boy '' .
But some Mexican politicians felt he had given too much , too quickly , and they demanded to see details of the deal .
Ángel Ávila Romero , a senior member of the left-wing PRD party , said the agreement was `` not a negotiation , it was a surrender '' .
`` Mexico should not militarise its southern border . We are not the backyard of Donald Trump , '' he tweeted .
Marko Cortés , leader of the conservative National Action Party ( PAN ) , said the sovereignty and dignity of Mexico had been damaged , newspaper El Universal reported .
Mr López Obrador said on Twitter that a rally in the border city of Tijuana on Saturday to celebrate Mexican sovereignty would go ahead .
On Wednesday , US Customs and Border Protection said migrant detentions had surged in May to the highest level in more than a decade - 132,887 arrests , a 33 % increase from April .
The detentions were the highest monthly total since Mr Trump took office .
Official figures show illegal border crossings had been in decline since 2000 . In 2000 , 1.6 million people were apprehended trying to cross the border illegally - that number was just under 400,000 in 2018 .
In 2017 , Mr Trump 's first year in office , the figures were the lowest they had been since 1971 . But the number of arrests has been rising again , especially in recent months .
In February , Mr Trump declared an emergency on the US-Mexico border , saying it was necessary in order to tackle what he claimed was a crisis .
|
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption A look at the steps Mexico is taking to deal with migrants
President Donald Trump has hailed a deal reached with Mexico to help stem the flow of migrants to the US after he threatened to impose trade tariffs.
Under the deal, in which Mexico agreed to take "unprecedented steps", the duties that were due to come into effect on Monday have been suspended.
"Mexico will try very hard, and if they do that, this will be a very successful agreement," said Mr Trump.
There were fears that the tariffs could hurt US businesses and consumers.
Under Mr Trump's proposal, duties would have risen by 5% every month on goods including cars, beer, tequila, fruit and vegetables until they hit 25% in October.
The deal was reached at the end of three days of negotiations which saw Washington demand a crackdown on Central American migrants.
What do we know about the deal?
In a joint declaration released by the US state department, the two countries said Mexico would take "unprecedented steps" to curb irregular migration and human trafficking.
But it seems the US did not get one of its reported key demands, which would have required Mexico to take in asylum seekers heading for the US and process their claims on its own soil.
Under the deal, Mexico agreed to:
Deploy its National Guard throughout the country from Monday, pledging up to 6,000 additional troops along Mexico's southern border with Guatemala
Take "decisive action" to tackle human smuggling networks
The US agreed to:
Expand its programme of sending asylum seekers back to Mexico while they await reviews of their claims. In return, the US will "work to accelerate" the adjudication process
Both countries pledged to "strengthen bilateral co-operation" over border security, including "co-ordinated actions" and information sharing.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Five numbers that explain why the current US border situation is different
The declaration added that discussions would continue, and final terms would be accepted and announced within 90 days.
Should Mexico's actions "not have the expected results", the agreement warned that additional measures could be taken but did not specify what these would be.
In one of a series of tweets about the deal, Mr Trump quoted National Border Patrol Council president Brandon Judd as saying: "That's going to be a huge deal because Mexico will be using their strong Immigration Laws - A game changer. People no longer will be released into the U.S."
Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard told journalists: "I think it was a fair balance, because they have more drastic measures and proposals at the start, and we have reached some middle point."
Speaking at a separate news conference, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said "we couldn't be more pleased with the agreement".
Mr Trump caught members of his own party unaware when he announced the proposed tariffs last week.
Trump tariff threat recedes - for now
By Will Grant, BBC Mexico and Central America correspondent
It's still unclear whether it was internal pressure within his party or the measures being offered by Mexico that dissuaded Mr Trump from implementing the plan, or perhaps simply an appreciation of its potential consequences.
It became apparent during the talks just how intertwined the two neighbouring economies are, and many argued that a 5% tax on all Mexican goods would hurt US suppliers and customers too. Furthermore, damaging the already fragile Mexican economy could have pushed it into a full recession and created more migrants heading north in search of work.
Still, some considered the bilateral meetings were useful, in part to recognise that both nations are facing a steep rise in undocumented immigration.
The plan to deploy military personnel to Mexico's southern border may well have helped bring this dispute to an end. However, President Trump has now tied immigration to bilateral trade and could easily do so again in the future should the situation fail to improve.
What is the reaction in Mexico?
Mexico is currently one of the largest trading partners of the US, just behind China and Canada - two countries also locked in trade disputes with the US.
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ran for office vowing to stand up to the US and once said he would not allow Mexico to be Mr Trump's "whipping boy".
But some Mexican politicians felt he had given too much, too quickly, and they demanded to see details of the deal.
Ángel Ávila Romero, a senior member of the left-wing PRD party, said the agreement was "not a negotiation, it was a surrender".
"Mexico should not militarise its southern border. We are not the backyard of Donald Trump," he tweeted.
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why are Africans in Mexico heading to US?
Marko Cortés, leader of the conservative National Action Party (PAN), said the sovereignty and dignity of Mexico had been damaged, newspaper El Universal reported.
Mr López Obrador said on Twitter that a rally in the border city of Tijuana on Saturday to celebrate Mexican sovereignty would go ahead.
What's the situation on the US-Mexico border?
On Wednesday, US Customs and Border Protection said migrant detentions had surged in May to the highest level in more than a decade - 132,887 arrests, a 33% increase from April.
The detentions were the highest monthly total since Mr Trump took office.
Official figures show illegal border crossings had been in decline since 2000. In 2000, 1.6 million people were apprehended trying to cross the border illegally - that number was just under 400,000 in 2018.
In 2017, Mr Trump's first year in office, the figures were the lowest they had been since 1971. But the number of arrests has been rising again, especially in recent months.
In February, Mr Trump declared an emergency on the US-Mexico border, saying it was necessary in order to tackle what he claimed was a crisis.
|
www.bbc.com
| 2center
|
wIfy4AbbJgPnx4MR
|
||
democratic_party
|
New York Times - News
| 00
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/us/politics/hillary-clintons-countless-choices-could-hinge-on-2016-election.html?ref=politics
|
Clinton's Countless Choices Hinge on One: 2016
|
2012-12-09
|
Jodi Kantor
|
For the moment , Mrs. Clinton may appear to be a figure of nearly limitless possibility , and her name has come up for prestigious jobs : president of Yale University , head of George Soros ’ s foundation . But being Hillary Clinton is never a simple matter , and her next few years are less a blank check than an equation with multiple variables . Her status is singular but complicated : half an ex-presidential partnership , a woman at the peak of her influence who will soon find herself without portfolio , and an instant presidential front-runner ( a title that did not work out well last time ) .
Mrs. Clinton may find that her freedom comes with one huge constraint . The more serious she is about 2016 , the less she can do — no frank , seen-it-all memoir ; no clients , commissions or controversial positions that could prove problematic . She will be under heavy scrutiny even by Clinton standards , discovering what it means to be a supposedly private citizen in the age of Twitter . With the election four years away — a political eon — she will have to tend and protect her popularity , and she may find herself in a cushy kind of limbo , unable to make many decisions about her life until she makes the big one about another White House try .
“ If you ’ re thinking about running for president , does that affect everything else ? ” asked former Gov . Mario M. Cuomo of New York , who once agonized over the same choice and whose son Gov . Andrew M. Cuomo may find his own prospects shaped by what Mrs. Clinton decides . “ Yes . Once you make your decision , everything clears up . ”
Still , Mrs. Clinton faces some immediate choices , which nearly two dozen current and former aides , friends and donors described :
Last summer , Bill Clinton expressed doubt about whether his wife would join forces with him at the foundation that bears his name . “ She has to decide what ’ s best for her , ” he said in an interview . “ It might be better for her and she might have a bigger impact if she has a separate operation . ”
The question is a fraught one . The climactic moment of Mrs. Clinton ’ s career came in 2000 , when after years of supporting her husband ’ s campaigns and jobs , she struck out as a solo artist . Would rejoining his team be a step backward ? Many aides said no . “ She ’ s revered and admired as her own person , ” said Lissa Muscatine , her longtime adviser .
|
For the moment, Mrs. Clinton may appear to be a figure of nearly limitless possibility, and her name has come up for prestigious jobs: president of Yale University, head of George Soros’s foundation. But being Hillary Clinton is never a simple matter, and her next few years are less a blank check than an equation with multiple variables. Her status is singular but complicated: half an ex-presidential partnership, a woman at the peak of her influence who will soon find herself without portfolio, and an instant presidential front-runner (a title that did not work out well last time).
Mrs. Clinton may find that her freedom comes with one huge constraint. The more serious she is about 2016, the less she can do — no frank, seen-it-all memoir; no clients, commissions or controversial positions that could prove problematic. She will be under heavy scrutiny even by Clinton standards, discovering what it means to be a supposedly private citizen in the age of Twitter. With the election four years away — a political eon — she will have to tend and protect her popularity, and she may find herself in a cushy kind of limbo, unable to make many decisions about her life until she makes the big one about another White House try.
“If you’re thinking about running for president, does that affect everything else?” asked former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo of New York, who once agonized over the same choice and whose son Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo may find his own prospects shaped by what Mrs. Clinton decides. “Yes. Once you make your decision, everything clears up.”
Still, Mrs. Clinton faces some immediate choices, which nearly two dozen current and former aides, friends and donors described:
¶ Should she team up with her husband again?
Last summer, Bill Clinton expressed doubt about whether his wife would join forces with him at the foundation that bears his name. “She has to decide what’s best for her,” he said in an interview. “It might be better for her and she might have a bigger impact if she has a separate operation.”
The question is a fraught one. The climactic moment of Mrs. Clinton’s career came in 2000, when after years of supporting her husband’s campaigns and jobs, she struck out as a solo artist. Would rejoining his team be a step backward? Many aides said no. “She’s revered and admired as her own person,” said Lissa Muscatine, her longtime adviser.
|
www.nytimes.com
| 0left
|
Z431yrYoFfGbLbNK
|
elections
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html?hp=t1
|
Inside the campaign: How Mitt Romney stumbled
|
2012-09-16
|
Mike Allen, Jim Vandehei
|
Stuart Stevens rewrote Romney 's speech -- and green-lighted Clint Eastwood 's . | AP Photos Inside the camp : How Mitt stumbled
Stuart Stevens , Mitt Romney ’ s top strategist , knew his candidate ’ s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency . So Stevens , bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign ’ s Boston headquarters , assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner , a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party ’ s smarter wordsmiths .
Stevens junked the entire thing , setting off a chaotic , eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney , including Clint Eastwood ’ s meandering monologue to an empty chair .
Romney ’ s convention stumbles have provoked weeks of public griping and internal sniping about not only Romney but also his mercurial campaign muse , Stevens . Viewed warily by conservatives , known for his impulsiveness and described by a colleague as a “ tortured artist , ” Stevens has become the leading staff scapegoat for a campaign that suddenly is behind in a race that had been expected to stay neck and neck through Nov. 6 .
This article is based on accounts from Romney aides , advisers and friends , most of whom refused to speak on the record because they were recounting private discussions and offering direct criticism of the candidate and his staff , Stevens in particular .
Stevens , in a lengthy interview Sunday afternoon , defended the campaign ’ s performance , refused to discuss internal conversations and insisted Romney is doing far better than the pundits portray . “ Like all campaigns , we have good days and bad days . I ’ m happy to take responsibility for the bad days , ” he said . “ This is a tremendously talented team . ”
To pin recent stumbles on Stevens would be to overlook Romney ’ s role in all this . As the man atop the enterprise — in effect , the CEO of a $ 1 billion start-up — Romney ultimately bears responsibility for the decisions he personally oversaw , such as the muffling of running mate Paul Ryan ’ s strict budget message and his own convention performance .
As the Tampa convention drew near , Wehner , now a “ senior adviser ” and blogger for the campaign , was laboring under an unusual constraint for the author of a high-stakes political speech . He was not invited to spend time with Romney , making it impossible to channel him fluently .
Nevertheless , Wehner came up with a draft he found pleasing , including the memorable line : “ The incumbent president is trying to lower the expectations of our nation to the sorry level of his own achievement . He only wins if you settle. ” It also included a reference to Afghanistan , which was jettisoned with the rest of his work .
Instead , eight days before the convention , at a time when a campaign usually would be done drafting and focused instead on practicing such a high-stakes speech , Stevens frantically contacted John McConnell and Matthew Scully , a speechwriting duo that had worked in George W. Bush ’ s campaign and White House . Stevens told them they would have to start from scratch on a new acceptance speech . Not only would they have only a few days to write it , but Romney would have little time to practice it .
McConnell and Scully , drawing on their experience writing for Vice President Dick Cheney , were racing to finish the convention speech for Romney ’ s running mate , Ryan ( R-Wis. ) , the House Budget Committee chairman . It was the Wednesday before convention week . Ryan was to speak the following Wednesday , followed by Romney on Thursday .
|
Stuart Stevens rewrote Romney's speech -- and green-lighted Clint Eastwood's. | AP Photos Inside the camp: How Mitt stumbled
Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist, knew his candidate’s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency. So Stevens, bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign’s Boston headquarters, assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner, a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party’s smarter wordsmiths.
Not a word Wehner wrote was ever spoken.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: 12 hits on Mitt Romney from the right)
Stevens junked the entire thing, setting off a chaotic, eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney, including Clint Eastwood’s meandering monologue to an empty chair.
Romney’s convention stumbles have provoked weeks of public griping and internal sniping about not only Romney but also his mercurial campaign muse, Stevens. Viewed warily by conservatives, known for his impulsiveness and described by a colleague as a “tortured artist,” Stevens has become the leading staff scapegoat for a campaign that suddenly is behind in a race that had been expected to stay neck and neck through Nov. 6.
This article is based on accounts from Romney aides, advisers and friends, most of whom refused to speak on the record because they were recounting private discussions and offering direct criticism of the candidate and his staff, Stevens in particular.
( Also on POLITICO: Romney abruptly shifts strategy)
Stevens, in a lengthy interview Sunday afternoon, defended the campaign’s performance, refused to discuss internal conversations and insisted Romney is doing far better than the pundits portray. “Like all campaigns, we have good days and bad days. I’m happy to take responsibility for the bad days,” he said. “This is a tremendously talented team.”
To pin recent stumbles on Stevens would be to overlook Romney’s role in all this. As the man atop the enterprise — in effect, the CEO of a $1 billion start-up — Romney ultimately bears responsibility for the decisions he personally oversaw, such as the muffling of running mate Paul Ryan’s strict budget message and his own convention performance.
As the Tampa convention drew near, Wehner, now a “senior adviser” and blogger for the campaign, was laboring under an unusual constraint for the author of a high-stakes political speech. He was not invited to spend time with Romney, making it impossible to channel him fluently.
Nevertheless, Wehner came up with a draft he found pleasing, including the memorable line: “The incumbent president is trying to lower the expectations of our nation to the sorry level of his own achievement. He only wins if you settle.” It also included a reference to Afghanistan, which was jettisoned with the rest of his work.
( Also on POLITICO: 2012 election polling center)
Instead, eight days before the convention, at a time when a campaign usually would be done drafting and focused instead on practicing such a high-stakes speech, Stevens frantically contacted John McConnell and Matthew Scully, a speechwriting duo that had worked in George W. Bush’s campaign and White House. Stevens told them they would have to start from scratch on a new acceptance speech. Not only would they have only a few days to write it, but Romney would have little time to practice it.
McConnell and Scully, drawing on their experience writing for Vice President Dick Cheney, were racing to finish the convention speech for Romney’s running mate, Ryan (R-Wis.), the House Budget Committee chairman. It was the Wednesday before convention week. Ryan was to speak the following Wednesday, followed by Romney on Thursday.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
OWyJNF8j5A4TPGGq
|
world
|
Reuters
| 11
|
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-crownprince-exclusive/exclusive-in-saudi-arabia-criticism-of-crown-prince-grows-after-attack-idUSKBN1WH227
|
Exclusive: In Saudi Arabia, criticism of Crown Prince grows after attack
|
2019-10-02
|
( ███ ) - Some members of Saudi Arabia ’ s ruling family and business elite have expressed frustration with the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the largest-ever attack on the kingdom ’ s oil infrastructure last month .
It has sparked concern among several prominent branches of the ruling Al Saud family , which numbers around 10,000 members , about the crown prince ’ s ability to defend and lead the world ’ s largest oil exporter , according to a senior foreign diplomat and five sources with ties to the royals and business elite . All spoke on condition of anonymity .
The attack has also fanned discontent among some in elite circles who believe the crown prince , known in the West by the initials MbS , has sought too tight a grip on power , the sources said . Some of these people said the event has also fueled criticism among those who believe he has pursued an overly aggressive stance towards Iran .
“ There is a lot of resentment ” about the crown prince ’ s leadership , said one of the sources , a member of the Saudi elite with royal connections . “ How were they not able to detect the attack ? ”
This person added that some people in elite circles are saying they have “ no confidence ” in the crown prince , an assertion echoed by the four other sources and the senior diplomat .
The crown prince nonetheless has staunch supporters . A Saudi source within circles loyal to the crown prince said : “ The latest events won ’ t affect him personally as a potential ruler because he is trying to stop the Iranian expansion in the region . This is a patriotic issue , and so he won ’ t be in danger , at least as long as the father lives . ”
A second senior foreign diplomat said ordinary Saudis still want to unite behind MbS as a strong , decisive , dynamic leader .
The Saudi government media office did not respond to detailed questions from ███ for this article .
The crown prince , during a television interview aired Sunday by U.S. broadcaster CBS , said that defending Saudi Arabia was difficult because of the kingdom ’ s large size and the scale of threats it faces . “ It ’ s challenging to cover all of this fully , ” he said . He also called for “ strong and firm ” global action to deter Iran but said he preferred a “ peaceful solution ” to a military one .
At stake is political stability in the world ’ s largest oil exporter , a key ally of the United States in the Middle East . The crown prince is officially next in line to the throne to his 83-year-old father , King Salman , and is de facto ruler of the country . He has vowed to transform the kingdom into a modern state .
The 34-year-old crown prince , who is popular among young Saudis , has received praise at home for easing social restrictions in the conservative Muslim kingdom , granting women more rights and pledging to diversify Saudi Arabia ’ s oil-dependent economy . But state control of the media and a crackdown on dissent in the kingdom make it difficult to gauge levels of genuine enthusiasm domestically .
The September 14 attack set ablaze two of state oil giant Saudi Aramco ’ s plants , initially knocking out half of the kingdom ’ s oil production — 5 % of global oil output . Saudi Arabia has said Iran was responsible , an assessment that U.S. officials share . Iranian officials have denied involvement .
“ The magnitude of these attacks is not lost on the population , nor is the fact that he ( the crown prince ) is the minister of defense and his brother is deputy defense minister , and yet arguably the country has suffered its largest attack ever and on the crown jewels , ” said Neil Quilliam , a senior research fellow at Chatham House , a London-based international affairs think tank .
“ There ’ s a diminishing confidence in his ability to secure the country – and that ’ s a consequence of his policies , ” said Quilliam , a specialist on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf . MbS oversees foreign , security and defense policy .
The attack has fueled resentment that has simmered since the crown prince came to power two years ago , sweeping aside rivals to the throne and arresting hundreds of the kingdom ’ s most prominent figures on corruption allegations .
MbS has seen his reputation overseas suffer from a costly war in Yemen against the Iran-aligned Houthi group that has killed tens of thousands of people and triggered a humanitarian crisis . He also came under international criticism over the murder a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom ’ s Istanbul consulate , which the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has said the crown prince ordered .
The crown prince , during the CBS interview , denied ordering the killing of Khashoggi but said he ultimately bears “ full responsibility ” as the kingdom ’ s de facto leader .
Khashoggi was murdered by agents of the Saudi government without authorization or permission , said Saudi Arabia ’ s minister of state for foreign affairs , Adel al-Jubeir , during a moderated discussion hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in New York on September 24 .
Some Saudi critics say MbS ’ s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran and involvement in the war in Yemen exposed the kingdom to attack , according to four of the sources with ties to the royals and business elite . They also express frustration that the crown prince was unable to prevent the attacks despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense , according to the five sources and one of the senior diplomats .
Jubeir , the Saudi minister , in his recent remarks in New York , said the kingdom ’ s air defenses have stopped hundreds of ballistic missiles and dozens of drones coming into Saudi Arabia . He added that the failure to detect the September 14 attack was “ being looked at , ” but that “ it ’ s very difficult to detect small objects that fly at three hundred feet of altitude . ”
Some Saudi elite say the crown prince ’ s efforts to consolidate control have hurt the kingdom . One source close to government circles said MbS has installed officials who were generally less experienced than previously .
MbS ousted Mohammed bin Nayef as crown prince and interior minister two years ago . The former crown prince had nearly two decades of experience in senior roles in the ministry , which was responsible for domestic policing and intelligence . MbS named a 33-year-old cousin as a replacement , after placing key areas of intelligence and counter-terrorism under the royal court ’ s purview .
The crown prince also removed Prince Miteb bin Abdullah , who had overseen or effectively commanded the kingdom ’ s elite internal security force , the Saudi Arabian National Guard , since 1996 . The prince was ultimately replaced at the end of last year by then-32-year-old Prince Abdullah bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz , who had been deputy governor of Mecca for less than two years and before that in private business .
The Saudi government media office did not immediately respond to a request for comment addressed to Prince Abdullah .
Saudi insiders and Western diplomats say the family is unlikely to oppose MbS while the king remains alive , recognizing that the king is unlikely to turn against his favorite son . The monarch has delegated most responsibilities of rule to his son but still presides over weekly cabinet meetings and receives foreign dignitaries .
Regardless of the king ’ s future , the insiders and diplomats say , a challenge to MbS ’ s authority could be difficult given his hold on the internal security structure .
Some royals view 77-year-old Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz , King Salman ’ s only surviving full brother , as a possible alternative who would have support of family members , the security apparatus and some Western powers , said two of the five sources with ties to Saudi elite .
“ They are all looking at Ahmed to see what he does . The family continues to think he is the only one who can save them , ” said one prominent businessman .
There is no evidence Prince Ahmed is willing to play that role , according to Saudi watchers . Prince Ahmed has largely kept a low profile since returning to Riyadh in October 2018 after 2-1/2 months abroad . During the trip , he appeared to criticize the Saudi leadership while responding to protesters outside a London residence chanting for the downfall of the Al Saud dynasty .
Prince Ahmed was one of only three people on the Allegiance Council , made up of the ruling family ’ s senior members , who opposed MbS becoming crown prince in 2017 , two Saudi sources said at the time .
Prince Ahmed couldn ’ t be reached for comment . One of the five sources with ties to Saudi elite said that Prince Ahmed ’ s position on whether he will challenge MbS is that he “ will cross that bridge when we come to it . ”
|
(Reuters) - Some members of Saudi Arabia’s ruling family and business elite have expressed frustration with the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman following the largest-ever attack on the kingdom’s oil infrastructure last month.
FILE PHOTO: Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, September 18, 2019. Mandel Ngan/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
It has sparked concern among several prominent branches of the ruling Al Saud family, which numbers around 10,000 members, about the crown prince’s ability to defend and lead the world’s largest oil exporter, according to a senior foreign diplomat and five sources with ties to the royals and business elite. All spoke on condition of anonymity.
The attack has also fanned discontent among some in elite circles who believe the crown prince, known in the West by the initials MbS, has sought too tight a grip on power, the sources said. Some of these people said the event has also fueled criticism among those who believe he has pursued an overly aggressive stance towards Iran.
“There is a lot of resentment” about the crown prince’s leadership, said one of the sources, a member of the Saudi elite with royal connections. “How were they not able to detect the attack?”
This person added that some people in elite circles are saying they have “no confidence” in the crown prince, an assertion echoed by the four other sources and the senior diplomat.
The crown prince nonetheless has staunch supporters. A Saudi source within circles loyal to the crown prince said: “The latest events won’t affect him personally as a potential ruler because he is trying to stop the Iranian expansion in the region. This is a patriotic issue, and so he won’t be in danger, at least as long as the father lives.”
A second senior foreign diplomat said ordinary Saudis still want to unite behind MbS as a strong, decisive, dynamic leader.
The Saudi government media office did not respond to detailed questions from Reuters for this article.
The crown prince, during a television interview aired Sunday by U.S. broadcaster CBS, said that defending Saudi Arabia was difficult because of the kingdom’s large size and the scale of threats it faces. “It’s challenging to cover all of this fully,” he said. He also called for “strong and firm” global action to deter Iran but said he preferred a “peaceful solution” to a military one.
FUELING RESENTMENT
At stake is political stability in the world’s largest oil exporter, a key ally of the United States in the Middle East. The crown prince is officially next in line to the throne to his 83-year-old father, King Salman, and is de facto ruler of the country. He has vowed to transform the kingdom into a modern state.
The 34-year-old crown prince, who is popular among young Saudis, has received praise at home for easing social restrictions in the conservative Muslim kingdom, granting women more rights and pledging to diversify Saudi Arabia’s oil-dependent economy. But state control of the media and a crackdown on dissent in the kingdom make it difficult to gauge levels of genuine enthusiasm domestically.
The September 14 attack set ablaze two of state oil giant Saudi Aramco’s plants, initially knocking out half of the kingdom’s oil production — 5% of global oil output. Saudi Arabia has said Iran was responsible, an assessment that U.S. officials share. Iranian officials have denied involvement.
“The magnitude of these attacks is not lost on the population, nor is the fact that he (the crown prince) is the minister of defense and his brother is deputy defense minister, and yet arguably the country has suffered its largest attack ever and on the crown jewels,” said Neil Quilliam, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, a London-based international affairs think tank.
“There’s a diminishing confidence in his ability to secure the country – and that’s a consequence of his policies,” said Quilliam, a specialist on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. MbS oversees foreign, security and defense policy.
The attack has fueled resentment that has simmered since the crown prince came to power two years ago, sweeping aside rivals to the throne and arresting hundreds of the kingdom’s most prominent figures on corruption allegations.
MbS has seen his reputation overseas suffer from a costly war in Yemen against the Iran-aligned Houthi group that has killed tens of thousands of people and triggered a humanitarian crisis. He also came under international criticism over the murder a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the kingdom’s Istanbul consulate, which the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has said the crown prince ordered.
The crown prince, during the CBS interview, denied ordering the killing of Khashoggi but said he ultimately bears “full responsibility” as the kingdom’s de facto leader.
Khashoggi was murdered by agents of the Saudi government without authorization or permission, said Saudi Arabia’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, during a moderated discussion hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in New York on September 24.
CONSOLIDATE CONTROL
Some Saudi critics say MbS’s aggressive foreign policy towards Iran and involvement in the war in Yemen exposed the kingdom to attack, according to four of the sources with ties to the royals and business elite. They also express frustration that the crown prince was unable to prevent the attacks despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defense, according to the five sources and one of the senior diplomats.
Jubeir, the Saudi minister, in his recent remarks in New York, said the kingdom’s air defenses have stopped hundreds of ballistic missiles and dozens of drones coming into Saudi Arabia. He added that the failure to detect the September 14 attack was “being looked at,” but that “it’s very difficult to detect small objects that fly at three hundred feet of altitude.”
Some Saudi elite say the crown prince’s efforts to consolidate control have hurt the kingdom. One source close to government circles said MbS has installed officials who were generally less experienced than previously.
MbS ousted Mohammed bin Nayef as crown prince and interior minister two years ago. The former crown prince had nearly two decades of experience in senior roles in the ministry, which was responsible for domestic policing and intelligence. MbS named a 33-year-old cousin as a replacement, after placing key areas of intelligence and counter-terrorism under the royal court’s purview.
The crown prince also removed Prince Miteb bin Abdullah, who had overseen or effectively commanded the kingdom’s elite internal security force, the Saudi Arabian National Guard, since 1996. The prince was ultimately replaced at the end of last year by then-32-year-old Prince Abdullah bin Bandar bin Abdulaziz, who had been deputy governor of Mecca for less than two years and before that in private business.
The Saudi government media office did not immediately respond to a request for comment addressed to Prince Abdullah.
FAVORITE SON
Saudi insiders and Western diplomats say the family is unlikely to oppose MbS while the king remains alive, recognizing that the king is unlikely to turn against his favorite son. The monarch has delegated most responsibilities of rule to his son but still presides over weekly cabinet meetings and receives foreign dignitaries.
Regardless of the king’s future, the insiders and diplomats say, a challenge to MbS’s authority could be difficult given his hold on the internal security structure.
Some royals view 77-year-old Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz, King Salman’s only surviving full brother, as a possible alternative who would have support of family members, the security apparatus and some Western powers, said two of the five sources with ties to Saudi elite.
“They are all looking at Ahmed to see what he does. The family continues to think he is the only one who can save them,” said one prominent businessman.
Slideshow (3 Images)
There is no evidence Prince Ahmed is willing to play that role, according to Saudi watchers. Prince Ahmed has largely kept a low profile since returning to Riyadh in October 2018 after 2-1/2 months abroad. During the trip, he appeared to criticize the Saudi leadership while responding to protesters outside a London residence chanting for the downfall of the Al Saud dynasty.
Prince Ahmed was one of only three people on the Allegiance Council, made up of the ruling family’s senior members, who opposed MbS becoming crown prince in 2017, two Saudi sources said at the time.
Prince Ahmed couldn’t be reached for comment. One of the five sources with ties to Saudi elite said that Prince Ahmed’s position on whether he will challenge MbS is that he “will cross that bridge when we come to it.”
|
www.reuters.com
| 2center
|
seoVDQGTovGpAKOc
|
|
abortion
|
Associated Press
| 11
|
https://apnews.com/a777f010d69347468e8b2945ab339348/Trump-thrusts-abortion-fight-into-crucial-midterm-elections
|
President Trump thrusts abortion fight into crucial midterm elections
|
2018-05-18
|
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jill Colvin
|
FILE - In this Jan. 19 , 2018 file photo , President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event , in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington . The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women , or sharing space with abortion providers , a senior White House official said Thursday , May 17 , 2018 . The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday , the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File )
FILE - In this Jan. 19 , 2018 file photo , President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event , in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington . The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women , or sharing space with abortion providers , a senior White House official said Thursday , May 17 , 2018 . The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday , the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement . ( AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta , File )
WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration acted Friday to bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions , energizing its conservative political base ahead of crucial midterm elections while setting the stage for new legal battles .
The Health and Human Services Department sent its proposal to rewrite the rules to the White House , setting in motion a regulatory process that could take months . Scant on details , an administration overview of the plan said it would echo a Reagan-era rule by banning abortion referrals by federally funded clinics and forbidding them from locating in facilities that also provide abortions .
Planned Parenthood , a principal provider of family planning , abortion services and basic preventive care for women , said the plan appears designed to target the organization . “ The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood , who are counting on us every day , ” said executive vice president Dawn Laguens .
But presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing “ that abortion is not family planning . This is family planning money . ”
The policy was derided as a “ gag rule ” by abortion rights supporters , a point challenged by the administration , which said counseling about abortion would be OK , but not referrals . It ’ s likely to trigger lawsuits from opponents , and certain to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate going into November ’ s congressional elections .
The policy “ would ensure that taxpayers do not indirectly fund abortions , ” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement .
Social and religious conservatives have remained steadfastly loyal to President Donald Trump despite issues like his reimbursements to attorney Michael Cohen , who paid hush money to a porn star alleging an affair , and Trump ’ s past boasts of sexually aggressive behavior . Trump has not wavered from advancing the agenda of the religious right .
Tuesday night , Trump is scheduled to speak at the Susan B. Anthony List ’ s “ campaign for life ” gala . The group works to elect candidates who want to reduce and ultimately end abortion . It says it spent more than $ 18 million in the 2016 election cycle to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton and promote a “ pro-life Senate . ”
The original Reagan-era family planning rule barred clinics from discussing abortion with women . It never went into effect as written , although the Supreme Court ruled it was an appropriate use of executive power . The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton , and a new rule took effect requiring “ nondirective ” counseling to include a full range of options for women .
The Trump administration said its proposal will roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption .
Known as Title X , the family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics , costing taxpayers about $ 260 million .
Although abortion is politically divisive , the U.S. abortion rate has dropped significantly , from about 29 per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 1980 to about 15 in 2014 . Better contraception , fewer unintended pregnancies and state restrictions may have played a role , according to a recent scientific report .
Abortion remains legal , but federal family planning funds can not be used to pay for the procedure . Planned Parenthood clinics now qualify for Title X family planning grants , but they keep that money separate from funds that pay for abortions .
Abortion opponents say a taxpayer-funded program should have no connection to abortion . Doctors ’ groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship .
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the administration action amounts to an “ egregious intrusion ” in the doctor-patient relationship and could force doctors to omit “ essential , medically accurate information ” from counseling sessions with patients .
Planned Parenthood ’ s Laguens hinted at legal action , saying , “ we will not stand by while our basic health care and rights are stripped away . ”
Jessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association , which represents clinics , said requiring physical separation from abortion facilities is impractical and would disrupt services for women .
“ I can not imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged , ” Marcella said .
But abortion opponents said Trump is merely reaffirming the core mission of the family planning program .
“ The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs , just as ... federal law requires and the Supreme Court has upheld , ” said Tony Perkins , president of the Family Research Council , a key voice for religious conservatives .
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said , “ Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices , rather than hormone-induced changes . ”
Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortions provided by Planned Parenthood , whose clinics are also major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care . Hawkins ’ group is circulating a petition to urge lawmakers to support the Trump administration ’ s proposal .
Abortion opponents say the administration plan is not a “ gag rule. ” It “ will not prohibit counseling for clients about abortion ... but neither will it include the current mandate that ( clinics ) must counsel and refer for abortion , ” said the administration ’ s own summary .
|
FILE - In this Jan. 19, 2018 file photo, President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women, or sharing space with abortion providers, a senior White House official said Thursday, May 17, 2018. The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday, the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
FILE - In this Jan. 19, 2018 file photo, President Donald Trump speaks to participants of the annual March for Life event, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. The Trump administration will resurrect a Reagan-era rule that would ban federally-funded family planning clinics from discussing abortion with women, or sharing space with abortion providers, a senior White House official said Thursday, May 17, 2018. The Department of Health and Human Services will be announcing its proposal Friday, the official said on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to confirm the plans before the announcement. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration acted Friday to bar taxpayer-funded family planning clinics from referring women for abortions, energizing its conservative political base ahead of crucial midterm elections while setting the stage for new legal battles.
The Health and Human Services Department sent its proposal to rewrite the rules to the White House, setting in motion a regulatory process that could take months. Scant on details, an administration overview of the plan said it would echo a Reagan-era rule by banning abortion referrals by federally funded clinics and forbidding them from locating in facilities that also provide abortions.
Planned Parenthood, a principal provider of family planning, abortion services and basic preventive care for women, said the plan appears designed to target the organization. “The end result would make it impossible for women to come to Planned Parenthood, who are counting on us every day,” said executive vice president Dawn Laguens.
But presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News that the administration is simply recognizing “that abortion is not family planning. This is family planning money.”
The policy was derided as a “gag rule” by abortion rights supporters, a point challenged by the administration, which said counseling about abortion would be OK, but not referrals. It’s likely to trigger lawsuits from opponents, and certain to galvanize activists on both sides of the abortion debate going into November’s congressional elections.
The policy “would ensure that taxpayers do not indirectly fund abortions,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.
Social and religious conservatives have remained steadfastly loyal to President Donald Trump despite issues like his reimbursements to attorney Michael Cohen, who paid hush money to a porn star alleging an affair, and Trump’s past boasts of sexually aggressive behavior. Trump has not wavered from advancing the agenda of the religious right.
Tuesday night, Trump is scheduled to speak at the Susan B. Anthony List’s “campaign for life” gala. The group works to elect candidates who want to reduce and ultimately end abortion. It says it spent more than $18 million in the 2016 election cycle to defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton and promote a “pro-life Senate.”
The original Reagan-era family planning rule barred clinics from discussing abortion with women. It never went into effect as written, although the Supreme Court ruled it was an appropriate use of executive power. The policy was rescinded under President Bill Clinton, and a new rule took effect requiring “nondirective” counseling to include a full range of options for women.
The Trump administration said its proposal will roll back the Clinton requirement that abortion be discussed as an option along with prenatal care and adoption.
Known as Title X, the family-planning program serves about 4 million women a year through clinics, costing taxpayers about $260 million.
Although abortion is politically divisive, the U.S. abortion rate has dropped significantly, from about 29 per 1,000 women of reproductive age in 1980 to about 15 in 2014. Better contraception, fewer unintended pregnancies and state restrictions may have played a role, according to a recent scientific report .
Abortion remains legal, but federal family planning funds cannot be used to pay for the procedure. Planned Parenthood clinics now qualify for Title X family planning grants, but they keep that money separate from funds that pay for abortions.
Abortion opponents say a taxpayer-funded program should have no connection to abortion. Doctors’ groups and abortion rights supporters say a ban on counseling women trespasses on the doctor-patient relationship.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the administration action amounts to an “egregious intrusion” in the doctor-patient relationship and could force doctors to omit “essential, medically accurate information” from counseling sessions with patients.
Planned Parenthood’s Laguens hinted at legal action, saying, “we will not stand by while our basic health care and rights are stripped away.”
Jessica Marcella of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents clinics, said requiring physical separation from abortion facilities is impractical and would disrupt services for women.
“I cannot imagine a scenario in which public health groups would allow this effort to go unchallenged,” Marcella said.
But abortion opponents said Trump is merely reaffirming the core mission of the family planning program.
“The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs, just as ... federal law requires and the Supreme Court has upheld,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a key voice for religious conservatives.
Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America said, “Abortion is not health care or birth control and many women want natural health care choices, rather than hormone-induced changes.”
Abortion opponents allege the federal family planning program in effect cross-subsidizes abortions provided by Planned Parenthood, whose clinics are also major recipients of grants for family planning and basic preventive care. Hawkins’ group is circulating a petition to urge lawmakers to support the Trump administration’s proposal.
Abortion opponents say the administration plan is not a “gag rule.” It “will not prohibit counseling for clients about abortion ... but neither will it include the current mandate that (clinics) must counsel and refer for abortion,” said the administration’s own summary.
__
Associated Press writer David Crary in New York contributed to this report.
|
www.apnews.com
| 2center
|
AjUJ7phQfuudVdW5
|
marijuana_legalization
|
Fox Online News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/10/hickenlooper-holder-discuss-what-next-after-colorado-voters-say-yes-to/
|
Hickenlooper, Holder discuss what's next after Colorado voters say yes to recreational pot
|
2012-11-10
|
Faith Mangan
|
Colorado Gov . John Hickenlooper is asking Attorney General Eric Holder for a clear-cut explanation on how the Obama administration intends to handle changes made Tuesday when voters chose to legalize marijuana for recreational use .
Nearly 55 percent of Colorado voters approved the state constitutional change by voting on a statewide referendum .
The Democratic governor talked with Holder by phone on Friday .
Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown said the governor and Holder `` emphasized the need for the federal government to articulate what its position will be . ''
Brown acknowledged a collective `` sense of urgency '' about a state law that defies federal law but said no agreement has been reached and both sides will continue to talk .
Amendment 64 allows people 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana , grow six pot plants and over the longer term allows for stores to sell it to recreational users .
Hickenlooper , who opposed the referendum , said earlier in the week , `` it 's hard to imagine the chaos that would result if state by state you had one state legalizing and one state not legalizing . ''
Still , he acknowledged that Colorado voters have clearly stated they want marijuana `` to be regulated like alcohol . ''
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said he plans to talk soon with federal officials and that Hickenlooper has no choice but to certify the election results .
Suthers also said the only possible plan right now is to establish the regulatory structure dictated by the state law , create an agency to facilitate an activity in violation of federal law , `` then wait to see if the federal government decides to do anything about it . ''
He said one question is : Will people who grow marijuana be criminally prosecuted because those contemplating going into the business `` need to know . ''
Suthers also suggested the federal government would not sue the state , and instead prosecute people .
The Justice Department declined to discuss the issue but released a statement saying the agency 's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act `` remains unchanged '' and that officials are reviewing the ballot initiatives .
Despite what the federal government might or might not do , it could take until 2014 before people can walk into Colorado retail stores and buy pot for recreational purposes .
Though Amendment 64 has provided the blueprint , the state legislature will have to establish rules and a new system for licensing and revenue collection .
In the near future , however , criminal penalties for possession of small amounts in Colorado will be lifted .
Attorney Brian Vincente , co-director of the 2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol , argued the 55 percent in favor of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana shows widespread support in the state .
`` That is more voters than voted for President Obama , by quite a few in Colorado , '' he said .
He also said supporters are confident the state level change will `` percolate up to the federal government '' and lead to better national policies in the near future .
University of Denver constitutional law professor Sam Kamin said the vote in Colorado and a similar one Tuesday in Washington `` goes beyond what happened in the other marijuana states . ''
Larger Colorado cities such as Denver already have a medical-marijuana program . But Kamin suggests that system is not setup to handle the expected change .
`` To go from an industry that serves at most a 120,000 people to one that serves millions plus tourists , plus people driving across the border , it really is going to be something different , '' he said .
|
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is asking Attorney General Eric Holder for a clear-cut explanation on how the Obama administration intends to handle changes made Tuesday when voters chose to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
Nearly 55 percent of Colorado voters approved the state constitutional change by voting on a statewide referendum.
The Democratic governor talked with Holder by phone on Friday.
Hickenlooper spokesman Eric Brown said the governor and Holder "emphasized the need for the federal government to articulate what its position will be."
Brown acknowledged a collective "sense of urgency" about a state law that defies federal law but said no agreement has been reached and both sides will continue to talk.
Amendment 64 allows people 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, grow six pot plants and over the longer term allows for stores to sell it to recreational users.
Hickenlooper, who opposed the referendum, said earlier in the week, "it's hard to imagine the chaos that would result if state by state you had one state legalizing and one state not legalizing."
Still, he acknowledged that Colorado voters have clearly stated they want marijuana "to be regulated like alcohol."
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said he plans to talk soon with federal officials and that Hickenlooper has no choice but to certify the election results.
Suthers also said the only possible plan right now is to establish the regulatory structure dictated by the state law, create an agency to facilitate an activity in violation of federal law, "then wait to see if the federal government decides to do anything about it."
He said one question is: Will people who grow marijuana be criminally prosecuted because those contemplating going into the business "need to know."
Suthers also suggested the federal government would not sue the state, and instead prosecute people.
The Justice Department declined to discuss the issue but released a statement saying the agency's enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act "remains unchanged" and that officials are reviewing the ballot initiatives.
Despite what the federal government might or might not do, it could take until 2014 before people can walk into Colorado retail stores and buy pot for recreational purposes.
Though Amendment 64 has provided the blueprint, the state legislature will have to establish rules and a new system for licensing and revenue collection.
In the near future, however, criminal penalties for possession of small amounts in Colorado will be lifted.
Attorney Brian Vincente, co-director of the 2012 Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, argued the 55 percent in favor of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana shows widespread support in the state.
"That is more voters than voted for President Obama, by quite a few in Colorado," he said.
He also said supporters are confident the state level change will "percolate up to the federal government" and lead to better national policies in the near future.
University of Denver constitutional law professor Sam Kamin said the vote in Colorado and a similar one Tuesday in Washington "goes beyond what happened in the other marijuana states."
Larger Colorado cities such as Denver already have a medical-marijuana program. But Kamin suggests that system is not setup to handle the expected change.
"To go from an industry that serves at most a 120,000 people to one that serves millions plus tourists, plus people driving across the border, it really is going to be something different," he said.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
Ct8GwQ3v75iSOeX2
|
politics
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/13/trump-massacre-church-fake-news-parody-video-shown/
|
Trump campaign denies showing massacre in 'Church of Fake News' parody video at Doral
|
2019-10-13
|
WASHINGTON — A graphically violent parody video , shown at a meeting of President Trump ’ s supporters at his Miami resort , depicted a likeness of the president shooting and stabbing his opponents and members of the news media in a church , The New York Times reported Sunday .
In the video , Trump ’ s critics and media members are portrayed as parishioners fleeing his gruesome rampage . The fake Trump strikes the late Sen. John McCain in the neck , hits and stabs TV personality Rosie O ’ Donnell in the face , lights Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ head on fire and shoots or otherwise assaults people whose faces are replaced with news organization logos .
The video was shown last week at an American Priority conference at Trump ’ s Doral Miami resort , the newspaper said . Trump was not there . Event organizer Alex Phillips told The Times the video was played as part of a “ meme exhibit ” and was not associated with or endorsed by the conference “ in any official capacity. ” “ American Priority rejects all political violence , ” he said , and is looking into the matter .
The video includes the logo for Trump ’ s 2020 campaign but Tim Murtaugh , spokesman for the reelection organization , told The Times the “ video was not produced by the campaign , and we do not condone violence . ”
The setting for the massacre is the “ Church of Fake News , ” capturing Trump ’ s familiar refrain about news stories and organizations that he considers to be fake news .
In the video , Trump ’ s face is superimposed on a killer ’ s body as he shoots people in the face and otherwise assaults them . Among the targets : former President Barack Obama , Black Lives Matter , Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters , Bill and Hillary Clinton and Rep. Adam B. Schiff , who as Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is leading the impeachment inquiry of Trump .
CNN , The Washington Post , BBC , PBS , NBC and Politico are among the news organizations depicted as victims of the fake Trump ’ s violent fury .
|
WASHINGTON — A graphically violent parody video, shown at a meeting of President Trump’s supporters at his Miami resort, depicted a likeness of the president shooting and stabbing his opponents and members of the news media in a church, The New York Times reported Sunday.
In the video, Trump’s critics and media members are portrayed as parishioners fleeing his gruesome rampage. The fake Trump strikes the late Sen. John McCain in the neck, hits and stabs TV personality Rosie O’Donnell in the face, lights Sen. Bernie Sanders’ head on fire and shoots or otherwise assaults people whose faces are replaced with news organization logos.
The video was shown last week at an American Priority conference at Trump’s Doral Miami resort, the newspaper said. Trump was not there. Event organizer Alex Phillips told The Times the video was played as part of a “meme exhibit” and was not associated with or endorsed by the conference “in any official capacity.” “American Priority rejects all political violence,” he said, and is looking into the matter.
The video includes the logo for Trump’s 2020 campaign but Tim Murtaugh, spokesman for the reelection organization, told The Times the “video was not produced by the campaign, and we do not condone violence.”
The setting for the massacre is the “Church of Fake News,” capturing Trump’s familiar refrain about news stories and organizations that he considers to be fake news.
In the video, Trump’s face is superimposed on a killer’s body as he shoots people in the face and otherwise assaults them. Among the targets: former President Barack Obama, Black Lives Matter, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Rep. Adam B. Schiff, who as Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is leading the impeachment inquiry of Trump.
CNN, The Washington Post, BBC, PBS, NBC and Politico are among the news organizations depicted as victims of the fake Trump’s violent fury.
The White House declined immediate comment.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters Manage Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
WIJ5NFkfnDDZzLog
|
|
politics
|
USA TODAY
| 11
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2017/01/13/tv-host-steve-harvey-explains-his-meeting-donald-trump/96555588/
|
TV host Steve Harvey explains his meeting with Donald Trump
|
2017-01-13
|
TV host Steve Harvey was the latest celebrity to drop in for a meeting at Trump Tower on Friday . And now he 's explaining what it was all about .
`` Our president ( Obama ) asked that all of us sit down and talk to one another in order to move our country forward , '' the host of Family Feud and The Steve Harvey Show noted in a statement posted to Twitter . `` The transition teams on both sides asked me to meet and I 'm glad I did . ''
Harvey said that Trump `` immediately got ( HUD secretary nominee ) Dr. Ben Carson on the phone to begin dialog in looking for programs and housing to help our inner cities . '' He added that the president-elect `` seems very open to my mentoring efforts across the country . ''
He added , `` I walked away feeling like I had just talked with a man who genuinely wants to make a difference in this area . I feel that something really great could come out of this . ''
Harvey , who has been weathering a blowback over racial comments about Asian men on his talk show , told reporters after the meeting , “ They 're kind of beating me up on the Internet right now for no reason , but that 's life , isn ’ t it ? ” ( That situation is not likely to improve dramatically after Friday 's meeting . )
Kanye says he met with Trump to discuss 'multicultural issues '
Meanwhile , Carson appeared before the Senate Banking , Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on Thursday . Like many of Trump 's cabinet picks , he 's been critical of the agency he hopes to lead .
“ These government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality create consequences that often make matters worse , '' Carson wrote in a 2015 Washington Times op-ed . `` There are reasonable ways to use housing policy to enhance the opportunities available to lower-income citizens , but based on the history of failed socialist experiments in this country , entrusting the government to get it right can prove downright dangerous . ”
The 65-year-old rose from an impoverished youth in Detroit to attend Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School , lead the pediatric neurosurgery department at John Hopkins University and later contend for the Republican presidential nomination .
After Trump won the election , Carson demurred when initially asked about a possible cabinet post , citing his lack of experience in government or running a federal agency .
When probed by Ohio 's Sen. Sherrod Brown , Carson explained , “ My philosophy is that we can increase people ’ s minimum wages by increasing opportunities for them and creating an environment where those opportunities exist rather than artificially trying to change it . ”
When Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . ) asked if Carson could assure her that Trump 's real-estate businesses would not profit from HUD projects , he argued , “ If there happens to be an extraordinarily good program that ’ s working for millions of people and it turns out that someone that you ’ re targeting is going to gain $ 10 from it , am I going to say ‘ no , ' the rest of Americans can ’ t have it ? ”
|
Jayme Deerwester
USA TODAY
TV host Steve Harvey was the latest celebrity to drop in for a meeting at Trump Tower on Friday. And now he's explaining what it was all about.
"Our president (Obama) asked that all of us sit down and talk to one another in order to move our country forward," the host of Family Feud and The Steve Harvey Show noted in a statement posted to Twitter. "The transition teams on both sides asked me to meet and I'm glad I did."
Harvey said that Trump "immediately got (HUD secretary nominee) Dr. Ben Carson on the phone to begin dialog in looking for programs and housing to help our inner cities." He added that the president-elect "seems very open to my mentoring efforts across the country."
He added, "I walked away feeling like I had just talked with a man who genuinely wants to make a difference in this area. I feel that something really great could come out of this."
Harvey's bottom line? "I would sit with him anytime."
Harvey, who has been weathering a blowback over racial comments about Asian men on his talk show, told reporters after the meeting, “They're kind of beating me up on the Internet right now for no reason, but that's life, isn’t it?” (That situation is not likely to improve dramatically after Friday's meeting.)
Kanye says he met with Trump to discuss 'multicultural issues'
Meanwhile, Carson appeared before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee on Thursday. Like many of Trump's cabinet picks, he's been critical of the agency he hopes to lead.
Carson: Can't promise HUD programs won't benefit Trump
“These government-engineered attempts to legislate racial equality create consequences that often make matters worse," Carson wrote in a 2015 Washington Times op-ed. "There are reasonable ways to use housing policy to enhance the opportunities available to lower-income citizens, but based on the history of failed socialist experiments in this country, entrusting the government to get it right can prove downright dangerous.”
The 65-year-old rose from an impoverished youth in Detroit to attend Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, lead the pediatric neurosurgery department at John Hopkins University and later contend for the Republican presidential nomination.
After Trump won the election, Carson demurred when initially asked about a possible cabinet post, citing his lack of experience in government or running a federal agency.
When probed by Ohio's Sen. Sherrod Brown, Carson explained,“My philosophy is that we can increase people’s minimum wages by increasing opportunities for them and creating an environment where those opportunities exist rather than artificially trying to change it.”
When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked if Carson could assure her that Trump's real-estate businesses would not profit from HUD projects, he argued, “If there happens to be an extraordinarily good program that’s working for millions of people and it turns out that someone that you’re targeting is going to gain $10 from it, am I going to say ‘no,' the rest of Americans can’t have it?”
|
www.usatoday.com
| 2center
|
sEK2BE6PR84WezgG
|
|
fiscal_cliff
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84207.html?hp=t1
|
Fiscal cliff: Will they jump?
|
2012-11-25
|
Seung Min Kim
|
Led by Patty Murray , progressives on Capitol Hill are already drawing their line . Fiscal cliff : Will liberals jump ?
A growing bloc of emboldened liberals say they ’ re not afraid to watch defense spending get gouged and taxes go up on every American if a budget deal doesn ’ t satisfy their priorities .
Here ’ s what these progressives fear : an agreement that keeps lower tax rates for the wealthy , hits the social safety net with unpalatable cuts and leaves Pentagon spending unscathed . In other words , they ’ d rather walk the country off the cliff than watch President Barack Obama cave on long-held liberal priorities .
“ If the Republicans can ’ t see their way to significant additional revenues targeted toward the people who are best off and targeted toward passive income and other things like that , then we ’ re better off going over the cliff and readdressing this with a better Congress in January , ” Rep. Peter DeFazio ( D-Ore. ) said . “ And we would have plenty of time to fix it . ”
Bolstering the Democrats ’ strategy is the belief that the “ fiscal cliff ” is actually shaped more like a “ slope ” where the economic effects will be felt gradually , not immediately . That theory gives Congress some time at the beginning of 2013 to set tax rates and configure budget cuts in a different political environment and with a new class of lawmakers .
But underlying the tough talk is also a sense of liberal angst — the left feels like it was burned by the last extension of the Bush tax rates and didn ’ t get much of what it wanted in the 2011 debt-limit deal .
If tax rates snap back to the higher levels from the 1990s and painful budget cuts start to hit the Pentagon , these Democrats — led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray — believe they would wield more leverage over the GOP to enact a budget compromise on their terms . And with a January deal , Republicans would technically avoid violating the no-new-taxes pledge that most of them have signed because they would then be voting to cut taxes .
Republicans would most likely bear most of the public blame if policymakers deadlock . The Pew Research Center found that 53 percent of Americans would fault GOP lawmakers if Washington fails to avert the fiscal cliff ; only 29 percent would point the finger at Obama .
“ This is very , very important that we hang in there to essentially get the revenue component , ” said Rep. Peter Welch ( D-Vt. ) . “ I favor an agreement before Jan. 1 , but I ’ m skeptical that our leadership may be able to reach one . If it ’ s necessary to wait to get a good deal , let ’ s do that . ”
Murray declared in a speech this summer that she would push budget negotiations into 2013 if Republicans don ’ t cave on taxes for the rich . The fourth-ranking Senate Democrat repeated the threat in a Nov. 11 interview on “ This Week . ”
|
Led by Patty Murray, progressives on Capitol Hill are already drawing their line. Fiscal cliff: Will liberals jump?
Call them the cliff jumpers.
A growing bloc of emboldened liberals say they’re not afraid to watch defense spending get gouged and taxes go up on every American if a budget deal doesn’t satisfy their priorities.
Story Continued Below
( PHOTOS: Fiscal cliff's key players)
Here’s what these progressives fear: an agreement that keeps lower tax rates for the wealthy, hits the social safety net with unpalatable cuts and leaves Pentagon spending unscathed. In other words, they’d rather walk the country off the cliff than watch President Barack Obama cave on long-held liberal priorities.
“If the Republicans can’t see their way to significant additional revenues targeted toward the people who are best off and targeted toward passive income and other things like that, then we’re better off going over the cliff and readdressing this with a better Congress in January,” Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said. “And we would have plenty of time to fix it.”
( Also on POLITICO: Full coverage of the fiscal cliff)
Bolstering the Democrats’ strategy is the belief that the “fiscal cliff” is actually shaped more like a “slope” where the economic effects will be felt gradually, not immediately. That theory gives Congress some time at the beginning of 2013 to set tax rates and configure budget cuts in a different political environment and with a new class of lawmakers.
But underlying the tough talk is also a sense of liberal angst — the left feels like it was burned by the last extension of the Bush tax rates and didn’t get much of what it wanted in the 2011 debt-limit deal.
( Also on POLITICO: Supercommittee cautiously optimistic)
If tax rates snap back to the higher levels from the 1990s and painful budget cuts start to hit the Pentagon, these Democrats — led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray — believe they would wield more leverage over the GOP to enact a budget compromise on their terms. And with a January deal, Republicans would technically avoid violating the no-new-taxes pledge that most of them have signed because they would then be voting to cut taxes.
Republicans would most likely bear most of the public blame if policymakers deadlock. The Pew Research Center found that 53 percent of Americans would fault GOP lawmakers if Washington fails to avert the fiscal cliff; only 29 percent would point the finger at Obama.
“This is very, very important that we hang in there to essentially get the revenue component,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “I favor an agreement before Jan. 1, but I’m skeptical that our leadership may be able to reach one. If it’s necessary to wait to get a good deal, let’s do that.”
Murray declared in a speech this summer that she would push budget negotiations into 2013 if Republicans don’t cave on taxes for the rich. The fourth-ranking Senate Democrat repeated the threat in a Nov. 11 interview on “This Week.”
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
I1Q6wsPxAxrYvHMb
|
fiscal_cliff
|
NPR Online News
| 11
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/28/166104348/in-fiscal-cliff-pr-war-obama-seeks-help-from-a-public-already-leaning-his-way
|
In Fiscal Cliff PR War, Obama Seeks Help From A Public Already Leaning His Way
|
2012-11-28
|
Frank James
|
In Fiscal Cliff PR War , Obama Seeks Help From A Public Already Leaning His Way
In Washington 's latest game of chicken , President Obama is counting on voters who see things his way to give him the edge in his quest to get congressional Republicans to accept tax increases on the nation 's wealthiest as part of any fiscal cliff deal .
To energize those voters , the president is ramping up a series of campaign-style events meant to educate the public about the stakes , as he sees them , of letting the Bush-era tax cuts for middle-class Americans expire if no agreement is reached by year 's end .
It 's all about raising the pressure on Republican lawmakers enough , especially those in the House , so that at least some will soften their opposition to tax increases for families earning more than $ 250,000 . Whether the president 's tactic will work remains to be seen .
On Wednesday , Obama added a twist to the White House campaign for public support . He urged voters to use social media to express themselves to members of Congress .
At a White House event with a group of everyday Americans serving as a backdrop , Obama even supplied supporters with a new Twitter hashtag for their messages : # my2k . The hashtag incorporated the president 's argument that an average middle-class family would have to pay an additional $ 2,200 in federal income taxes if no agreement is reached .
`` Call your members of Congress , write them an email , post it on their Facebook walls , '' Obama told his audience . `` You can tweet it using the hashtag 'My2K ' `` Not 'Y2K [ laughter ] . ' 'My2K . ' We figured that would make it a little easier to remember . ''
For Obama , the hashtag-slinging public relations effort was the 2012 version of a president 's traditional White House bully pulpit to further his agenda . It was also an attempt to tap into the energy of the president 's supporters , who gave him the opportunity of a second term .
To a significant extent , Obama would seem to have an easier PR task than congressional Republicans . According to Election Day exit polls , a majority of voters agree with him that taxes should be increased on the wealthiest Americans .
As Obama has repeated since his re-election , the issue of higher taxes on the wealthy was exhaustively debated during his campaign against Republican Mitt Romney — and the president 's side won .
Because of that , even a political scientist who has become well known in the field for persuasively arguing that the power of the bully pulpit is overrated gives Obama the edge in the message war with Republicans .
`` The public favors resolving the fiscal cliff problem in general and by raising tax rates on the wealthy in particular , '' George C. Edwards III of Texas A & M University wrote in an email response to a question . `` So the president does not have to persuade the public on these points . He just has to make pre-existing views more salient to members of Congress . This is an example of a president exploiting an opportunity in his environment without having to create one by changing people 's minds . ''
Obama was clearly counting on a repeat of earlier moments of his presidency , when public pressure caused House Republicans to accept an extension of the payroll tax holiday , among other proposals aimed at helping middle-income Americans .
`` Some of you may remember that a year ago , during our last big fight to protect middle-class families , tens of thousands of working Americans called and tweeted and emailed their representatives , asking them to do the right thing . `` And sure enough , it worked . The same thing happened earlier this year when college students across the country stood up and demanded that Congress keep rates low on their student loans . Congress got the message loud and clear , and they made sure that interest rates on student loans did not go up . ''
But as of Wednesday , while some Republicans , like Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma , indicated a willingness to consider Obama 's proposal , most of the GOP was n't talking about raising tax rates for the wealthy . Instead , they placed their emphasis on spending cuts .
At his own news conference Wednesday , House Speaker John Boehner , R-Ohio , said :
|
In Fiscal Cliff PR War, Obama Seeks Help From A Public Already Leaning His Way
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
In Washington's latest game of chicken, President Obama is counting on voters who see things his way to give him the edge in his quest to get congressional Republicans to accept tax increases on the nation's wealthiest as part of any fiscal cliff deal.
To energize those voters, the president is ramping up a series of campaign-style events meant to educate the public about the stakes, as he sees them, of letting the Bush-era tax cuts for middle-class Americans expire if no agreement is reached by year's end.
It's all about raising the pressure on Republican lawmakers enough, especially those in the House, so that at least some will soften their opposition to tax increases for families earning more than $250,000. Whether the president's tactic will work remains to be seen.
On Wednesday, Obama added a twist to the White House campaign for public support. He urged voters to use social media to express themselves to members of Congress.
At a White House event with a group of everyday Americans serving as a backdrop, Obama even supplied supporters with a new Twitter hashtag for their messages: #my2k. The hashtag incorporated the president's argument that an average middle-class family would have to pay an additional $2,200 in federal income taxes if no agreement is reached.
"Call your members of Congress, write them an email, post it on their Facebook walls," Obama told his audience. "You can tweet it using the hashtag 'My2K' " Not 'Y2K [laughter].' 'My2K.' We figured that would make it a little easier to remember."
For Obama, the hashtag-slinging public relations effort was the 2012 version of a president's traditional White House bully pulpit to further his agenda. It was also an attempt to tap into the energy of the president's supporters, who gave him the opportunity of a second term.
To a significant extent, Obama would seem to have an easier PR task than congressional Republicans. According to Election Day exit polls, a majority of voters agree with him that taxes should be increased on the wealthiest Americans.
As Obama has repeated since his re-election, the issue of higher taxes on the wealthy was exhaustively debated during his campaign against Republican Mitt Romney — and the president's side won.
Because of that, even a political scientist who has become well known in the field for persuasively arguing that the power of the bully pulpit is overrated gives Obama the edge in the message war with Republicans.
"The public favors resolving the fiscal cliff problem in general and by raising tax rates on the wealthy in particular," George C. Edwards III of Texas A&M University wrote in an email response to a question. "So the president does not have to persuade the public on these points. He just has to make pre-existing views more salient to members of Congress. This is an example of a president exploiting an opportunity in his environment without having to create one by changing people's minds."
Obama was clearly counting on a repeat of earlier moments of his presidency, when public pressure caused House Republicans to accept an extension of the payroll tax holiday, among other proposals aimed at helping middle-income Americans.
Obama said Wednesday:
"Some of you may remember that a year ago, during our last big fight to protect middle-class families, tens of thousands of working Americans called and tweeted and emailed their representatives, asking them to do the right thing. "And sure enough, it worked. The same thing happened earlier this year when college students across the country stood up and demanded that Congress keep rates low on their student loans. Congress got the message loud and clear, and they made sure that interest rates on student loans did not go up."
But as of Wednesday, while some Republicans, like Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, indicated a willingness to consider Obama's proposal, most of the GOP wasn't talking about raising tax rates for the wealthy. Instead, they placed their emphasis on spending cuts.
At his own news conference Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said:
|
www.npr.org
| 2center
|
TAUSrcA536ufJYFD
|
republican_party
|
Politico
| 00
|
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/donald-trump-2016-third-party-bid-213449
|
Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?
|
2015-12-20
|
Alexandra Glorioso, Jeff Greenfield
|
Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author .
Donald Trump may have eased some Republican fears Tuesday night when he declared his intention to stay inside the party . But if their angst has been temporarily eased at the prospect of what he would do if he loses , they still face a far more troubling , and increasingly plausible , question .
With Trump as its standard-bearer , the GOP would suddenly be asked to rally around a candidate who has been called by his once and former primary foes “ a cancer on conservatism , ” “ unhinged , ” “ a drunk driver … helping the enemy. ” A prominent conservative national security expert , Max Boot , has flatly labeled him “ a fascist. ” And the rhetoric is even stronger in private conversations I ’ ve had recently with Republicans of moderate and conservative stripes .
This is not the usual rhetoric of intraparty battles , the kind of thing that gets resolved in handshakes under the convention banners . These are stake-in-the-ground positions , strongly suggesting that a Trump nomination would create a fissure within the party as deep and indivisible as any in American political history , driven both by ideology and by questions of personal character .
Indeed , it would be a fissure so deep that , if the operatives I talked with are right , Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves .
That threat , in turn , would leave Republican candidates , contributors and foot soldiers with painful choices . A look at the political landscape , the election rules and the history of intraparty insurgencies suggests that it could turn 2016 , a year that offered Republicans a reasonable chance to win the White House and with it total control of the national political apparatus , into a disaster .
With Trump as the nominee , the Republican Party would face a threat to unity on several fronts . His victory would represent a triumph of an insurgent movement , or impulse , within the party . Historically speaking , this is exactly the kind of intraparty victory that guarantees political civil war .
The most striking examples of party fissure in American politics have come when a party broke with a long pattern of accommodating different factions and moved decisively toward one side . It has happened with the Democrats twice , both over civil rights . The party had long embraced the cause of civil rights in the North while welcoming segregationists—and white supremacists—from across the South . In 1948 , the party ’ s embrace of a stronger civil rights plank led Southern delegations to walk out of the convention . That year , South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond led a National States Rights Democratic Party—the “ Dixiecrats ” —that won four Southern states . Had President Harry Truman not ( barely ) defeated Tom Dewey in Ohio and California , the Electoral College would have been deadlocked—and the choice thrown into the House of Representatives , with Southern segregationists holding the balance of power . Twenty years later , Alabama Governor George Wallace led a similar anti-civil-rights third party movement that won five Southern states . A relatively small shift of voters in California would have deadlocked that election and thrown it to the House of Representatives .
In two other cases , a dramatic shift in intraparty power led to significant defections on the losing side . In 1964 , when Republican conservatives succeeded in nominating a divisive champion of their cause in Barry Goldwater , liberal Republicans ( there were such things back then ) like New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller , Michigan Governor George Romney and others refused to endorse the nominee . More shockingly , the New York Herald-Tribune , the semi-official voice of the GOP establishment , endorsed Lyndon Johnson—the first Democrat it had supported , ever . With his party split , Goldwater went down in flames . Eight years later , when a deeply divided Democratic Party nominated anti-war hero George McGovern , George Meany led the AFL-CIO to a position of neutrality between McGovern and Richard Nixon—the first time labor had refused to back a Democrat for president . Prominent Democrats like former Texas Governor John Connally openly backed Nixon , while countless others , disempowered by the emergence of “ new Democrats , ” simply sat on their hands . The divided Democrats lost in a landslide .
Would a Trump nomination be another example of such a power shift ? Yes , although not a shift in an ideological sense . It would represent a more radical kind of shift , with power moving from party officials and office-holders to deeply alienated voters and to their media tribunes . ( Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity , Mark Levin , Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have not exactly endorsed Trump , but they have been vocal in defending him and in assailing those who have branded Trump unacceptable . ) It would undermine the thesis of a highly influential book , “ The Party Decides , ” which argues that the preferences of party insiders is still critical to the outcome of a nomination contest . This possibility , in turn , has provoked strong feelings about Trump from some “ old school ” Republicans . Says one self-described “ structural , sycophantic Republican ” who has been involved at high levels of GOP campaigns for decades : “ Hillary would be bad for the country—he ’ d be worse . ”
A battle over ideology or influence , however , explains only one kind of defection from party ranks . The other—one that would hold particular peril for Trump-as-Republican-nominee—arises from a belief that a chosen candidate is simply unfit , by character or temperament , to hold office . And on at least one occasion , a prominent politician sacrificed his electoral chances out of that belief .
In 1986 , former Senator Adlai Stevenson III had every reason to believe he would be following his father 's footsteps into the Illinois governor ’ s mansion . Four years earlier , the Democrat had lost a race for that office by fewer than 5,000 highly disputed votes . But in 1986 , his easy primary win in March was overshadowed by what happened elsewhere on the ballot : Two followers of Lyndon LaRouche , a cultish , conspiracy-minded demagogue , won the Democratic nominations for lieutenant governor and secretary of state . Stevenson was so horrified by the thought of placing LaRouche ’ s acolytes in positions of political power that he bolted the party line , running instead as an independent . He lost decisively . ( Sen. Alan Dixon , who remained on the Democratic line , easily won reelection . )
Republicans faced a similar issue in 1991 , when former Klansman David Duke made it into the gubernatorial runoff in Louisiana . While he proclaimed himself a Republican , he was roundly rejected by the party at every level—the outgoing GOP governor endorsed former Governor Edwin Edwards—and Duke lost overwhelmingly to Edwards . ( It ’ s a campaign best remembered for the bumper sticker touting the ethically challenged Edwards : “ Vote for the crook—it ’ s important . ” )
It ’ s this example that perhaps offers the best parallel to what Trump would face as the nominee . If you want to see the most sulfurous assaults on Trump , don ’ t look to the editorial pages of the New York Times or the comments of MSNBC personalities ; look instead to the most prominent media voices in the conservative world : National Review , The Weekly Standard , Commentary and the columns of George Will and others . In part , they deplore his deviations from the conservative canon ; deviations that former Reagan aide and onetime FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick summarizes this way : “ Many of my colleagues from the Reagan administration would have a hard time pulling the lever for Trump . We weren ’ t just Republicans , we were conservatives . It is very difficult to square any principled theory of conservative governance with much of what Trump says . ''
But it ’ s more , much more than policy that has stirred the ire on the right : It ’ s the vulgarity , the fusion of ignorance and arrogance , the narcissism , the dissembling on matters great and small . The composite portrait of Trump painted by these outlets—leavened only by a grudging acknowledgment that he ’ s touched on legitimate concerns about immigration and terror—makes the idea of handing over the nuclear codes to Trump unsettling . And it makes the idea of embracing him as the alternative to Hillary Clinton somewhere between a reach and a lunge .
What a Trump nomination represents , then , is a victory that leaves significant slices of the party unwilling or unable to accept the outcome . Whether he ’ s seen as an ideological heretic for his views on trade , taxes and government power or as a demagogue whose clownish bluster and casual bigotry make him temperamentally unfit for office , the odds on massive defections are very high .
But what kind of defections ? Based on the folks I ’ ve talked with , it could take different forms . One is a simple , quiet step away from any work on behalf of the top of the ticket . That ’ s what the self-described “ structural , sycophantic Republican ” —will do . While he fervently hopes Trump will meet the fate of past front-runners like [ Rudy ] Giuliani and [ Newt ] Gingrich , he says that in the event of Trump ’ s victory , “ I would put all my heart , soul and energy into saving the Senate . I ’ d work to turn out votes so that [ Kelly ] Ayotte and [ Pat ] Toomey and [ Ron ] Johnson survive . In the end , every Republican , every conservative , knows what a disaster it would be to have Clinton as president . So the key is to make sure the checks and balances were in place . ”
Others , however , can envision much more radical outcomes . Dan Schnur spent a lifetime in the vineyards of the Republican Party , working in the Reagan and Bush presidential campaigns and serving as communications director for the California Republican Party . He ’ s now an independent and heads the Unruh Institute of Politics at USC . He argues “ a Trump nomination would virtually guarantee a third-party campaign from a more traditional Republican candidate . ”
Why a Republican ? The short answer is to save the party over the long term . “ It 's impossible to conceive that Republican leaders would simply forfeit their party to him , ” he says . “ Even without the formal party apparatus , they 'd need to fly their flag behind an alternative , if only to keep the GOP brand somewhat viable for the future . Otherwise , it would be toxic for a long , long time . ”
Romney strategist Stu Stevens , who still believes Trump will fade—indeed , that “ he will not win a single primary ” —nonetheless agrees that a Trump nomination would trigger a “ very strong third-party effort. ” And Rob Stutzman , another veteran of California Republican politics—he helped spearhead the 2003 recall that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Governor ’ s Mansion—foresees a third party emerging , both as a safe harbor for disaffected GOP voters and to help other Republican candidates .
“ I think a third candidate would be very likely on many state ballots , ” he says . “ First of all , I think most GOP voters would want an alternative to vote for out of conscience . But Trump would also be devastating to the party and other GOP candidates . A solid conservative third candidate would give options to senators like Ayotte , Johnson and [ Mark ] Kirk to run with someone else and still be opposed to Hillary . In fact , I think it ’ s plausible such a candidate could beat Trump in many states . ”
Any candidate attempting a third-party bid would confront serious obstacles , such as getting on state ballots late in the election calendar . As for down-ballot campaigns , most state laws prohibit candidates from running on multiple lines ; so a Senate or congressional candidate who wanted to avoid association with Trump would have to abandon the GOP line to re-run with an independent presidential contender . The Stevenson example shows that leaving a major party line is fraught with peril—although the write-in triumph of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010 suggests that it can sometimes succeed .
The very fact that serious political thinkers are contemplating such a possibility demonstrates that when Republicans look at the perils posed by a third-party bid from Donald Trump , they may be looking in the wrong direction . It ’ s not Trump the Defector that could trigger the biggest threat to the party , but Trump the Nominee .
|
Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.
Donald Trump may have eased some Republican fears Tuesday night when he declared his intention to stay inside the party. But if their angst has been temporarily eased at the prospect of what he would do if he loses, they still face a far more troubling, and increasingly plausible, question.
What happens to the party if he wins?
Story Continued Below
With Trump as its standard-bearer, the GOP would suddenly be asked to rally around a candidate who has been called by his once and former primary foes “a cancer on conservatism,” “unhinged,” “a drunk driver … helping the enemy.” A prominent conservative national security expert, Max Boot, has flatly labeled him “a fascist.” And the rhetoric is even stronger in private conversations I’ve had recently with Republicans of moderate and conservative stripes.
This is not the usual rhetoric of intraparty battles, the kind of thing that gets resolved in handshakes under the convention banners. These are stake-in-the-ground positions, strongly suggesting that a Trump nomination would create a fissure within the party as deep and indivisible as any in American political history, driven both by ideology and by questions of personal character.
Indeed, it would be a fissure so deep that, if the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves.
That threat, in turn, would leave Republican candidates, contributors and foot soldiers with painful choices. A look at the political landscape, the election rules and the history of intraparty insurgencies suggests that it could turn 2016, a year that offered Republicans a reasonable chance to win the White House and with it total control of the national political apparatus, into a disaster.
***
With Trump as the nominee, the Republican Party would face a threat to unity on several fronts. His victory would represent a triumph of an insurgent movement, or impulse, within the party. Historically speaking, this is exactly the kind of intraparty victory that guarantees political civil war.
The most striking examples of party fissure in American politics have come when a party broke with a long pattern of accommodating different factions and moved decisively toward one side. It has happened with the Democrats twice, both over civil rights. The party had long embraced the cause of civil rights in the North while welcoming segregationists—and white supremacists—from across the South. In 1948, the party’s embrace of a stronger civil rights plank led Southern delegations to walk out of the convention. That year, South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond led a National States Rights Democratic Party—the “Dixiecrats”—that won four Southern states. Had President Harry Truman not (barely) defeated Tom Dewey in Ohio and California, the Electoral College would have been deadlocked—and the choice thrown into the House of Representatives, with Southern segregationists holding the balance of power. Twenty years later, Alabama Governor George Wallace led a similar anti-civil-rights third party movement that won five Southern states. A relatively small shift of voters in California would have deadlocked that election and thrown it to the House of Representatives.
In two other cases, a dramatic shift in intraparty power led to significant defections on the losing side. In 1964, when Republican conservatives succeeded in nominating a divisive champion of their cause in Barry Goldwater, liberal Republicans (there were such things back then) like New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, Michigan Governor George Romney and others refused to endorse the nominee. More shockingly, the New York Herald-Tribune, the semi-official voice of the GOP establishment, endorsed Lyndon Johnson—the first Democrat it had supported, ever. With his party split, Goldwater went down in flames. Eight years later, when a deeply divided Democratic Party nominated anti-war hero George McGovern, George Meany led the AFL-CIO to a position of neutrality between McGovern and Richard Nixon—the first time labor had refused to back a Democrat for president. Prominent Democrats like former Texas Governor John Connally openly backed Nixon, while countless others, disempowered by the emergence of “new Democrats,” simply sat on their hands. The divided Democrats lost in a landslide.
Would a Trump nomination be another example of such a power shift? Yes, although not a shift in an ideological sense. It would represent a more radical kind of shift, with power moving from party officials and office-holders to deeply alienated voters and to their media tribunes. (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have not exactly endorsed Trump, but they have been vocal in defending him and in assailing those who have branded Trump unacceptable.) It would undermine the thesis of a highly influential book, “The Party Decides,” which argues that the preferences of party insiders is still critical to the outcome of a nomination contest. This possibility, in turn, has provoked strong feelings about Trump from some “old school” Republicans. Says one self-described “structural, sycophantic Republican” who has been involved at high levels of GOP campaigns for decades: “Hillary would be bad for the country—he’d be worse.”
***
A battle over ideology or influence, however, explains only one kind of defection from party ranks. The other—one that would hold particular peril for Trump-as-Republican-nominee—arises from a belief that a chosen candidate is simply unfit, by character or temperament, to hold office. And on at least one occasion, a prominent politician sacrificed his electoral chances out of that belief.
In 1986, former Senator Adlai Stevenson III had every reason to believe he would be following his father's footsteps into the Illinois governor’s mansion. Four years earlier, the Democrat had lost a race for that office by fewer than 5,000 highly disputed votes. But in 1986, his easy primary win in March was overshadowed by what happened elsewhere on the ballot: Two followers of Lyndon LaRouche, a cultish, conspiracy-minded demagogue, won the Democratic nominations for lieutenant governor and secretary of state. Stevenson was so horrified by the thought of placing LaRouche’s acolytes in positions of political power that he bolted the party line, running instead as an independent. He lost decisively. (Sen. Alan Dixon, who remained on the Democratic line, easily won reelection.)
Republicans faced a similar issue in 1991, when former Klansman David Duke made it into the gubernatorial runoff in Louisiana. While he proclaimed himself a Republican, he was roundly rejected by the party at every level—the outgoing GOP governor endorsed former Governor Edwin Edwards—and Duke lost overwhelmingly to Edwards. (It’s a campaign best remembered for the bumper sticker touting the ethically challenged Edwards: “Vote for the crook—it’s important.”)
It’s this example that perhaps offers the best parallel to what Trump would face as the nominee. If you want to see the most sulfurous assaults on Trump, don’t look to the editorial pages of the New York Times or the comments of MSNBC personalities; look instead to the most prominent media voices in the conservative world: National Review, The Weekly Standard, Commentary and the columns of George Will and others. In part, they deplore his deviations from the conservative canon; deviations that former Reagan aide and onetime FCC Chairman Dennis Patrick summarizes this way: “Many of my colleagues from the Reagan administration would have a hard time pulling the lever for Trump. We weren’t just Republicans, we were conservatives. It is very difficult to square any principled theory of conservative governance with much of what Trump says."
But it’s more, much more than policy that has stirred the ire on the right: It’s the vulgarity, the fusion of ignorance and arrogance, the narcissism, the dissembling on matters great and small. The composite portrait of Trump painted by these outlets—leavened only by a grudging acknowledgment that he’s touched on legitimate concerns about immigration and terror—makes the idea of handing over the nuclear codes to Trump unsettling. And it makes the idea of embracing him as the alternative to Hillary Clinton somewhere between a reach and a lunge.
***
What a Trump nomination represents, then, is a victory that leaves significant slices of the party unwilling or unable to accept the outcome. Whether he’s seen as an ideological heretic for his views on trade, taxes and government power or as a demagogue whose clownish bluster and casual bigotry make him temperamentally unfit for office, the odds on massive defections are very high.
But what kind of defections? Based on the folks I’ve talked with, it could take different forms. One is a simple, quiet step away from any work on behalf of the top of the ticket. That’s what the self-described “structural, sycophantic Republican”—will do. While he fervently hopes Trump will meet the fate of past front-runners like [Rudy] Giuliani and [Newt] Gingrich, he says that in the event of Trump’s victory, “I would put all my heart, soul and energy into saving the Senate. I’d work to turn out votes so that [Kelly] Ayotte and [Pat] Toomey and [Ron] Johnson survive. In the end, every Republican, every conservative, knows what a disaster it would be to have Clinton as president. So the key is to make sure the checks and balances were in place.”
Others, however, can envision much more radical outcomes. Dan Schnur spent a lifetime in the vineyards of the Republican Party, working in the Reagan and Bush presidential campaigns and serving as communications director for the California Republican Party. He’s now an independent and heads the Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. He argues “a Trump nomination would virtually guarantee a third-party campaign from a more traditional Republican candidate.”
Why a Republican? The short answer is to save the party over the long term. “It's impossible to conceive that Republican leaders would simply forfeit their party to him,” he says. “Even without the formal party apparatus, they'd need to fly their flag behind an alternative, if only to keep the GOP brand somewhat viable for the future. Otherwise, it would be toxic for a long, long time.”
Romney strategist Stu Stevens, who still believes Trump will fade—indeed, that “he will not win a single primary”—nonetheless agrees that a Trump nomination would trigger a “very strong third-party effort.” And Rob Stutzman, another veteran of California Republican politics—he helped spearhead the 2003 recall that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in the Governor’s Mansion—foresees a third party emerging, both as a safe harbor for disaffected GOP voters and to help other Republican candidates.
“I think a third candidate would be very likely on many state ballots,” he says. “First of all, I think most GOP voters would want an alternative to vote for out of conscience. But Trump would also be devastating to the party and other GOP candidates. A solid conservative third candidate would give options to senators like Ayotte, Johnson and [Mark] Kirk to run with someone else and still be opposed to Hillary. In fact, I think it’s plausible such a candidate could beat Trump in many states.”
Any candidate attempting a third-party bid would confront serious obstacles, such as getting on state ballots late in the election calendar. As for down-ballot campaigns, most state laws prohibit candidates from running on multiple lines; so a Senate or congressional candidate who wanted to avoid association with Trump would have to abandon the GOP line to re-run with an independent presidential contender. The Stevenson example shows that leaving a major party line is fraught with peril—although the write-in triumph of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2010 suggests that it can sometimes succeed.
The very fact that serious political thinkers are contemplating such a possibility demonstrates that when Republicans look at the perils posed by a third-party bid from Donald Trump, they may be looking in the wrong direction. It’s not Trump the Defector that could trigger the biggest threat to the party, but Trump the Nominee.
|
www.politico.com
| 0left
|
sl5l7gGjS3quw7UN
|
elections
|
Fox News
| 22
|
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/10/05/another-debate-another-biased-moderator-quijano-dumps-on-trump-pence.html
|
Another debate, another biased moderator: Quijano dumps on Trump, Pence
|
2016-10-05
|
Dan Gainor
|
We ’ ve been here before . The alarm clock sounds and it ’ s another biased debate presided over by the supposed “ neutral ” media . Yes , it was a “ Groundhog Day ” debate Tuesday night at Longwood University . That ’ s where CBS anchor and debate moderator Elaine Quijano did her best Lester Holt impersonation ( or was it Candy Crowley or maybe CNBC ) – throwing hard questions mostly at Republican Gov . Mike Pence and allowing Sen. Tim Kaine to interrupt at will .
Quijano turned left from the very first question – citing 1988 liberal , Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen ’ s comment about the responsibility of being vice president . She recalled that he said , “ if tragedy should occur , the vice president has to step in without any margin for error. ” That set the stage perfectly and signaled viewers that the debate was to be seen consistently from the left . And Quijano didn ’ t disappoint .
By a factor of 8-to-1 , Quijano peppered Pence with tough question after tough question . She reserved just one for Kaine .
For conservatives , it was like Groundhog Day . If viewers saw their shadow , that will mean slightly more than one month more of the most-biased media election in human history .
By a factor of 8-to-1 , Quijano peppered Pence with tough question after tough question . She reserved just one for Kaine .
Quijano started out fine , asking Kaine how he , “ praised Secretary Clinton 's character , including her commitment to public service , yet 60 percent of voters do n't think she 's trustworthy . Why do so many people distrust her ? Is it because they have questions about her emails and the Clinton Foundation ? ”
But that was it . Conservatives got their moment and the rest of the debate was either Kaine or Quijano taking turns trying to interrupt Pence .
Even The New York Times admitted she took sides : “ Elaine Quijano , the moderator , helped Mr. Kaine along , opening one question with a recitation of Mr. Trump ’ s statements . ”
Of course , the Times also deleted that quote later in the evening and eliminated any reference to the moderator in the story .
Thanks to the helpful site NewsDiffs , it ’ s clear how Times editors whitewashed their own reporting . The story sits ironically under the headline : “ Vice-Presidential Debate : What You Missed . ”
It didn ’ t matter . Nothing Quijano did broke Pence ’ s rhythm . The result ? Many in the media are admitting Pence won . For now .
It was so obvious , that Team Trump posted the comments with links back to the originals . They included fun tidbits such as Times campaign reporter Michael Barbaro : “ 9:18 and Pence is dominating this debate . ”
Or The Washington Post ’ s Chris Cillizza : “ Mike Pence direct to camera and conversational = winnng [ sic , but , hey , it ’ s Twitter ] . ” He also listed Pence among the debate ’ s “ winners . ”
Even MSNBC ’ s thrill-up-my-leg guy , Chris Matthews , said Pence was “ eloquent , ” “ excellent ” and “ looked like a grown-up . ”
Not that it will matter either . CNN ’ s Jake Tapper already showed where the media would go post-debate , keying in on Kaine ’ s allegation that Pence couldn ’ t defend his “ running mate ’ s position. ” “ I wonder what the media coverage is going to be like over the next day or two . …The night goes to Pence , but I don ’ t know about the week , ” said Tapper , alluding to the media that will follow .
Tapper understated the case . We all know what the mainstream media will do . At least he admitted it .
Not every media outlet gave the night to Pence . Left-wing Fusion ’ s Twitter feed was hilariously biased . Univision owns Fusion and it ’ s the same network that brings Hispanics a one-sided view of almost everything via anchor Jorge Ramos . Ramos is too adult to be the one handling Fusion ’ s juvenile Twitter account , but it was just as biased – more than 30 tweets pushing Kaine or attacking Trump/Pence . Just 10 gave Pence ’ s message .
The running comments during the debate were almost laughably childish . When Kaine talked about protecting Social Security , Fusion ran a gif ( a couple-second video ) showing the “ Golden Girls ” celebrating . When he accused Trump of loving dictators , Fusion posted another gif with the line “ OOOOOH…BURN ! ” Pence was accused of “ Subtle sexism ” for referring to “ broad-shouldered leadership ” and we learned “ Tim Kaine schools Mike Pence on Trump 's Putin ties . ”
While Quijano allowed Kaine to make Pence look calm and quiet , she also had the occasional good line . “ The people at home can not understand either one of you when you speak over each other I would please ask you to wait until it is the other is finished , ” she chided . Of course , she then allowed Kaine to interrupt Pence another billion or so times . ( The actual tally of debate interruptions promises to be entertaining and slightly less than a billion or so . )
Last debate , Holt gained mainstream media plaudits for his anti-Trump strategy – pushing the birther issue , harassing Trump about his taxes and pushing Trump about not having “ the look ” to be president . He avoided being Lauered and now so did Quijano .
The third debate on October 9 includes CNN lefty Anderson Cooper as one of the two moderators . Expect to hear “ I Got You Babe ” coming from your clock radio .
|
We’ve been here before. The alarm clock sounds and it’s another biased debate presided over by the supposed “neutral” media. Yes, it was a “Groundhog Day” debate Tuesday night at Longwood University. That’s where CBS anchor and debate moderator Elaine Quijano did her best Lester Holt impersonation (or was it Candy Crowley or maybe CNBC) – throwing hard questions mostly at Republican Gov. Mike Pence and allowing Sen. Tim Kaine to interrupt at will.
Quijano turned left from the very first question – citing 1988 liberal, Democratic vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen’s comment about the responsibility of being vice president. She recalled that he said, “if tragedy should occur, the vice president has to step in without any margin for error.” That set the stage perfectly and signaled viewers that the debate was to be seen consistently from the left. And Quijano didn’t disappoint.
By a factor of 8-to-1, Quijano peppered Pence with tough question after tough question. She reserved just one for Kaine.
For conservatives, it was like Groundhog Day. If viewers saw their shadow, that will mean slightly more than one month more of the most-biased media election in human history.
By a factor of 8-to-1, Quijano peppered Pence with tough question after tough question. She reserved just one for Kaine.
Quijano started out fine, asking Kaine how he, “praised Secretary Clinton's character, including her commitment to public service, yet 60 percent of voters don't think she's trustworthy. Why do so many people distrust her? Is it because they have questions about her emails and the Clinton Foundation?”
But that was it. Conservatives got their moment and the rest of the debate was either Kaine or Quijano taking turns trying to interrupt Pence.
Even The New York Times admitted she took sides: “Elaine Quijano, the moderator, helped Mr. Kaine along, opening one question with a recitation of Mr. Trump’s statements.”
Of course, the Times also deleted that quote later in the evening and eliminated any reference to the moderator in the story.
Thanks to the helpful site NewsDiffs, it’s clear how Times editors whitewashed their own reporting. The story sits ironically under the headline: “Vice-Presidential Debate: What You Missed.”
It didn’t matter. Nothing Quijano did broke Pence’s rhythm. The result? Many in the media are admitting Pence won. For now.
It was so obvious, that Team Trump posted the comments with links back to the originals. They included fun tidbits such as Times campaign reporter Michael Barbaro: “9:18 and Pence is dominating this debate.”
Or The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: “Mike Pence direct to camera and conversational = winnng [sic, but, hey, it’s Twitter].” He also listed Pence among the debate’s “winners.”
Even MSNBC’s thrill-up-my-leg guy, Chris Matthews, said Pence was “eloquent,” “excellent” and “looked like a grown-up.”
Not that it will matter either. CNN’s Jake Tapper already showed where the media would go post-debate, keying in on Kaine’s allegation that Pence couldn’t defend his “running mate’s position.” “I wonder what the media coverage is going to be like over the next day or two. …The night goes to Pence, but I don’t know about the week,” said Tapper, alluding to the media that will follow.
Tapper understated the case. We all know what the mainstream media will do. At least he admitted it.
Not every media outlet gave the night to Pence. Left-wing Fusion’s Twitter feed was hilariously biased. Univision owns Fusion and it’s the same network that brings Hispanics a one-sided view of almost everything via anchor Jorge Ramos. Ramos is too adult to be the one handling Fusion’s juvenile Twitter account, but it was just as biased – more than 30 tweets pushing Kaine or attacking Trump/Pence. Just 10 gave Pence’s message.
The running comments during the debate were almost laughably childish. When Kaine talked about protecting Social Security, Fusion ran a gif (a couple-second video) showing the “Golden Girls” celebrating. When he accused Trump of loving dictators, Fusion posted another gif with the line “OOOOOH…BURN!” Pence was accused of “Subtle sexism” for referring to “broad-shouldered leadership” and we learned “Tim Kaine schools Mike Pence on Trump's Putin ties.”
Four-year-olds tweet with more depth.
While Quijano allowed Kaine to make Pence look calm and quiet, she also had the occasional good line. “The people at home cannot understand either one of you when you speak over each other I would please ask you to wait until it is the other is finished,” she chided. Of course, she then allowed Kaine to interrupt Pence another billion or so times. (The actual tally of debate interruptions promises to be entertaining and slightly less than a billion or so.)
Last debate, Holt gained mainstream media plaudits for his anti-Trump strategy – pushing the birther issue, harassing Trump about his taxes and pushing Trump about not having “the look” to be president. He avoided being Lauered and now so did Quijano.
The third debate on October 9 includes CNN lefty Anderson Cooper as one of the two moderators. Expect to hear “I Got You Babe” coming from your clock radio.
|
www.foxnews.com
| 1right
|
oMlVEJ2hVOXvjRrJ
|
immigration
|
Townhall
| 22
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/01/30/cbo-confirms-obamas-amnesty-will-cost-taxpayer-billions-in-tax-credits-n1950368
|
CBO Confirms Obama's Amnesty Will Cost Billions in Tax Credits
|
2015-01-30
|
Conn Carroll, Matt Vespa, Guy Benson, Julio Rosas
|
President Obama 's unilateral executive amnesty will cost taxpayers $ 10.2 billion in Earned Income and Additional Child tax credits over the next ten years the Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday .
In a letter to Sen. Thad Cochran ( R-MS ) , CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that the House of Representatives Department of Homeland Security funding bill , which would undo both of Obama 's executive amnesty programs ( the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program and the 2014 Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program ) , would decrease on-budget deficits by $ 8.8 billion over ten years thanks largely to billions in tax credit spending cuts .
`` The earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are refundable tax credits , '' the letter reads . `` Refundable tax credits reduce a taxpayer ’ s overall income tax liability ; if the credits exceed the other liability , the excess may be refunded to the taxpayer . Those refunds are classified as outlays in the federal budget . ''
`` JCT estimates that the bulk of the decrease in outlays for refundable credits projected for the 2015–2025 period would be attributable to decreases in earned income tax credits , '' the letter continues . `` H.R . 240 would decrease the amount of earned income tax credits by decreasing the number of people with Social Security numbers , which are required for taxpayers and dependents to qualify for earned income tax credits . ''
In other words , since Obama 's amnesty gives millions of illegal immigrants Social Security numbers , it will cost American taxpayers billions in new spending on those same illegal immigrants .
This CBO letter contradicts Obama 's promise to the American people that illegal immigrants given amnesty under his program would not be offered `` the same benefits that citizens receive . ''
The CBO letter also estimates that amnestied immigrants will pay $ 22 billion in Social Security payroll taxes over the next ten years . But like all Social Security recipients , unless they are deported , amnestied immigrants will eventually be a net drain on the Social Security system , taking out far more in benefits then they paid in .
|
President Obama's unilateral executive amnesty will cost taxpayers $10.2 billion in Earned Income and Additional Child tax credits over the next ten years the Congressional Budget Office estimated Thursday.
In a letter to Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that the House of Representatives Department of Homeland Security funding bill, which would undo both of Obama's executive amnesty programs (the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program and the 2014 Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program), would decrease on-budget deficits by $8.8 billion over ten years thanks largely to billions in tax credit spending cuts.
"The earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are refundable tax credits," the letter reads. "Refundable tax credits reduce a taxpayer’s overall income tax liability; if the credits exceed the other liability, the excess may be refunded to the taxpayer. Those refunds are classified as outlays in the federal budget."
"JCT estimates that the bulk of the decrease in outlays for refundable credits projected for the 2015–2025 period would be attributable to decreases in earned income tax credits," the letter continues. "H.R. 240 would decrease the amount of earned income tax credits by decreasing the number of people with Social Security numbers, which are required for taxpayers and dependents to qualify for earned income tax credits."
In other words, since Obama's amnesty gives millions of illegal immigrants Social Security numbers, it will cost American taxpayers billions in new spending on those same illegal immigrants.
This CBO letter contradicts Obama's promise to the American people that illegal immigrants given amnesty under his program would not be offered "the same benefits that citizens receive."
The CBO letter also estimates that amnestied immigrants will pay $22 billion in Social Security payroll taxes over the next ten years. But like all Social Security recipients, unless they are deported, amnestied immigrants will eventually be a net drain on the Social Security system, taking out far more in benefits then they paid in.
|
www.townhall.com
| 1right
|
SAp453R8ChWON2ZG
|
gun_control_and_gun_rights
|
Washington Times
| 22
|
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/9/pro-gun-voters-put-heat-democratic-senators/
|
Pro-gun voters put heat on Democratic senators
|
2013-03-09
|
HELENA , Mont . — U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has been here before .
Back during the Clinton era , the Democrat faced a choice : support an assault weapons ban urged by a president from his own party and risk angering constituents who cherish their gun rights , or buck his party . He chose the ban , and nearly lost his Senate seat .
Now , as he begins his campaign for a seventh term , Baucus is facing a similar dilemma . For weeks , he has refused to clearly say which way he ’ d vote on an assault weapons ban . When pressed by The Associated Press , he said through a spokeswoman Thursday that he ’ d oppose it .
But that decision alone doesn ’ t settle the issue for his re-election campaign . His opponents are watching closely , eager to pounce as he navigates a series of other gun control proposals , including an expected call for universal background checks .
Baucus ‘ predicament is one that a group of Democrats like him in the West and South are facing . They hail from predominantly rural regions of the country where the Second Amendment is cherished and where Republicans routinely win in presidential elections .
From Montana to Louisiana , these anxious voters have made at least six Democratic senators a little uneasy heading into next year ’ s election season . Both sides are aware that gun-owners ’ rights are taking shape as a campaign issue that could shift the balance of power in the U.S. Senate .
“ Make no mistake — it is a very delicate dance for rural state Democrats , ” said Barrett Kaiser , a Democratic political consultant .
“ I would be stunned if the Montana congressional delegation said anything but ‘ hell no ’ to gun control measures , ” he added .
Part of the concern comes from a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , that would ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips . The plan is a response to calls for new gun restrictions from President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school .
Gun control is a top-agenda item for many Democrats , and they ’ ll need all the votes they can to push changes .
Baucus knows , though , that a gun control vote “ opens the door for whoever challenges him , because Montanans do not want the federal government restricting guns . That is clear as day , ” said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner , who was Mitt Romney ’ s campaign chairman in Montana .
“ It would be a monumental mistake on his part ” to support federal gun control legislation , said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner .
|
HELENA, Mont. — U.S. Sen. Max Baucus has been here before.
Back during the Clinton era, the Democrat faced a choice: support an assault weapons ban urged by a president from his own party and risk angering constituents who cherish their gun rights, or buck his party. He chose the ban, and nearly lost his Senate seat.
Now, as he begins his campaign for a seventh term, Baucus is facing a similar dilemma. For weeks, he has refused to clearly say which way he’d vote on an assault weapons ban. When pressed by The Associated Press, he said through a spokeswoman Thursday that he’d oppose it.
But that decision alone doesn’t settle the issue for his re-election campaign. His opponents are watching closely, eager to pounce as he navigates a series of other gun control proposals, including an expected call for universal background checks.
Baucus‘ predicament is one that a group of Democrats like him in the West and South are facing. They hail from predominantly rural regions of the country where the Second Amendment is cherished and where Republicans routinely win in presidential elections.
From Montana to Louisiana, these anxious voters have made at least six Democratic senators a little uneasy heading into next year’s election season. Both sides are aware that gun-owners’ rights are taking shape as a campaign issue that could shift the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.
“Make no mistake — it is a very delicate dance for rural state Democrats,” said Barrett Kaiser, a Democratic political consultant.
“I would be stunned if the Montana congressional delegation said anything but ‘hell no’ to gun control measures,” he added.
Part of the concern comes from a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would ban assault weapons and high-capacity clips. The plan is a response to calls for new gun restrictions from President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school.
Gun control is a top-agenda item for many Democrats, and they’ll need all the votes they can to push changes.
Baucus knows, though, that a gun control vote “opens the door for whoever challenges him, because Montanans do not want the federal government restricting guns. That is clear as day,” said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner, who was Mitt Romney’s campaign chairman in Montana.
“It would be a monumental mistake on his part” to support federal gun control legislation, said Republican state Rep. Scott Reichner.
Sign up for Daily Newsletters
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.
|
www.washingtontimes.com
| 1right
|
0k2w3cBezAPWcX42
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.