title stringlengths 1 456 ⌀ | text stringlengths 1 143k ⌀ | label class label 2
classes |
|---|---|---|
Protesters Block Le Pen Supporters Trying to Reach Rally | PARIS (AP) — Demonstrators in western France have tried to block buses carrying supporters of presidential candidate Marine Le Pen to a campaign rally. [The incident Sunday in the city of Nantes came after 11 police officers were injured Saturday in skirmishes with activists opposed to Le Pen’s appearance there. No injuries were reported from Sunday’s bus protest. Sebastien Chenu of Le Pen’s National Front party said on BFM television that the protesters were “trying to stop us from delivering our message. We will not back down. ” Critics allege that Le Pen’s campaign is a cover for a racist, worldview. Recent polls suggest she could win the first round of the election, but predict she would lose the ensuing runoff vote. | 0fake |
Mexico says paying for Trump wall 'not part of our vision' | MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico’s foreign minister said on Wednesday the country’s government would not pay for a wall along the U.S. border promised by president-elect Donald Trump. “Paying for a wall is not part of our vision,” foreign minister Claudia Ruiz Massieu told local television. As part of his campaign, Trump vowed that he would build a massive border wall and make Mexico pay for it. Ruiz Massieu said that the government had maintained communication with Trump’s campaign team ever since his visit to Mexico in August. “There has been a fluid, daily communication with different members of the campaign,” she said. | 0fake |
White House vows to fight media 'tooth and nail' over Trump coverage | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House vowed on Sunday to fight the news media “tooth and nail” over what it sees as unfair attacks, with a top adviser saying the Trump administration had presented “alternative facts” to counter low inauguration crowd estimates. On his first full day as president, Trump said he had a “running war” with the media and accused journalists of underestimating the number of people who turned out Friday for his swearing-in. White House officials made clear no truce was on the horizon on Sunday in television interviews that set a much harsher tone in the traditionally adversarial relationship between the White House and the press corps. “The point is not the crowd size. The point is the attacks and the attempt to delegitimize this president in one day. And we’re not going to sit around and take it,” Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on “Fox News Sunday.” The sparring with the media has dominated Trump’s first weekend in office, eclipsing debate over policy and Cabinet appointments. It was the main theme at the Republican president’s first visit to the CIA, at the press secretary’s first media briefing and in senior officials’ first appearances on the Sunday talk shows. Together, they made clear the administration will continue to take an aggressive stance with news organizations covering Trump. “We’re going to fight back tooth and nail every day and twice on Sunday,” Priebus said. He repeated White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s assertions on Saturday that the media manipulated photographs of the National Mall to make the crowds on Friday look smaller than they really were. Aerial photographs showed the crowds were significantly smaller than when Barack Obama took over as president in 2009. The Washington subway system said it had 193,000 riders by 11 a.m. (1600 GMT) on Friday, compared with 513,000 at that time during the 2009 inauguration. Spicer’s categorical assertion that “this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration - period” was widely challenged in media reports citing crowd count experts and was lampooned on social media as well. Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” why the press secretary was uttering provable falsehoods, White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway fired back. “If we are going to keep referring to our press secretary in those types of terms I think that we are going to rethink our relationship here,” she said. Conway responded to criticism that the new administration was focusing on crowds rather than on significant domestic and foreign policy issues by saying: “We feel compelled to go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there.” Priebus and Conway focused on a press pool report that said the bust of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. had been removed from the Oval Office after Trump took office. The report on Friday night was quickly corrected, but Trump called out the reporter by name during a visit to the Central Intelligence Agency on Saturday. Spicer also berated the reporter later in the day. With the Nov. 8 election results shadowed by U.S. intelligence reports of Russian meddling on his behalf, Trump has bristled at reports suggesting his popular support is soft and that the election was not legitimate. Trump, who lost the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes, made no mention of Russia in his first visit to the CIA on Saturday. He praised his nominee to head the agency, Mike Pompeo, and ranted against the “dishonest” media, a favorite target during his presidential campaign. The president accused the media of fabricating his tensions with the U.S. intelligence community, despite his frequent posts on Twitter that derided the agencies. Trump drew criticism from Democrats as well as former CIA Director John Brennan for his remarks at the agency, where he spoke before a memorial wall with stars representing personnel killed in action. “President Trump ought to realize he’s not campaigning anymore. He’s president,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Instead of talking about how many people showed up at his inauguration, he ought to be talking about how many people are going to stay in the middle class and move into the middle class.” | 0fake |
Republicans in state governments plan juggernaut of conservative legislation | Legislators in the 24 states where Republicans now hold total control plan to push a series of aggressive policy initiatives in the coming year aimed at limiting the power of the federal government and rekindling the culture wars.
The unprecedented breadth of the Republican majority — the party now controls 31 governorships and 68 of 98 partisan legislative chambers — all but guarantees a new tide of conservative laws. Republicans plan to launch a fresh assault on the Common Core education standards, press abortion regulations, cut personal and corporate income taxes and take up dozens of measures challenging the power of labor unions and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Before Election Day, the GOP controlled 59 partisan legislative chambers across the country. The increase to 68 gives Republicans six more chambers than their previous record in the modern era, set after special elections in 2011 and 2012.
Republicans also reduced the number of states where Democrats control both the governor’s office and the legislatures from 13 to seven.
Republicans in at least nine states are planning to use their power to pass “right to work” legislation, which would allow employees to opt out of joining a labor union. Twenty-four states already have such laws on the books, and new measures have been or will be proposed in Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, Kentucky, Montana, Pennsylvania and Missouri.
Democrats and union officials warn Republicans against going too far, just a few years after bills targeting public-sector employee unions sparked protests in Wisconsin and Ohio. “These bills have proven time and time again to decrease wages and safety standards in all workplaces,” said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO.
A new round of the culture wars is also inevitable in 2015. Mallory Quigley, a spokeswoman for the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, said she expects that measures to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy will advance in Wisconsin, South Carolina and West Virginia. Missouri, too, is likely to take up some abortion-related bills.
In Tennessee, voters gave the legislature new powers to regulate abortion, and state House Speaker Beth Harwell (R) has said her chamber will take up three measures requiring mandatory counseling, a waiting period and stricter inspections of clinics.
Conservative activists also are targeting Common Core, the national education standards adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia over the past few years. Opposition from parent and community groups has become a hot political issue on the right over the past year, leading three states — Indiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina — to drop out of the program.
Some states will attempt to join those three in leaving the program altogether. Others will try to change testing requirements or prevent the sharing of education data with federal officials. In recent interviews, several Republican governors who support Common Core say they expect debate in their forthcoming legislative sessions.
“The biggest concern and opposition you hear from conservative legislators is, ‘We don’t want Washington dictating curricula,’ ” said Utah state Sen. Curtis Bramble, a Republican.
Republicans also are likely to take up measures diluting the power of the EPA, which has proposed state-by-state targets for reducing carbon emissions. A dozen states have challenged proposed EPA regulations on power plants in federal court.
New Republican governors in states such as Arkansas and Arizona and legislators in North Carolina, North Dakota and elsewhere will prioritize cutting personal or corporate income tax rates. States that have experienced a revenue boom from energy taxes will have to contend with falling receipts as the price of oil declines. Tax revenue in other states is coming in slower than expected, presenting a challenge in many of the 49 states that require balanced annual budgets.
“With the increasing costs of Medicaid and education, balancing the budget is going to be a challenge,” said South Dakota state Sen. Deb Peters (R), who chairs the Appropriations Committee.
But Republicans also caution that they have to use their newfound political power to govern effectively and avoid overreach.
“If [Republicans] go too far, they’re not going to be the speaker and the majority leader two years from now,” said Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), whose party took total control of the state legislature in November. “There’s a very narrow window to demonstrate that they can lead, that we can lead.”
Michael Sargeant, executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said, “Democrats are going to articulate an agenda that’s forward-thinking.” Republicans, especially those considering possible presidential bids, such as Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, “are worried about taking on some of these fights, because [Democratic constituencies] are going to fight back,” he said.
So there will be exceptions to the coming conservative juggernaut. Despite conservative opposition to Obamacare, some Republicans are debating whether and how to accept federal Medicaid expansion. Republican governors of Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, North Carolina and Tennessee have said they will try to persuade their legislators to accept federal funding, while Democratic governors in Montana and Pennsylvania will work with Republican-controlled legislatures in a similar vein.
“We were one of the states that sued on [the Affordable Care Act]. I thought it was both bad policy and I thought it was unconstitutional. The courts said I was wrong,” said Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R), who is advocating a modified expansion plan. “Even though I have serious disagreements with the law, this is the current law. How do we as a state make the best of it?”
Legislators said they are closely watching the Supreme Court, which will decide this year whether health-care subsidies under the ACA are constitutional in states that did not create their own health exchanges. “If the Supreme Court decides the Obamacare subsidies and employer penalties do not apply in states with federal health-care exchanges, then that will generate a huge new discussion in state legislatures,” said Tennessee state Sen. Brian Kelsey (R), who chairs the Judiciary Committee.
Legislators also will debate myriad less-partisan issues that have arisen as technology advances, including cybersecurity policies, regulations on electronic cigarettes and ride-sharing services. And the daunting specter of growing pension liabilities is likely to lead to contentious confrontations amid stretched budgets.
Lawmakers in a handful of states are considering how to regulate and tax the electronic cigarette industry; so far, three states have banned e-cigarettes from smoke-free workplaces, and Minnesota and North Carolina levy taxes on them. The e-cigarette industry, eager to avoid lawsuits and public relations disasters, has encouraged at least some regulations.
Several states are grappling with the rise of ride-sharing services, such as Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. Outgoing Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) is likely to sign a measure regulating the emerging industry, and Uber is negotiating a similar agreement with Nevada regulators.
Some legislatures will debate “right to try” legislation, which would allow people with terminal illnesses access to experimental drugs before those drugs win final approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana and Missouri already have versions of such laws on the books.
And as marijuana legalization takes effect in two more states, in addition to the two where the drug was already legal, legislators in most states are expected to debate a rash of drug law revisions. Pure legalization bills will be introduced in 18 states, while decriminalization bills will be introduced in 15, according to a tally maintained by the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project.
States will lobby the new Republican-led Congress on a handful of issues that impact budgets. A bipartisan group of legislators has urged Congress to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow taxation of online sales, though GOP control in Washington makes passage unlikely. Thirty-nine governors — Democrats and Republicans alike — have encouraged Congress to extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides states about $13 billion for medical coverage for about 8 million children from low-income families. And states want Congress to pass a long-term extension of the Highway Trust Fund, which top Republicans in Washington have said is a priority.
“State legislatures need a long-term funding solution for their transportation infrastructure. If Congress does not act, states will have to look at other funding solutions,” said Mick Bullock, a spokesman for the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.
Mounting budgetary challenges from earlier years will dominate legislative attention in a handful of states. About half of all states are operating at or above their maximum prison capacity, according to corrections experts, putting pressure on legislatures to alleviate crowding. Some states will have to deal with increasingly underfunded pension plans, which could threaten to swamp state budgets over the long term. In Illinois, where the state pension is funded at less than 40 percent, Gov.-elect Bruce Rauner (R) made pension reform a cornerstone of his campaign this year.
The American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative organization that helps Republican legislators coordinate measures among states, supports moving public pensions from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system. ALEC considers Oklahoma, which passed a pension reform bill in 2014, to be the model. | 0fake |
Georgian policeman, three terrorism suspects killed in police operation: state security | TBILISI (Reuters) - One Georgian special forces serviceman and three members of an armed group suspected of terrorism were killed on Wednesday in a police operation against the group on the outskirts of the capital Tbilisi, state security said. Four other police were wounded and one member of the criminal group was arrested during the 20-hour operation at a residential block where the group was thought to be hiding. The operation was launched late on Tuesday and went on through the night into Wednesday. Heavy shooting and explosions were heard throughout Wednesday. Residents of nearby buildings were evacuated. The members of the group are not Georgian citizens and it is assumed they are members of a terrorist organization, state security administration deputy chief Nino Giorgobiani told reporters. She said surveillance of the suspects had been going on for several weeks and that the state security service was working with international counter-terrorism bodies to identify the group s members and their links to criminal networks. Giorgobiani said efforts had been made to persuade the group s members to give themselves up but they had refused to do this. | 0fake |
YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS! CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S Desperate Move To Help Elect Hillary | I wrote AB 2466 because I want to send a message to the nation that California will not stand for discrimination in voting California Gov. Jerry Brown signs bill allowing felons to vote from their jail cells pic.twitter.com/6bhKD4hOZJ FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) September 29, 2016Despite widespread opposition from law enforcement, Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a bill that will allow thousands of felons in county jails to vote in California elections as part of an effort to speed their transition back into society.Through a representative, Brown declined to comment on the bill by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), who said it would reduce the likelihood of convicts committing new crimes. Civic participation can be a critical component of re-entry and has been linked to reduced recidivism, Weber said when the bill was introduced.On Wednesday, Weber said California is setting an example at a time when other state s are trying to limit voting rights. I wrote AB 2466 because I want to send a message to the nation that California will not stand for discrimination in voting, Weber said Wednesday after the bill was signed.Sen. Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) criticized the approval of the legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1.Bates said the new law will undermine the integrity of elections by allowing people in jail to decide close contest. It is very disappointing that felons still serving their sentences behind bars will now be able to vote since Governor Brown failed to veto this really bad bill, Bates said in a statement.Read more: LA Times | 1real |
Family Has Come a Long Way Since Receiving $289 Seven Years Ago - The New York Times | In 2009, Rayshell Byers was an ambitious with dreams of college and law school and a grand plan to pay for it with a modeling career. Seven years later, she is in her second year of college, and law school is in reach. (With a scholarship in hand, modeling is no longer a financial requirement.) In 2009, Curtis Byers was a shy with a halo of hair, an aptitude for science and an allergy to school. Seven years later, the halo has been buzzed short, but the love of science remains and he is aiming for a career in veterinary care. In 2009, the oldest of the three Byers siblings, Daniel, was 17 and a student at Park West High School in Hell’s Kitchen in Manhattan, where he was preparing for a career in cooking. Seven years later, he is a professional cook, with a string of restaurant jobs and catering work on his résumé. His current goal: culinary school (and a way to pay for it). And from her Harlem apartment, Lynette Byers, now 85, keeps an eye on all three — the boys still at home and Rayshell in her second year at Salem College, an ’s university in N. C. That is a little too far for Ms. Byers’s complete comfort, even though Rayshell has provided her with an iPhone to keep in touch via text and FaceTime. “I can text her,” Ms. Byers said, “and if she doesn’t get back to me, I’m right on the phone. ” It was the goals, dreams and hopes of the Byerses that led the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, one of the eight organizations supported by The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, to give them $289 seven years ago — $110 for an electric mixer and baking tins for Daniel, $50 for Rayshell’s application fee to an arts program and $129 for a toolbox for Curtis. Ms. Byers and her sons are not sure where the mixer and toolbox went. “We put it in the bank,” she said. “And it went to good use. ” Strangers still mistake Ms. Byers for her children’s grandmother, which did not bother her in 2009 and does not bother her now. She took in all three as foster babies — they are genetic siblings — and formally adopted them when she was in her 60s, after her own son had grown. “I guess they keep me young,” she said. During a recent interview, it hardly seemed that seven years had passed, except that Ms. Byers’s sons are taller. (Daniel is 6 feet 6 inches, and Curtis is just a few inches shorter.) Daniel gets Rayshell on FaceTime, and the Byerses huddle around on Ms. Byers’s easy chair for a talk that defies both time and distance. Rayshell talks classes: criminal law, psychology, English, professional writing. “You can tell you’re going to be a lawyer,” her mother teases. “You keep talking. ” Daniel pulls out his personal phone, which is filled with photos of dishes he has created: his own spins on baked chicken, rice and cabbage, shrimp Alfredo, a variety of soul food dishes and lots of Mexican food. “I like spicy,” he said. Daniel added that he spends at least three hours a day cooking, even on days when he is not working. And that is fine with Ms. Byers, who is content to let Daniel do the shopping and the cooking, even if he is not as good with the cleaning up. Daniel’s restaurant jobs mean long hours — he sometimes leaves the house at 4 a. m. — and he is trying to save for culinary school. Right now, Ms. Byers said, “It costs too much, and he doesn’t want to go into debt. ” Curtis, then as now, is the quietest, and still does not like to talk about himself unless the subject is his skill at video games. Then he gets very technical in a blur of conversation about the tools he uses, the games he plays and the avatars he employs. “It started when I was young,” he said. “I got into it with the graphics. ” But when talk turns to the future, Curtis grows more serious: “I want to work with animals. ” Financing that education is a problem here, too. The family’s participation in the Neediest Cases campaign looms large in their memories. It goes beyond the money itself. “It made me realize,” Rayshell said, “that I wanted to be in a position where I could be the one to help. ” | 0fake |
Elizabeth Warren: No Plans to Run for President - Breitbart | Is Warren going to run for Pres.? She tells @SavannahGuthrie ”no” then @MLauer reads ”she persisted” quote and. .. pic. twitter. Tuesday on NBC’s “Today,” in an appearance to promote her book “This Fight Is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America’s Middle Class,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( ) dismissed the suggestion her book tour was part of an effort to set the stage for a 2020 bid for the White House. “This — no,” she replied to “Today” Savannah Guthrie. “This is not what I’m doing. This is my 11th book. My life’s work is about what’s happening to working families across this country. ” She maintained her focus was on winning reelection for her U. S. Senate seat. “I am running in 2018 for senator from Massachusetts,” she added. “I am deeply blessed that the people of the commonwealth sent me to Washington to fight for them. And that’s what I’ll keep on doing. ” Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor | 0fake |
New Heavy-Duty Voting Machine Allows Americans To Take Out Frustration On It Before Casting Ballot - The Onion - America's Finest News Source | More Election Coverage New Heavy-Duty Voting Machine Allows Americans To Take Out Frustration On It Before Casting Ballot The new Citadel voting machines can withstand up to 40 voters an hour getting a running start from a dozen yards outside the booth, leaping at full speed, and jump-kicking them directly in the screen. Close The new Citadel voting machines can withstand up to 40 voters an hour getting a running start from a dozen yards outside the booth, leaping at full speed, and jump-kicking them directly in the screen. NEWS November 2, 2016 Vol 52 Issue 43 · Politics · Election 2016
WASHINGTON—Saying the circumstances of this year’s presidential race made the upgrade necessary, election commissions throughout the country were reportedly working to install new heavy-duty voting machines this week that will allow Americans to physically take out their frustrations on the devices before casting their votes.
According to Premier Election Solutions, the manufacturer of the new Citadel electronic voting machine, each unit features an easy-to-navigate interface, keeps accurate and secure tallies of votes, and is constructed with durable Kevlar buttons, a shatter-resistant Plexiglas screen, and a reinforced titanium housing, ensuring the devices are able to endure sustained blunt force trauma from voters’ fists and elbows as well as repeated puncturing attempts from sharp objects wielded by exasperated citizens.
“These new voting machines were designed specifically with the 2016 election in mind and have been engineered to withstand everything the nation’s voters will bring at them on Election Day,” said company spokesperson Stephen Dunn, who also noted that the units’ Teflon coating makes it easy to wipe down all the sweat and saliva that will accumulate on their surface when they are being repeatedly pummeled in fits of anger. “When 18 months of disgust finally culminate inside the nation’s voting booths, these machines will be able to absorb every punch, kick, and knee drop citizens can dish out while still reliably tabulating totals for all local, state, and national races.”
“Like millions of other Americans, I know that I’ll be ready to unload my pent-up rage next Tuesday,” Dunn added. “And our machines will be ready too.”
According to Dunn, the Citadel underwent numerous revisions during testing, as a series of early designs proved incapable of withstanding voters’ increasing level of aggravation as the election progressed. Engineers are said to have quickly pulled their prototypes from preliminary field tests during the Virginia and Minnesota primaries upon learning the device’s original plastic housing was splintering to pieces following sharp headbutts from as few as three successive voters.
Additionally, internal modifications were reportedly made after Super Tuesday to more securely solder the processor and wiring into place so the unit would maintain functionality each time it was thrown to the ground by a red-faced, screaming voter and continuously kicked for 35 minutes straight.
In a later trial during the Wisconsin primary, when the Republican field had been effectively whittled down to just Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Dunn said the design team came up with the idea to attach an aluminum baseball bat to the side of the machine with a steel cord, noting that if they didn’t provide voters with a convenient weapon, they would physically rip the unit’s legs off and beat it with those to the point of exhaustion.
“Our test models were really pushed to their physical limits during the New Jersey primary in June when it was more or less clear that the country would be left with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as its two choices for president,” said Dunn, explaining that the devices had to survive all-out, abusive barrages from every voter who entered their testing precincts in Passaic County. “Thankfully, we had incorporated military-grade armor plating into the machines by that point, which proved able to sustain everything from being repeatedly smashed up against a cinder-block gymnasium wall to being dragged up and then pushed down flights of church basement stairs several times in a row.”
“Of course, that was the night we learned we needed to make the touchscreen bulletproof, though,” Dunn continued.
According to poll workers, excitement about the new machines appears to have increased voter turnout in the general election, with early voting up by as much as 30 percent in states where the units have already been installed, forcing many polling places to institute time limits on how long voters can batter, stomp on, and bite the units in raving bouts of hysterics.
“It was nice to get in there and finally cast my ballot,” said 55-year-old Gordon Mulner, an early voter in Fredericksburg, VA, panting heavily as he wiped away the sheen of sweat from his brow with his raw, bleeding knuckles. “I had to wait in line a little while, but it was worth it. It felt good to make my voice heard.”
“I think I broke my hand,” he added.
At press time, election officials were scrambling to chain the machines to precinct walls, as it became apparent they would need to prevent voters from lugging them into the parking lot and repeatedly backing over them with their cars. Share This Story: Sign up For The Onion's Newsletter
Give your spam filter something to do. Daily Headlines | 1real |
#BlackLivesMatter Supporters Say No Connection To Cop Killers…Why We Beg To Differ | THE COMMON THREAD IN ALL THIS IS HATE THE HATE COMING FROM: Black Lives Matter, Nation Of Islam and New Black Panthers. They all have a common theme of hate for cops and for white people. The shooter today took the life of fathers, sons and husbands .Here s a BLUE LIFE that mattered. In fact, he mattered a LOT. He mattered to his baby boy who was only months old. He mattered to everyone who loved him and to the neighborhoods and communities he courageously patrolled https://twitter.com/CajunKangaroo/status/754769486310506496 Baton Rougue Police Spokesman L Jean McKneely said in the above press conference that it was not clear how the shooting started on Sunday morning. The shooting took place near a B-Quick Convenience Store on Airline Highway, near Old Hammond Highway. One of the shooters was found dead near the story, reports The Advocate. Police used a robot to find out if there was an explosive device inside the store.CNN reports, citing a source close to the investigation, that police were called to the area when there was a report of a suspicious person walking down Airline Highway. The shooting started when police arrived. Shooting was first reported around 8:40 a.m.Baton Rouge Chief Administrative Officer William Daniel told The Advocate that two of the deceased officers were Baton Rouge police officers and the third is an East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff s deputy. HeavySo who will accept responsibility for this horrific act of hate? Will Black Lives Matter supporters who openly chant Pigs In a Blanket Fry Like Bacon assume responsibility? What about our Community Organizer in Chief? What about his lawless AG and the lawless AG before her whose job it is to ensure justice in America, but instead works with Obama to encourage BLM protesters to carry on with their violent protests and disruptions across America And who can forget the ever-popular "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." #BatonRouge https://t.co/d4MKWeSst2 https://t.co/GUJxkJvSiA Elizabeth Alexander (@McSillyson) July 17, 2016Speaking of Community Agitators #BlackLivesMatter chants: "Pigs [cops] in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" But Obama defends BLM. #BatonRouge pic.twitter.com/YnDyxKLA3s Dutch Deacon Blues (@ddeaconblues) July 17, 2016Here s a Twitter user reminding BLM of their now famous chants:Well BLM looks like your chants Pigs in a Blanket Fry Em Like Bacon and What Do We Want? Dead Cops . Appears to be working #BatonRouge YouAreFakeNews (@JeffErick1234) July 17, 2016Here s a Twitter user who takes to Twitter to express his over-the-top hate for our law enforcement:https://twitter.com/SavionWright/status/752021245399412738And then there s this hateful little punk who tweeted this to us:Via: Heavy | 1real |
You Can’t Make This Sh*t Up: Kellyanne Conway Punched A Dude At Inaugural Ball (SCREENSHOTS) | Remember that time Sarah Palin and pretty much her entire family got into a drunken brawl at a snowmobile company owner s birthday party? Well, she s not the only vapid right-wing lady who can throw a punch at random people at a party. Fox Business Network correspondent Charles Gasparino wrote on Facebook Monday that he personally witnessed something, well, something pretty hilarious at a private inaugural ball.Gasparino says he was hanging out with Scott Baio when the two were accosted by anarchist thugs. According to Gasparino, one of the anarchists moved toward them and he assaulted the man, shoving him. After Gasparino shoved him, the man allegedly told the pair touch me again u little prick and I ll smack u you know, because most people don t appreciate being randomly shoved. It is unclear if it was said with the same terrible spelling. Gasparino says he told the man to GFY when his producer intervened and crisis was averted. It is unclear if Gasparino realizes he admitted to assaulting a guy simply for moving in his direction (allegedly), but what he says next is far more interesting:Part two was even more insane: inside the ball we see a fight between two guys in tuxes and then suddenly out of nowhere came trump adviser Kellyanne Conway who began throwing some mean punches at one of the guys. Whole thing lasted a few mins no one was hurt except maybe the dude she smacked. Now I know why trump hired her. Btw I exaggerate none of this-cgLet s get this straight: Conway lost control of her own people, whom she could not keep from duking it out at a major political event celebrating her boss s big win, then decided to join in the fray and just beat the living hell out of one of them.Hell of a team Trump s building, huh?You can read the full post below:Featured image via Getty Images (Mark Wilson) | 1real |
Marco Rubio, Reversing Plans, Is Leaning Toward Running for Senate Again - The New York Times | WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is leaning heavily toward running for to the seat he swore he was giving up after six often frustrating years and a failed presidential run, associates said on Friday, a reversal that would upend one of the most competitive races in the country. Mr. Rubio could make his decision public early next week after he spends the weekend with his family in Florida weighing the personal, political and financial considerations of another campaign. One adviser who described the senator as “all in” said Mr. Rubio’s staff members had already begun scouting a site for a possible announcement. The likelihood of a bid seemed to grow on Friday when one of Mr. Rubio’s potential rivals, Representative David Jolly, suddenly dropped out of the race and said he would seek another term in the House instead. Earlier in the day, Mr. Jolly foreshadowed his move, telling CNN, “Marco is saying he’s getting in. ” Ever restless, strategic and ambitious — and only 45 years old — Mr. Rubio has spent the past few weeks discussing with his friends and colleagues the difficulties he would face maintaining his political profile if he left the Senate. He would like to run for the presidency again, either in 2020 or 2024, and is concerned that his opportunities would be far more limited if he were no longer in office. Mr. Rubio’s desire to get into the race and his reasons for doing so were described by three people inside his political operation, two of whom have spoken with him directly in recent days. All insisted on anonymity because Mr. Rubio had not yet completely made up his mind. A spokesman for Mr. Rubio had no comment. There are some sobering drawbacks, none of which Mr. Rubio is naïve about, these people said. Florida is one of the few states with a true purple political hue, a quintessential swing state in which Democrats and Republicans often win in statewide elections largely depending on the national mood. And like many Republicans who face election on the same ticket as Donald J. Trump, the presumptive presidential nominee, Mr. Rubio is said to be concerned about the possibility that Mr. Trump could drag him down to defeat. Mr. Trump’s poor standing among minorities could be especially problematic in Florida, a state with 1. 8 million registered Hispanic voters, or 15 percent of the state’s total electorate. And it is a group that has become less Cuban and Republican and more Puerto Rican, Mexican and Democratic in recent years. Still, despite his misgivings about Mr. Trump’s politics and temperament, Mr. Rubio has said he will vote for Mr. Trump and speak at the Republican convention in July if asked. Mr. Rubio has personal factors to consider, as well. He has told people that he is eager to spend more time with his four children and that he wants to make enough money to be able to provide for them comfortably well into the future. He had been planning to spend the next few years giving speeches and doing other civic and political work that would allow for that. To help sift through the offers coming in, he retained the Washington lawyer Robert B. Barnett. Mr. Rubio’s thinking has taken a quick and dizzying turn from just last month, when he was still insisting that he had no desire to run again. On May 16, he wrote a sarcastic message on Twitter: “I have only said like 10, 000 times I will be a private citizen in January. ” He has often complained — privately to his colleagues, and publicly when he was a presidential candidate — that the stagnant and highly polarized Senate frustrated him. He lamented the inability to get much done in Congress, saying at one point, “We’re not going to fix America with senators and congressmen,” words that are sure to come back to haunt him in Democratic attack ads if he chooses to run. Mr. Rubio’s critics have said that his distaste for the job could be seen in his absenteeism. Mr. Rubio racked up the worst attendance record in the Senate while he was running for president, another potentially damaging issue for Democrats to use against him. Without Mr. Rubio on the ballot, though, Republicans stand a greater chance of losing the seat to Democrats and jeopardizing their majority in the Senate. He and his aides have carefully set the stage for a possible candidacy. First, he floated the idea on Monday on the radio show of Hugh Hewitt, a respected conservative radio host, saying he had been “deeply impacted” by the massacre at a gay club in Orlando on Sunday. Then, one of Mr. Rubio’s friends and potential rivals in the race, Lt. Gov. Carlos said in an interview that he would bow out if Mr. Rubio wanted to run. But by the time Mr. Rubio stepped in front of a group of reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday to announce that he was reconsidering, the challenges he faces were immediately apparent. Before he could utter a word about himself, he was asked about Mr. Trump. | 0fake |
Ukraine rebel leader says situation in Luhansk is attempted coup | MOSCOW (Reuters) - The presence of armed men in the streets of the capital of Ukraine s breakaway Luhansk region is an attempted coup by a fired local police chief, Igor Plotnitsky, the head of the self-styled Luhansk People s Republic (LNR), said on Wednesday. Plotnitsky sacked Igor Kornet, the local interior minister, on Monday. How else can you call the situation when the person fired by court from his job is attempting to conduct some operations by force? This an attempt to seize power, Plotnitsky s website quoted him as saying during a meeting with reporters. | 0fake |
Charles Osgood to Leave CBS Show ‘Sunday Morning’ After 22 Years - The New York Times | Charles Osgood, whose distinct voice and dapper broadcasting style has made the CBS show “Sunday Morning” a weekly ritual for many viewers, will be leaving at the end of September after 22 years as the program’s anchor. News of his departure comes after months of speculation. On Sunday, Mr. Osgood, who is 83, used a part of the “Sunday Morning” broadcast to tell his viewers that the rumors were true. “For years now, people, even friends and family, have been asking me why I keep doing this, considering my age,” Mr. Osgood said. “I am pushing 84. It’s just that it’s been a joy doing it. ” He added: “It’s been a great run, but after nearly 50 years at CBS, including the last 22 years here on ‘Sunday Morning,’ the time has come, and a date is set for me to do my farewell ‘Sunday Morning. ’” The farewell broadcast will be on Sept. 25. Since he joined the network in 1971, Mr. Osgood had been a reporter and anchor for every broadcast on CBS, according to the network. He took over “Sunday Morning” from Charles Kuralt in 1994. His comforting, almost folksy approach to the news (and trademark bow ties) quickly eliminated any early doubts that he could successfully replace Mr. Kuralt, who had spent 15 years developing the show. With Mr. Osgood in the anchor chair, the program has won three daytime Emmys for outstanding morning program. His voice, velvety and gravelly at once, made him well known to radio, television and movie listeners. In 2008, he was the narrator of the animated film “Horton Hears a Who!” “Charles Osgood has one of the most distinctive voices in broadcasting, guiding each broadcast, making sure the words were just right and being a calming, reassuring presence to our viewers,” David Rhodes, president of CBS News, said in a statement. “His impeccable commitment to quality inspires all of us at CBS News. ” On Sunday, Mr. Osgood assured viewers that they could still find him on the radio. He will contribute to his program “The Osgood File,” where he has been known to read vignettes and poems about the day’s news. He ended his farewell announcement by singing a folk song, written by Woody Guthrie, to his viewers: “So long, it’s been good to know long it’s been good to know long it’s been good to know long time since I’ve been I’ve got to be drifting along. ” | 0fake |
U.S. plans new sanctions for Syria in near future: Treasury's Mnuchin | PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Friday told reporters that he plans to announce additional economic sanctions aimed at Syria in the near future, part of the U.S. response to a poison gas attack that Western countries say was carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “We expect that those (sanctions) will continue to have an important effect on preventing people from doing business with them,” Mnuchin said. “These sanctions are very important and we will use them the maximum effect.” | 0fake |
Dems Plan Summer Camps for Trump Resisters - Breitbart | Although the Democrats have lost so badly in recent elections that Republicans control both Congress and the White House and the majority of governorships across the country, the Democrats aren’t plotting ways to attract voters with ideas and principles. [Instead, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is announcing it will hold summer camps for community organizers, dubbed the Summer Resistance program. “There has been an explosion of activism and energy after the election of Donald Trump, and we need to turn this moment into a movement, DNC chairman Tom Perez is quoted in the press release announcing the plan. “As the Democratic Party, it is our role to support this activism and energy, and convert it into electoral wins the ballot by making sure state parties have the tools and resources they need to succeed. ” To that end, the DNC will pump money in the form of grants into state party programs. “The program is a competitive matching grant program, where the DNC will approve and fund programs that will be executed by state parties,” the press release states. “Recognizing that a approach is ineffective, each grant proposal will be unique to the state’s strategic priorities and organizational capacity. “Part of these plans must incorporate, where legally possible, partners and allies,” the press release states. DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison, who lost the chairmanship to Perez but still got a leadership position on the committee nonetheless, used #Resistance in his remarks about the summer camps. “The best way for Democrats to turn the #Resistance into electoral wins is by doing one thing: organizing,” Ellison said. “Resistance Summer is the starting point and will take the Democratic Party’s message of fairness and equality to activists on the front lines and all Americans looking to get engaged. ” Then Ellison, ironically, names some of the reasons President Donald Trump was elected: “The American people want affordable health care for all, good jobs that pay well, and a tax code that rewards hard work,” Ellison said, adding that Democrats “have never had a better opportunity to win the ballot. ” | 0fake |
Donald Trump’s 2018 Budget Plan Calls for 60 Miles of New Border Wall - Breitbart | President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget plan asks Congress for enough money to build just 60 miles of border wall. [The request for just $1. 6 billion in wall funding is found in the budget document released by the Department of Homeland Security, which describes the agency’s plan for spending its overall 2018 budget of $70. 7 billion. According to the document: A critical element of border security involves building the infrastructure necessary to halt the flow of illegal crossings. The FY 2018 President’s Budget proposes an investment of $2. 7 billion for high priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology, including funding to support planning, design, and construction of the border wall. This funding would allow CBP to construct: In April, 100 days after his inauguration, Trump again promised he would build a wall, despite opposition from Congress, saying: We’ll build the wall. Don’t even think about it. Don’t even think about it. That’s an easy one. We’re going to build a wall. It’s the final element. We need the wall. And it’s a wall, in certain areas where you have massive physical structures, we don’t need, and certain big rivers and all, but we need a wall. And we’re going to get that wall. And the world is getting the message. They know that our borders are no longer open to illegal immigration and that if they try to break in, you’ll be caught and you’ll be returned to your home. You’re not staying any longer. The border is 2000 miles long. Roughly 654 miles of the border has some barrier, ranging from simple barbed wired to a set of tall, layered walls alongside San Diego. According to the Mercury News, “along the existing wall or fence, 36 miles have double fencing with both primary and secondary barriers, and 14 miles have three layers of fencing, according to Customs and Border Protection. The San Diego area is one of the most fortified, with 46 miles of primary fencing and 14 miles of secondary fencing — and enough room to accommodate the road that runs between them. ” Many Democratic and GOP members of Congress are loudly or quietly opposing the planned border wall, which would slow the northward movement of employees and consumers to businesses in cities. But some members of Congress want Trump to build the wall faster. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, for example, released a statement during a May 23 hearing in the Senate, saying: | 0fake |
Выкинуть хлам и жить по фэншуй | Общество » Практика » Как отдохнуть Как изменить жизнь к лучшему с помощью фэншуй? Как организовать домашнее пространство так, чтобы вещи работали на ваше благо? Почему специалисты по фэншуй против стеклянных столов и с осторожностью относятся к зеркалам? В какую сторону света все же лучше спать головой? Секреты фэншуй для Pravda.Ru раскрыла мастер фэншуй Татьяна Мизгирева. 0 комментариев 1 поделились
— Фэншуй — это наука?
— Да, фэншуй - это наука. Но это не наука с точки зрения какой-то западной доказательной базы, это наука с точки зрения восточного взгляда. Разные школы фэншуй, традиции, передачи развивались тысячелетиями - и развивались за счет наблюдений. У каждой из них создалась огромная накопительная статистическая база. То есть, когда что-то одно повторяется десять раз, вы думаете, что в этом есть какая-то закономерность. Но если сто, тысячу раз этот эффект повторился, то это уже можно назвать научной статистикой, но в восточном ключе.
— Давайте рассмотрим домашнее пространство. Начнем с прихожей. Какие ошибки чаще всего делают люди в оформлении своей прихожей? Каких вещей там не должно быть в принципе, а какие вещи или цвета, наоборот, благоприятно влияют на жизнь хозяев этой квартиры?
— Самая частая и распространенная ошибка — это расположение зеркала напротив входной двери, в особенности если прихожая небольшая. Если прихожая огромная и где-то вдали находится зеркало, то это не так страшно. Но если у нас от входной двери до ближайшей стены напротив полтора-два метра и сразу же висит зеркало, то это будет серьезно обесточивать квартиру. Потому что зеркало на сто процентов отталкивает все входящие воздушные потоки, а с ними и жизненно важную энергию Ци, которая приходит вместе с потоками воздуха. Таким образом, квартира обесточивается, и это проявляется в жизни людей, возникают проблемы, такие как трудности в получении работы, новых проектов, невозможность реализовать себя, трудности в общении. Как будто бы пространство стоит спиной к нам, и вся жизнь отвернулась, и все приходит с колоссальным трудом.
Стоит только убрать это зеркало и перевесить его таким образом, чтобы оно перенаправляло вглубь квартиры все эти воздушные потоки, и можно почувствовать сразу же, в течение нескольких дней, что жизнь кардинальным образом поменяется. Как будто все снова повернулось к вам лицом и начинает помогать. Это очень важно.
Еще одна ошибка, которую очень часто можно встретить в прихожих, - это недостаточно яркий свет. Все-таки прихожая — это так называемая "янская зона". Там должна быть сильная активность, и там должен быть яркий свет. Нужно не поскупиться на хорошую лампочку, которая будет все хорошо освещать. Известно, что яркий свет привлекает яркие, сильные энергии.
Также в прихожей надо добавить простора. То есть чем менее заставлена входная зона, тем легче воздушным потокам войти в квартиру и наполнить ее.
Кроме того, хорошо здесь использовать какие-то позитивные красивые символы — то, с чем мы бы хотели отождествляться. Потому что когда мы входим в квартиру, мы видим первый символ, с которым мы отождествляемся. И если мы входим и перед нами, например, находится картина "Иван Грозный убивает своего сына", то это посылает определенные импульсы, это то, чего следовало бы избегать.
— Теперь предлагаю поговорить о гостиной. Это место, где отдыхает вся семья, собирается вечерами, общается, смотрит телевизор. Какие предметы будут благоприятно влиять на людей в гостиной?
— Я бы сказала, что здесь нет какой-то одной общей рекомендации. Это зависит и от того, в какую сторону света смотрит гостиная, и какие люди там живут. Это очень индивидуально. Главное, чтобы это было комфортно для людей.
Другие рекомендации, которые я могла бы дать, - это то, что здесь надо избегать обилия острых углов, которые были бы направлены на диванную группу, или нависающих полок. Мне встречались такие квартиры, где стоит диван и над ним висят тяжелые полки. Конечно, в таком месте особо сильно не расслабишься и не восстановишься, потому что то, что нависает, будет давить и бессознательно вызывать чувство угнетения.
Еще часто в гостиной располагают перед диваном или креслами журнальный столик, на который можно поставить какие-то угощения или еще что-то. И стало очень модным использовать стеклянные столы. Это тоже не очень хорошо, потому что мы знаем, что стеклянная поверхность может разбиться. Поэтому всякий раз, когда мы ставим что-либо на этот стеклянный стол и слышим стеклянный звук, то у нас возникает легкий спазм в теле. И, таким образом, мы не расслабляемся, а продолжаем оставаться в напряжении. А ведь гостиная — это то место, где бы мы хотели отдохнуть. Поэтому я советую либо не использовать такие столы, либо если такой стол уже есть, то можно просто покрыть его непрозрачной скатертью или чем-то еще.
— Довольно часто в магазинах можно встретить небольшие деревца, на которых висят монетки, и считается, что это принесет финансовое благополучие в дом. Некоторые люди считают необходимым в своей гостиной разместить такое дерево. Как оно в действительности будет влиять на жизнь владельцев квартиры?
— Само по себе дерево — это сувенир с монетами. Использование этих сувениров дома и в офисах — это китайское наследие. И, на самом деле, его предназначение в том, чтобы напоминать своему хозяину о его цели, чтобы он активно действовал в направлении достижения своих финансовых задач.
Мы можем расположить такое деревце с монетами рядом с пышным растением. И хорошо будет, если мы поставим рядом, например, декоративный фонтанчик или водопадик, потому что именно эти предметы будут активно создавать энергию. Растения за счет своего роста продуцируют янскую энергию, а фонтанчик создает ее за счет циркуляции воды, что также создает избыток кислорода в этом месте.
И если мы поставим это дерево с монетами, то мы, таким образом, поставим в нашей квартире маркер, что для меня благосостояние — это важно и я хочу, чтобы энергия направилась в этом русле. И тогда, всякий раз видя эту композицию, у нас будет запускаться процесс мышления: "А что же нужно сделать для того, чтобы это благосостояние пришло в мою жизнь?" И оно будет напоминать нам и толкать нас в этом направлении, чтобы мы были более активными в достижении того, что нам нужно в жизни.
— То есть цветы в доме — это хорошо не только с точки зрения насыщения кислородом, но и с точки зрения фэншуй?
— Да, конечно. Тем более, есть даже специальные сектора в комнатах, которые полезны для того, чтобы там были растения, чтобы более активная энергия усиливалась. А такие растения, у которых есть цветущие бутоны, или срезанные цветы в определенных местах усиливают романтическую удачу. И это ценно для тех, кто хочет обрести счастливое партнерство.
— Наверное, все мы хотим, чтобы дома был порядок, но за неимением большого количества свободного времени довольно часто порядок превращается в беспорядок. В результате мы имеем завалы вещей и на стульях, и на открытых полках. Как это влияет на жизнь человека? Это просто некрасиво визуально или это еще способно вызывать какие-то негативные события?
— В каком-то смысле да. Наше внешнее пространство отражает, во-первых, наше внутреннее состояние, и мы это также потом проецируем в мир. То есть если бардак чрезмерный, то он создает и некое хаотичное мышление, и проецируется на наши события в жизни. Живем мы так же хаотично, без какого-то планирования, бесконтрольно. И тут уже все зависит от талантов человека, от того, как он может управляться с этим хаосом в своей жизни.
Еще важно, чтобы предметы, которыми мы пользуемся, были более-менее в движении. То есть какие-то хаотичные завалы, конечно, не хороши, но если еще человек этим не пользуется, и оно просто лежит как груда, то это как тромб. А это значит, что где-то внутри в жизни есть какой-то тромб, потому что внешнее и внутреннее неразделимо, все связано. Поэтому важно, чтобы мы пользовались тем, что у нас есть. Если мы не пользуемся, то, возможно, это просто не нужно, это нужно куда-то переместить, продать, выбросить.
— Давайте перейдем к спальне. Это место, где мы отдыхаем, где мы проводим много часов подряд, когда спим. Очень много споров идет о том, в какую сторону лучше спать головой. Есть какие-то рекомендации?
— Да, конечно, они существуют, но, к сожалению, я не могу дать одного общего совета. Я часто слышу, что головой нужно спать только на север или только на восток. Это абсолютная неправда. Люди индивидуальны, и каждому человеку соответствует несколько благоприятных направлений и несколько неблагоприятных. Это можно прочувствовать интуитивно.
Какая здесь возникает чаще всего проблема? Человек ставит кровать каким-то классическим, традиционным способом, но чувствует себя некомфортно, неуютно, не высыпается, ворочается или ему снятся плохие сны. Это признак того, что данное место, или направление, или и место, и направление не подходят этому человеку. Тогда нужно попытаться найти какое-то нешаблонное решение. Может быть, переставить кровать в другое место, или даже иногда эту кровать стоит поставить под углом, защитив тыльную часть кровати, чтобы она не смотрела в пустой угол. То есть нужно проявить креативность, послушать свою интуицию, чтобы найти это хорошее место. И тело обязательно сообщит об этом, вы легко почувствуете, что так спать гораздо лучше, комфортнее, вы лучше засыпаете, легче просыпаетесь, нужно будет меньше времени, чтобы выспаться и т.д.
Не рекомендуют располагать в спальне зеркала. Если есть все-таки острая необходимость, то желательно повесить зеркала таким образом, чтобы человек, лежа на кровати, не видел своего отражения. На самом деле, это может немного пугать во сне, когда ты просыпаешься, встаешь и видишь свое отражение. И вообще, какие-то блики, силуэты, тени, лучи на зеркалах могут просто тревожить. Потом, зеркала создают объем, дополнительное измерение, и тоже во время сна это может беспокоить.
— Коснемся наиболее важных сфер нашей жизни — это здоровье, карьера, финансовое благополучие и личные взаимоотношения. Дайте, пожалуйста, короткие рекомендации, что сделать, чтобы во всех сферах жизнь стала немножечко лучше.
— Что касается здоровья, должно быть больше энергии в квартире или в доме. Для этого квартира должна хорошо проветриваться, не быть захламленной.
Если говорить о романтической удаче, о партнерстве, то важно следить за тем, что если у нас есть сложности в этом, чтобы в квартире не было каких-то одиноких символов: изображений одинокой тоскующей дамы или, опять же, картины "Иван Грозный убивает своего сына". Таких изображений не должно быть. Напротив, нужно привнести в интерьер как можно больше партнерских символов, которые символизируют счастливые взаимоотношения: две свечи, две птицы, две кошечки.
А что касается бизнеса, успеха, процветания, то полезно правильным образом расположить рабочий стол, за которым вы работаете. Расположение стола должно быть таким: за спиной должна быть стена, с левой стороны - какая-то защита, а перед нами - открытое пространство. Тогда у нас достаточно много фантазии, есть тыл за спиной, и мы гораздо лучше функционируем.
Беседовала Марина Архипова
К публикации подготовила Мария Сныткова
Читайте также: | 1real |
It’s Donald Trump’s Party Now - The New York Times | The Republican Party’s trek into the darkness took a fateful step in Indiana on Tuesday. The Hoosier State delivered an victory to Donald Trump, who beat Ted Cruz soundly in the state, sweeping up at least 51 delegates. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders won an unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton, though it was not enough to halt her march to the nomination. Shortly after the Republican race was called, Mr. Cruz announced that he was ending his campaign, leaving Gov. John Kasich as the sole rival to Mr. Trump in the G. O. P. contest. That the had hoped to fall back on Mr. Cruz, perhaps the most reviled politician in his party, was a measure of their panic about the prospect now before them. With Mr. Trump’s success, “I’m watching a political party commit suicide,” said Henry Olsen, an elections analyst with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank. Republicans will all but certainly nominate Mr. Trump, who would be the most volatile and least prepared presidential candidate nominated by a major party in modern times. A man once ridiculed by many prominent Republicans will become the G. O. P. . This is a moment of reckoning for the Republican Party. It’s incumbent on its leadership to account for the failures and betrayals that led to this, and find a better way to address them than the demagogy on offer. Republicans haven’t yet begun to grapple with this. Instead they’re falling into line. Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and to war, and then did next to nothing. That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them. Now, myopic as ever, Republican leaders are talking themselves into supporting Mr. Trump. At a party retreat in Florida last month, Mr. Trump’s adviser Paul Manafort, brought in to make the candidate seem safer to the old guard, assured them that Mr. Trump will better prepare himself for the presidency. “That was all most of these guys needed to hear,” said an operative in the room. “Maybe he’s trainable. ” But within a day, Mr. Trump was back to making vile comments at his rallies. In his confused foreign policy address, he demonstrated nothing but a willful refusal to learn. Some Republicans still seem to hope they can direct voters’ attention past the Trump candidacy. Last week in Washington, Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, told a dismayed young Republican at Georgetown University to try not to worry so much about Mr. Trump. “I would just ask you to raise your gaze and look at the horizon that we’re trying to paint,” he said, promoting #ConfidentAmerica, his plan to create a plan. Its mission reads like this: “We do not like the direction the country is going, and we have an obligation to offer an alternative. That’s why House Republicans are developing a bold, agenda to take to the country. By giving the people a clear choice in 2016, we can earn a mandate to do big things in 2017 and beyond. ” It is the Republicans who are making a clear choice in 2016, one that seemed unimaginable a year ago: To stamp what they still like to call the party of Lincoln with the brand of Donald Trump. | 0fake |
Trump seeks input from U.S. energy companies on Paris climate pact | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s administration has been contacting U.S. energy companies to ask them about their views on the U.N. global climate accord, according to two sources with knowledge of the effort, a sign Trump is reconsidering his 2016 campaign pledge to back out of the deal. The sources, who asked not to be named because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said many of the companies reached by the administration had said they would prefer the United States remain in the pact, but would also support reducing U.S. commitments in the deal. The accord, agreed by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, would limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. As part of the deal, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The sources did not name the companies contacted. One of the sources said the companies were “publicly traded fossil fuel companies,” and added the White House would consider their input in making a decision on the Paris accord shortly. The source said the White House has been leading the discussions with the fossil fuel companies and the State Department, which represents the United States in climate negotiations, had not taken part. A White House official declined to comment. Trump has called climate change a hoax and vowed during his campaign for the White House to “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement” within 100 days, claiming it would be too costly for the U.S. economy. Since being elected he has been mostly quiet on the issue. In a New York Times interview in November he said he would keep an open mind about the Paris deal. He and members of his family and inner circle also met with climate change advocate and former Vice President Al Gore in December. Officials for Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, Peabody Energy Corp and others did not immediately comment when asked about whether they had been contacted by the White House about the Paris accord. But several, including Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, have expressed public support for the pact. The World Coal Association, which represents Peabody and other miners, has also said it supports the deal. Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Darren Woods recently called the pledges that came out of the Paris agreement an “effective framework” for dealing with emissions, and pointed to Exxon’s own work to cut its carbon emissions. In comments on Exxon’s website, Woods wrote: “I believe, and my company believes, that climate risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us – business, governments and consumers – to make meaningful progress.” Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s former CEO and now U.S. Secretary of State, also supported remaining a part of the climate change discussion during his confirmation hearing. He said he did not see climate change as an imminent national security threat but said the U.S. would be “better served by being at that table” and remaining a party to climate change negotiations. Conoco CEO Ryan Lance similarly said he favored the U.S. remaining in the Paris agreement, during CERAWeek comments last week, in part because it could create opportunities for its natural gas operations and its investments in carbon-capture and storage. Benjamin Sporton, the president of the World Coal Association, had a similar stance: “With a number of well-developed carbon capture and storage projects, the United States is already a global leader in cleaner coal technology. Given the role given to low emissions coal technology in the Paris Agreement by many developing economies, there are clear benefits to remaining within the agreement.” J. Robinson West, former chairman of Magellan Petroleum Corp., and now a managing director at Boston Consulting Group, said President Trump’s anti-Paris accord sentiments probably reflected his dealings with the CEOs of smaller companies that operate only in the U.S. “The independents are anti-climate change ... all this stuff costs them money. The global companies operate all over the world. They have to operate at one standard - the highest standard - wherever they operate,” he said. Global oil companies have spent heavily on environmental initiatives in recent years. Exxon Mobil, for example, logged $4.9 billion in environmental spending in 2016, about 2.24 percent of total revenue, according to its annual report with the Securities and Exchanges Commission. ConocoPhillips spent $627 million, or 2.57 percent of revenue. | 0fake |
Dem. Senator BLASTS Mitch McConnell For Excluding Women From Panel Drafting New Senate Health Plan | Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced who he has selected to take on crafting the Senate version of the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA), but Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is having none of it and blasted McConnell for not putting any of the female senators in the group.Feinstein expressed her extreme displeasure with the decision to exclude women from this important panel on Meet the Press. She told Andrea Mitchell, I don t know what the 13 white men, when you have five Republican women who are excluded from that, that these 13 men are supposed to sit down and put something together. One main problem with leaving women off of this key panel is that as passed by the House, the ACHA drastically changed the way pre-existing conditions are treated. Under the Affordable Care Act, premiums could not be raised nor could coverage be denied to people with pre-existing health issues. While many of these problems can affect men and women, such as depression and acne, some only apply to women. For example, pregnancy and problems with menstruation can be considered pre-existing conditions under the House bill.Feinstein noted that women s health care has to be considered when they draft the Senate bill. As for responses to the House bill, The American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the National Physicians Alliance have all come out against the ACHA. Feinstein added, Women s health is a big part of this, and women are a majority of the population and their health interests deserve to be contemplated in any reform. I m really very worried that in the rush to judgment, we create a major healthcare problem for people. And we lose a lot of jobs in so doing and we create a whole atmosphere of unpredictability. For an idea of what they may now consider pre-existing conditions, this is just the short list of what might force someone to pay more under Trump s plan, as passed by the House. By making it legal to charge people more for having these problems, they may not be officially barring them from getting insurance but they will make it too expensive for people to afford it.This list is not complete, but you get the gist. Barring women from any discussions relating to this new draft for the Senate is absolutely absurd and it s just one more reason why we have to keep resisting they can t be allowed to pass this bill without every voice being heard. Call your senators now before it s too late!Featured image via Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images. | 1real |
Presidential Lawyer Comes Forward; Says Trump Jr. May Have Committed Treason (VIDEO) | For as smug as he always appears to be, Donald Trump Jr. might want to wipe that entitled grin off his face. Especially when he finds out he may be going to prison.According to the New York Times: President Trump s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., was promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton before agreeing to meet with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign, according to three advisers to the White House briefed on the meeting and two others with knowledge of it. And now, coming forward is Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer who served under former President George W. Bush, and is telling us that what Trump Jr. has allegedly done borders on treason. Painter said: This was an effort to get opposition research on an opponent in an American political campaign from the Russians, who were known to be engaged in spying inside the United States We do not get our opposition research from spies, we do not collaborate with Russian spies, unless we want to be accused of treason. Adding: If this story is true, we d have one of them if not both of them in custody by now, and we d be asking them a lot of questions This is unacceptable. This borders on treason, if it is not itself treason. The punishment for treason is: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. It is absolutely one of the worst crimes, if not the worst crime, one can commit against one s nation. If true, it also shows that Trump s presidential campaign absolutely did collude with Russia in the months leading up to the 2016 election.Here s Painter on MSNBC: Bush 43 WH ethics lawyer on NYT story/Donald Trump Jr. and Kushner meeting with Russian lawyer: This borders on treason via @MSNBC pic.twitter.com/Ceu5xLYgnB Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) July 9, 2017Featured Photo by Getty Images | 1real |
Sen. Joe Manchin: Trump Administration Gets It on Coal Regs - Breitbart | West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin III praised President Donald Trump’s reversal Tuesday of President Barack Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which created a regulatory regime that targeted the coal mining industry and energy plants. [“Since I was governor, I have fought against unnecessary bureaucratic regulations that harm our way of life with no regard for the catastrophic economic impacts they have on West Virginians,” said the only Democrat to stand and applaud during the president’s joint address to Congress. “We need to strike a balance between the environment and the economy. The Clean Power Plan never achieved that balance. Rolling back this regulation is a positive step towards preventing further job loss, increases to consumer energy bills, and more damage to our economy,” he said. “We must stop ignoring the damage these regulations caused our energy sector, our economy and our way of life in West Virginia,” the senator said. The president touched on the human side of what he called the War on Coal in his remarks Tuesday after signing the executive orders. I actually, in one case, I went to a group of miners in West Virginia — you remember, Shelly — and I said, how about this: Why don’t we get together, we’ll go to another place, and you’ll get another job you won’t mine anymore. Do you like that idea? They said, no, we don’t like that idea — we love to mine, that’s what we want to do. I said, if that’s what you want to do, that’s what you’re going to do. And I was very impressed. They love the job. That’s what their job is. I fully understand that. I grew up in a real estate family, and until this recent little excursion into the world of politics, I could never understand anybody who would not want to be in the world of real estate. (Laughter.) Believe me. So I understand it. And we’re with you 100 percent, and that’s what you’re going to do. Okay? The “Shelly” Trump was calling out was Senator Shelly Moore Capito ( ) Manchin’s fellow senator from the Mountain State. Manchin said Trump gets it on coal and the effects of the last administration’s approach towards coal. “This step by the administration recognizes that the Clean Power Plan went beyond the bounds of EPA’s authority, instead of working against us and imposing economic wounds like the last administration,” he said. | 0fake |
Your Wednesday Evening Briefing: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, EgyptAir - The New York Times | (Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the .) Good evening. Here’s the latest. 1. President Obama returned to Elkhart, Ind. the first city he visited after taking office, to celebrate it as a showcase for his economic policies’ success. He took his most forceful stance yet on the presidential election, accusing Republicans of aiming to help the rich at the expense of the struggling middle class. He did not mention Donald Trump by name, but railed against his pledge to roll back rules on Wall Street. _____ 2. Hillary Clinton also attacked Mr. Trump. She cited testimony from former employees portraying Trump University as unscrupulous and predatory and called him “a fraud. ” Above, a rally in New Jersey. On Thursday, she plans to use a speech in San Diego to lay out the damage a Trump presidency could do to national security. Meanwhile, the list of prominent Republicans who say they will not attend the Republican National Convention keeps growing. _____ 3. A French naval vessel picked up a signal believed to be from a data recorder belonging to EgyptAir Flight 804, the jet that crashed into the Mediterranean on May 19. Officials said it could take days to locate the source precisely, and then more time for underwater robots and sonar equipment to hunt for wreckage. _____ 4. Switzerland opened a rail tunnel — the world’s longest and deepest — clearing the way for a rail link under the Alps. The E. U.’s transportation minister called the Gotthard Base Tunnel “a milestone in European rail history. ” The new route should cut an hour off the trip between the economic hubs of Zurich and Milan. _____ 5. It’s been nine years since the seventh and last “Harry Potter” book came out. One of our stories today looks at how J. K. Rowling has kept her creative hand in like outing Dumbledore as gay a few years ago. And her “official” eighth installment is nigh. “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child,” a play in which the boy wizard is all grown up, begins previews in London next week. _____ 6. A huge wildfire is still ripping through western Canada. But the flames are out in the city of Fort McMurray, a hub of the industry. Thousands of residents are being allowed back, if only to document damage for insurance claims. Crews are spraying sealant over toxic ash and rubble, and the government is working on a rail plan to remove masses of refrigerators and freezers ruined by spoiled food. _____ 7. Uber, Silicon Valley’s most valuable private business, has collected billions from investors over the last three years as it seeks to build a global empire. Now, Saudi Arabia is in, too, with $3. 5 billion, Uber’s biggest single infusion. The Saudis are seeking to expand their economy beyond oil. _____ 8. A strange, gruesome murder in Plano, Tex. played out partly on social media. This man told the police that he’d made a suicide pact with his girlfriend but that she’d “chickened out,” so he stabbed her to death. He also posted photos of each of them after the fact. He has been charged with murder, and Facebook has been criticized for leaving the photos up for 36 hours. _____ 9. The Syrian government eased limits on aid convoys, allowing the first trucks with food and medicine to reach the besieged town of Daraya, on the outskirts of Damascus. Aid groups said the government was simply trying to stop the U. N. from turning to airdrops. Some critics have accused the government of trying to starve its opponents. _____ 10. Finally, many Americans worried about high blood pressure try to limit their salt intake, but the table shaker isn’t the problem. Processed and prepared foods tend to send sodium levels off the charts. The F. D. A. released voluntary guidelines for food manufacturers and restaurants urging gradual reductions. Public health advocates say the standards could eventually help avert thousands of heart attacks and strokes. _____ Your Evening Briefing is posted at 6 p. m. Eastern. And don’t miss Your Morning Briefing, posted weekdays at 6 a. m. Eastern, and Your Weekend Briefing, posted at 6 a. m. Sundays. Want to look back? Here’s last night’s briefing. What did you like? What do you want to see here? Let us know at briefing@nytimes. com. | 0fake |
Czechs pin hopes on billionaire Babis to fix their country | PRAGUE (Reuters) - The traffic jams and roadworks that snarl the 200 km main highway from the capital Prague to the southeast are a symbol of how many Czechs feel their government is broken - and how they are looking for a new champion to fix it. A ring road around Prague is nowhere near completion after decades of zoning setbacks, a rail link to Prague s airport has been debated for 20 years without a shovel going in the ground. The World Bank ranks the country 130th in the world when it comes to efficiency in issuing building permits, the worst in the European Union. In the Oct 20-21 election, voters look set to hand power to a man who says he can sort it all out: billionaire businessman Andrej Babis, whose anti-establishment rhetoric is reminiscent of U.S. President Donald Trump. I see results, the others are only talkers, said Erwin Heinl after meeting Babis at a pensioners club in Varnsdorf, 125 km (75 miles) north of Prague. It is the only possible choice. The central European country joined the EU in 2004 and has made great strides in economic development. But people feel wages and public services have been slow to catch up with the richer West while business sharks made billions in often murky privatizations and public contracts. Babis, whose ANO party is far ahead of rivals in the polls, has been able to sell himself as a man fighting obstacles from coalition partners, while taking credit for popular decisions such as pension hikes during his time as finance minister. The bet on Babis is not straightforward. As the second richest Czech, he grew his chemicals, food and media empire in the same environment he and voters criticize. He is also not a new face, having governed as junior partner to the center-left Social Democrats since 2014. Social Democrats still stand for the old rule and ANO is a symbol of the new rule, hence its credit for the economic success, government stability and so on, said Daniel Prokop from the Median polling agency. Many people respect Babis for his business approach to management which he says politicians lack. He is skillful as a businessman, he could show that also running the state, Karina Brtinska, 63, said after meeting Babis at a campaign stop at the main square in Varnsdorf. His successes include a budget surplus last year. Babis, as finance minister until May this year before he was removed by the prime minister, raised revenue by introducing value-added tax cross-checks and real-time reporting of shop sales. But the budget was chiefly helped by economic growth, low interest rates, and a drop in public investments resulting from issues such as slow preparation of road building that meant less spending. His ANO has held the Transport Ministry for the past four years. Czechs built close to 160 km of highways in the past 10 years, compared with 2,300 km in Poland 250 km in Slovakia. The Czechs also pledged to raise defense spending, but under ANO running the Defence Ministry it dropped below 1 percent of GDP before a small pick up this year, still far away from the NATO goal of 2 percent. Babis has also shaken off the impact of investigation for alleged fraud in tapping a 2 million euro subsidy - a charge that could carry a jail sentence. He denies any wrongdoing and portrays it as an attempt by adversaries to block him from sweeping out graft. He is not afraid of anyone. He is honest, said Anna Havelkova, an ANO supporter in Varnsdorf. Babis put his Agrofert group of more than 250 companies into a trust fund this year but remains the fund s beneficiary. Agrofert has been receiving farming and investment subsidies and also has numerous deals with the public sector, raising criticism from rivals and media of conflicts of interests. Babis had acknowledged having conflicts of interest prior to moving Agrofert to the trust funds but said he never abused it. Forbes puts Babis s net worth at 88 billion crowns ($4.01 bln), up from 40 billion in 2013 just before he joined the government. ANO voters are also unfazed by Babis membership of the Communist party before a democratic revolution in 1989, or his contacts with secret police at the time. Success is always accompanied by envy. Everyone has a past, but I am interested in the present. He has a vision and I believe he can fulfill it, said businessman Slavomir Svitana attending Babis rally in downtown Prague. | 0fake |
Obama says history will judge Castro's impact on world | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama in a statement on Saturday offered his condolences to Fidel Castro’s family and added that history would judge Castro’s impact on Cuba and around the world. “At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people,” Obama said. “History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.” Obama added that during his presidency he had worked to “put the past behind us,” while working on a future that was built on those things that were in common. | 0fake |
Breaking: Ivanka Trump Makes Tragic Announcement Both Donald Trump and Supporters Are Shocked (Video) | Prophecy | (Before It's News)
Ivanka Trump is going to have to back off from her father’s campaign, because the hateful and sexist rhetoric of Donald Trump is severely hurting Ivanka’s clothing and lifestyle brand.
Women are turning on Ivanka Trump as she continues supporting her father despite allegations of sexual harassment against him and a 2005 audio tape capturing him bragging in lewd terms that he can do whatever he wants to women.
Now, the growing group of women are boycotting her line of clothing, jewelry, perfume and accessories sold as part of the Ivanka Trump Collection. They are also calling on the stores that carry the brand, including Nordstrom, Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s, to stop selling it.
It has even created its own hashtag, #Ivankant, as well as #GrabYourWallet.
From The Daily Mail :
‘If Ivanka Trump had distanced herself from the campaign I would not be boycotting her,’ Shannon Coulter, who called on Americans to boycott the brand earlier this month, told the Guardian.
‘But something changed for me when that tape was released.’
Coulter, who shared her own experience of sexual harassment at the hands of a male superior, launched the hashtag ‘GrabYourWallet’ on October 11, a reference to Trump’s offensive ‘grab them by the p***y’ remark from the audio tape.
The problem obviously for Ivanka, is that Donald Trump’s base, for the most part, doesn’t shop at Bloomingdale’s or Nordstrom, which are two of the largest stores that carry her clothing line, along with Macy’s.
What are your thoughts, should Ivanka’s business be hurt because of the actions of her father?
From Politico:
The New York Times cited a deposition from a woman who claimed that Donald Trump groped her under the table decades ago, but the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is certainly not a groper, his daughter said Wednesday.
“Look, I’m not in every interaction my father has, but he’s not a groper,” Ivanka Trump said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on “CBS This Morning.” “It’s not who he is. And I’ve known my father obviously my whole life and he has total respect for women.”
The billionaire businessman launched a Twitter salvo the “failing” newspaper for its “false, malicious & libelous story,” catapulting the story to become the newspaper’s most popular of the year, according to assistant news editor Theodore Kim.
—
Ivanka Trump said she read the Sunday cover story and “found it to be pretty disturbing, based on the facts as I know them, and obviously I very much know them” as a daughter and an executive who’s worked alongside him for more than a decade.
“I was bothered by it, but it’s largely been discredited since,” she said, referring to Brewer Lane’s criticism of the report. Brewer Lane, the ex-girlfriend whose first run-in with Donald Trump was used as the lead anecdote for the article, titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private,” accused the newspaper of putting a negative connotation on her words.
“Most of the time when stories are inaccurate they’re not discredited, and I will be frustrated by that, but in this case I think they went so far,” Ivanka Trump continued. “They had such a strong thesis and created facts to reinforce it and, you know, I think that narrative has been playing out now and there’s backlash in that regard.”
Source RealTimePolitics.com Check out more contributions by Jeffery Pritchett ranging from UFO to Bigfoot to Paranormal to Prophecy | 1real |
Investors Intelligence Says Here Is The Key To A Turnaround In Gold & Silver! | 10 Views November 02, 2016 GOLD , KWN King World News
According to Investors Intelligence, here is the key to a turnaround in gold and silver!
Today Investors Intelligence issued an important note about gold, silver and the mining stocks: The Precious Metals Bullish % rallied 4.55% on Wednesday, reversing the P&F chart direction back to the upside for the first time since September. … IMPORTANT: To find out which company Doug Casey, Rick Rule and Sprott Asset Management are pounding the table on that already has a staggering 18.1 million ounces of gold that just added another massive deposit and is quickly being recognized as one of the greatest gold opportunities in the world – CLICK HERE OR BELOW: Sponsored
Investors Intelligence continues: The chart has pulled out of oversold and has a new status of Bull-alert. Investors should be looking to buy upside reassertion candidates (see chart below).
The PHLX Gold & Silver Index develops a bullish P&F breakout signal at 89 with a price objective of 102 and a stop loss at 83 (see chart below).
King World News note: Despite the post-Fed meeting intervention to suppress the gold, silver and mining share markets, when Investors Intelligence states, “Investors should be looking to buy upside reassertion candidates,” what they mean is that investors should be purchasing high-quality investments in the gold and silver sector. This includes top-tier mining stocks and associated gold and silver ETFs. Although the Philadelphia Gold & Silver (mining share) Index (XAU) closed below the key level of 89 after an intra-day surge above 92, it is still very close to the breakout noted by Investors Intelligence. It will be interesting to see if the sector picks up momentum in the coming days and weeks as that will trigger additional money flows into the sector.
***KWN has now released the remarkable audio interview with Nomi Prins CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE BELOW.
***ALSO RELEASED: With Gold Hitting $1,300, Look At Who Is Bullish CLICK HERE.
***KWN has also released Rick Rule’s timely audio interview CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE BELOW.
© 2015 by King World News®. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. However, linking directly to the articles is permitted and encouraged. About author | 1real |
Trump meets Russia foreign minister amid Comey controversy | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia’s top diplomat met President Donald Trump on Wednesday and praised the U.S. administration as problem solvers, just as the White House drew criticism over the firing of the FBI director who was leading a probe into Moscow’s alleged interference in U.S. politics. The talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were the highest-level public contact between Trump and the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin since the Republican took office on Jan. 20. While not unprecedented, it is a rare privilege for a foreign minister to be received by a U.S. president for a bilateral meeting in the White House. In a stunning development, Trump on Tuesday fired FBI Director James Comey, whose agency is investigating alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the possibility Trump associates may have colluded with Moscow. Democrats accused Trump of trying to slow down the investigation by firing the FBI chief. Trump described his talks with Lavrov as “very, very good.” When asked whether the Comey dismissal had affected his meeting, Trump said, “not at all.” He and Lavrov said they discussed the civil war in Syria, where Russia backs President Bashar al-Assad. “We want to see the killing, the horrible killing, stopped in Syria as soon as possible and everyone is working toward that end,” Trump told reporters. Lavrov, who earlier met with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, said his discussions with members of the Trump administration had convinced him they were people who wanted to cut deals and solve problems. “The Trump administration, and the president himself, and the secretary of state, I was persuaded of this once again today, are people of action,” Lavrov said. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in a January report that Putin had ordered an effort to disrupt the 2016 election that included hacking into Democratic Party emails and leaking them, with the aim of helping Trump. Russia denies the allegations. Blaming “fake information,” Lavrov said: “I believe that politicians are damaging the political system of the U.S., trying to pretend that someone is controlling America from the outside.” The Trump administration denies claims of collusion with Russia. Earlier, as Tillerson and Lavrov posed for photographs, the Russian sarcastically deflected a reporter’s question about Comey’s dismissal. Asked if the firing would cast a shadow over his talks, Lavrov replied: “Was he fired? You’re kidding. You’re kidding.” The Russian embassy in Washington tweeted a picture from the Lavrov meeting of Trump shaking hands with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, a man at the center of the controversy on Russian contacts with associates of Trump. Former U.S. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was forced to resign for failing to disclose the content of his talks with Kislyak and then misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Senior Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said the Oval Office encounter was a photo opportunity for Russia. “President Trump in these pictures, is shaking hands with Russians, and the Kremlin is gleefully tweeting these pictures around the world,” Durbin said on the Senate floor. Wednesday’s meetings followed talks Tillerson held with Putin last month in Moscow. Tensions in the relationship grew following U.S. air strikes against a Syrian airfield in April in response to a chemical weapons attack that Washington blamed on Assad. Both Trump and Lavrov appeared to strike a more conciliatory tone after both capitals had presented souring views of the relationship recently. The White House said Trump “raised the possibility of broader cooperation on resolving conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere” and still sought to build a better relationship between the two countries. Lavrov said that despite difficulties “our countries can and should contribute jointly to the settlement of the most urgent issues in international affairs”. Trump underscored “the need for Russia to rein in the Assad regime, Iran and Iranian proxies,” the White House said. Lavrov said the meeting mainly focused on ideas of de-escalation zones in Syria. Russia brokered a deal for de-escalation zones with backing from Iran and Syrian opposition supporter Turkey during ceasefire talks in the Kazakh capital Astana last week. | 0fake |
Donald Trump Hired Me As An Attorney. Please Don’t Support Him For President.
| Don't expect to see Donald Trump give a humble concession speech if he loses the Republican presidential nomination.
During a Sunday rally in Maryland, the Republican presidential frontrunner mocked candidates who praise their opponents during concession speeches, saying that if he loses the contest, Americans will probably not hear much from him again.
"They fight like hell for six months, and they're saying horrible things, the worst things you can imagine," Trump said. "And then one of them loses, one of them wins. And the one who loses says, 'I just want to congratulate my opponent. He is a brilliant man, he'll be a great governor or president or whatever.'"
He continued: "I'm not sure you're ever going to see me there. I don't think I'm going to lose, but if I do, I don't think you're ever going to see me again, folks. I think I'll go to Turnberry and play golf or something."
Trump's mockery wasn't relegated just to the electoral losers. He also said Sunday that the winners were too modest.
"Half the times [the winners] put them in the administration that's how they get rid of them," Trump said of the losing candidates.
This line of thought has not stopped Trump from graciously accepting endorsements from other candidates who have dropped out of the presidential race. Trump frequently touts his support from Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.
During a news conference in February announcing Christie's endorsement, Trump lauded Christie's tenure as a governor and his barbs during the Republican presidential debates.
"Generally speaking, I'm not big on endorsements," Trump said, adding, "This was an endorsement that really meant a lot." | 0fake |
Reporter files criminal charge of battery against Trump campaign chief | (Reuters) - A reporter for the conservative website Breitbart News filed a criminal complaint on Friday against Republican presidential election front-runner Donald Trump’s campaign manager, saying he grabbed her arm at a rally with such force that he left bruises. A police report released on Friday showed that the reporter, Michelle Fields, said she was the victim of battery on Tuesday night at Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, where Trump spoke after that day’s contests in the race to nominate the party’s candidate for the Nov. 8 presidential election. The accusation prompted a flurry of exchanges between Trump’s campaign and Fields. The campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and Trump have denied the accusation. Lewandowski dismissed Fields as an “attention seeker” on Twitter. Fields published her account at Breitbart on Thursday of what happened when reporters gathered around Trump to ask him additional questions after a press conference. Fields said she asked Trump about his views on affirmative action. “Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken,” Fields wrote. A Trump campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, questioned Fields’ story on Friday. Hicks said she had not seen any encounter and said no cameras had captured the incident. Fields, who posted a photo on Twitter of bruises on her arm, initially said she did not know who had grabbed her and caused her to stumble. Ben Terris, a Washington Post reporter who witnessed the incident, told her Lewandowski had seized her arm. He wrote his own account for his newspaper. The political news site Politico posted a transcript of an audio recording of the incident, which included an exchange between Terris and Fields. “Yeah he just threw you down,” Terris said to Fields, who replied, “I can’t believe he just did that. That was so hard. Was that Corey?” Terris said that it was and later reported that Fields was tearful after the incident. In a statement on Friday, Breitbart Chief Executive Officer Larry Solov said Trump’s suggestion that Fields may have invented the episode was contradicted by the evidence. “Breitbart News stands behind Michelle Fields,” he wrote. Hours later, however, the website posted a story disputing Terris’ account. The story said that footage from the event showed Trump flanked by two men: Lewandowski and a security official who bore some resemblance to the campaign manager. “The person who made contact with Fields was likely not Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski,” the report said. Terris stood by his account on Friday. He was quoted in a blog by Washington Post reporter Erik Wemple as saying, “I saw what I saw.” Terris did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. Fields and Solov could not immediately be reached for comment on the complaint to police. Trump’s rallies across the United States have been marked by rowdiness and physical contact between protesters and either his supporters or security personnel. At a rally in Virginia on Feb. 29, a Time magazine photographer trying to document the exit of dozens of black protesters was grabbed by the neck and shoved to the ground by a U.S. Secret Service agent. White House spokesman Josh Earnest also weighed in on the Fields incident on Friday, telling reporters: “There is no excuse or justification for acts of violence against reporters who are covering a political event.” (Reporting by Joseph Ax; Additional reporting by Colleen Jenkins and Jeff Mason; editing by Grant McCool) This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production. | 0fake |
U.S. GOVERNMENT THREATENS ILLEGAL SEIZURE OF FAMILY’S LAND NEAR AREA-51 BASE | This case has been on our radar for some time now but will come to a head tomorrow. The government is offering its last best offer for the land and they want an answer by Thursday. This family doesn t want to give up their land no matter what the price so we ll see what happens For more than 70 years, since the U.S. government moved to that part of southern Nevada, they have completely disregarded our constitutional rights BARBARA MANNINGThe U.S. Air Force is giving an ultimatum to owners of a remote Nevada property now surrounded by a vast bombing range including the super-secret Area 51: Take a $5.2 million last best offer by Thursday for their property, or the government will seize it.The answer: No, at least for now.The owners, who trace their mining and mineral claims to the 1870s, include descendants of a couple who lost their hardscrabble mining enterprise after the Air Force moved in in the 1940s. Nuclear tests then began in 1951, their mine mill mysteriously exploded in 1954 and they ran out of money to seek reparations from the government in 1959. What they really want to buy is our property, our access rights and our view, said Joseph Sheahan, 54, who has led the fight with his cousin, Barbara Sheahan Manning, on behalf of about 20 property co-owners. Both live in Henderson, Nev. We prefer to keep our property, but it s for sale under the right price at the right conditions, Sheahan said. Why don t they ask themselves what it cost my family over the years in blood, sweat, tears and money? The two sides are far apart. And they know condemnation proceedings would lead to a fair market value determination that could end up in court for a long time.The federal government gradually encircled the mine property totaling fewer than 400 acres northwest of Las Vegas, making it a private island reachable today only by passing armed guards at security gateposts. The surrounding secure 4,500-square-mile reservation for nuclear testing, military training and other research is almost twice the area of the state of Delaware. The land has become an increasingly greater safety and security risk as demand for test and training opportunities have increased, the government said in an Aug. 28 news release describing the final offer.Today, Groom Mine overlooks Groom Lake, a site so secret that Col. Thomas Dempsey, a Nellis Air Force Base commander, would only refer to it on Friday as one of many remote locations within the Nevada Test and Training Range. Nothing you can look up in any Air Force naming convention refers to Area 51, added Jennifer Miller, deputy assistant Air Force secretary for installations.But check the Internet or watch TV s X-Files and Area 51 and Groom Lake evoke tales of top-secret aircraft research and testing, CIA programs and maybe extraterrestrials. The Triple-A baseball Las Vegas 51s even poke fun at the legend, with the team name and a mascot character named Cosmo.Sheahan family members consider themselves good neighbors and patriotic Americans, with generations of decorated military members, Manning and Joe Sheahan said. They don t tell what they ve seen.But Manning, 59, remembers the tales handed down during decades on the porch of a rustic home overlooking Groom Lake. We didn t have much more than a transistor radio and a deck of cards, and no indoor toilet, she said. Our grandparents told us the stories. For more than 70 years, since the U.S. government moved to that part of southern Nevada, they have completely disregarded our constitutional rights, Manning said.Read more: Conservative Focus | 1real |
WHERE WAS MEDIA OUTRAGE After This WOMAN DELIBERATELY Plowed Car Into Las Vegas Crowd…Killing One, Injuring 35 Others? [VIDEO] | The media has been giving wall-to-wall coverage of the horrific and violent act that took place in Charlottesville, VA. By now, every American has seen the face and name of the 20-year old man, James Alex Fields, Jr., who was allegedly part of a group of white supremacists, that smashed into a large crowd of protesters on the street.JUST IN: Booking photo of James Alex Fields, Jr. @NBC29 pic.twitter.com/9nxtsvqNmt Henry Graff (@HenryGraff) August 13, 2017As a result of the horrific accident, one woman was killed and several others were injured. Of course, the media is blaming Donald Trump for the horrific accident that he clearly had nothing to do with. As a side note, does anyone remember the media blaming former President Barack Obama when the city of Ferguson, MO was burned to the ground by Black Lives Matter rioters? Yeah, either do we.But what about the black woman who INTENTIONALLY drove her car into a crowded street on the strip in Las Vegas with her 3-year old toddler in the back seat? Does anyone even remember this happening?In December 2015, Las Vegas police say a 24 year old woman, with her 3 year old toddler in the back seat, intentionally drove her vehicle into a crowded Las Vegas strip with the intention of running people over. Here s the story MSNBC published that was written by the Associated Press. The AP doesn t waste any time attempting to gain sympathy for the driver, and in only the third paragraph of the story, the AP want to make it perfectly clear that the reader knows she may not be guilt of intentional homicide. They re quick to quote the murderer s defense lawyer who told them, Just because she s charged, doesn t mean she s guilty From the AP article:A woman accused of intentionally plowing a car carrying her child through crowds of pedestrians on a Las Vegas Strip sidewalk is distraught and overwhelmed, her defense attorney said after she briefly appeared in court for the first time.Lakeisha Nicole Holloway, 24, pursed her lips and blinked as she was led in shackles into a courtroom. She was not asked to enter a plea but nodded to acknowledge that she would remain in jail through the holidays while both sides investigate Sunday s crash that killed an Arizona woman and injured dozens of others. This is sad and tragedy for everybody involved, defense lawyer Joseph Abood said after the hearing, adding, Just because she s charged, doesn t mean she s guilty. A woman with her 3-year-old daughter in the car smashed into crowds of visitors on the Las Vegas Strip, then drove to a hotel and told a valet to call 911 after killing a woman from Arizona and injuring at least 35 others, including at least five Canadians, police said.People jumped on the car and banged on its windows, but Lakeisha N. Holloway, 24, would not stop driving on the sidewalk, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo told reporters. Video appeared to show the crash in front of the Paris and Planet Hollywood casino-hotels was intentional, he said.The 1996 Oldsmobile sedan was fully on the sidewalk twice Sunday night, including once when it traveled for 200 feet, police said. The child in the car was not hurt.The 24-year-old told police told she was homeless and tired, and denied using drugs or alcohol. Holloway also told police she had been unable to rest or sleep because security officers kept running her and her daughter and her car off casino properties.Here s a look at how MSNBC s parent company NBC covered the horrific Charlottesville incident yesterday. By the third paragraph in the part of the article that describes the accident, MSNBC interviews a witness from the other side of the protest (not the alleged perpetrator s defense lawyer, like in the story above) who clearly states there is no question about the motive or of the driver s guilt: It was very clearly intentional. NBC: Described as a group of anti-racist protesters by a witness who took video of the crash, the group of marchers was packed close together at the end of a street near the intersection of Fourth and Water streets in downtown Charlottesville when the car struck.Brennan Gilmore, a 37-year-old who works for a start up, shot the footage and said he heard tires squealing before he saw a car build up speed and ram the crowd. It hit a number of people before plowing into the bumper of another car. It was very clearly intentional, Gilmore told NBC News. From the far end of the street it accelerated, slowed down right before the crowd and then slammed on the gas through the crowd sending bodies flying. And then it reversed back into the street dragging bodies and clothes. And then boom the TRUMP tie-in (which was not really a tie-in at all):Fields mother, Samantha Bloom, told The Associated Press on Saturday night that she knew her son was attending a rally in Virginia but didn t know it was a white nationalist rally. I thought it had something to do with Trump. Trump s not a white supremacist, Bloom told the AP. (The last sentence that includes Fields mother s statement about Trump NOT being a white supremacist [bold], was omitted from many mainstream media sources, as it didn t fit their narrative.)In February 2017, Holloway was found mentally competent to stand trial after nearly a year committed at Lakes Crossing maximum security psychiatric facility. Holloway then pleaded not guilty in the case. Nearly 3 years later, her case has still not been tried. Lakeisha Holloway faces 71 felony counts in connection to the Dec. 20, 2015 incident that left a woman dead and injured 34 others. Her trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 5, 2018.If you want to learn more about this case, you ll have to look for updates in local Las Vegas news sources. You won t likely find it being covered by the mainstream media. | 1real |
Austria's conservatives, Social Democrats to sue each other ahead of vote | VIENNA (Reuters) - Austria s co-governing Social Democrats (SPO) and conservative (OVP), who are leading in polls ahead of the Oct. 15 election, said on Friday they would sue each other in an escalating political smear scandal. A public outcry over derogatory Facebook pages targeting OVP leader Sebastian Kurz, run by campaign consultants hired by the SPO, has already led to the departure of its campaign manager and loss of popularity in a recent poll. The limit has been reached. We re suing, OVP general secretary Elisabeth Koestinger told a news conference. She said her party was preparing a libel suit against an employee of SPO campaign consultant Tal Silberstein, whom the SPO fired in August, to force him to retract comments that the OVP had offered him 100,000 euros ($116,980) to switch sides. We are also preparing to sue the SPO in relation to incitement, she said, adding the lawsuit could be broadened. SPO chairman Christoph Matznetter said the SPO was preparing a lawsuit against Kurz s spokesman seeking to clarify whether he did or did not offer money to Silberstein s employee. He said such an act could amount to bribery and industrial espionage . SPO Chancellor Christian Kern, who has governed in a tension-ridden grand coalition with the OVP, has said he knew nothing of the dirty campaigning pages and has asked Facebook to unmask the people running them. At the behest of the SPO, Vienna prosecutors are investigating unnamed persons for defamation as the pages also included derogatory content aimed at Kern. The OVP is leading pre-election polls at around 34 percent, while the SPO has slipped to third place at 22 percent below the far-right, anti-immigrant Freedom Party at 27 percent. | 0fake |
Texas Oil Fields Rebound From Price Lull, but Jobs Are Left Behind - The New York Times | MIDLAND, Tex. — In the land where oil jobs were once a guaranteed road to security for workers, Eustasio Velazquez’s career has been upended by technology. For 10 years, he laid cables for service companies doing seismic testing in the search for the next big gusher. Then, powerful computer hardware and software replaced cables with wireless data collection, and he lost his job. He found new work connecting pipes on rigs, but lost that job, too, when plunging oil prices in 2015 forced the driller he worked for to replace rig hands with cheaper, more reliable automated tools. “I don’t see a future,” Mr. Velazquez, 44, said on a recent afternoon as he stooped over his shopping cart at a local grocery store. “Pretty soon every rig will have one worker and a robot. ” Oil and gas workers have traditionally had some of the jobs — just the type that President Trump has vowed to preserve and bring back. But the West Texas oil fields, where activity is gearing back up as prices rebound, illustrate how difficult it will be to meet that goal. As in other industries, automation is creating a new demand for workers — sometimes hundreds of miles away in a control center — but their numbers don’t offset the ranks of field hands no longer required to sling chains and lift iron. So while there is a general sense of relief in the oil patch that a recovery is gaining momentum, discussions at company meetings and family kitchen tables are rife with aching worries, especially among those who are with no more than a high school education. Roughly 163, 000 oil jobs were lost nationally from the 2014 peak, or about 30 percent of the total, while oil prices plummeted, at one point by as much as 70 percent. The job losses just in Texas, the most productive state, totaled 98, 000. Several thousand workers have come back to work in recent months as the price of oil has begun to rise again, but energy experts say that between a third and a half of the workers who lost their jobs are not returning. Many have migrated to construction or even jobs in renewable energy, like wind power. “People have left the industry, and they are not coming back,” said Michael Dynan, vice president for portfolio and strategic development at Schramm, a Pennsylvania manufacturer of drilling rigs. “If it’s a repetitive task, it can be automated, and I don’t need someone to do that. I can get a computer to do that. ” Indeed, computers now direct drill bits that were once directed manually. The wireless technology taking hold across the oil patch allows a handful of geoscientists and engineers to monitor the drilling and completion of multiple wells at a time — onshore or miles out to sea — and supervise immediate fixes when something goes wrong, all without leaving their desks. It is a world where rigs walk on their own legs and sensors on wells alert headquarters to a leak or loss of pressure, reducing the need for a technician to check. And despite all the lost workers, United States oil production is galloping upward, to nine million barrels a day from 8. 6 million in September. Nationwide, with a bit more than as many rigs operating as in 2014, production is not even down 10 percent from record levels. Some of the best wells here in the Permian Basin that three years ago required an oil price of over $60 a barrel for an operator to break even now need about $35, well below the current price of about $53. Much of the technology has been developed by the aviation and automotive industries, along with deepwater oil exploration, over more than a decade. But companies drilling on land were slow to adapt until oil prices crashed and companies needed to get efficient quickly or go out of business. All the big companies, and many smaller ones, have organized teams of technicians that collect well and tank data to develop complex algorithms enabling them to duplicate the design for the most productive wells over and over, and to repair valves and other parts before they break down. The result is improved production and safety, but also a far smaller work force, and one that is increasingly morphing from muscle to brain power. Pioneer Natural Resources, one of the most productive West Texas producers, has slashed the number of days to drill and complete wells so drastically that it has been able to cut costs by 25 percent in wells completed since early 2015. The typical rig that drilled eight to 12 wells a year just a few years ago now drills up to 16. Last year, the company added nearly 240 wells to its Permian Basin inventory without adding new employees. The faster operations, Pioneer executives say, are due in large part to more effective well planning and drill steering. Both have been made possible by the computer connections between the rig and top geoscientists back at corporate headquarters and intense analysis of the data gathered at every well. The laborious task of checking tank levels by climbing a flight of steps and popping open a series of latches, for instance, has been replaced by pressing a few icons on a computer touch screen. A fully automated water pump station installed last summer is intended to save hundreds of truck trips every day hauling water for hydraulically fracturing wells, yielding diesel and labor cost savings. “We want to transform our work force to the point where we need to hire fewer people,” said Joey Hall, Pioneer’s executive vice president for Permian operations. Improved computing streamlines operations, he noted, and lets technicians optimally space their wells and more accurately perforate the sweet spots of shale veins to squeeze every drop of oil out of the ground. “We’re heading toward artificial intelligence and machine learning, analyzing thousands of algorithms,” Mr. Hall added, sounding more like a Silicon Valley futurologist than a wildcatter. “Through repetitive operations, you learn the patterns, and through patterns you learn to make automated decisions. ” With the loss of manual jobs has come a transformation in the job force, with demand growing for more data analysts, math scientists, communications specialists and robotic design engineers. In the last two years, ABB, the Swiss technology company, has opened two plants in Houston for assembling and packaging robotics and integrating advanced instrumentation into oil field operations. GE Oil and Gas opened a technology center in Oklahoma City in October to place scientists closer to the oil fields to research and apply new digital industrial technologies for exploration and production. Among its many projects is an experiment to use drones to inspect equipment and identify methane leaks on oil sites. Nabors, the oil services giant, has 100 employees developing software, 10 times the number it had only a few years ago. “With the adoption of all this software and stuff, we’ve had to bring in a lot of new technicians,” said Dennis A. Smith, a Nabors vice president. A typical new oil company employee is Andre Nel, a mechanical engineer who is a rising star at Pioneer Natural Resources. In less than two years, he has helped rewrite computer software to instruct workers on the best designs for hydraulic fracturing, optimizing the amounts of fluids, sand and chemicals pumped into the wells. Now, connected by computers to technicians in the field, he is monitoring the production of 950 wells, instantly checking the maintenance history and production trends of every well with the click of a mouse. “I’m lucky and happy that the tech revolution in the oil field has created the need for engineers like me with backgrounds in computer science,” he said. But smaller companies and their workers are struggling to keep up. S. O. C. Industries, a small local pump truck operator and chemical services provider, is forced to invest $100, 000 a year to keep up with the computer programs and monitoring equipment its clients request. The added expenses are one reason the company has let go 15 of the 60 field workers employed three years ago. Another is that well operators that once hired five or six people on a drill site to mix chemicals and drilling fluids as well as clean up spills are now hiring only three as mechanization has sliced their drilling time in half. Some of the remaining S. O. C. employees are straining to keep up with new computerized pump truck monitors and GPS systems. “It’s a struggle,” said Rodrigo Urias, 59, an S. O. C. truck driver, who for many years only had to look at a needle on a gauge to monitor flow pressures. Now he needs to reset computer screens, take work orders on a computer tablet and sometimes do algebraic calculations. “A lot of the guys can’t operate these new technologies, tablets and instruments, and they keep whining,” he added. “They want to know why we can’t do things like we used to. ” Manufacturing executives say they are trying to minimize the complexity for field workers, and sometimes design their equipment with the advice of video game makers. That’s a good thing for Michael Manga, 34, an employee of Latshaw Drilling, an Oklahoma company active here. A college dropout, he knocked around from job to job before finding his way to the oil patch. Now, playing video games like Call of Duty and Mario Kart with his friends over the years has paid off, giving him the coordination to monitor and operate the control panels and joy sticks that control the drilling rig. “We do such a good job now,” he said, “we’re drilling ourselves out of a job. ” | 0fake |
Democratic lawmakers sue Trump over foreign state payments to businesses | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 190 Democratic lawmakers sued President Donald Trump in federal court on Wednesday, saying he had accepted funds from foreign governments through his businesses without congressional consent in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint said Trump had not sought congressional approval for any of the payments his hundreds of businesses had received from foreign governments since he took office in January, even though the Constitution requires him to do so. The White House did not respond to requests for comment but has said Trump’s business interests do not violate the Constitution. The Trump Organization has said it will donate profits from customers representing foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury but will not require such customers to identify themselves. At least 30 U.S. senators and 166 representatives are plaintiffs in Wednesday’s lawsuit, representing the largest number of legislators ever to sue a U.S. president, according to two lawmakers who are among the plaintiffs. It was the latest in a series of such lawsuits against the Republican president. The Constitution’s “foreign emoluments” clause bars U.S. officeholders from accepting payments and various other gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval. The lawmakers are seeking a judicial order to require Trump to seek Congress’ assent before he accepts such payments. “The president’s failure to tell us about these emoluments, to disclose the payments and benefits that he is receiving, mean that we cannot do our job. We cannot consent to what we don’t know,” said Richard Blumenthal, the lead senator on the lawsuit, in a conference call on Tuesday. John Conyers, the lead plaintiff from the House of Representatives, added: “President Trump has conflicts of interest in at least 25 countries, and it appears he’s using his presidency to maximize his profits.” The Justice Department declined to comment. Similar lawsuits have been filed in recent months by parties including a nonprofit ethics group, a restaurant trade group, and the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia. They allege that Trump’s acceptance of payments from foreign and U.S. governments through his hospitality empire puts other hotel and restaurant owners at an unfair disadvantage and provides governments an incentive to give Trump-owned businesses special treatment. In a motion to dismiss one such lawsuit on Friday, the Justice Department argued that the plaintiffs had not shown any specific harm to their businesses, and that Trump was only banned from receiving foreign government gifts if they arose from his service as president. On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said “partisan politics” was behind the lawsuit by the Maryland and District of Columbia officials. Lawmakers rarely sue the president, so there are few federal court decisions the legislators can cite to prove their legal standing to bring Wednesday’s case, said Leah Litman, an assistant professor specializing in constitutional law at the University of California, Irvine. A 1997 Supreme Court decision by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist indicates such cases have standing if the plaintiffs are numerous enough that they could have had a decisive impact on the vote from which they were excluded, said Tara Grove, a professor specializing in federal courts and constitutional law at William & Mary Law School. “Courts are more and more receptive to the idea that a large group of federal lawmakers can sue over being deprived of their constitutionally conferred powers,” Grove said. Conyers and Blumenthal said they planned to reach out to their Republican colleagues in Congress to invite them to join the lawsuit. “I won’t be surprised if a few do,” Conyers added. | 0fake |
Read the frustrating conversation a man had with his granny after accidentally phoning her | Next Prev Swipe left/right Read the frustrating conversation a man had with his granny after accidentally phoning her Twitter user Big Daddy , also known as @YanniTsunami , has shared an awkward text conversation he had with his grandmother – because granny texts are a thing now – after he accidentally called her.
The conversation went like this:
Granny: What’s wrong Granny: Did u want anything or just wanted to talk Big Daddy: It was an accident Granny: Were u driving Big Daddy: I’m fine Granny: Who was driving Big Daddy: My mom is driving Granny: The car hurt | 1real |
WOW! HILLARY SPILLS THE BEANS On Funding Terrorists…The Press Is Silent [Video] | Hillary Clinton tells about funding the terrorists who would help defeat the Russians most of this is true but in typical Hillary fashion she changes the story and doesn t mention Reagan s Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI aka Star Wars was a big part in the defeat as well. You can guarantee you ll never see this video clip on the main stream media! During the 1970 s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980 s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of the database in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.America s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs.FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Received Secret Memo Stating Obama Admin Support for ISISUnder the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.Via: GR | 1real |
Chinese Social Media Rages over United Airlines Controversy - Breitbart | Users across Chinese social media expressed their anger and called for a boycott over a viral video of an Asian doctor being forcibly removed from a United Airlines flight this week. [The Wall Street Journal reports that China’s own Twitter clone and microblogging service Weibo lit up on Sunday night after the video was posted to the social media service. Within hours, the incident was the number one trending topic on the platform with 100, 000 comments and nearly 160 million views by Tuesday. Many of the comments across Weibo focused on what many believed to be discrimination against the man based on his ethnicity. Chinese author Song Hongbing wrote, “This is inherent arrogance … I don’t think a white doctor would be treated like this. ” Other Weibo users discussed boycotting the airline. Wang Guanxiong, a investor, also posted his disapproval of the company on Weibo, saying, “Overselling is the responsibility of the airlines. Why was it an Asian who got beaten? This is purely racial discrimination … boycott United Airlines. ” Oscar Munoz, the CEO of United Airlines apologized for the incident in an online statement, but later an internal memo reportedly sent to United employees was leaked that stated, “Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this,” China is quite a large market for United Airlines, who have operated in the country for more than 30 years, providing more nonstop routes to and from China than competitors such as American Airlines or Delta. The incident on United Airlines has sparked such a response from Chinese travellers due in part to the rise of China’s middle class, according to Linda Du, general manager at consultancy APCO Worldwide. “International travel is now really common for people, either for business or personal pleasure,” said Du. “[Chinese consumers] want equal treatment, a good experience and to be respected. They have a sense of protecting . ” Du also noted the use of social media to express anger over the incident as an example of the Chinese public using new media to make their voices heard: “In China, most of the traditional media is regulated by the Chinese government, so social media — the voice — is the only resource they have. ” In February is was reported that Weibo had 313 million active users each month, just slightly behind Twitter’s 319 million active monthly users. The service, which was developed as a clone of Twitter only for use in China, is expected to outgrow Jack Dorsey’s social media platform this year. Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan_ or email him at lnolan@breitbart. com | 0fake |
Turkish PM says deadly attacks likely were suicide bombings | Nearly simultaneous explosions targeted a Turkish peace rally Saturday in Ankara, killing at least 95 people and wounding hundreds in Turkey's deadliest attack in years — one that threatens to inflame the nation's ethnic tensions.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility but Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said there were "strong signs" that the two explosions — which struck 50 meters (yards) apart just after 10 a.m. — were suicide bombings. He suggested that Kurdish rebels or Islamic State group militants were to blame.
The two explosions occurred seconds apart outside the capital's main train station as hundreds of opposition supporters and Kurdish activists gathered for the peace rally organized by Turkey's public workers' union and other groups. The protesters planned to call for increased democracy in Turkey and an end to the renewed violence between Kurdish rebels and Turkish security forces.
The attacks Saturday came at a tense time for Turkey, a NATO member that borders war-torn Syria, hosts more refugees than any other nation in the world and has seen renewed fighting with Kurdish rebels that has left hundreds dead in the last few months.
Many people at the rally had been anticipating that the rebels of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, would declare a temporary cease-fire — which it did hours after the bombing — to ensure that Turkey's Nov. 1 election would be held in a safe environment.
Television footage from Turkey's Dogan news agency showed a line of protesters Saturday near Ankara's train station, chanting and performing a traditional dance with their hands locked when a large explosion went off behind them. An Associated Press photographer saw several bodies covered with bloodied flags and banners that demonstrators had brought for the rally.
"There was a massacre in the middle of Ankara," said Lami Ozgen, head of the Confederation of Public Sector Trade Unions, or KESK.
The state-run Anadolu Agency said the attacks were carried out with TNT explosives fortified with metal ball-bearings.
Turkey's government late Saturday raised the death toll in the twin bomb blasts to 95 people killed, 248 wounded. It said 48 of the wounded were in serious condition — and a doctor's group said many of them had burns.
"This massacre targeting a pro-Kurdish but mostly Turkish crowd could flame ethnic tensions in Turkey," said Soner Cagaptay, an analyst at the Washington Institute.
Cagaptay said the attack could be the work of groups "hoping to induce the PKK, or its more radical youth elements, to continue fighting Turkey," adding that the Islamic State group would benefit most from the full-blown Turkey-PKK conflict.
"(That) development could make ISIS a secondary concern in the eyes of many Turks to the PKK," Cagaptay said in emailed comments, using another acronym for IS militants.
Small anti-government protests broke out at the scene of the explosions and outside Ankara hospitals as Interior Minister Selami Altinok visited the wounded. Some demonstrators chanted "Murderer Erdogan!" — referring to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom many accuse of increasing tensions with Kurds to profit at the ballot box in November. Erdogan denies the accusations.
Later Saturday, thousands gathered near Istanbul's main square denouncing the attacks and also holding the government responsible.
The Turkish government imposed a temporary news blackout covering images that showed the moment of the blasts, gruesome or bloody pictures or "images that create a feeling of panic." A spokesman warned media organizations they could face a "full blackout" if they did not comply.
Many people reported being unable to access Twitter and other social media websites for several hours after the blasts. It was not clear if authorities had blocked access to the websites, but Turkey often does impose blackouts following attacks.
At a news conference, Davutoglu declared a three-day official mourning period for the blast victims and said Turkey had been warned about groups aiming to destabilize the country.
"For some time, we have been receiving intelligence information based from some (Kurdish rebel) and Daesh statements that certain suicide attackers would be sent to Turkey... and that through these attackers chaos would be created in Turkey," Davutoglu told reporters, using the IS group's Arabic acronym.
"The (Kurdish rebels) or Daesh could emerge (as culprits) of today's terror event," Davutoglu said, promising that those behind the attacks would be caught and punished.
Davutoglu said authorities had detained at least two suspected would-be suicide bombers in the past three days in Ankara and Istanbul.
Authorities had been on alert after Turkey agreed to take a more active role in the U.S.-led battle against the Islamic State group. Turkey opened up its bases to U.S. aircraft to launch air raids on the extremist group in Syria and carried out a limited number of strikes on the group itself. Russia has also entered the fray on behalf of the Syrian government recently, bombing sites in Syria and reportedly violating Turkish airspace a few times in the past week.
On a separate front, the fighting between Turkish forces and Kurdish rebels flared anew in July, killing at least 150 police and soldiers and hundreds of PKK rebels since then. Turkish jets have also carried out numerous deadly airstrikes on Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq.
Erdogan condemned Saturday's attacks, which he said targeted the country's unity, called for solidarity and canceled a planned visit Monday to Turkmenistan.
"The greatest and most meaningful response to this attack is the solidarity and determination we will show against it," Erdogan said.
Critics have accused Erdogan of re-igniting the fighting with the Kurds to seek electoral gains — hoping that the turmoil would rally voters back to the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP. Electoral gains by the country's pro-Kurdish party caused the AKP, founded by Erdogan, to lose its parliamentary majority in a June election after a decade of single-party rule.
The attacks Saturday, which even surpassed twin Al Qaeda-linked attacks in Istanbul in 2003 that killed some 60 people, also drew widespread condemnation from Turkey's allies.
Turkey's state-run news agency said President Obama called Erdogan to extend his condolences. The Anadolu Agency, citing unnamed officials, said Obama told Erdogan the United States would continue to side with Turkey in the fight against terrorism. It quoted Obama as saying the U.S. "shared Turkey's grief."
Erdogan earlier said the twin bombings aimed to destroy Turkey's "peace and stability." Anadolu said the two leaders agreed to talk more in the coming days.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel sent her condolences, calling the attacks "particularly cowardly acts that were aimed directly at civil rights, democracy and peace."
"It is an attempt at intimidation and an attempt to spread fear," she said. "I am convinced that the Turkish government and all of Turkish society stands together at this time with a response of unity and democracy."
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said "there can be no justification for such a horrendous attack on people marching for peace... All NATO allies stand united in the fight against the scourge of terrorism."
Saturday was the third attack against meetings of Kurdish activists. In July, a suicide bombing blamed on the Islamic State group killed 33 peace activists, including many Kurds, in the town of Suruc near Turkey's border with Syria. Two people were killed in June in a bomb attack at the pro-Kurdish party's election rally.
"This attack (Saturday) resembles and is a continuation of the Diyarbakir and Suruc (attacks)," said Selahattin Demirtas, leader of the Turkey's pro-Kurdish party. He held Erdogan and Davutoglu's government responsible for the latest attack, saying it was "carried out by the state against the people."
In the aftermath of the Ankara attack, the PKK declared a temporary cease-fire. A rebel statement said Saturday the group is halting hostilities to allow the Nov. 1 election to proceed safely. It said it would not launch attacks but would defend itself.
The government has said there would be no letup in its fight against the Kurdish rebels.
"Our operations (against the PKK) will continue until they lay down arms," Davutoglu said late Friday. | 0fake |
LOL! OBAMA’S RADICAL EPA CHIEF Says There Was No “War On Coal”…But OOPS…That’s Not What The Poster Behind Her Says! | The head of the EPA under President Barack Obama vehemently denied politicians and environmentalists waged a war on coal. There s just one problem. She was sitting in front of a coal sucks poster in the office of California s top state senator.Former EPA chief Gina McCarthy huddled with Democratic lawmakers in Sacramento Thursday to advise them on how the state could move forward with policies aimed at fighting global warming while the Trump administration dismantled Obama s environmental agenda.McCarthy took over EPA in Obama s second term and oversaw the implementation of the president s Climate Action Plan, which included sweeping regulations on power plants and natural gas wells. Republicans and coal supporters say these regulations were part of the administration s war on coal. Daily Caller | 1real |
Democrats see chance to reshape map as Trump stumbles | Salt Lake City (CNN) In a less volatile election cycle, the notion that Democrats would be on offense in red states like Utah, Arizona and Georgia would suggest the presidential race was effectively over.
No one is willing to make that kind of bet in a race that has defied all political norms. But as Donald Trump's downward spiral continues in round after round of battleground polls, and the Hillary Clinton campaign has begun to dabble in ruby-red states, Democrats are clearly feeling bullish. Some are now openly mulling the possibility of a Clinton blowout in November.
Even Trump acknowledged Thursday that his campaign was "having a tremendous problem in Utah," a reliably Republican state where Mitt Romney won more than 70% of the vote in 2012 and the hunger for another choice ushered independent candidate Evan McMullin, who has strong ties to Utah and the LDS community, into the presidential race this week.
There are far too many variables at play over the next three months for anyone to say with certainty how the race will end. The two major candidates are intensely disliked by the electorate. This week, Clinton has once again been shadowed by the controversy over her emails and her ties to the Clinton Foundation as secretary of state. Trump is a contender who has shown an extraordinary level of resilience in overcoming controversy.
But Mitch Stewart, who was the Obama campaign's battleground states director in 2012, said Clinton's strengthened position could dramatically reconfigure the electoral map for Democrats -- helping to lay groundwork for a Democratic transformation of states like Arizona and Georgia that were not expected to be competitive until 2020 or 2024.
"In 2008 when we won by six or seven points, we got relatively close in a state like Georgia, and would have gotten close in a state like Arizona if John McCain hadn't been senator there," Stewart said. "If you add three, or four, or five points on top of that -- which is where Secretary Clinton is right now --- it makes sense that Arizona and Georgia are basically tied. That's where the race is given the strength of her candidacy and the weakness of his."
Clinton could be looking at a sweep of the map that could net as many as 380 electoral votes, Stewart said: potentially "a massive, massive win."
The Clinton campaign is taking pains not to look overconfident at this early juncture. It says she has always hoped to organize in all 50 states to aid down-ballot Democratic candidates. Moreover, Clinton and allies are not spending any real money in those three red states yet. But they are gearing up for a six-figure investment in field operations and voter registration in Arizona and Georgia that would force Trump to defend his position in those states.
"Some states may flip and some states may not change overnight, but being focused on organizing is something that's important, particularly this year because it's a dynamic race," said Marlon Marshall, Clinton's director of state campaigns and political engagement. "Our goal is to figure out how we get to 270 electoral votes in the most efficient way, and if that means that there's a couple different pathways that could potentially open up, we must explore them."
The race will be still be won or lost this year in the battlegrounds of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida where Trump looked competitive before his summer series of unforced errors. A new round of polls from Quinnipiac and NBC/Wall Street Journal/Marist show that she has moved into a double-digit lead over Trump in Pennsylvania, while displaying a narrow edge over Trump in Ohio. The race in Florida is a virtual tie.
Trump's advisers insist that they are still poised to win Arizona, Georgia and Utah, and that they have many paths to 270 electoral votes, but his weakened position in states that Romney won easily in 2012 raises serious questions about the viability of his candidacy.
Before Trump ever entered the picture, Republicans were facing a difficult electoral map, because 18 states and the District of Columbia have voted Democratic in the last six presidential cycles --- essentially giving Democrats a base of 242 electoral votes on their path to 270.
Trump has boasted that his unusual appeal will put some of those reliable Democratic states in play, including Michigan (16 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes), and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes). But so far there is little evidence that is true, and few political strategists can map out a path to victory for Trump unless he wins all the states that Romney won in 2012, including Arizona, Georgia and Utah.
"Trump has driven away a big chunk of voters that used to be solid Republican voters. That puts states in play that should not be in play," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden. "The electoral map was already hard to begin with, given the demographic shifts in battleground states likes Colorado and Virginia. Trump just made it harder by finding a way to be more unpopular and more unlikeable than the most unpopular and unlikeable Democratic nominee in modern history."
Arizona has long held potential for Democrats because of its growing Hispanic population, but the movement in their direction has been accelerated by Trump's divisive rhetoric about Mexicans and immigration.
In Georgia, Democratic groups have made a huge push to register growing numbers of minority voters, particularly targeting black and Hispanic voters who live around Atlanta. (Romney won Arizona by 10 points and Georgia by 8 points in 2012.)
But it is deep-red Utah that has revealed the deep vulnerabilities of Trump's candidacy this year. Romney's 2012 showing was in part because of the strength of his candidacy among Mormon voters who make up 60% of the state's population. Republicans George W. Bush captured 72% in 2004 and John McCain 63% in 2008.
Trump and Clinton were virtually tied in some Utah surveys earlier this year, and Chris Karpowitz, co-director of Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, noted that Trump has been unable to break 40% in the most recent Utah polls. Libertarian Gary Johnson has been surging in Utah, and McMullin jumped into the mix this week.
"Republicans begin any election in the state of Utah with an enormous advantage," Karpowitz said. "But there are many Utahans who are very conflicted, and very ambivalent about his candidacy."
Trump's biggest hurdle is among conservative Mormon voters, who have been appalled by HIS tone, as well as his call for travel ban on Muslims -- the kind of singling out of a religious minority that carries echoes of the discrimination that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints faced historically.
"There is a conflict between their political identity and some core religious values that they hold dear," said Karpowitz. "So when Donald Trump talks about a religious test for immigration or talks about refugees in ways that seem disrespectful or dismissive of their concerns or needs, that resonates with some members of the LDS church."
Clinton attempted to tap into to the antipathy for Trump within that huge voting bloc, by writing in the in the Deseret News this week about her opposition to Trump's call for a Muslim ban and her work on religious liberty as secretary of state.
Still, back in June, Utah voters were ready to give Trump a second chance even after giving him his lowest vote total of any primary or caucus, said Kirk Jowers, an election attorney who is the former director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah.
"We wanted to vote for a Republican nominee as we have done in every election since 1964, and Hillary Clinton is certainly is not the one who could steal some of those votes away in a normal election," Jowers said. "But his behavior, particularly in August, has been so outrageous. He doubled down on all the things that were most offensive to us.... This doubling down that he's been doing has made it close to impossible for us to get on board."
Many of the voters who gathered at McMullin's official launch Wednesday night expressed those kinds of sentiments and their disgust with Trump.
At the event to recruit volunteers to gather signatures for McMullin, who needs 1,000 by next Monday to qualify for the Utah ballot, a number of attendees said they had heard about McMullin's candidacy on Facebook and were drawn to his conservative background and his biography as a former CIA operative.
Even though McMullin has little -- or no chance -- of winning the presidency, given that ballot access deadlines have passed in all but 14 states, a number of voters said they were thrilled to have a candidate they felt comfortable backing.
Victoria Bearden, a 36-year-old Republican from Salt Lake City, was one of many who approached McMullin after his speech to thank him for giving her a choice.
Until McMullin, she had been planning to sit out the presidential race: "I never thought I'd have to do that, because it just shows you how awful it is. And I know there's millions of people out there feeling the same way I do."
"I thought I was a Republican, but now I'm not sure what I am," added Bearden, a former ballet dancer who has two young children. "I just feel like Trump is incompetent; he's crazy, and he's going to be more divisive than where we already are as a country. I just can't trust the man."
When she's discussed McMullin's candidacy with friends, she said, some have noted that she just might be throwing away her vote and helping elect Hillary Clinton.
"At this point, it's like 'Why not?'" she said. "Donald Trump is not going to win, and I think people need to stand up and show that they're not happy with either [candidate] ... If we go with our conscience and our heart, then you never know -- it's America. Anything is possible." | 0fake |
Lesbians4Hillary? Wait…What About Her Unyielding Support For Traditional Marriage In This Video? | Yep Hillary s now a champion of lesbians and gay marriage. Or is she? It s hard to tell exactly what Hillary stands for. She seemed pretty adamant in the videos below that she was committed to preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. Hillary Clinton has garnered one of her first major endorsements in run bid for the White House: The nation s largest lesbian political action committee.The group, LPAC, launched Lesbians4Hillary on Monday to support the former First Lady s bid to become the nation s first female president.Lesbians4Hillary, co-chaired by pioneering tennis great Billie Jean King, said: Hillary Clinton is a proven leader and she has a strong track record when it comes to inclusion specifically for women and the LGBTQ community. Her entire career has been a road map to get her to this moment and she has earned my respect and my vote to become the next President of the United States of America. I am honored to join LPAC and help lead our effort to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016. King, who was outed as a lesbian in 1981, was a leader of the group Women for Hillary in 2008, as well.But wait what about this video showing Hillary s unyielding support for traditional marriage?In the video released yesterday announcing Clinton s candidacy for president, two gay couples were included. Among them, two lesbians who look lovingly into each other s eyes.However, in her 2008 campaign, Clinton did not support gay marriage. It took her five years to publicly say that she supported gay marriage. President Barack Obama publicly announced his support for gay marriage nearly a year earlier in March 2012.Via: UK Daily Mail | 1real |
Can Israelis And Palestinians Change Their Minds? | Can Israelis And Palestinians Change Their Minds?
What makes people change their minds? About the really hard stuff.
Covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the past three years, I've often wondered if people here ever do.
This conflict is frequently described as "intractable," with neither side willing to give up their historical perspective or their entrenched positions to end it. And it does not take many interviews to hear repetitions of the same sweeping narrative repeated on each side. Palestinians from different places cite the same historical events to back their views. Israelis who have never met each other use similar turns of phrase.
"People have a lot of [psychological] resources invested in what they believe about the conflict," says Thomas Zeitzoff, a political scientist at American University in Washington, D.C., who has researched Israeli and Palestinian attitudes.
He says the high political stakes and emotional involvement make it hard for Israelis and Palestinians to change their minds.
But there have been certain shifts – in public opinion and in individual beliefs - during the 68 years of Israel's existence and almost half-century of the Israeli military control over Palestinian territories.
Why? Experts list a range of influences that – to varying degrees – can move or even flip deeply held views.
"You can point to major events, either in the world or people's lives, changes in their social context, as well as changes in the kind of messages they get from politicians and other elite sources," says Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor at Dartmouth College who researches politics and misperceptions.
Other factors include repeated exposure to a new idea, whatever the source, scientific research, and direct personal experience.
Four people – two Israeli and two Palestinian – told me their stories of personal, radical belief change related to the conflict. They not only changed their minds, but, a higher hurdle, their behavior.
Here are some triggers that led these people to see the world differently than they had before, even in the midst of a larger impasse.
Many groups supporting co-existence advocate for exposure to the other side. Knowledge develops empathy, they say, which can broaden an individual's perspective as well as pique curiosity.
Maayan Poleg is a Middle East program director for the group Seeds of Peace, which brings Palestinian and Israeli teens together for summer camp in Maine. She says the group does not advocate a particular political position and is not directly aiming to change minds.
But time together, deliberately discussing the conflict, humanizes the enemy, she says, and helps participants question their assumptions, as well as navigate the onslaught of opinions from politicians, family and media to clarify their individual beliefs.
"They become open to accepting the fact that what they know as truth is a narrative. That's a huge step," Poleg said. "People spend a lot of time defending a specific fact. And it takes them a long time to understand that their fact is actually a narrative. It doesn't mean that it's wrong. It just means that there's another way to view it."
Palestinians and Israelis used to interact with some regularity, often in the workplace or the marketplace. But over the past 15 years, they have been increasingly separated physically. They now spend very little time together.
But one Palestinian who went from throwing stones at Israeli soldiers to teaching non-violence says he began to change his mind about violence while in an Israeli prison. While behind bars, he learned Hebrew, saw his first movie about the Holocaust, and got to know Israeli prison guards.
"It's a process," says Bassam Aramin, who became one of the co-founders of Combatants for Peace, a group of former Israeli soldiers and Palestinian ex-militants. "You never wake up in the morning and say, 'Oh my God, we are wrong. The Israelis are right. I give up fighting.'"
He remembers the first time he and other ex-combatants – Israeli and Palestinian - sat down together. He was scared.
"We don't trust them. I think they're from the Israeli intelligence. Maybe they are coming to arrest us," Aramin recalls.
He saw fear in the eyes of the Israeli men who sat down with him.
"It's the first time they're coming to meet a Palestinian terrorist. And they have this fear of maybe one of us will kidnap them and kill them."
Trust did build trust over time and many conversations. They built an organization that teaches empathy and understanding.
But empathy is also vulnerable to a change of heart.
Many Israelis and Palestinians reached out to each other eagerly after leaders signed their first-ever peace plan back in 1993.
People were hopeful, and more open than ever to the idea they could live together peacefully, says Palestinian sociologist Nader Said.
"It was highly euphoric and highly exciting times," he remembers.
But that peace deal, the Oslo Accords, did not deliver on its promise. Violence returned with a vengeance when the second Palestinian uprising, or intifada, broke out in September 2000.
Said, who has polled Palestinians since the mid-1990s, says by then Palestinian support for co-existence had already begun to fall, as people grew disillusioned by the gap between expectations and reality.
"While they felt [Israeli] settlement activity would decline, settlement activity has increased," he says. "They felt maybe they'll have more access to Jerusalem, they have less access now."
Palestinian Abla Masrujeh is part of this societal shift. Now 54, she invested her time, money and reputation in joint projects with Israelis in the 1990s. She organized Israeli visits to her hometown of Nablus, in the West Bank, where they shared meals and visited Palestinian homes. She helped present a Tel Aviv exhibition of handcrafts done by women from both sides.
But when violence broke out once again, she felt her new Israeli friends did not understand her experiences as Israeli soldiers swept through the West Bank, or her point of view.
"All this made me rethink my position and my opinion of Israelis," Masrujeh says.
Israelis went through the same reversal of hope, says pollster Tamar Hermann.
"The repeated failures in achieving something tangible, and then the huge waves of terror, this made people think maybe it's not workable," she says. "People started to doubt whether the cognitive change which opened the door for the two-state solution was justifiable."
Many Israelis cite repeated suicide bombings, in cafes and on buses during the second intifada, from 2000 to 2005, as the beginning of a national shift in attitudes toward Palestinians.
American social psychologist Jay Van Bavel says accumulated experience often leads to change.
"Like a rat pressing a lever. If it gets a pellet, it will press the lever again. People are the same way," he says.
Over a decade, Israeli Tamar Asraf's mind and lifestyle turned 180 degrees around. She describes the process not as repetitive feedback, but as digging deeper.
Once secular and opposed to Israel's West Bank settlements as an obstacle to peace, Asraf is now religious and a spokesperson for Eli, a growing settlement in the central West Bank.
"It works like this. You get more connected to yourself, you get more connected to your private roots, then you get more connected to your national roots," Asraf says of her journey.
Exposed to religious Jews during her army service, Asraf began to feel her secular upbringing left huge gaps. When she began to study Judaism, her sense of connection to biblical places in the West Bank grew, trumping Palestinian claims to the same land.
Israel's political power base has shifted to the right over the past two decades, says Avi Dgani, an Israeli expert in mapping social and political dynamics.
But even though identity politics, magnified by frequent violence and international attention, play a large role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dgani says big personal swings such as the one Asraf experienced aren't all that common.
That's because many people don't deeply question their personal beliefs, or, subsequently, their politics, Dgani says. He cites last year's re-election of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an example.
A third of Netanyahu backers chose him simply because "me and my father and my forefather, we always voted right," Dgani says.
Once people change their minds, one of the most powerful ways to maintain that new belief is to find new friends who share it.
Asraf moved to a settlement because the people there followed the same religious practices she had recently adopted. Once there, she started voting for right-wing leaders, as do most of her neighbors.
Another Israeli, Noam Chayut, shifted to the left politically. He says small jolts shook his beliefs briefly along the way, but real change took off when he found like-minded people.
Chayut wrote a book, The Girl Who Stole My Holocaust, about his change from Zionist soldier to co-founder of Breaking the Silence, an organization of former soldiers who share anonymous stories critical of Israel's military occupation of the West Bank.
Time and a great deal of reflection were key to Chayut's realization that his core beliefs had changed.
"Soldiers get orders, they obey," he says. "You just do things. But reflecting on it, I did things that were close to my moral boundary."
People can be pushed to change their minds when they sense a clash between their beliefs and actions has become too strong.
But change is hard because people protect themselves against internal dissonance, especially in situations as emotionally and politically laden as this conflict, says Thomas Zeitzoff, the American political scientist who has studied how narratives can change here.
"We think people engage in what psychologists would call 'motivated cognition,'" says Zeitzoff. "To avoid things that may threaten our own view of selves or others, maybe motivated in a benign way to remember certain facts more than others, and selectively ignore things that contradict beliefs."
And that's just one of the reasons it's so hard to change. | 0fake |
Bernie Sanders’ Wife, Jane Sanders: Colin Kaepernick ‘Inspired Respect’ Thru ‘Dignified Stance’ - Breitbart | Last week, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick received a prestigious award from his teammates for “inspirational, courageous play,” despite the fact that Kaepernick’s ”play,” resulted in only one win in eleven starts for the 49ers. [This week, the wife of Senator Bernie Sanders let us know that she thought the award well deserved: Thank you @Kaepernick7 You inspired respect, focused our thoughts on need 4 change thru your dignified . https: . — Jane O’Meara Sanders (@janeosanders) January 7, 2017, So, bestowing upon Kaepernick an award for launching perhaps the most disrespectful, public smear campaign against our military in modern history now has the blessing of the wife of the man who came closest to unseating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. This reminds us once again of our incredible fortune that neither Jane O’Meara Sanders, nor Bill Clinton, will serve as first lady of the United States of America. Follow Dylan Gwinn on Twitter: @themightygwinn | 0fake |
Dump the Democrats for Good - Russia News Now |
— from Black Agenda Report
This columnist did not see a Donald Trump victory coming. The degree of disgust directed at an awful candidate was more than I had predicted. Neither the corporate media, nor Wall Street nor the pundits nor the pollsters saw this coming either. Their defeat and proof of their uselessness is total. Those of us who rejected the elite consensus and didn’t support Hillary Clinton should be proud.
Black people are now in fear and in shock when we ought to be spoiling for a fight. All is not lost. Even the victory of the openly bigoted Trump poses an opportunity to right our political ship. Not the electoral ship, the political one. For decades black Americans have been voting for people who have done them wrong. Bill Clinton got rid of public assistance as a right, and undid regulations that kept Wall Street in check. He put black people in jail and yet black people didn’t turn on him until he and his wife tried to defeat Obama. But Obama gave us more of the same. Bailouts of Wall Street, interventions and death for people all over the world, and a beat down of black people who still loved him. Despite the fear of Republican victory we end up losing whenever a Democratic presidential candidate wins.
Victory is ours if we dump the Democrat Party and their black misleaders. The Democrats were so entrenched in their corruption and self-dealing that they didn’t see the Bernie Sanders campaign for modest reform as the savior it might have been. Instead they marched in lock step with a woman who was heartily disliked. Sanders went along as the sheep dog who led his flock straight over the cliff. The Democrats inadvertently galvanized people who had stopped participating in the system and who want change from top to bottom.
One of our biggest problems lies not in facts but in perceptions. What did Democrats do for black people? The Democrats ship living wage jobs off shore in corrupt trade deals like NAFTA and TTP. They don’t prosecute killer cops or raise the minimum wage. Trump will be hard pressed to deport more people than Obama did. The list of treachery is very long.
When Donald Trump asked black people, “What have you got to lose?” his words were met with derision. But in reality he posed a good question. What do we have to show for years of Democratic votes? Obama bailed out banks, insurance companies, Big Pharma and even Ukraine. But he didn’t rebuild Detroit or New Orleans. The water in Flint, Michigan is still poisoned and the prisons are still full.
The outpouring of love for Barack Obama was purely symbolic. In state after state, black people who gave him victory in 2008 and 2012 stayed home. They loved seeing him and his wife dressed up at state dinners but they were never fully engaged in politics because that is not what Democrats want. The love was phony and void of any political intent. Donald Trump will be president because of that veneer of political activism.
As for white people who voted for Trump, of course many of them are racists. However they are not without valid complaints. They don’t want neoliberalism but black people don’t either. They don’t want wars around the world and neither do black people. We corrupt our own heritage of radicalism in favor of shallow symbolism. While we slept walk in foolish nostalgia for Obama and cried at the thought of him leaving office, white people kept their hatred of Hillary to themselves or lied to pollsters. They want America to be great again, great for them. White nostalgic yearnings are dangerous for black people, and we must be vigilant. But there may be opportunity in this crisis if we dare to seize it.
Republicans have been the white people’s party for nearly 50 years. Trump just made it more obvious. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. We don’t have to be the losers in this election. Let us remember what we have achieved in our history. Half of black Americans didn’t even have the right to vote in the 1960s yet made earth shattering progress in a short time. But we must understand the source of that progress. It came from struggle and daring to create the crises that always bring about change.
Yes white people will strut for president Trump but that doesn’t mean we must submit as if we are in the Jim Crow days of old. We have ourselves to rely on and we can reclaim our history of fighting for self-determination. The dread of redneck celebration should not be our primary motivation right now. Before we quake in fear at white America we must send the scoundrels packing.
The black politicians and the Democratic National Committee and the civil rights organizations that don’t help the masses must all be kicked to the proverbial curb. The rejection must be complete and blame must be laid squarely at their feet.
Those of us who voted for the green party ticket of Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka must stand firmly and proudly for our choice. We must strategize on building a progressive party to replace the Democrats who never help us. We must applaud Julian Assange and Wikileaks for exposing their corruption. There should be no back tracking on the fight to build left wing political power.
The black people who didn’t return to the polls shouldn’t be blamed either. Those individuals must have personal introspection that is meaningful and political. Their lack of enthusiasm speaks to Democratic Party and black misleadership incompetence. We should refrain from personal blame and help one another in this process as we fight for justice and peace.
The end of the duopoly is the first step in liberation. Staying with a party that literally did nothing was a slow and agonizing death. Sometimes shock therapy is needed to improve one’s condition. If we don’t take the necessary steps to free ourselves this election outcome will be a disaster. Instead, why not bring the disaster to the people who made it happen? The destruction of the Democratic Party and creation of a truly progressive political movement is the only hope for black America. Margaret Kimberley About author Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via email at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.Com. Ms. Kimberley’ maintains an edifying and frequently updated blog at freedomrider.blogspot.com . More of her work is also available at her Black Agenda Report archive page . Related | 1real |
PAUL RYAN IGNORES EXECUTIVE ORDERS OBAMA… SAYS He’ll Sue Trump Over Muslim Ban | Paul Ryan has had almost 8 years to lead the charge to impeach Obama for his unlawful, unconstitutional acts against America. Where was all of the tough talk from Ryan when Obama was shoving Obamacare down our throats? House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has made clear he doesn t agree with a proposal put forward by Donald Trump whom Ryan has endorsed to ban Muslim immigration into the United States, but in an interview with the Huffington Post Thursday, Ryan floated taking a President Trump to court if he tried to implement such a ban or some of his other controversial proposals unilaterally. I would sue any president that exceeds his or her powers, Ryan said in a back-and-forth about Trump s claims that he could implement a Muslim ban or build a Mexican border wall without congressional approval.REALLY Paul? Where have you been for the past year?Ryan said he wasn t sure of the legal question of whether Trump could institute a Muslim ban on his own as president. That s a legal question that there s a good debate about, he said, citing the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. On the broader question, are we going to exert our Article I powers and reclaim this Article I power no matter who the president is? Absolutely, Ryan said. He also said he discussed the limits of the executive power with Trump.In the interview, Ryan said his endorsement of real estate mogul did not give Trump a blank check, and that he was still trying to achieve real unity between the presumptive nominee and his caucus. I am going to keep being who I am, I am going to keep speaking out on things where I think it s needed, where our principles need to be defended, and I am going to keep doing that, I hope it s not necessary, Ryan said. But the last thing I want to see is a another Democrat in the White House Via: Talking Points Memo | 1real |
DEM CELEBS TURN ON DELEGATES…Unleash Ridicule And Elitism [Video] | Well, we all know liberal goofball Sarah Silverman is attention deprived because she s always the loudest and most disgusting comic in the room. It s just embarrassing when she calls impassioned Bernie followers ridiculous for not buying into the Hillary Grifter scam. The worst part of all this is that goofball Senator Al Franken still thinks he s on the stage at Saturday Night Live. The guy is such a super self absorbed elitist Dem that he makes you want to gag on his every word. Did you see his faux act of surprise and awe tonight? He s so lucky there are dumb Americans out there who ll reelect his stupid ASS Don t you deserve better than this self absorbed pompous ass of a guy?Fellow former Saturday Night Live cast member Sarah Silverman is speaking tonight at the Democratic National Convention but before the Masters of Sex actress and long-time Sen.Bernie Sanders supporter was on stage, Sen Al Franken unleashed his bite against Republican nominee Donald Trump and praised Hillary Clinton. However, Silverman was unsuccessful in her own later remarks quelling the very vocal supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders. To the Bernie or bust people, you are being ridiculous, the Sanders fan told delegates who offered boos and chants of Bernie over pleas for party unity in an increasingly frayed DNC.RelatedDNC Apologizes To Bernie Sanders As He Urges Supporters To Play Nice At Convention I m Al Franken, Minnesotan, Senator and world-renowned expert on right-wing megalomaniacs Rush Limbaugh, Bill O Reilly, and now Donald Trump, said the author of 1996 s Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations to the audience earlier in primetime Monday.Having kept a pretty low national profile since joining the Senate in 2009, Franken tonight ripped into the GOP nominee and former Celebrity Apprentice host. Frankly, as a proud alum of Trump U, I think we may be underestimating Donald Trump, the Senator said of the developer s lawsuit-slapped and controversial branded university. Sure, he s scammed a lot of people, but did you know that Trump University s School of Ripping People Off is ranked second in the nation? Right behind Bernie Madoff University? That s no mean feat. WATCH: Sarah Silverman tells Bernie supporters they're being ridiculous' https://t.co/eBGOxCMQcf #DemsInPhillyhttps://t.co/MG2FtEGxYW ABC7 News (@abc7newsbayarea) July 26, 2016 Via: deadline | 1real |
E.U. Charges Dispute Google’s Claims That Android Is Open to All - The New York Times | Google has long stressed that Android, its popular mobile software, is open for anyone to use, including its rivals. But the company’s claims are now under threat after Europe’s antitrust authorities on Wednesday charged the company with unfairly using Android to promote its own services — like mobile search — over those of its rivals. In doing so, regulators brought particular scrutiny to Google’s relationships with some of the world’s biggest cellphone makers, which have helped expand the reach of Android. Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s antitrust chief, said Google had required some of the cellphone manufacturers to preinstall the company’s services, including its Google Play smartphone application store, and had given them unfair financial incentives to favor Google’s services on their mobile devices. Those practices undermined competition and consumer choice, she said. “Google has abused its dominant position,” Ms. Vestager said on Wednesday. The company’s “behavior has harmed consumers by restricting innovation in the wider mobile space. ” The company denies it has broken European competition rules, and the charges may not lead to financial or other penalties against Google, which now has three months to respond to the accusations. “We take these concerns seriously,” Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, said in a blog post. “But we also believe that our business model keeps manufacturers’ costs low and their flexibility high, while giving consumers unprecedented control of their mobile devices. ” By taking aim at Android — the mobile software that holds more than 80 percent of the worldwide market share for smartphone operating systems — Europe has opened the latest chapter in its continuing battle with American technology companies. These players, including Amazon and Facebook, dominate how Europe’s 500 million people use digital services, including social media, online movies and . Google is facing separate charges, filed last year, in Europe over whether it unfairly favored some of its search services over those of rivals. Europe’s antitrust claims highlight Google’s increasingly thorny relationships with smartphone manufacturers such as HTC and Samsung, among others. Ms. Vestager said Android’s prominent role in the mobile market was not in question but that she was concerned the contracts the company signed with smartphone manufacturers had made it difficult, if not impossible, for rival search engines and smartphone app stores to compete in the European Union. “If a company is dominant, that’s fine,” Ms. Vestager told reporters. “But if that dominance is abused, then we have an issue. ” She declined to name which cellphone manufacturers might be affected, citing their right to privacy. The device makers, already struggling against cutthroat competition, have become reliant on Google’s digital services available on Android, even as they have tried to persuade consumers to try their own mobile services or those of Google’s competitors. Some, including Samsung, have backed rival operating systems to loosen Android’s grip, but such efforts have so far proved unsuccessful. And while global cellphone manufacturers once profited from using Android to expand rapidly, particularly in emerging markets, their growth has since slowed. Analysts say these cellphone makers’ inability to wean consumers off Google’s popular mobile mapping, email and other services has potentially shut them out of billions of dollars in extra revenue as people’s digital habits — including online search and purchases — shift to mobile devices. “Their attempts at beating Google’s services haven’t worked,” said Neil Mawston, a mobile analyst at the technology research group Strategy Analytics. “For most companies that want to operate in the smartphone market, there isn’t another option but to use Google. ” Representatives from the leading smartphone manufacturers declined to comment on their relationship with Google. The dominance of Android, at least in Europe and the United States, is almost absolute. The basic Android software can be downloaded for free and modified by device makers and telecom operators. But they must sign contracts that place a selection of Google’s services in prime spots on smartphone screens and link to the company’s app store, from which Google takes a cut of each application sold. The search giant also generates income from advertising from mobile search queries, though manufacturers are free to include their own applications as part of the mobile software. In total, Google’s version of Android powers more than 98 percent of the smartphones in Europe and the United States, according to Ian Fogg, a senior director at IHS, a technology consultancy in London. Only in China, where Google is banned, and Russia, where the local search engine Yandex holds a significant market share, does Google not dominate in mobile. “If someone buys an Android device in Europe or the U. S. it’s almost certainly Google’s version,” said David McQueen, research director at ABI Research in London. Google says its relationships with cellphone manufacturers are voluntary and that rival mobile services, including those from the likes of Amazon and Facebook, are readily available on its Android software, which does not restrict people from downloading competitors’ applications. The search giant has also pointed to smartphones from Amazon and Nokia that are based on the free version of Android and that do not come packaged with Google’s mobile services as signs of healthy competition. Those devices, particularly Amazon’s Fire smartphone, have not proved popular with consumers. Kirt McMaster, the chief executive of Cyanogen, an American that makes a mobile operating system based on Android, said he was cautiously optimistic that the regulatory intervention could improve innovation on the operating system. “There are ways to enable services on top of Android today, even within the confines of the existing relationships,” he said. “But there are scenarios that will be beneficial for the ecosystem if Android was even more open. ” If Google is found to have broken European rules, the company may face fines of as much as 10 percent of its annual revenue. Given the company’s recent annual revenue, that could be roughly $7 billion. Such a high financial penalty is unlikely, however, according to legal experts. The company could also be forced to alter its Android software to give competitors a greater position in its mobile software or to change its existing contracts with cellphone makers. That would potentially provide Europeans with a wider choice of mobile services than would be available to their American counterparts. Most people in the 28 member states of the European Union, though, still rely primarily on Google services for many daily activities. Such remedies, if eventually imposed on Google, would be reminiscent of similar steps taken by Microsoft, which in 2009 agreed to offer consumers a choice of rival web browsers to end a European antitrust investigation into its dominance of Internet browsers at that time. Paulo Trezentos, chief executive of Aptoide, a rival Portuguese Android app store that is one of the complainants in the European competition case against Google, said his company would welcome greater access to Android users. “Google makes it difficult for people to install applications from rivals,” Mr. Trezentos said. “It’s actively making it harder to compete. ” In the United States, some lawmakers on Wednesday called on the Federal Trade Commission to more closely scrutinize Google after Europe’s charges. In 2013, the F. T. C. closed a antitrust investigation into Google’s search business, citing a lack of evidence for pursuing a case. The F. T. C. said it did not comment on or confirm investigations. Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, said regulations and laws differed in Europe and the United States but “the spirit and goal of our laws is very similar. ” “There is now clearly a need for exacting and penetrating scrutiny,” Mr. Blumenthal said in an interview. “Perhaps it is overdue. But it is now clearly necessary. ” | 0fake |
Hillary Gives HUGE Middle Finger To GOP Bigots With Surprise Showing In NYC Pride Parade | While Donald the Trump is busy making the rounds decrying immigration, Hillary Clinton decided to make a surprise appearance in New York City for Pride. She joined NYC mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo on the parade route near the Stonewall Inn an especially fitting show of solidarity and support following the Orlando massacre.Hillary has worked hard on reaching out to the LGBT community, and right now, they need it more than ever. The entire community was rocked to its core by the Orlando massacre, and how they feel right now is evident in Pride celebrations that are more subdued than usual.Some have avoided Pride altogether out of fear. Others have refused to engage anybody that might show the slightest hint that they re bigoted towards the LGBT community. Make no mistake, Orlando was a direct attack on their community and they have every reason to be terrified right now.Where are the Republicans who decried Orlando? Oh, right, twiddling their thumbs, shaking their heads, and making empty gestures so they don t piss off their evangelical base. Paul Ryan said that authorities knew Omar Mateen had specifically targeted the LGBT community. Then he gave the LGBT community a big fuck you when he introduced a rule that the House wouldn t vote on any measure giving workplace protections to LGBT employees of federal contractors.Marco Rubio pretended to mourn the massacre while saying that it can make people think harder about where they can best serve their countries. It s not likely he s talking about military service, and that was a ridiculous way of saying he ll continue to work on behalf of the hate-filled evangelicals from which the horror of Orlando came.And then there s good ol Ted Cruz. He tried to use Orlando to convince people that it s really the Democrats who are responsible for the deaths of millions of LGBT people all over the world. So why isn t he marching in Pride parades, then? He should if he really wants to make the point that it s not his side of things that caused this.Trump himself once thanked the LGBT community and claimed nobody would be better for them than him, because he ll allegedly fight for their freedoms while Hillary wants to take them away. However, he s also said he d never appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would support marriage equality, and wants people who would give serious thought to overturning Obergefell v. Hodge. Since when is taking a right away from a specific group of people the same as fighting for their freedom?Hillary supports full equality and isn t afraid to say so. She s also unafraid to show up at a major Pride event to show her support. She didn t let the organizers know about her plans because monkey wrenches of all sorts had already been thrown into the works for so many Pride celebrations, thanks to Orlando, so it wasn t totally a surprise. However, some of her campaign volunteers said that she had been planning this for weeks. She would have appeared to show support and solidarity even if Orlando hadn t happened. The GOP? We hear crickets from them, if not outright discriminatory statements.Featured image by Drew Angerer/Getty Images | 1real |
Trump Campaign Says Hillary Supporter Tried Assassinating Trump – It Was A Republican With A Poster | Donald Trump was rushed from a rally stage by his Secret Service detail after someone in the crowd made a ruckus. Within minutes, his campaign was claiming it was a Hillary supporter with a gun trying to kill their candidate.
Here’s Trump’s social media director spinning the tale: Trump social media director retweeted a tweet claiming this was an assassination attempt pic.twitter.com/TTUCH4Zbb8
— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) November 6, 2016
Donald Trump Jr. followed suit, telling his followers on Twitter that his father had almost been assassinated. He offered zero evidence.
And, in fact, absolutely none of those details were true. The protester which is believed to have incited the panic was not trying to harm Donald Trump, not carrying a gun, and wasn’t even a Hillary supporter . He was a Republican protesting Trump.
Reporters tracked down the man, who says he was holding a sign and was attacked by Trump supporters after someone said he had a gun. This is the man who was ejected from the rally, sparking panic. He was holding a sign: "Republicans Against Trump" pic.twitter.com/bZ2JAZ2w88
— Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) November 6, 2016 He says he's a Republican. He said he was terrified by how the crowd responded: "I was in survival mode. I knew I could die at that moment."
— Paul Lewis (@PaulLewis) November 6, 2016
The Secret Service clarified what happened, and while their actions were understandable given the circumstances, the idea that the Trump campaign could leap from the small amount of details to a full-blown Hillary conspiracy is idiotic and reckless. Secret Service statement: "an unidentified individual shouted 'gun'…no weapon was found." pic.twitter.com/msH2CPcclE
— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) November 6, 2016
Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall hit the nail on the head. This rush to exploit a non-story by Trump’s campaign is cynical and disturbing. It also led to Trump’s fired up mob seeking to avenge their candidate by attacking reporters – a group Trump has repeatedly demonized. 4: Clinton supporter. When a CNN reporter went into the crowd to try to learn more he was assaulted by feral Trumpers still amped up …
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 6, 2016
There is something cultish about the way Trump’s campaign relished the idea that someone would attempt to hurt their candidate. The minor detail that none of it was true didn’t seem to slow them down. They want to portray Trump as a martyr without any of the inconvenience of an actual martyrdom.
Featured image via Scott Olson/Getty Images Share this Article! | 1real |
Putin and Xi in Western propaganda – why does XJP get off so lightly? Moscow-Beijing Express on The Saker 161029 | Nuclear weapons In fact, Russia is not about to go to war with America. Much of its language is no more than bluster. But it does pose a threat to stability and order. And the first step to answering that threat is to understand that Russian belligerence is not a sign of resurgence, but of a chronic, debilitating weakness. Vlad the invader As our special report this week sets out, Russia confronts grave problems in its economy, politics and society. Its population is ageing and is expected to shrink by 10% by 2050. An attempt to use the windfall from the commodity boom to modernise the state and its economy fell flat. Instead Mr Putin has presided over a huge increase in government: between 2005 and 2015, the share of Russian GDP that comes from public spending and state-controlled firms rose from 35% to 70%. Having grown by 7% a year at the start of Mr Putin’s reign, the economy is now shrinking. Sanctions are partly to blame, but corruption and a fall in the price of oil matter more. The Kremlin decides who gets rich and stays that way. Vladimir Yevtushenkov, a Russian tycoon, was detained for three months in 2014. When he emerged, he had surrendered his oil company. Mr Putin has sought to offset vulnerability at home with aggression abroad. With their mass protests after election-rigging in 2011-12, Russia’s sophisticated urban middle classes showed that they yearn for a modern state. When the oil price was high, Mr Putin could resist them by buying support. Now he shores up his power by waging foreign wars and using his propaganda tools to whip up nationalism. He is wary of giving any ground to Western ideas because Russia’s political system, though adept at repression, is brittle. Institutions that would underpin a prosperous Russia, such as the rule of law, free media, democracy and open competition, pose an existential threat to Mr Putin’s rotten state. For much of his time in office Mr Obama has assumed that, because Russia is a declining power, he need not pay it much heed. Yet a weak, insecure, unpredictable country with nuclear weapons is dangerous—more so, in some ways, even than the Soviet Union was. Unlike Soviet leaders after Stalin, Mr Putin rules alone, unchecked by a Politburo or by having witnessed the second world war’s devastation. He could remain in charge for years to come. Age is unlikely to mellow him. Mr Obama increasingly says the right things about Putinism—he sounded reasonably tough during a press conference this week—but Mr Putin has learned that he can defy America and come out on top. Mild Western sanctions make ordinary Russians worse off, but they also give the people an enemy to unite against, and Mr Putin something to blame for the economic damage caused by his own policies. Ivan the bearable What should the West do? Time is on its side. A declining power needs containing until it is eventually overrun by its own contradictions—even as the urge to lash out remains. Because the danger is of miscalculation and unchecked escalation, America must continue to engage in direct talks with Mr Putin even, as today, when the experience is dispiriting. Success is not measured by breakthroughs and ceasefires—welcome as those would be in a country as benighted as Syria—but by lowering the chances of a Russian blunder. Nuclear miscalculation would be the worst kind of all. Hence the talks need to include nuclear-arms control as well as improved military-to-military relations, in the hope that nuclear weapons can be kept separate from other issues, as they were in Soviet times. That will be hard because, as Russia declines, it will see its nuclear arsenal as an enduring advantage. Another area of dispute will be Russia’s near abroad. Ukraine shows how Mr Putin seeks to destabilise countries as a way to stop them drifting out of Russia’s orbit (see article ). America’s next president must declare that, contrary to what Mr Trump has said, if Russia uses such tactics against a NATO member, such as Latvia or Estonia, the alliance will treat it as an attack on them all. Separately the West needs to make it clear that, if Russia engages in large-scale aggression against non-NATO allies, such as Georgia and Ukraine, it reserves the right to arm them. Above all the West needs to keep its head. Russian interference in America’s presidential election merits measured retaliation. But the West can withstand such “active measures”. Russia does not pretend to offer the world an attractive ideology or vision. Instead its propaganda aims to discredit and erode universal liberal values by nurturing the idea that the West is just as corrupt as Russia, and that its political system is just as rigged. It wants to create a divided West that has lost faith in its ability to shape the world. In response, the West should be united and firm. This article appeared in the Print Edition with the headline: Putinism
Crosslinked at the Moscow-Beijing Express: http://thesaker.is/putin-and-xi-in-western-propaganda-why-does-xjp-get-off-so-lightly/ Podcast is available on SoundCloud or at the bottom of this webpage: https://soundcloud.com/44-days/putin-and-xi-in-western-propaganda-why-does-xjp-get-off-so-lightly-161029
A recent cover and main article in the Economist , pictured above, reminds me of just how hyperbolic and ideological is the West’s propaganda against Russian President Vladimir Putin. While maybe good polemical fodder as a cartoon on the editorial page, the fact that this demonic caricature merits front cover status, indicates just how programmed and institutionalized Western mainstream media is. Westerners love to insult the Anti-West press for being “party organs” and “government mouthpieces”. But, why travel so far? They only need to stay home with their national New York Times, Radio France and BBC , to really appreciate Bernaysian psyops being passed off as serious journalism (as in Edward Bernays). I don’t call it living behind the Great Western Firewall for nothing.
I have a friend whose email signature is “Blame it on Putin”. For a while, he changed it to “Blame it on China”. But that didn’t last long and he recently changed it back. As we have seen with the most depressing predictability, President Putin, specifically, and Russia in general are the voodoo pin dolls of Western racism and demonization of another people (Slavs) and other religions (Orthodox Christianity, as well as widespread Islam and Buddhism in Siberia). http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2015/10/01/slavs-and-the-yellow-peril-are-niggers-brutes-and-beasts-in-the-eyes-of-western-empire-the-saker-44-days-radio-sinoland-2015-10-1/
What is so remarkable is how unhinged and psychopathic the West’s racist propaganda is against Putin & Co., compared to the attacks on China’s President Xi Jinping (XJP) and the Chinese people. It transgresses irrational fear, to the point of being sick, black humor. Yet, about the most polemical front cover against XJP was Time magazine in April, 2016, seen below. Making China’s leader look like a Mao Zedong- Blade Runner replicant is tame and almost quaint, compared to the Orwellian “Emmanuel Goldstein” tsunami being launched nonstop against Putin.
Pretty tame stuff, this, compared to the racist feeding frenzy that Western propaganda is ginning up against Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Slavic countrymen.
True, Russia has the longest border with what in now considered “Europe”, and there is tremendous historical Western precedence to keep Germany from forming any kind of economic or geopolitical alliance with Russia. As well, the West’s Ukrainian color revolution turned out to be a total genocidal failure, with Russia reintegrating Crimea and Donbass biding its time for a hopeful remarriage in the years to come. Needless to say, the revenge factor, and if there is anything that Western tyranny loves more, it’s to avenge its long list of failed chaos and extermination around the world.
But, Russia is officially a capitalist country. Its current constitution was largely written by American fifth columnists. The Russian Central Bank is widely presumed to be under the thumb of the West’s oil banking families. In spite of widespread ignorance around the world, on these two counts, China can definitely list itself in the opposing column. http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2016/10/18/so-called-communist-china-an-exclusive-article-for-the-all-china-review-16-10-17/ . Given America’s post-1917, deranged, hysterical fear of, and untold billions spent to crush any communist expression at home and around the world, you would think that red China and Xi would be Public Enemy Number One. But no, it’s Putin and the Russians.
One factor might be Western perceptions of Russia’s and China’s military strength. Russians have shown off their powerful, well-run army, navy and air force in Syria and the Black Sea. The West is probably in a bit of an historic rut, when looking at China’s rapidly modernizing People’s Liberation Army (PLA), like back to the Korean War, when the just liberated New China had no air force, no navy and no nuclear missiles, yet still kicked the pants off Uncle Sam, using mostly World War I vintage arms. But then again, nobody in the West will ever admit that they lost the Korean War in the first place. http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2016/09/04/from-may-9th-in-moscow-to-september-3rd-in-beijing-the-anti-west-order-comes-full-circle-reprint/ . I can tell you that here in China, just like 1950-1953, XJP and the PLA do not fear American military power, not one iota. Respect it, yes. Fear it, never. President Xi has put the PLA on combat ready war footing and he means it. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/966932.shtml
But there is a new gadfly in America’s imperial ointment, one who may push President Xi and the Chinese people up the racist hate-o-meter, to Slavic levels, and that menace is the Philippines’ new president, Rodrigo Duterte. http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2016/09/17/puppet-japan-saves-uncle-sams-face-in-south-china-sea-after-philippines-principled-stand-vs-imperialism-jeff-j-brown-on-press-tv/ . This plainspoken, no bullshit world leader is Uncle Sam’s worst nightmare. He is calling American empire what it is: genocidal, dictatorial and rapacious. Not once, but day after day, meeting after meeting, press conference after press conference.
At September 8-9, 2016’s ASEAN summit in Laos, Duterte showed a colonial era photo and talked about the genocide that the US committed, as it brutally conquered the Philippines, 1899-1913, killing an estimated 1.25 million people, about 25% of the nation’s population. Western media censored it like the plague (they have been anyway, for over a century) and even semi-friendly outlets like the South China Morning Post were aghast that he actually associated the West with genocide. Heaven forbid! This, in spite of the fact the easily 80-90% of history’s genocides and exterminations were and are being perpetrated by Eurangloland, including of course Israel. Behind the Great Western Firewall, genocide is exclusively reserved for powerless, dark skinned people and unrepentant socialists, like Serbia’s framed and destroyed Slobodan Milosevic. President Rodrigo Duterte shows images of the Bud Dajo massacre during his speech at the 2016 Metrobank Foundation’s Outstanding Filipinos awarding ceremony in Malacañan’s Rizal Hall on September 12. REY BANIQUET/PPD
Speaking truth to imperial power, Duterte gives a blunt lesson on Western genocide, during the recent ASEAN summit in Laos. How dare you tell it like it is! (Image by Baidu.com)
Duterte is a semi-official socialist-populist. His cabinet is inclusive and consultative, with former imprisoned and exiled political opposition leaders, including communists and Muslims. He clearly can’t stand America’s grotesque, imperial arrogance and tyranny, in a country that has been a pliant doormat for US mayhem and exploitation in Asia, going back to the turn of the 19 th -20 th century. When Duterte’s hometown of Davao was hit with a very suspicious, false flag smelling public market bombing, on September 2, 2016, he suggested that the automatic-to-blame Abu Sayyef Group, a Muslim independence outfit on his island of Mindanao, is controlled by US Special Forces based there, which is of course true. But, world leaders aren’t supposed to speak truth to power, especially “little brown brothers”, as Filipino Foreign Minister Perfecto Yasay has described America’s attitude to his long suffering and abused nation. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/09/17/1624575/dfa-chief-philippines-no-little-brown-brother-us
After signing with XJP more than three times as many development deals ($15 billion), as the US has totally invested to date in the Philippines ($4.7 billion), Duterte declared to the world that the “US has lost” and that his country was realigning with Baba Beijing. His official government/trade delegation had an unprecedented 300 members and another 150 business people paid their own way to join the Asian lovefest. The two sides set up bilateral committees to discuss and negotiate their South China Sea claims, which is anathema to Uncle Sam, who always insists on being the rabid Rottweiler in the middle. Next stop was US prostitute Japan, where he further declared that the Philippines would be free of all foreign military (meaning US marines and special forces), something that has not happened since 1521, when Spain began colonizing and raping the archipelago.
This is all very powerful, history changing geopolitics. Almost every other world leader who has talked and acted like this, has either been overthrown and/or murdered by the West, sooner than later. Clearly, from the perspective of the West, Duterte’s visionary, regional reset is closely tied to President Xi and China. It is for this reason that XJP may be getting the Slavic-Putin treatment on an accelerated schedule, in a desperate attempt to trash China’s deep, historical leadership and trust role in Asia.
The old story about people being able to see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes, is very apropos to Duterte. He is shouting out to the world that Western empire is a colossal failure and humiliation for his impoverished, exploited citizens, and by extension, equally so for every other member of humanity outside Eurangloland. http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2016/07/16/communist-china-vs-capitalist-philippines-vs-imperial-france-china-rising-radio-sinoland-160716/ . Once one person pierces the veil, it emboldens others to finally have the courage to pile on.
For Uncle Sam, it’s already happening. Malaysian Prime Minster Najib Razak is visiting XJP and Co. in Beijing, October 31-November 6, 2016, an unusually long state visit by a world leader. Najib has declared that Malaysia is committed to strengthening friendship with China and pushing ties to “new highs”. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-china-idUSKCN12R0ZU . As more and more countries embrace China’s history founding One Belt One Road plan, in which the whole world is and will benefit into the 22 nd century, including Eurangloland, expect ever more desperate, racist demonization and dehumanization of Xi Jinping and the Chinese people, along the lines of Putin and the Russians. Maybe the CIA-MI6 can dig up that old 19 th century chestnut, “The Yellow Peril”, and give it a modern day makeover. Stay tuned to the New York Times, Radio France and the BBC , as the propaganda psyops campaign takes shape.
As more and more world leaders are emboldened to speak out against Western tyranny, thanks to Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte’s courage to make a public stand, President Xi Jinping can expect his face to morph into Putin’s, who is diabolically pictured above on a January, 2014 Newsweek cover.
ABOUT JEFF BROWN Jeff J. Brown—TGP’s Beijing correspondent— is the author of 44 Days (2013), Reflections in Sinoland – Musings and Anecdotes from the Belly of the New Century Beast (summer 2015), and Doctor WriteRead’s Treasure Trove to Great English (2015). He is currently writing an historical fiction, Red Letters – The Diaries of Xi Jinping , due out in 2016. In addition, a new anthology on China, China Rising, Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations , is also scheduled for publication this summer. Jeff is commissioned to write monthly articles for The Saker and The Greanville Post , touching on all things China, and the international political & cultural scene In China, he has been a speaker at TEDx , the Bookworm Literary Festival, the Capital M Literary Festival, the Hutong, as well as being featured in an 18-part series of interviews on Radio Beijing AM774 , with former BBC journalist, Bruce Connolly. He has guest lectured at international schools in Beijing and Tianjin. Jeff grew up in the heartland of the United States, Oklahoma, and graduated from Oklahoma State University. He went to Brazil while in graduate school at Purdue University, to seek his fortune, which whet his appetite for traveling the globe. This helped inspire him to be a Peace Corps Volunteer in Tunisia in 1980 and he lived and worked in Africa, the Middle East, China and Europe for the next 21 years. All the while, he mastered Portuguese, Arabic, French and Mandarin, while traveling to over 85 countries. He then returned to America for nine years, whereupon he moved back to China in 2010. He currently lives in Beijing with his wife, where he writes, while being a school teacher in an international school. Jeff is a dual national French-American.
China Rising Radio Sinoland Outlets CHINA RISING ON RADIO. CLICK HERE FOR INFO | 1real |
U.S. Senate Passes Bipartisan Bill Claims to Facilitate ‘Better Public Access’ to Gov’t Records | 21st Century Wire says..We ll believe it when, and if we are even allowed to see it (redacted) Mary Clare Jalonick AP/All GovWASHINGTON The Senate on Tuesday backed legislation to make it easier for Americans to obtain government records.The bipartisan bill, passed by voice vote, would require federal agencies to consider the release of government information under a presumption of openness as opposed to a presumption that the information is secret.The legislation aims to reduce the amount of exemptions the government uses to withhold information and would create a single portal through which individuals can submit a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request. Currently, FOIA requests are handled by each separate agency, each with its own rules about how to submit a request. Today s vote sends a clear message that the American people have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing, Cornyn said.( ) We cannot leave it to the next president to decide how open the government should be, Leahy said. We have to hold all presidents and their administrations accountable to the highest standard. Republicans in Congress have complained that the Obama administration hasn t been fully transparent in sharing records with lawmakers and the public, while the White House has criticized Congress for exempting itself from the requirements. FOIA does not apply to Congress.The House passed a similar bill in January. Because the two bills are not identical, the House will have to act again to send the legislation to President Barack Obama. Maryland Rep. Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, urged Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to promptly pass the Senate bill, saying FOIA reform is long overdue Continue this story at All GovREAD MORE FOIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire FOIA Files | 1real |
Bill Gates Calls for Robot Tax to Offset Jobs Lost to Automation - Breitbart | Microsoft founder Bill Gates called for a robot tax to offset the loss of jobs done by humans as a result of advancements in automation during an interview with Quartz. [“Certainly there will be taxes that relate to automation. Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50, 000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, social security tax, all those things,” declared Gates. “If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level. ” “There are many ways to take that extra productivity and generate more taxes. Exactly how you’d do it, measure it, you know, it’s interesting for people to start talking about now,” he continued. “Some of it can come on the profits that are generated by the efficiency there. Some of it can come directly in some type of robot tax. I don’t think the robot companies are going to be outraged that there might be a tax. It’s OK. ” Gates added that “you ought to be willing to raise the tax level and even slow down the speed of that adoption somewhat to figure out, ‘OK, what about the communities where this has a particularly big impact? Which transition programs have worked and what type of funding do those require? ’” “You cross the threshold of of certain activities all sort of at once,” Gates concluded. “So, you know, warehouse work, driving, room cleanup, there’s quite a few things that are meaningful job categories that, certainly in the next 20 years, being thoughtful about that extra supply is a net benefit. It’s important to have the policies to go with that. ” Billionaire and entrepreneur Mark Cuban also claimed robots are going to “cause unemployment,” posting, “Automation is going to cause unemployment and we need to prepare for it,” to Twitter on Sunday. Last week, Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk warned that deep A. I. could potentially be dangerous to the human race, who he described as already . “One of the most troubling questions is artificial intelligence. I don’t mean narrow A. I — deep artificial intelligence, where you can have AI which is much smarter than the smartest human on earth,” proclaimed Musk during the World Government Summit in Dubai. “This is a dangerous situation. ” “Pay close attention to the development of artificial intelligence,” he continued. “Make sure researchers don’t get carried away. Scientists get so engrossed in their work they don’t realize what they are doing. ” In November, Musk also predicted that automated robots would lead to mass unemployment, which he claimed could eventually create a universal wage from the government. Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington or like his page at Facebook. | 0fake |
Three-Time Oscar-Winner Daniel Day-Lewis Retires from Acting | actor Daniel announced his retirement from acting on Tuesday. [The screen legend — considered by many to be among the greatest actors of his generation — said in a statement through his publicist that he had made a “private decision” to quit acting, and no further reason was given for the abrupt announcement. “Daniel will no longer be working as an actor. He is immensely grateful to all of his collaborators and audiences over the many years,” the star’s publicist, Leslee Dart, said in a statement to Variety. “This is a private decision and neither he nor his representatives will make any further comment on this subject. ” is the only actor to have won three Best Actor Academy Awards (Jack Nicholson and Walter Brennan each won three apiece, but not all in the lead Actor category) for his roles in Lincoln (2012) There Will Be Blood (2007) and My Left Foot (1989). The actor was also nominated for two additional Oscars for his roles in Gangs of New York (2002) and In the Name of the Father (1993). He also earned critical acclaim for roles in other films including The Boxer (1997) The Age of Innocence (1993) and The Last of the Mohicans (1992). was a master of method acting and would often remain in character during the entire duration of a film’s shoot. During the filming of My Left Foot, in which he played quadriplegic writer and artist Christy Brown, was reported to have broken two ribs by refusing to exit his character’s wheelchair for weeks. According to Variety, the actor listened to Eminem records to get into character as the violent, murderous William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting. was also known to be extremely picky about his projects, often waiting years in between roles. The actor is scheduled to appear in one more film later this year, a drama set in the fashion world of 1950s London called Phantom Thread, directed by his There Will Be Blood collaborator Paul Thomas Anderson. The film is set to be released on Christmas Day. Follow Daniel Nussbaum on Twitter: @dznussbaum | 0fake |
Rhymes with hypocrisy | Posted on October 31, 2016 by Frank Scott
“The greatest objective of mankind in this century should be to eradicate imperialism and capitalism as models for society.”—Evo Morales
As we approach the end of our most recent contamination of the ideal of national democracy with possibly its worst example we would do well to consider the words of a democratically elected leader of a nation that could teach us about the word’s meaning.
A representative of the real majority of his people, a former farm worker who rose to the presidency on the shoulders of ordinary Bolivians and not the bank books of his nation’s rich, Evo Morales and his supporters understand more about the state of the world than many of us understand about the state of our nation. Whichever of the ruling parties’ unpopular wretches is elected on November 8, they will contradict Morales’s words, possibly with more savagery than ever before, and the need for a political economic transformation of America and the world will become greater than ever before.
Our ruling oligarchs have reacted with a vengeance in suppressing two dangerously democratic threats to their dominance. First, Bernie Sanders leading a popular movement motivated by social desire, and second a more ego centered individualist struggle led by an economic billionaire and intellectual pauper, usually a winning combination in the empire of capital but not this time. In fact, the populace has received daily bulletins about Donald Trump’s outrageous practice of capitalism and its profitable by-products of division by dollar, race and sex. Who knew?
If we are to believe polls which measure how much we absorb the message of our consciousness controllers, the assault on our collective mentality has never been as blatant, corrupt, single minded and seemingly successful; we will soon coronate a historic first for the empire as the glass ceiling above the CEO presiding over the slaughters perpetrated by our warfare state will be broken and a woman will lead the foreign policy that creates many people of color: blood red.
The further destruction of the Muslim world and the creation of more terrorists who murder us because we murder them will continue. Heart breaking photos of a Palestinian, Yemeni, Iraqi or Syrian parent carrying what used to be a son or daughter, reduced to a bloody pulp form of unidentifiable gender fluidity by an Israeli, French, British or German aimed, American created bomb, will not go viral. Only those dramatic and sometimes staged photos of alleged victims of America’s adversaries are assured such coverage, while we beseech one and all to take in refugees created by our destruction of their nations.
Frighteningly worse for all of us than terrorist attacks would be a nuclear war that could happen if Russia reacts with as much arrogance and stupidity as the USA and responds to menacing provocation on its borders to enter such a confrontation that could spell the end of everything.
Hopefully, there will be enough Americans who identify with humanity’s wholeness and refuse forced acceptance of membership in a fictitious minority with warped identity sense that makes it somehow less or more politically correct by having different genitals, skin tones or belief systems and remaining oblivious to being members of the one and only race: human.
Historic problems dating back to the nation’s origins in being brutally stolen from the original inhabitants, built on slave and indentured servant labor abused in order to create wealth enough to trickle down on what many of the descendants found a middle class status in a dream society that offered material hope to many but depended on continued exploitation of many more to maintain a lie. We are a nation built at the expense of the semi-voluntary poor thrown out of Europe, Asia and Africa to become supporters of a national dream nearing a nightmare for too many and needing a wakeup call from the world, in the words of Morales.
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, our supposed ideal, obviously has nothing to do with the present owned and operated by great wealth entity that can be defined as democracy the way that rape can be defined as love. But as long as great wealth maintains dominance and keeps democratic power from the rest of us in part by controlling what we think we know, genuine concern about government can be played as a skirmish between the supporters of a market without any control and supporters of a market with minimal control, both assuring that wealth will be defended, only differing in how much of it will accrue to the minority rulers, how quickly it will occur and how acceptable that will be found by the poorly informed.
Neither government nor banking nor finance will work for the majority of the people until the people create democracy in deed as opposed to the sham we have. As long as minorities, growing smaller in number as their private wealth grows larger, are allowed to dominate there is no difference between modern capitalism and ancient feudalism. We now tolerate billionaires whose material wealth and power would stagger some phony royal/god/pharaoh of the ancient past and our innumeracy in failing to understand that—how the hell does anyone have a billion dollars while more than a billion humans survive (?) on not much more than a couple of dollars a day?—while we are fed a steady diet of consumerist garbage by these rulers can only change when we grow angry enough at what is happening to the planet we live on and most of its people by having it and us treated as products in a free market where nothing is free, all to benefit them while we carry the ever more staggering cost. For openers, we ought not to vote for the lesser evil deadly duo but the greater good of Jill Stein and the Greens and then join any group opting for change that is systemic and not simply individual.
The Trump and San
Frank Scott‘s political commentary and satire is online at legalienate.blogspot.com | 1real |
'Significant gaps' in talks on Northern Ireland power-sharing: UK PM May's spokesman | LONDON (Reuters) - Talks on restoring a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland are making progress but there are significant gaps between the province s two main political parties, Prime Minister Theresa May s spokesman said on Monday. The talks are still ongoing, we are still working with the parties on reaching an agreement. We have had progress but there are still significant gaps which remain, the spokesman told reporters. We don t want to see a return to direct rule. | 0fake |
Fake news site CNN completely misrepresents quote, rest of lying media runs with it | VIDEOS Fake news site CNN completely misrepresents quote, rest of lying media runs with it The whole freak out over “fake news” is nothing more than an excuse for these fake news propagandists to censor their competition
From The Daily Caller : CNN made a false claim Monday afternoon and various journalists ran wild with it. It all started with a segment on CNN’s The Lead which quoted prominent white nationalist figure Richard Spencer as wondering if Jews were actually people. CNN host Jim Sciutto said, “of Jews Spencer said, ‘one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem.’” “That is an alt right leader Richard Spencer talking about Jews,” Sciutto added. CNN then had a panel with RealClearPolitics’ Rebecca Berg and The Boston Globe’s Matt Viser with the chyron “ALT-RIGHT FOUNDER QUESTIONS IF JEWS ARE PEOPLE.” Except, Spencer did not make those remarks about Jews and was instead talking about political consultants on television.
Watch the clip for yourself, it’s about 40 seconds in:
Despite CNN’s Brian Stelter whining about fake news all week, he himself retweeted this BS story.
Alanna Vagianos of The Huffington Post:
Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed:
Adam Serwer of the Atlantic:
Maggie Haberman of The New York Times:
The whole freak out over “fake news” is nothing more than an excuse for these fake news propagandists to censor their competition. | 1real |
Senate tax bill stalls on deficit-focused 'trigger' | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday delayed voting on a Republican tax overhaul as the bill was tripped up by problems with an amendment sought by fiscal hawks to address a large expansion of the federal budget deficit projected to result from the measure. The Senate debated the legislation late into Thursday and adjourned, putting off any votes until Friday morning. It was unclear if a decisive vote on the bill would occur then. The delay underscored nagging concerns among Republican fiscal conservatives about the deficit impact of the bill. That set up the possibility that its deep tax cuts might have to be moderated, that future tax increases might be built in, and that some conservatives might seek to attach spending cuts, all approaches that could throw up new political problems. White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told reporters in the Capitol: “I don’t think tax cuts are going to be scaled back. I think it would still be historic tax relief for corporations and for middle-income families.” The tax bill is seen by Republicans as crucial to their prospects in the November 2018 elections, when they will fight to keep control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump and Republicans now in control of Congress have yet to pass major legislation, a fact they hope to change with their proposed tax- code overhaul, which would be the biggest since the 1980s. Democrats, expected to unanimously oppose the tax bill, have dismissed it as a giveaway to the wealthy and corporations. Republican Senator Bob Corker and others had tried to add a provision to the bill to trigger automatic future tax increases if the tax cuts in the bill did not boost the economy and generate revenues sufficient to offset the deficit expansion. But the Senate parliamentarian barred Corker’s “trigger” proposal on procedural grounds. The trigger amendment was needed to win Corker’s vote and those of others worried about the deficit - worries that intensified when congressional analysts said the bill would not boost the economy enough to offset the estimated deficit expansion, as the Trump administration had said it would. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch told reporters in the Capitol that it had not been easy to accommodate Corker, Senator Jeff Flake and other fiscal hawks. “It’s been pretty hard to make them happy so far. We’re going to keep working on it ... and we’re going to do it,” Hatch said. Senate Republicans were considering making a proposed corporate income tax rate cut temporary, instead of permanent, so the rate would rise back to an unknown level after six or seven years, said one Republican senator and an aide. By that time, Trump might no longer be in office and a future Congress might change the law. When asked if the tax bill was in trouble, Republican Senator Mike Rounds told reporters: “No, I don’t think so. It’s just a matter of once again trying to make the bill work.” Optimism had reigned earlier in the day, when the bill won the backing of Republican Senator John McCain. Stocks surged on hopes that a key tax overhaul vote was imminent. The S&P 500 hit a record closing high and the Dow Jones industrial average topped the 24,000 mark for the first time. But the Joint Committee on Taxation, or JCT, a nonpartisan fiscal analysis unit of Congress, said the bill as passed earlier by the Senate Finance Committee, would generate only $407 billion in new tax revenue from increased economic growth. JCT had earlier estimated the tax bill would balloon the $20 trillion national debt by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The new estimate, counting “dynamic” economic effects, put the deficit expansion at $1 trillion, far short of assertions by some Republicans that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said the new JCT estimate showed “no amount of dynamic scoring fairy dust will fix the catastrophic deficits of the GOP tax scam.” McCain, a key player in July’s collapse of a Republican effort to gut Obamacare, backed the tax bill. While “far from perfect,” the party’s 2008 presidential nominee said it would boost the economy and help all Americans. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who also played a role in the failure of the Obamacare rollback, told reporters she was still not committed to the bill. Several Republicans were withholding support while pushing for including a federal deduction for up to $10,000 in state and local property taxes and bigger tax breaks for “pass-through” companies, including small businesses. As drafted, the Senate bill would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent after a one-year delay and reduce the tax burden on businesses and individuals, while ending many tax breaks, but would still expand the deficit, Trump wants to enact tax cuts before January. The House approved its own tax bill on Nov. 16. It would have to be merged with the Senate bill, if it is approved, before any final measure could go to Trump for his signature. Republicans have 52 votes in the 100-member Senate, giving them enough to win if they hold together. With Democrats opposed, Republicans could lose no more than two of their own votes, with Vice President Mike Pence able to break a 50-50 tie. Trump has attacked Corker and Flake on Twitter. Both senators are not seeking re-election. In early October, the president called Corker, “Liddle’ Bob Corker” in a tweet. Corker tweeted that the Trump White House was an “adult daycare center.” Days later, he called Trump a liar who had damaged U.S. standing in the world. Trump tweeted back saying Corker “couldn’t get elected dog catcher.” Trump earlier this month tweeted that Flake’s political career was ‘toast’” In a dramatic Senate speech, Flake said U.S. politics had become inured to “reckless, outrageous and undignified” behavior from the White House. | 0fake |
Republican Governor Scott Walker Makes Poverty Hit Highest Level In 30 Years | On February 26, 2016, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, published an article entitled Poverty Across Wisconsin Reaches Highest Level In 30 Years. The poverty trends were compiled from U.S. Census data by University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers. Between 2009 and 2014, 13 percent of Wisconsin residents were living in poverty, the highest percentage since 1984. Scott Walker took office as Governor of Wisconsin on January 3, 2011.The researchers also analyzed a study by the Economic Innovation Group which found Milwaukee, the largest city in Wisconsin, is the seventh most economically distressed city in America, with 52 percent of the population under economic distress.The researchers also discovered poverty went up in both urban and rural areas of Wisconsin, and every educational background.According to the analysis, for those with a high school education, poverty rose from 8.9 percent to 11 percent. It also rose from 6.6 percent to 8.9 percent among those who had attended some college, and poverty also touched those with bachelor s degrees or more, rising from 3 percent to 3.6 percent. Child poverty also dramatically increased, as did the poverty gap between African-Americans and whites while the gap remained flat in most areas of the country during the same time period. The researchers cited the causes for increases in poverty as the broadening gap in wealth and income inequality, in which the highest income earners experience increases in wealth and income as wages for the working and middle classes remain virtually stagnant.The administration of Scott Walker certainly hasn t helped the residents of Wisconsin. Instead of creating jobs and improving wages for workers, Walker has led battles against workers rights, while providing tax breaks to the rich. Massive layoffs in the state have become a regular occurrence. Walker s, Act 10 revoked collective bargaining rights for public employees to unionize, and cut their wages by ten percent. Walker has also signed several anti-union bills into law and increased subsidies for corporations while the state s minimum wage remains at the federal minimum of $7.25. The only people who have thrived in Wisconsin since Scott Walker assumed office is himself and the special interests who support him like the Koch Brothers. Featured image via Wikimedia Commons | 1real |
Growing unease as India curbs the net to keep the peace | MUMBAI (Reuters) - First he tried messaging friends, but WhatsApp was down. Then, the credit card readers at his clothing store weren t working. Ride-sharing apps were offline too. Harsh Madhok, who runs a clothing business in Jaipur, a city of three million people, had read about internet shutdowns elsewhere in India. Now he was in the middle of one in his city in central India, as authorities tried to damp down unrest following a traffic incident that led to clashes between police and locals. It s very frustrating, said Madhok, 45, of the Sept. 9 shutdown. These things leave you feeling like you don t know what s going on. Under the rule of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India s Hindu nationalist leader, Internet shutdowns have escalated sharply in the world s largest democracy. According to a database maintained by the Software Freedom Law Centre, an online advocacy group in New Delhi, government officials ordered shutdowns 42 times between January and August in 2017. That compares with six times in all of 2014, when Modi first came to power. This year the shutdowns were spread over 11 states, compared to just one in 2012. The disconnections, which state governments have said are necessary for maintaining public order, typically happen without official explanation. They have followed farmer agitations, protests by a minority community calling for government jobs, and public violence sparked by a Facebook post. The frequency of the shutdowns has raised concerns that internal security is being used as a justification to clamp down on freedom of expression. That refrain has been heard more frequently since Modi s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), won elections in 2014 with an emphasis on security. If citizens are using the internet to mobilize themselves, then how is shutting down the internet any different from suppressing dissent? an editorial in Mint asked in July. Until this year, shutdowns were implemented under colonial-era curfew laws that were used as the basis for rules requiring internet service providers to shut off connections at the request of any government agency. In early August, the Ministry of Communications issued new explicit rules that formalized the power of states and the central government to block the internet. These rules are among the first of their kind in a democracy, said Raman Jit Singh Chima, policy director of Access Now, a U.S.-based organization that works on technology policy and digital rights worldwide. How they re used, and their scale - they seem to be creating an architecture where blocking is legitimized, Chima said. What s changed, I think, is that officials have greater knowledge of the power they can utilize, said Apar Gupta, a lawyer who handles free-speech cases before the Supreme Court. Other countries, such as Egypt, have also used internet shutdowns, and China controls the flow of online information through an extensive firewall. However, analysts like Chima worry about the frequency of the shutdowns in India, which have risen sharply since Modi came to power. From January 2012 the date of the first shutdown recorded by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) to May 2014, when the BJP swept out the ruling coalition headed by the Congress party, local and federal officials ordered 12 shutdowns. Since Modi s election, 89 shutdowns have been ordered, with 74 at the behest of his party or its allies at the central, state and district levels, an analysis of SFLC data showed. So far, the shutdowns have been met with little opposition, apart from frustration expressed by users like Madhok over the curtailing of online services. There s been no outcry about the shutdowns because it s perceived to be for the greater good, said Nitin Pai, the co-founder of the Takshashila Institution, a Bangalore think tank. Nalin Kohli, a national spokesman for the BJP, said the shutdowns were acceptable in cases where rumor-mongering or motivated misinformation could lead to the incitement of violence. He added: It is not the norm, it is the exception. In Jaipur, the shutdown lasted two days. But disconnections can last hours, weeks, and even months. In a June statement, Human Rights Watch said the authorities in Jammu and Kashmir suspended mobile internet services in the Kashmir region from July to November in 2016. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said the restrictions in the Kashmir region, where 100 people have died in clashes since troops killed a militant leader in July 2016, had the character of collective punishment. In 2016, Gupta, the lawyer, argued before India s Supreme Court on behalf of a law student who had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court to restrict internet shutdowns. The High Court disagreed, saying that officials used their powers responsibly. The Supreme Court declined to hear the matter, letting the high court s verdict stand. | 0fake |
Cuba, U.S. to discuss detente in wake of Trump election | HAVANA/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cuba and the United States will draw up a roadmap for deepening their detente on Wednesday in a first meeting since the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president and the death of Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. The fifth U.S.-Cuban bilateral commission comes at a time of increased uncertainty about the future of U.S.-Cuban relations given Trump’s promise to end the detente if Cuba did not offer a better “deal.” The administration of outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama has pressed American companies to complete additional business deals in Cuba to help further cement the president’s policy by the time Trump takes office on January 20. “We will define the actions that will be carried out in the coming weeks to further the process of improving relations,” the Cuban foreign ministry said on Tuesday. Those actions would include high-level visits and accords of cooperation in areas of mutual interest, it said. Communist-ruled Cuba has so far mostly stayed quiet on Trump’s statements, waiting to see whether he converts his tough rhetoric into policy change. Several major U.S. companies, such as General Electric, are in the final stages of negotiating deals with Cuba, sources familiar with the matter say. One of those sources, based in Washington, said more than half a dozen announcements, ranging from cruise ships and travel to manufacturing and telecommunications, are believed to be in the works. Negotiations may have been affected by the nine days of official mourning for Castro, the source said. Castro had given Cuba an outsized influence in world affairs during his half century as president, partly by clashing with the United States. His younger brother, Raul Castro, who took over as president in 2008, made history two years ago by agreeing with Obama to end Cold War hostility and start normalizing relations. Since then, the two countries have opened embassies, restored commercial flights, opened travel options and negotiated agreements on issues affecting the environment, law enforcement, the postal service and communications. Obama, who visited Cuba earlier this year, has also gradually poked holes in the U.S. embargo on the Caribbean island through executive orders. But Trump says Obama ought to have cut a “better deal.” At a campaign rally in Miami, which has a large population of Cuban exiles, he said he would seek to reverse Obama’s moves to open relations with Cuba unless its leaders allowed religious freedoms and freed political prisoners. U.S. supporters of the detente say it is improving Cubans’ lives while contributing to opening the socialist system in place, for example by fostering the fledgling private sector. A bipartisan group of U.S. congressional leaders and four Cuban entrepreneurs will hold a joint news conference on Wednesday to urge Congress to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba. The Cuban entrepreneurs will also urge Trump not to reverse the thaw, according to a statement issued by the office of pro-detente Senator Patrick Leahy. | 0fake |
Saudi Prince Lectures America On Democracy, Calling For ‘NEVER TRUMP’ | 21st Century Wire says Well, isn t this interesting. Saudi Arabian princes are giving lessons in democracy?Incredible. The headline reads: Saudi Prince Begs America to Reject Trump. In summary: here we have a hereditary monarch, from a Wahabi theocratic dictatorship now lecturing Americans on who they should vote for in their elections. During his recent dinner speech at the Washington Institute For Near East Policy at the Mandarin Oriental hotel, Prince Turki- al-Faisal (photo, below), a graduate of Georgetown University, made his passionate plea to the American electorate not to elect Donald J. Trump as president.NOTE: The word election is a treasonous concept in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and if you are ever caught asking for it you will not only be jailed, but will likely face capital punishment. The Mail Online reported:A Saudi prince has urged Americans not to vote for Donald Trump in the upcoming general election. Turki al-Faisal, who served as Saudia Arabia s ambassador to the US from 2005 to 2007, spoke against the presumptive Republican nominee during a foreign policy dinner in Washington, DC on Thursday.He blasted Trump s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US, which the billionaire first formulated in December last year before renewing his vow on Wednesday. For the life of me, I cannot believe that a country like the United States can afford to have someone as president who simply says, These people are not going to be allowed to come to the United States, Turki said according to the Huffington Post.Prince Turki currently serves as the chairman of the Saudi Arabian-funded Washington DC-based think tank, King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. Interestingly, the Saudi Prince was sharing his Washington DC event stage with none other than Israeli general Yaakov Amidror, the former national security advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Amidror presided over a number of violent operations against the native Palestinian population, including the slaughter of over 500 civilians in Gaza in 2012Whether or not one likes (or loathes) the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee, it s important to consider the Prince s comments in perspective So who is a greater threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and Central Asia, and elsewhere Donald Trump or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Let s quickly examine some of Saudi Arabia s progressive and democratic credentials.Oil-based MonarchyThe current ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, was installed into power by the British in the early 20th century. Since the development of Saudi Arabia s oil fields, mainly by US and UK firms, tribal elites have had the luxury of having money on tap , amounting to many trillions of dollars in continuous energy revenue, with almost all of the wealth channeled into the hands of hereditary and royal elites. Saudi s repression of democracy is not limited to its own borders, however. When a true Arab Spring event broke out in neighboring Bahrain in 2011, Saudi Arabia deployed its army to put down any popular uprising, and still patrols those streets today.More recently, their vast oil fortunes have been channeled into building-up a militarized state, and recently, with the backing of the US and PR cover by the UN, have openly waged war on its neighbor, Yemen.Regressive SocietyEven in the 21st century, Saudi Arabia still manages to win the near submissive support of the US and the UK, despite the fact that it is running an openly regressive, medieval theocratic autocracy, where hundreds of its citizens are executed in the street, many via beheading. Last year, in 2015, was a record year for beheadings under the newly crowned King Salman. PATRONAGE: President Obama paying tribute to the new King Salman of Saudi Arabia.No Religious FreedomThe Kingdom is also actively repressing its own native Shi ite population, as well as others who are not born into the right royaly-favored religion or tribe. Practicing Christianity is also forbidden in the Kingdom and any attempted conversion from Islam is punishable by death.Genocidal Military StateFor the last 14 months, and with the assistance of the US, Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies have been waging an illegal and highly brutal military war of aggression against its neighbor Yemen killing tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians and displacing millions more.World s Premier Supporter of Islamic Extremism and TerrorismHistorically, it is now accepted as fact that Saudi Arabia the world s leading financial supporter of Islamic extremist terrorism in the Middle East and beyond. This has been the case for many decades starting from the Kingdom s central role, together with the CIA and others, in supporting Mujadhedin militants and al Qaeda in Afghanistan from the late 1970 s and all the way through to their involvement in 9/11. This trend continues today, with Saudi, along with its tribal monarch cousin, Qatar, as the primary source of funding and support for terrorist fighting groups like Jabhat Al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria) and also Islamic State (ISIS), as well as a direct financier of radical Mosques all over the world.Saudi Nuclear Weapon PlansIn the same interview this week, Prince Turki also dropped another bomb , so to speak, by announcing Saudi Arabia s somewhat disturbing ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons:Saudi Arabia has accepted the Iran nuclear deal, which lasts 10-15 years, Prince Turki said. But what happens after that is open to question. That s why I ve always maintained that we must consider all options, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the prince added though he emphasized his preference for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region.So who is the real threat in the region and beyond? One thing should be certain by now it s not Iran, or Donald Trump.READ MORE SAUDI NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Saudi Arabia Files | 1real |
Hungry Venezuelans Try To “Put Maduro On Trial” After Recall Referendum Fails | Hungry Venezuelans Try To “Put Maduro On Trial” After Recall Referendum Fails Posted on Finance News » Hungry Venezuelans Try To “Put Maduro On Trial” After Recall Referendum Fails
While Maduro and his loyalistas can stave off opposition for now, it only makes the inevitable more potent.
From Mac Slavo, SHTFPlan:
He won’t go easily. That seems certain enough.
There may be pressure, quietly, from the United States, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Venezuelan people are eager to be rid of their dictatorial leader and return to some sort of functioning normalcy.
When everyone is hungry, there is no quiet.
In the latest turn of events, President Maduro’s government squashed a referendum in the National Assembly to recall him from office… but now his opponents are attempting to put him on trial.
The measure itself has no chance of passing, but the symbolic gesture is telling enough f or a country that’s increasingly desperate and uneasy. For the past couple of years, pressure from dropping oil prices has exacerbated a weak and failing socialist system – making distribution, infrastructure, electric power and other necessities impossible to maintain.
via Reuters : Venezuela’s opposition-led National Assembly in a rowdy session on Sunday pressed to put Nicolas Maduro on trial for violating democracy, days after authorities nixed a recall referendum against the unpopular leftist president. The measure is unlikely to get traction as the government and the Supreme Court have systematically undermined the legislature on grounds it is illegitimate until it removes three lawmakers accused of vote-buying. But it marked a further escalation of political tensions in the crisis-hit OPEC nation. “It is a political and legal trial against President Nicolas Maduro to see what responsibility he has… The session was briefly interrupted when around 100 apparently pro-government protesters stormed in, brandishing Socialist Party signs and shouting “The Assembly will fall!” before officials herded them out. […] “The Socialist Party is showing what it has left. There are no ideas or arguments, only violence!” said opposition leader and two-time presidential candidate Henrique Capriles.
[…]
…opposition congressmen chanted “The people are hungry and want a recall!”
While Maduro and his loyalistas can stave off opposition for now, it only makes the inevitable more potent.
As JFK observed: “ Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
This appears truer than ever in Venezuela. There is every sense that total chaos is coming .
Venezuela has since devolved into a nightmare, prompting many of its people – perhaps regardless of politics – to support his ouster. Maduro has argued that the U.S. is waging economic war against him, and there is truth in the fact that pro-U.S. factions are eager to remove him. Nonetheless, it’s not an argument to allow him to continue wielding power.
Already, Venezuela has reached the point where people must wait in line for hours for their turn to buy goods – if they are available. Otherwise, they must rely upon inflated black market prices, and more desperate measures like poaching, robbery and looting .
Some Venezuelans have been traveling to the borders of Colombia and Brazil just to purchase food and stock up on necessities that are too hard to find at home.
Normal life has been upended, and significant levels of hunger, malnutrition, violence and unrest are taking hold.
Many are unhappy with either the ruling socialist party, or with the pro-American opposition who have wielded power in the past on the basis of its oil-rich resources. Most just want security, and an end to hunger. This entry was posted in Finance News and tagged Mac Slavo , SHTFPlan , Venezuela hyperinflation . Bookmark the permalink . Post navigation | 1real |
OBAMA AND UNION LEADERS SELL OUT AMERICAN WORKERS By Turning Illegal Alien Into Union Members | This story just proves what we ve been saying all along. When it comes to unions, it s not about the members, it s about the union leadership and how they can increase their membership numbers (dues). Aiding union leadership in their quest to add members to flailing union membership numbers is just a way for Obama to keep the skids greased and ensure future contributions from one of the largest Democrat party donors (unions) in America. Congressional investigators say they ve uncovered another attempt by the Obama administration to aid illegal immigrants in the U.S. this time, by teaching foreign workers lessons on union organizing.The National Labor Relations Board has entered into agreements with Mexico, Ecuador and the Philippines to teach workers from those countries in the United States their rights when it comes to union activity.The agreements reportedly don t distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. But lawmakers are worried it s part of an effort to shield illegal immigrants specifically, by encouraging them to join a union and get protection.NLRB spokeswoman Jessica Kahanek explained to Fox News that under the National Labor Relations Act, employees, whether documented or undocumented, are protected from retaliation due to union or other protected concerted activity. That means employers could be charged for dismissing an illegal immigrant worker if the firing is determined to be tied to the worker s union activityHouse Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican from Virginia, argued illegal immigrant workers could soon learn to exploit the system, creating a catch-22 for businesses. They could instead be charged with violating the National Labor Relations Act because someone will claim that they re doing it because the individual is engaged in unionization activities, Goodlatte said.He also claimed the Obama administration was trying to keep the NLRB union education agreements, which were originally signed in 2013 and 2014, quiet. This is the first we ve learned of this and it s the first that news organizations have learned of this and they didn t learn it because the administration came out and told them, Goodlatte told Fox News. They learned about it because of leaked materials, and again, that is not the kind of transparency the American people expect of their government. An NLRB official, though, disputed the notion that the agreement was a new development or something that was intentionally being kept out of the news. Yet it isn t just the NLRB that could view union activity as a shield for illegal immigrants.In June 2011, then-Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton issued a memo saying: ICE officers, special agents and attorneys are reminded to exercise all appropriate discretion on a case-by-case basis when making detention and enforcement decisions in the cases . . . [of] individuals engaging in a protected activity related to civil or other rights (for example, union organizing). While this may serve as a way to boost union membership at a time when their numbers are trending downward, one activist said it will likely hurt U.S. citizen union members in the end. It seems that the union is almost selling out the interests of American workers and legal immigrant workers in order to boost its membership by appealing to illegal workers and getting the assistance of other countries in doing that, Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, told Fox News.Via: FOX News | 1real |
WHY IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT VOTING A Legal Possibility In Some Cities Across America? | Bloomberg takes a look at cities that are doing just that:The latest is San Francisco, where the Nov. 8 ballot will include a measure allowing the parents or legal guardians of any student in the city s public schools to vote in school board elections. The right would be extended to those with green cards, visas, or no documentation at all. One out of three kids in the San Francisco unified school system has a parent who is an immigrant, who is disenfranchised and doesn t have a voice, says San Francisco Assemblyman David Chiu, the son of Taiwanese immigrants. We ve had legal immigrants who ve had children go through the entire K-12 system without having a say. Undocumented immigrants should also have the right, Chiu adds, to bypass the broken immigration system in this country. Noncitizen voting isn t as radical as it might sound. For more than half of U.S. history, from 1776 until the 1920s, noncitizens were widely permitted to participate in elections. We had 40 states that used to allow it, says Ron Hayduk, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University. Immigrants could vote, not just in local elections, he says. They could even run for office and did win office. The hope, Hayduk says, was that immigrants would feel more invested in civic life if they were able to participate in American democracy. That tradition was washed away by the wave of widespread anti-immigrant sentiment that followed World War I. In 1921 and 1924, Congress passed laws severely restricting immigration numbers, cutting arrivals from about 1 million newcomers per year to about 150,000. It was also a time when the nature of American elections was changing. Women were granted the vote in 1920, vastly expanding the franchise, and third-party populist and labor movements were challenging both the Republican and Democratic parties. Immigrant voting was a kind of casualty of not only anti-immigrant backlash but partisan fights over what election rules should be, Hayduk says. In 1926, Arkansas was the last state to end noncitizen voting. Decades later, in 1996, Congress passed legislation making it a crime for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.Today there are six jurisdictions in Maryland that let noncitizens vote in local elections.Chicago allows them to take part in elected parent advisory councils but not to vote in school board elections. Four towns in Massachusetts have moved to allow noncitizen voting and are awaiting state approval.And in New York City, where noncitizens make up 21 percent of the voting-age population, the city council is drafting legislation that would allow more than 1.3 million legal residents to take part in municipal elections. The city previously allowed noncitizens to vote in school board elections, but that ended when New York s school boards were dissolved in 2002. San Francisco has tried in the past to grant noncitizens access to school board elections. A 2004 measure narrowly failed, with 51 percent voting against it. There was an opposition campaign at that time, Chiu says. He sponsored another ballot measure in 2010, which also failed. This time, Chiu says, he s hoping for a victory. | 1real |
Fighting Ghost Fascists While Aiding Real Ones | 2016 presidential campaign by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
An architect of regime-change, coups, no-fly zones, rule of the rich and mass incarceration is about to become Commander-in-Chief, yet the bulk of what passes for the Left is “engaged in a 1930s-style ‘united front’ against a ‘fascism’ that was never a threat in 21 st century America.” Donald Trump, the orange menace, didn’t have a chance of becoming president. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a 21 st century fascist and threat to life on Earth. Fighting Ghost Fascists While Aiding Real Ones by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Trump’s anti-“free trade” stance and opposition to regime change and military confrontation with Russia and China drove most of the Republican-allied section of the ruling class straight into Hillary Clinton’s imperial Big Tent.”
Hillary Clinton’s impending -- and totally predictable -- landslide victory on November 8 will prove only that there never was any danger of a “fascist” white nationalist takeover of the U.S. executive branch of government in 2016. That was always a red (or “orange”) herring, a phony “barbarians at the gate” threat that -- as Wikileaks documents confirmed -- John Podesta and Hillary’s other handlers fervently hoped would convey “lesser evil” status to their manifestly unpopular candidate.
There was nothing particularly devious or out of the ordinary in the Hillary camp’s favoring Donald Trump or, alternatively, Ted Cruz. It is standard Democratic Party practice to position themselves just to the left of the Republicans. In a duopoly electoral system, victory lies in where the cake is cut. By hugging close to the GOP’s flanks, national Democratic candidates can lay claim to a “center-left” spectrum of political space that encompasses a clear majority of U.S. public opinion on most issues. By this calculus, Democrats are supposed to win, unless they are tripped up on the closely related issues of race (failure to “stand up” to the Blacks) and foreign policy (failure to “stand up” to whoever is the designated foreign enemy).
Race is the trickiest part of the equation, since white supremacy is embedded in the American political conversation, hiding just beneath the surface of most discourse on social and economic policy.
“His overt racism probably weakened his appeal to whites.”
Trump thought he could win by combining an overt white racist appeal with an anti-corporate message that laid the blame on Wall Street for (white) American job losses and falling living standards. He also calculated -- correctly, it turns out -- that in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown, many white Americans were more upset about their own economic and social status than they were angry at Russians; that they wanted regime change at home more than abroad.
Both of Trump’s central policies backfired, dooming his campaign. His overt racism probably weakened his appeal to whites, who have given majorities to national Republicans since 1968 but whose self-image is that they are not, as individuals, racist. (Certainly, white women found further reason to reject his candidacy.) Much more spectacularly, Trump’s anti-“free trade” stance and opposition to regime change and military confrontation with Russia and China drove most of the Republican-allied section of the ruling class straight into Hillary Clinton’s imperial Big Tent.
At the national level, the duopoly system, as we had known it, virtually ceased to exist – a fact dramatically driven home by the near-universal corporate media rejection of Donald Trump, the candidacy they had done so much to create. The near-collapse of the duopoly system was the great fracture of the 2016 election, a potential historic opening to a far wider space of progressive political struggle, including on the moribund electoral level. With the ruling class gathered in one Big Tent, and the overt racists occupying the imploded shell of the GOP, the system itself was in disarray. What was once two vibrant parties of the ruling class, with a virtual monopoly on the totality of the electorate, had become one ruling class party plus a hollowed-out husk, at least temporarily occupied by white nationalists under the leadership of a narcissistic and incoherent billionaire, yet without enough funds to mount a competitive general election campaign.
“The near-collapse of the duopoly system was the great fracture of the 2016 election.”
In these pages, we had been saying since last year that Donald Trump could not win; that Bernie Sanders’ fate would be sealed in the southern primaries; and that, although ruling class money would insure Clinton an election by landslide, it could not buy her legitimacy among a significant section of the Democratic “base,” who would now be pushed to the latrine area of her Big Tent. As we wrote on May 18 of this year:
“Outsized fear of Trump is hysteria. These days, the ‘brown shirts’ wear blue. Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street, War and Austerity – not Trump, the racist America Firster. And, he can’t win, anyway – not with tens of millions of ‘moderate’ Republicans and most of the party’s funders rushing into Hillary’s welcoming embrace.”
But sadly, hysteria does reign in most of the “left” precincts of America. Those who did not hesitate to kick Hillary when she appeared to be “down” -- in those heady days when they imagined it was possible she could lose to Sanders -- are terrified to kick her when she is “up” and primed to take the helm of the hyper-power. They are engaged in a 1930s-style “united front” against a “fascism” that was never a threat in 21 st century America, where a different kind of dictatorship of the rich (but also a fascism) has made brown-shirts (and Klansmen) utterly superfluous. These trembling leftists refuse to oppose the modern manifestation of fascism, which is now firmly entrenched in power with Hillary as its champion, in favor of a crusade against an “orange” menace that did not have a ghost of a chance of seizing national power. They have made themselves perfectly irrelevant and useless -- except, of course, to the fascists-in-charge. BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected] . | 1real |
Republican House Speaker Ryan told Trump retirement report was rumors were not true: White House | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Speaker Paul Ryan has told President Donald Trump a report on Thursday that Ryan was considering retiring was not true, the White House said. “The speaker assured the president that those were not accurate reports, and that they look forward to working together for a long time to come,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters at a news briefing. Politico reported that Ryan would like to retire after the November congressional election. | 0fake |
Giuliani is a leading candidate to be Trump's secretary of state: source | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has emerged as a leading candidate to be U.S. secretary of state for President-elect Donald Trump, a source familiar with the situation said on Monday. The source said John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, was also under consideration to head the State Department. Giuliani, 72, was one of Trump’s most vocal and high-profile supporters on the campaign trail, introducing him frequently at rallies with slashing attacks against Democrat Hillary Clinton. He was New York’s mayor during the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and led the city during the crisis after the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers, working closely with then-President George W. Bush. Giuliani was an early supporter of Trump, has been his friend for many years, and defended him vigorously through the various controversies that ensnared the New York businessman. His rhetoric was notable for repeatedly accusing Clinton of having violated laws through her handling of classified information on a private email server while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. “If Rudy wants it, he’ll get it,” former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich told “The Kelly File” on Fox News. Gingrich, who has also been mentioned as possibly having a role in the Trump administration, said he thought Giuliani might have been interested in being nominated instead as the U.S. attorney general or secretary of homeland security. However, he said Giuliani would do a fabulous job as Trump’s secretary of state. “He’s already known worldwide,” Gingrich said. Bolton, 67, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, was U.N. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 during the Bush administration. Before that he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security. He has frequently provided foreign policy advice to Republican presidential candidates. Trump is working on choosing the people he wants to place in his Cabinet for when he takes over the presidency on Jan. 20. In a sign that Trump might be getting closer to some decisions, his spokesman Jason Miller said Trump would meet Vice President-elect Mike Pence, who is in charge of Trump’s transition effort, at Trump Tower in New York on Tuesday. Miller said Trump and Pence would be “reviewing a number of names for key jobs.” “If the vice president-elect is getting together with the president-elect to discuss names, then I would say that it’s serious, obviously,” he said. U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a possible pick for defense secretary, was seen entering Trump Tower on Monday. | 0fake |
Taiwan the most important issue in Sino-U.S. ties, China's Xi tells Trump | BEIJING (Reuters) - Taiwan is the most important and sensitive issue in Sino-U.S. ties, Chinese President Xi Jinping told visiting U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday, ahead of the one-year anniversary of Trump taking a precedent-breaking call from Taiwan’s president. China considers democratic Taiwan to be a wayward province and integral part of its territory, ineligible for state-to-state relations, and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control. The United States has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is the island’s main source of arms. Trump upset China last December by taking a telephone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, shortly after he won election, the first call between U.S. and Taiwan leaders since President Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition to China from Taiwan in 1979. While there was no public mention of Taiwan in comments Xi and Trump made in front of reporters, the official Chinese foreign ministry statement about their talks did not mince its words. “The Taiwan issue is the most important, most sensitive core issue in China-U.S. relations, and concerns the political basis of the China-U.S. relationship,” the ministry paraphrased Xi as telling Trump. China “hopes that the U.S. side continues to scrupulously abide by the ‘one China’ principle, and prevents disturbances to the broader picture of China-U.S. ties”, Xi added. Trump told Xi that the United States government upheld and stuck to the “one China” policy, China’s official Xinhua news agency reported. In Taipei, Chiu Chui-cheng, deputy minister of Taiwan’s China policy-making Mainland Affairs Council, said China should respect Taiwan’s people. “We think China should deeply understand and respect Taiwan people’s opinions on the growth of relations across the Taiwan Strait,” Chiu told reporters. “We are also willing to work with the other side to find a new, positive model in cross-straits ties that would use dialogue to resolve differences, and to create a proper path for harmonious relations.” China suspects Tsai wants to push for the formal independence of Taiwan, a red line for Beijing. Tsai says she wants to maintain peace with China but will defend Taiwan’s democracy and security. China has pressured Taiwan since Tsai took office last year, suspending a regular dialogue mechanism and slowly peeling away its few remaining diplomatic allies. China is deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions toward Taiwan, and was upset when the United States recently allowed Tsai to transit through Hawaii and Guam on her way to and from diplomatic allies of Taiwan’s in the Pacific. Defeated Nationalist forces fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with the Communists. | 0fake |
Hillary Clinton’s Team to Join Wisconsin Recount Pushed by Jill Stein - The New York Times | WASHINGTON — Nearly three weeks after Election Day, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said on Saturday that it would participate in a recount process in Wisconsin incited by a candidate and would join any potential recounts in two other closely contested states, Pennsylvania and Michigan. The Clinton campaign held out little hope of success in any of the three states, and said it had seen no “actionable evidence” of vote hacking that might taint the results or otherwise provide new grounds for challenging Donald J. Trump’s victory. But it suggested it was going along with the recount effort to assure supporters that it was doing everything possible to verify that hacking by Russia or other irregularities had not affected the results. In a post on Medium, Marc Elias, the Clinton team’s general counsel, said the campaign would take part in the Wisconsin recount being set off by Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, and would also participate if Ms. Stein made good on her plans to seek recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Mrs. Clinton lost those three states by a total of little more than 100, 000 votes, sealing her Electoral College defeat by Mr. Trump. The Clinton campaign had assailed Mr. Trump during the election for refusing to say he would abide by the results if he lost. On Saturday, Mr. Trump responded to the campaign’s decision to join the recount with a statement calling the effort “ridiculous” and “a scam by the Green Party. ” He suggested that most of the money raised would not be spent on the recount. “The results of this election should be respected instead of being challenged and abused, which is exactly what Jill Stein is doing,” Mr. Trump said. In Wisconsin, Mr. Trump leads by 22, 177 votes. In Michigan, he has a lead of 10, 704 votes, and in Pennsylvania, his advantage is 70, 638 votes. Mr. Elias suggested in his essay that the Clinton campaign was joining the recount effort with little expectation that it would change the result. But many of the campaign’s supporters, picking up on its frequent complaints of Russian interference in the election, have enthusiastically backed Ms. Stein’s efforts, putting pressure on the Clinton team to show that it is exploring all options. Mr. Elias used his essay to describe an intensive effort by the campaign to look for signs of Russian hacking activity or other irregularities in the vote count. Ms. Stein filed for a recount in Wisconsin on Friday afternoon, about an hour before the deadline. She has raised more than $5 million for the effort, which will now turn to Michigan and Pennsylvania, where there are deadlines in the coming week. In his post, Mr. Elias sounded less enthusiastic than the recount’s many supporters. “Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology,” he wrote, “we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves. ” He added, “Now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides. ” If Ms. Stein pursues additional recounts, “we will take the same approach in those states as well,” he wrote. But he noted that the “number of votes separating Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the closest of these states — Michigan — well exceeds the largest margin ever overcome in a recount. ” The Clinton campaign will not contribute financially to the effort, which has been funded by small contributions. But it will pay to have its own lawyers present at the recount, campaign officials said. The Obama administration issued a statement to The New York Times on Friday in response to questions about intelligence findings related to Russian interference in the election. In the statement, it said it had concluded that the election was free of interference. The administration issued a second statement on Saturday saying that “the federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day. ” Mrs. Clinton conceded the race to Mr. Trump early on Nov. 9, when it became clear that he would have a large margin of victory in the Electoral College. But as her lead in the popular vote has grown — it now exceeds two million votes — her base has increasingly pressured her to challenge the results. That has been fueled in part by how aggressively the Clinton campaign spread the word of Russian involvement in the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee and from the personal account of John D. Podesta, the campaign’s chairman. The campaign also charged that the Russians were behind fake news about Mrs. Clinton’s health, among other stories — a claim supported to some extent by recent studies. Some critics saw those accusations as an effort to shift the discussion from mistakes the Clinton campaign had made in taking on Mr. Trump. Mr. Elias’s post offered a revealing look at how much time and energy the campaign had spent in the past two weeks looking for evidence of Russian hacking or other irregularities, and how it had tried to keep those efforts secret. “Since the day after the election, we have had lawyers and data scientists and analysts combing over the results to spot anomalies that would suggest a hacked result,” Mr. Elias wrote. “Most of those discussions have remained private, while at least one has unfortunately been the subject of leaks,” he wrote, a reference to conversations between Mr. Podesta and a group of experts that included J. Alex Halderman, a computer scientist with deep experience in the vulnerabilities of voting systems. Mr. Halderman recently put his own post on Medium, describing his suspicions and the case for recounts. But even he doubted that the election result would change. | 0fake |
Elizabeth Warren Announces That A Major For Profit School Is Banned From Accepting Students | If there s one thing Elizabeth Warren hates, it s when ordinary citizens get the wool pulled over their eyes and are taken advantage of by greedy corporations.In an effort to make at least one company no longer have the ability to cheat students out of a proper education and tens of thousands of dollars, ITT Tech will no longer be allowed to accept students.Warren took to Facebook to make the announcement: ITT Tech a massive, for-profit college is currently under investigation by 20 state and federal agencies for cheating students. The SEC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey are all suing them for fraud. ITT Tech failed, again, to meet the scandalously low standards of its accrediting agency, but still sucked down a whopping $600 million in taxpayer dollars last year.Today, the Department of Education has finally declared that enough is enough, banning ITT Tech from enrolling any new students with federal student loan and grant dollars this fall. ITT s free ride is finally over, and the message couldn t be clearer: We will no longer stand by and allow these shady institutions to bilk taxpayers and cheat students. https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/636549976507499Warren also posts a link that explains what is happening and what current students can do or expect. Part of the article explains:As a current ITT student with federal loans, you have some options:You can continue your courses at ITT with your federal student aid. There s no immediate change to your program.You can transfer your credits to a new school (if that school accepts them) and complete your education.You can pause your education and wait to see how this matter resolves itself in the coming months. If ITT closes before you finish your program and you don t transfer your credits, you will likely be eligible to discharge your federal loans.This is huge news, and long overdue. All too often these for-profit schools continue to take money while providing subpar education, often not properly accredited. These schools spend more on advertising than education and take advantage of people who may not necessarily realize they are being robbed.It is wonderful to finally see some justice be made and watch at least another one of these scam schools be given what is long overdue.Featured Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images | 1real |
WATCH: Tony Awards Gives Hateful Bigots The Middle Finger In Opening Number | Overwhelmed by the sadness of the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida where 50 people were killed, the 70th Annual Tony Awards and host James Corden sent a message to hateful bigots everywhere.Conservatives are applauding the mass shooting, which occurred at an LGBT night club. But the Tony Awards countered the hate with an opening number celebrating diversity.In his opening remarks, Corden declared that hate will never win and sent support and condolences to the victims and their families. Good evening. All around the world, people are trying to come to terms with the horrific events that took place in Orlando this morning. On behalf of the whole theater community and every person in this room, our hearts go out to all of those affected by this atrocity.All we can say is you are not on your own right now. Your tragedy is our tragedy. Theater is a place where every race, creed, sexuality and gender is equal, embraced and loved. Hate will never win. Together, we have to make sure of that. Tonight s show stands as a symbol and a celebration of that principle. Here s the video via YouTube.Indeed, it was exactly that as Corden then launched into a number featuring himself singing in every Broadway play imaginable, including The Lion King, Grease, and Les Miserables just to name a few.And then he sang about how any kid could be on Broadway some day no matter what they look like or who they are. To the theatre kids of any place with stardust in their eyes, Corden sang as children of all ages and ethnicities took the stage. Of every color, class and race, and face, and shape and size. To the boys and girls, transgenders too, to every Broadway would-be. Don t wonder if this could be you. It absolutely could be! Here s the video via YouTube.And the diverse Tony Awards wouldn t be complete without a shot at the Oscars and Donald Trump, which James Corden also provided. Think of tonight as the Oscars, but with diversity, Corden joked. It s so diverse, Donald Trump has threatened to build a wall around this theater. Featured image via screen capture | 1real |
STUNNING TESTIMONY On The Devastation Illegal Immigration Brings To Black America [Video] | Fantastic testimony on the disastrous results of illegal immigration on the black community: FLASHBACK: Obama wrote in 2006 that Illegal Immigration HURTS Blue-Collar Americans, and STRAINS Welfare pic.twitter.com/wpvnqFgIQ9 NumbersUSA (@NumbersUSA) March 20, 2016 | 1real |
Taking Back Presidential Power | Email
Every four years, Americans are treated to a tawdry, months-long spectacle pitting two typically (but not always) establishment-anointed candidates against one another for the ultimate prize: a four-year stint as the “most powerful person on Earth.” That, at least, is the establishment media’s term for the president of the United States. And it would have appalled the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution, who never intended to create in the office of the U.S. presidency a magistracy far more powerful than the English monarchy they had only recently shaken off.
But the de facto reality of modern America is that the executive branch of the U.S. government has usurped an enormous portion of government powers reserved by the Constitution in its original form to other branches of the federal government or to state governments. The president, for example, now sends U.S. troops into war at his personal whim, completely ignoring the constitutional stipulation that Congress issue a declaration of war first. A huge percentage of federal laws that control virtually every activity are issued in the form of federal regulations — which are created not by the legislative but by the executive branch of government, under the direction of the president.
The president also wields tremendous power with his authority to nominate Supreme Court justices — since the Supreme Court is regarded as a body whose decisions cannot be appealed or overturned. Presidents from FDR to the present have tried to customize the court to their preferred ideology, and the court has responded by issuing a range of unpopular decisions, from abortion on demand to the recent vindication of ObamaCare, that have left ordinary Americans frustrated and angry. By all accounts, the will of the people is systematically ignored by Washington, and there appears to be nothing that can change this state of affairs. This is the reason that every presidential race has become the ultimate high-stakes battle of partisan wills; the winner — and his party — will wield enormous de facto (if not de jure) power over the affairs of the nation and the world, and has the ability, via Supreme Court appointments, executive orders, involvement in foreign wars, regulations, and many other powers now accorded to him, to shape the destiny of the nation decades after his term in office ends.
In recent decades, most of the power in government has migrated from Congress — the only part of the government truly elected by the people — to the two unelected branches of government, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. In particular, the power to legislate has largely been usurped by the executive branch via a noxious system of federal regulatory agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats wielding enormous, unaccountable power, and by an unelected Supreme Court that does not hesitate to legislate from the bench. The sheer volume and scope of federal regulations promulgated every year far surpasses the number of laws passed by Congress.
In its original form, things were far different. The Founders intended Congress to be the most powerful branch of government, with the Senate representing the interests of the states and the House of Representatives those of the people. The president was largely a caretaker. Bereft of any “bully pulpit,” “big stick,” or other tools of modern American autocracy, he largely acted under the direction of Congress, which, in turn, carried out the will of the people and of the state legislatures. The executive branch as a whole was primarily concerned with foreign affairs and with adjudicating disputes between the states. Few Americans prior to the early 20th century had any contact with the federal government other than at the post office, and many would not have recognized the president had they passed him on the street.
Today, of course, the U.S. president is the superstar of superstars, an elected Caesar who controls the destinies of billions, thanks to his ascendency over the U.S. military and economy. Small wonder that Americans focus all their combative energies on getting “their man” elected. In the modern American game of thrones, the presidency has become the ultimate spoils.
But there are constitutional remedies for all of this. The Constitution has not yet been repealed or amended beyond recognition — though there are many who are pushing to do just that, via a modern constitutional convention. And the Constitution provides a series of ingenious remedies, some of them all but forgotten, for the disfigurement of our original checks and balances that generations of unscrupulous political elites have created. Here are a few of them.
Cut the Purse Strings
No federal program can operate without funding, and on paper at least, the House of Representatives still holds the purse strings for the entire government, as the Founders intended it to. As the first clause in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, clearly stipulates, “All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” The House of Representatives, be it remembered, was designed to represent the voice of the people directly; this is why House members are reelected more often than any other officials in the federal government (every two years), and also why House members have the smallest constituencies. To change the direction of the federal government, it is first necessary to change the House, and it just happens that it is the House where turnover is the highest and candidacy the easiest. The House being the largest elected body in government, it is impossible for all House races to be controlled by special interests (although many of them certainly are).
All this being the case, the House is the first line of defense against an abusive and overweening executive branch. If the House refuses to authorize spending for a given bill, program, initiative, or policy, it will not be funded.
What if the president ignores Congress, and uses unauthorized funds, as the Clinton administration did in the 1995 bailout of the Mexican government? In 1995, President Clinton, frustrated by Congress’ refusal to authorize an emergency bailout of the Mexican economy to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees, went ahead and did it anyway. These funds were taken from a then little-known fund controlled by the Treasury Department, the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), which was created in 1934 as part of the Gold Reserve Act, to provide emergency funds to shore up the dollar in the event of severe foreign exchange fluctuations. The ESF was made necessary by the United States’ departure from the gold standard, along with most other countries, during the 1930s. Absent the discipline and stability imposed by a precious-metal standard, currency values are prone to wild swings as governments engage in various inflationary policies. With the passage of decades, the central banks of the world have learned to coordinate their inflationary policies in secret, but the ESF remains, and as of 2009, held more than $100 billion — enough to fund a significant amount of presidential financial and economic priorities, should Congress demur.
Another clever way that the executive branch has discovered for circumventing congressional checks on funding is via Department of Justice lawsuits. This trick has been used to particular effect by the Obama administration, and it works like this: The Justice Department launches a lawsuit for perceived violations of federal regulations (bank regulations, for example) against a well-heeled target or targets, and as part of the settlement, directs large payments to be made to selected special interests — for example, anti-bank activist groups. Hundreds of millions of off-budget dollars have been funneled to a wide panoply of leftist activist groups in this way, in return for their support of Obama’s anti-business policies. Of particular notoriety is the Obama administration’s recent disposal of hundreds of millions in settlement monies from the likes of Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan, of which an appreciable amount was permitted, under Justice’s terms of settlement, to be “donated” to various activist groups that serve the Democratic Party’s interests. This money all belongs, in theory, to the Treasury, and therefore cannot be disposed of without Congress’ say-so. In fact, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution anticipated the potential for executive monkeyshines with Treasury funds, stipulating that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” But that hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from using vast sums of extortion payments originating in legal settlements to finance many left-wing NGO (non-governmental organization) allies.
The executive branch has devised and continues to devise methods to circumvent constitutional prohibitions on executive authority to raise money. For as one congressman closely allied with President Grover Cleveland is alleged to have told a fellow congressman who criticized one of his initiatives as unconstitutional, “What’s the Constitution between friends?”
But can Congress do anything about it? All executive expenditures, from the constitutionally dubious ESF to DOJ settlement monies, must originate with the Treasury — but, as the Constitution makes crystal clear, although the Treasury pertains to the executive branch, its funds cannot be disbursed without congressional authorization. It is this stipulation, even more than the “origination” clause in Article 1, Section 7, that assigns the purse strings ultimately and unavoidably to Congress.
All Congress needs to do in cases of executive innovation, such as the creative use of DOJ settlement monies, is to pass a law clarifying constitutional limits on Treasury spending. In the case of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, it could simply legislate the unneeded entity out of existence, for example. In the case of the DOJ settlement slush fund, legislation outlawing such practices is already working its way through Congress.
The framers of the Constitution anticipated that the executive branch would seek to raise funds by going around Congress. This is why the Constitution makes plain that measures for raising revenue must originate in the House, and that no money may be spent from the Treasury except by congressional authorization.
This congressional authorization applies not only to money raised by taxes, but to all other ways the government has to raise money. In the latter category the most traditional way, of course, is borrowing money. Since the beginning of the Republic, this has been accomplished by the issuance of various “Treasuries,” financial instruments such as Treasury bonds that can be purchased by anyone wishing to loan money to the U.S. government in the hope of achieving a modest return upon maturation. The Constitution delegates the authority to “borrow money on the credit of the United States” to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Yet this power was quickly delegated to the secretary of the treasury upon ratification of the Constitution, in 1789, and has been carried out by the Treasury, ostensibly under congressional oversight, ever since. Today, all decisions made regarding the issuance of debt emanate from the Office of Debt Management (ODM) within the Treasury. Congress takes little notice of the day-to-day operations of this office, which has broad discretionary power to issue as much or as little debt as it sees fit, constrained only by the congressionally mandated debt limit — which Congress raises as frequently as political pressure, mostly orchestrated by the executive branch, demands. In other words, even though the Constitution assigns responsibility for the issuance of debt — as with all other fiscal powers — to Congress, the legislative body has delegated almost all of its authority over the creation of debt to the executive, reassuring itself that its authority remains supreme as long as the constantly rising debt ceiling limits are respected. Added to this is the fact that a large part of U.S. Treasury debt ends up being monetized by the Federal Reserve, an entity under neither presidential nor congressional control, whose financial activities are completely opaque to Congress and the president alike. In practice, though, the Fed is an ally of the executive branch, inasmuch as its “open market operations” (the purchase and sale of Treasury-issued debt on the secondary markets) has created a vast and constant demand for government debt that would not exist were private investors and foreign governments the Treasury Department’s only customers.
Thus the executive branch may have little de facto authority to raise revenue directly, but it has come to enjoy — thanks to two centuries of congressional neglect — enormous and almost unchallenged de facto power over the issuance of debt, buttressed by the modern Federal Reserve System, and restrained only by occasional feeble congressional blandishments regarding the debt ceiling.
This is a much knottier problem than reining in executive abuse of Treasury funds. It will require nothing less than the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the re-assertion of congressional responsibility for the issuance of debt. The transfer of the ODM and its operations to full and constant congressional oversight via the congressional Ways and Means Committee would be a good start in this regard, as would the instatement of a robust, long-term debt ceiling. But the best measure of all would be to begin shrinking the size and cost of government to within constitutionally mandated limits, and to pay down the massive debt that is now used as a political weapon to hold the entire country hostage — usually by ambitious, big-spending presidents and their allies in Congress.
Other Remedies
But what if the president starts another war? War is a powerful political distractor and disincentive for dissent. The laws, as Cicero once observed, have a tendency to fall silent in times of war. In our time, the very waging of war has become a lawless act, since no U.S. president since FDR, at the onset of World War II, has gone to war authorized by a congressional declaration. The Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars have all been waged by presidential edict, as have countless smaller military actions from the former Yugoslavia to Haiti to Panama to Libya, among many others. The constitutional authority to declare war, delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, has become all but a dead letter, not by direct repeal but by decades of congressional spinelessness and public apathy. For 15 years, the United States has been engaged in a series of international wars under the banner of a “War on Terror,” costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, without a constitutionally mandated declaration against any hostile power — and with no end in sight. Quite aside from the horrific human toll, the vaguely defined, open-ended War on Terror has created a constant rationale for more and more debt, mostly urged on a reluctant Congress and ever-more-hard-beset American people by an executive branch energized by the prospect of war without end.
The solution to the executive war card is simple, but will require considerable political will: restore the congressional declaration of war as a check on the war-making ambitions of the executive branch. This would include determining whether America’s seemingly endless involvement in Middle Eastern broils is worthy of a declaration of war, and winding down our commitments in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan once and for all if it isn’t. Such would not lead to instant relief from our gargantuan war debts, but it would be a huge step in the right direction, reducing the likelihood of future foreign wars for our descendants to die in and pay for.
How can we stop the growth of federal regulations by unelected bureaucrats? The easiest way would be for Congress to legislatively shut down and defund the departments and agencies that produce them. For decades, conservatives have vowed to close various executive branch departments, with the Department of Education a perennial favorite. But because of public apathy, such promises have not been kept.
What about the Supreme Court? Another area in which the executive branch, bolstered by a sympathetic majority in Congress, might seem unstoppable is in the matter of Supreme Court appointees. One of the major self-justifications of the Trump campaign has been that a President Hillary Clinton will stack the Court with ultra-liberal justices who will roll back the gains of the Scalia/Roberts court, ensuring that abortion on demand continues and possibly overturning the recent ruling in favor of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment under the District of Columbia v. Heller. But the actions of the Republican-controlled Senate have already shown how such concerns can be exaggerated. The Senate notified President Obama after the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia that it would not consider any of his nominations so close to a presidential election. Despite withering pressure from Democrats and the kept media, Senate Republicans have been as good as their word — so far. Left out of the discussion, however, is that there is no constitutional stipulation on the number of Supreme Court justices, nor even that the number be odd to ensure a tiebreaker vote. The original Supreme Court had six justices, requiring that a tiebreaker be by a two-thirds majority (four out of six). Such a configuration was itself a powerful limit on the ability of the Supreme Court to impose its will. But there is nothing save perhaps an act of legislation that prevents the Supreme Court from returning to such an arrangement — or to any other number of judges Congress might deem appropriate.
But aside from the number of justices, Congress possesses an even more powerful check against the Supreme Court. One of official Washington’s best-kept secrets is the fact that the Constitution provides, in Article 3, Section 2, for Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The precise wording of this oft-overlooked provision is: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction . In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction , both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, Congress may pass legislation instructing the Supreme Court that it has no jurisdiction over cases involving, for example, gun rights or abortion. In this way, a court deemed a threat to the body politic could be hamstrung. In practice, this option has seldom been used, and is almost never discussed in “respectable” Washington circles, because it poses a mortal threat to the legal hegemony the supremes have enjoyed for so long — usually to the advantage of Big Government and their cultural Marxist allies. Indeed, Congress might easily have gotten rid of ObamaCare by now if it had chosen this option instead of relying on the Supreme Court — which, of course, refused to find yet another Big Government program unconstitutional.
If All Else Fails?
From time to time, presidents (and Supreme Court justices) simply refuse to acknowledge limits on their power, and persist in defying the will of the people and the authority of Congress. In such cases, there is one final recourse: impeachment and removal from office. Congress has been reluctant to exercise this option, but were it used more freely, presidents and Supreme Court justices would be much more leery of abusing their powers.
In short, there is an array of options available to keep the executive and judicial branches from running roughshod over Congress and the American people. The only thing required is better understanding of the Constitution’s intricate checks and balances and the political will to put them into effect.
This article is an example of the exclusive content that's available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available! Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment
Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.
No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.
No product advertisements.
Please post comments in English.
Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there. | 1real |
[VIDEO] LEFTIST CNN ANCHOR TELLS RACIST US REP THE #BaltimoreRiots Are Vets Fault “They come back from war…and they’re ready to do battle” | Whiskey, Tango, Hotel Don t worry, Brooke clarified her ludicrous statement by saying: These veterans are coming back from war and they just don t know their communities. Yeah okay thanks for clarifying Brooke Radical leftist and open racist, Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings appears to have the answer however, he s got the DOJ involved in an investigation from top to bottom of the Baltimore Police Department. Once their shake-down is complete, the racist crackers will be outed, they ll be fired and everyone can go back to business. As usual, where s there s a Democrat, there s a taxpayer funded government solution As if it s not hard enough to have to watch racist Democrat, US Rep. Elijah Cummings offer his expert opinion on the Baltimore riots/race war he s just giddy about we now have to listen to leftist CNN reporter Brooke Baldwin tell us these riots are the fault of our returning US Veterans How much more idiocy can America take? Here s a great example of a courageous US Veteran who stood tall last night in the face of a large group of thugs who were threatening the Baltimore Police with rocks and other projectiles. Is this who you were referring to Brooke?Here s the original interview with US Rep. Elijah Cummins:After more than a year of CNN pouring gasoline all over America with hysterical, and oftentimes phony, stories of American racism, the left-wing network s afternoon anchor Brooke Baldwin finally took it to the next level by blaming American veterans for the Baltimore riots.In a pathetic suck-up interview with Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummins, Baldwin never once had the moral courage to ask the failed Baltimore City congressman if the left-wing policies ushered in by a half-century of a Democrat monopoly in Baltimore might have something to do with the city s ills. Instead, she said of young military veterans who become police officers, I love our nation s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle. The context was a discussion about increased training and retraining for the Baltimore police.There s no question Baldwin is hoping to launch a narrative with that smear.This is pure CNN; throwing out anti-science smears towards the best people this country has to offer while it is in reality the rioters who are doing battle. It is savages who are looting and burning and causing anarchy, not the police. But it is the Baltimore police who have 15 wounded among their ranks. It is the Baltimore police who calmly did not do much battle during Monday night s riots.Baldwin and CNN just can t help themselves. This is a cable news network that relentlessly launches Hate Campaigns to smear decent people, like Christians, as a way to deflect from the evils done by the Gaystapo and the thugs who are tearing down predominantly black, working class cities like Ferguson and Baltimore.Essentially, what Baldwin said to the world was, Don t hire veterans! They re too damaged to be trusted with authority. We re back to the Vietnam-era where leftists smear our heroes to cover up the real problems. CNN wants us to believe unstable veterans are the problem in Baltimore, not unstable families.But she loves veterans.Here s a great follow up interview with Mr. Valentine, the fearless veteran the residents in the city of Baltimore are fortunate enough to have living amongst them:Wine and live television tend to reveal just how ugly some people really are.Via: Breitbart News | 1real |
Russian pianist Denis Matsuev terrorized in US for supporting Putin | Russian pianist Denis Matsuev terrorized in US for supporting Putin AP photo The US tour of outstanding Russian pianist Denis Matsuev was marred with attacks from rabid members of anti-Russian Signerbusters group.The group organized a picket at Carnegie Hall prior to the concert of Denis Matsuev and accused the musician of supporting "Putin's criminal regime." Later, Arts Against Aggression group in Boston organized a Halloween-style installation called "Putin & Matsuev House of Horror s" near the building of a local concert hall. According to the organizers of the above-mentioned acts, US citizens should ask themselves whether it is appropriate to continue cooperation with the Russian artists, who support the policies of President Vladimir Putin.Denis Matsuev runs many charitable programs, conducts youth music competitions and festivals for youth and children, such as "Stars on Baikal" and "Crescendo."In December 2011, Matsuev became an honorary professor at the Moscow State University. He headed the Interregional Charitable Foundation "New Names," the purpose of which is to provide education to talented children.Denis Matsuev is also the art director of the Foundation named after Sergei Rachmaninoff. Matsuev appealed to Russian President Vladimir Putin with a request to buy back Rachmaninoff's Swiss estate "Senart" to establish the International Cultural Centre at the property. In February 2006, the pianist became a member of the Council for Culture and Arts under the Russian President.Noteworthy, it is not the first time, when Russian musicians face such obstruction due to the political situation in the world. After the concert of the Orchestra of the Mariinsky Theatre in Palmyra, some pundits found the performance "rather weak". Thus, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond called the concert in Palmyra a tasteless and cynical idea.In general, however, the majority of Western officials supported the cultural campaign of the prominent and world-famous Moscow orchestra. United States Department of State Mark Toner said, in particular, that he would never condemn such a wonderful act. | 1real |
Berlin Killer Wanted To Launch Gun Attack in December 2015, Government Failed to Deport | BERLIN (AP) — Germany has published a timeline of authorities’ handling of the Tunisian man who drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 people and wounding scores. [The chronology, published Monday details Anis Amri’s whereabouts in Germany, his risk evaluation and his criminal behavior. It shows he said as early as December 2015 that he wanted to buy firearms “to commit attacks in Germany” — a full year before the Dec. 19 attack. Last February, state authorities declared him a potential threat. He was under surveillance by several German agencies, but they repeatedly concluded he did not pose a concrete or immediate danger. Amri, who came to Germany in had been rejected for asylum but authorities had been unable to deport him due to paperwork problems. | 0fake |
U.S. appeals court upholds gag orders on FBI data surveillance | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday upheld nondisclosure rules that allow the FBI to secretly issue surveillance orders for customer data to communications firms, a ruling that dealt a blow to privacy advocates. A unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a lower court decision in finding that rules permitting the Federal Bureau of Investigation to send national security letters under gag orders are appropriate and do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s free speech protections. Content distribution firm Cloudflare and phone network operator CREDO Mobile had sued the government in order to notify customers of five national security letters, or NSLs, received between 2011 and 2013. The FBI’s use of NSLs has drawn increased scrutiny as new transparency laws have let companies publish some of the letters, which has shown the agency may have run afoul of rules restricting their use. Andrew Crocker, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented the companies in the consolidated case, said no immediate decision whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court had been made. He called the ruling disappointing. The Justice Department declined comment. Several major technology firms, including Microsoft and Twitter, have mounted a variety of legal challenges in recent years to U.S. government restrictions limiting what they can disclose, both to affected users and to the public, about the surveillance requests they receive. National security letters are a type of government subpoena for communications data sent to service providers. They are usually issued with a gag order, meaning the target is often unaware that records are being accessed, and they do not require a warrant. Tens of thousands of NSLs are issued annually, and some gag orders last indefinitely. Writing for the panel, Judge Sandra Ikuta said the gag orders meet a compelling U.S. government interest, are sufficiently narrow and allow for appropriate judicial review. Ikuta, appointed by former Republican President George W. Bush, said recent changes to the law passed by Congress in 2015 bolstered oversight of NSL use. In June of last year the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected a Republican-backed proposal to expand the kinds of telephone and internet records the FBI could request under an NSL to include senders and recipients of emails, some information about websites a person visits and social media log-in data. The legislation failed, but lawmakers have said they intend to pursue the expansion again. | 0fake |
POST-OBAMA AMERICA: Liberal Thug Gets Physical With N. Dakota GOP Rep At Town Hall [VIDEO] | It s becoming fairly commonplace for public acts of violence to occur when liberals don t get exactly what they want. We used to rely on free speech at town halls to debate our differences, but we re living in a post-Obama era now, where Soros paid thugs have been committing so many acts of violence occur that we almost expect it. Sadly, wherever there is a gathering of people with opposing political views, most Americans now expect to see violence take place A man got physical with Republican North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer at a town hall meeting Thursday before being escorted out by police.The man was yelling at Rep. Cramer, Will the rich benefit from, if the health care is destroyed, do the rich get a tax break? Yes or no? He then shoved cash into the congressman s collar, saying, There you go, take it. Cramer responded, That s too far, and police escorted the man from the meeting. Another man was escorted out after he stepped in and blocked the man yelling as he was angrily approaching the congressman.CNN anchor Poppy Harlow described the scene as, This man showing his disgust with the Congressman s support of tax cuts for the wealthy, one part of the GOP plan right now. Earlier today we reported on a Tennessee woman has obviously bought into the left s playbook to act as crazy as possible when at a town hall.WEAKELY COUNTY, Tenn. A Weakely County woman was arrested after reportedly following Congressman David Kustoff and then threatening him.Police say Wendi Wright followed a car down Highway 45 Monday afternoon. Inside the car were Congressman Kustoff and aide Marianne Dunavant. Wright reportedly followed the car after it left a town hall on the UT Martin campus.THIS WOMAN LEFT THE TOWN HALL AND ENDANGERED THE LIVES OF THE CONGRESSMAN AND HIS PASSENGER! WHO DOES THAT?A police report states Kustoff and Dunavant felt they were in danger of being forced off the road. | 1real |
Factbox: Trump on Twitter (Feb 1) - Rex Tillerson, Iran, Australia | The following bullet points are from the U.S. President Donald Trump’s Twitter accounts (@realDonaldTrump and @POTUS). Reuters has not edited the tweets. @realDonaldTrump : -- Source link: (bit.ly/2jBh4LU) (bit.ly/2jpEXYR) | 0fake |
WATCH: Jake Tapper SHOCKED By Steve Bannon Saying Press Should Shut Up – Gives BRILLIANT Response | Steve Bannon has a clear, strong agenda for Trump s relationship with the press. The far-right white supremacist just did a rare interview with The New York Times, which is ironic considering how much he seems to hate the press, and he took the opportunity to paint the press as an incompetent enemy. In that interview, he said, point-blank: The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. Listen to what? More of Trump s lies? The press should let his lies go unchallenged? Just for the record, the press does not like being told they can t challenge public figures. The press does not like being muzzled.So, one member of the press, CNN s Jake Tapper, responded to that with something thoughtful and eloquent, yet appropriately brief. Watch below: No @jaketapper to Steve Bannon pic.twitter.com/VT2tfyTm3q Colin Jones (@colinjones) January 26, 2017And he s laughing at the very notion of shutting up and listening. It s brilliant in the face of Bannon saying, Sit down, shut up, and let him lie all he wants. That s really what it comes down to letting the administration put forth unchecked lies so they can create the reality they want. In fact, Bannon actually told the Times to quote him on this: I want you to quote this, Mr. Bannon added. The media here is the opposition party. They don t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States. [emphasis mine]So the media should shut up. Stop with the criticism. Stop with the challenges. It hurts Donald s little feefees and we just can t have that.Too bad for them that the press isn t going to listen.Featured image via screen capture from embedded video | 1real |
GOP Outreach To Women Continues As Trump Doubles Down On Sexist Attack On Clinton | Republicans haven t had a great time attracting women voters in recent history, and it s about to get much worse for them. Their inevitable nominee is someone who has a more lousy reputation with women than any of the legitimate rape can be a blessing from God crowd, and he just can t seem to stop making sexist comments. It s no wonder so many Republicans are deciding not to attend the Republican National Convention this year.Donald Trump recently went after Hillary Clinton with an attack suggesting that if she wasn t a woman, she wouldn t even be a legitimate candidate in the presidential race. Trump was asserting that the only thing she had going for her is the fact she would be the first female POTUS, and beyond that she has no qualifications. As you can imagine, it doesn t go over well with most people when you say a woman has literally no talents or redeeming values beyond her genitalia.Trump appeared on Fox News Sunday and was given an opportunity to address his poor choice of words by Chris Wallace. Trump did address the issue in the proper Republican way by doubling down on the offensive comments. I m my own strategist, and I like what I said, and it s true. I only tell the truth, and that s why people vote for me. He then suggested that she is just going to have to take it because she s a strong person. So, the new Republican position is that a woman has to just sit there and take sexist comments from a guy otherwise, she isn t strong. Really Donald? You re kidding, right? Even you aren t stupid enough to actually say that seriously.Following up on that verbal disaster, he reiterated his original comment by saying, The fact is, the only card that she has is the woman s card. She s done a lousy job in so many ways and even women don t like her. They don t like her. But it is the woman s card, and she plays it, and I ll let you know in about six months whether or not she plays it well. As is the usual case for Republicans, Trump is totally checked out on the reality of the situation. Recent polling models show that women overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton over Trump by about 60 percent in hypothetical general election scenarios.In a strange way, Trump has done a great service for America and for the Democratic party. His candidacy has mainstreamed the core values of Republicans, such as bigotry, racism and sexism. He managed to convince Republican voters that it s ok to embrace these things openly, and require them to also be openly embraced by Republican candidates. In doing so, he may have single-handedly forced the Republican Party to destroy itself from the inside. Maybe Trump will make America great again, after all.Featured image via wikicommons | 1real |
STEP ASIDE FOX NEWS, IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU! | This election is THE most important election EVER! Which way will America turn after 8 years of the fundamental transformation ? Let s face it, a large part of the blame for the 8 years of a first term Senator being elected to be the President of the United States is the main stream media s refusal to tell the truth about Obama. Hopefully, Americans have been awakened by this betrayal and will see through the spin this time around. Here s a fantastic synopsis of the latest spin from Megyn Kelly of FOX News:With America the Beautiful crying out in death throes for rescue from its undeserved Fundamental Transformation , Fox News seems intent on making the 2016 presidential election all about Fox News.Move over, Megyn Kelly, America is calling.It doesn t take a conspiracy theorist to recognize a conspiracy, and as the Kelly File proved lat night, it only takes a single television show.One night after immigration opportunist/Univision reporter Jorge Ramos broke the queue taking over the mic at Donald Trump s Dubuque, Iowa event, Megyn Kelly gave him the floor on her Kelly File the same way she gave DNC motor mouth Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rant time as her first guest after the mainly Fox-touted Great Debate .In short, Ramos who was given the bum s rush from the Iowa event, got to make a comeback on last night s Kelly File. Kelly very knowingly asked him, What is it like to be caught in the crosshairs of a billionaire presidential runner? Ramos answered, Well, you know exactly how it feels. In one fell swoop, all the attention went running back to Kelly. Kelly did acknowledge it s not unusual for reporters to do what he did, but asked Ramos why Trump would want to engage with him when he has repeatedly referred to Trump as a voice of extreme hate. (Mediaite) Ramos said it shouldn t matter if Trump is a fan of his or Univision s or not, he has an obligation as a presidential candidate to answer reporters questions. Ramos did add, though, that Trump clearly can t deal with questions that make him uncomfortable. Sure didn t take long for Kelly to get back to everything being about Megyn Kelly.What good is Fox News doing for America if the 2016 presidential race isn t all about how Obama is destroying America, and if it s all about the non-stop bickering between Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly?Peculiar, isn t it that Trump s become the Fox arch enemy all because he s trying to Make America Great Again and laying out the truth while he s at it?Time is running out on bringing America back from the brink. All other GOP contenders should be doing the same as The Donald.Americans are worried about their children and grandchildren having to grow up in an unstable fundamentally transformed America.Trump s in hot water for calling Kelly a bimbo . After last night, perhaps the word cunning would be more applicable.In his unbridled passion to Make America Great Again , Trump is bumptious, brash and bold, but a least he employs the frontal attack, leaving no room for second guessing about his intent.Tired of the Republican run-around, people are trying to press home the message to Fox News that their golden boy Jeb Bush, like Mitt Romney, just doesn t cut it and that their network regular Karl Rove is full of it.The focus should be on presidential election 2016 and prima donnas like Megyn Kelly told to leave their inflated egos at the back door.Meanwhile, the Fox News attack on The Donald is all about ratings when at least half of America is all about saving their country from fundamental transformation.A cry needs to go up across the land: Move Over, Megyn Kelly, America is calling .Via: Judi MCCleod of Canada Free Press | 1real |
South Carolina Man May Be Linked to 7 Killings, Authorities Say - The New York Times | A South Carolina man charged in the kidnapping of a woman found alive in a storage container confessed on Saturday to the unsolved killings of four people in 2003, and may be linked to a total of seven deaths, the authorities said. Late on Saturday, the Spartanburg County sheriff, Chuck Wright, said that a body found in a shallow grave the day before was that of Charles D. Carver, 32, the boyfriend of the rescued woman, The Associated Press reported. He died of gunshot wounds, Sheriff Wright said. Todd C. Kohlhepp, 45, the owner of the property and a registered sex offender, has been charged with kidnapping the woman, Kala V. Brown, who disappeared along with Mr. Carver in late August. Investigators had been sweeping the woods and fields with cadaver dogs after finding Ms. Brown inside a storage container on the property, about 20 miles east of Greenville, S. C. The sheriff said there were indications that two other bodies might be buried on the property. In a stunning twist that drew gasps at a news conference, Sheriff Wright said Mr. Kohlhepp had confessed on Saturday to a quadruple homicide on Nov. 6, 2003. The police said four people were killed at the Superbike Motorsports shop in Chesnee, S. C.: Scott Ponder, 30 Beverly Guy, 52, his mother, who worked there part time and Brian Lucas, 29, and Chris Sherbert, 26, who were employees, The Greenville News reported. Sheriff Wright said Mr. Kohlhepp “told us some stuff that nobody ought to know” about the killings. He described Mr. Kohlhepp as “very cooperative. ” He added: “I’m rejoicing that our community can know that four people who were brutally murdered — there’s no wondering about it anymore. ” Four murder warrants were signed in connection with the killings in the shop, and a murder charge was pending in the case of Mr. Carver, Sheriff Wright said. The case began to unfold when deputies heard Ms. Brown, 30, banging from inside a storage container on Thursday. At a hearing on Friday during which Mr. Kohlhepp was denied bond, the prosecutor, Barry Barnette, said Ms. Brown had told investigators she saw Mr. Kohlhepp shoot Mr. Carver. Ms. Brown also told the authorities that there might be four people buried on the property, Sheriff Wright said. He added that missing persons’ cases were being reopened in light of the revelations. He said investigators would continue to search other properties owned by Mr. Kohlhepp. Mr. Barnette told Magistrate Judge Daniel R. Burns of Spartanburg County that officials had found “numerous guns, assault rifles, two handguns with silencers on them” and “rounds of ammo. ” “It’s unbelievable how much he had out there,” Mr. Barnette said. “This individual is a very, very dangerous individual. ” Sheriff Wright said the authorities were also looking for clues online to shed light on what he said had not been a “random act” of kidnapping. The disappearance of Mr. Carver and Ms. Brown had taken a strange turn last month when friends and family noticed that their Facebook accounts had suddenly become active, updated with posts they did not believe had been written by the couple, The Daily Beast reported. On Friday, Sheriff Wright told reporters that investigators were trying to figure out whether Mr. Kohlhepp or another person had published the posts. Mr. Kohlhepp, of Moore, S. C. sold real estate and had a landscaping business, Sheriff Wright said. He was convicted at age 15 in Arizona in the kidnapping and rape of a girl at gunpoint, Mr. Barnette told the court. | 0fake |
After Nevada, Sanders faces struggle to broaden appeal | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bernie Sanders’ high-flying Democratic presidential campaign fell back to Earth on Saturday in Nevada. If the Vermont senator cannot quickly find a way to broaden his appeal to minorities and union members, last week’s 22-point rout of Clinton in New Hampshire could prove to be his campaign highlight. The race moves next week to South Carolina, where blacks make up more than half of the Democratic electorate, and on March 1 to a string of southern states with big blocs of African-Americans, who strongly support Clinton and have been slow to warm to Sanders. The rush of March contests in big, diverse states — Democrats in nearly two dozen states will vote between March 1 and March 15 — could leave Sanders grasping for political life. “This was a bad day for Sanders,” said David Woodard, a political scientist at Clemson University in South Carolina. “He needs to find a way to cut into Clinton’s base, and I don’t think he is going to find it here.” Although Clinton’s 5-point win was relatively narrow, it was enough to blunt Sanders’ momentum. Recent voter surveys had shown a tight race in Nevada, raising the prospect of another damaging setback for Clinton. Entrance polls in Nevada showed Clinton trounced Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, by 3-to-1 among black voters, and also beat him in union households by 11 percentage points. The enthusiasm of younger and liberal voters who rallied around Sanders’ calls for reining in Wall Street and reducing income equality was not enough in Nevada to counter Clinton’s union and organizational clout, allowing her to reclaim front-runner status as the race shifts to more friendly turf. After the New Hampshire setback, Clinton’s campaign was banking that Sanders would be unable to breach a so-called “firewall” of Hispanic and African-American support for the former Secretary of State in southern and western states. Nevada’s result appeared to support that view. “He’s running a strong campaign, but being close is overrated if you can’t make the sale,” said Mo Elleithee, a Clinton aide in her 2008 campaign and now the executive director of the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service. The Sanders campaign said it was heartened in Nevada by entrance polls showing he beat Clinton among Hispanics by about eight points. “What we learned today is Hillary Clinton’s firewall with Latino voters is a myth,” Arturo Carmona, deputy political director for Bernie 2016, said in a statement. But the Clinton campaign questioned those numbers, saying that at one point she had won 60 percent of the delegates in 22 Latino-majority precincts. Clinton’s convincing showing in Nevada could reduce the chances of a late run by an independent candidate such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, who would likely scoop up moderate voters turned off by a socialist nominee. In a sense, Sanders was a victim in Nevada of his own success. His ability to close the gap on Clinton in Iowa and rout her in New Hampshire, nearly all-white states, raised expectations that he could ride to another upset in Nevada. “Nevada put out the Bern,” said Ken Tietjen, a Clinton supporter who stood outside her Las Vegas victory rally at Caesar’s Palace. “Hillary has all the momentum going forward.” But Sanders’ strong showings in the first three contests, along with his formidable fundraising, suggest staying power. That could help extend the Democratic race beyond the cluster of early March contests and into April and May, when a string of contests in whiter and more liberal states could help him. Sanders has money for the long haul, although Clinton had more on hand at the end of January. Federal election reports filed as the Nevada results were announced showed Sanders had raised $21.3 million in January and had $14.7 million on hand. In January, Hillary raised $13.2 million from individual donors and had $32.9 million on hand. Some black voters said on Saturday they did not see a reason to switch their loyalty away from Clinton, a fondness that dates back to her husband Bill Clinton’s presidency but which was strained by her bitter primary battle with Barack Obama in 2008. Asked who he was backing, Thomas Anderson, an African-American in Columbia, South Carolina, said on Saturday: “Hillary, of course.” “She’s got more experience. She knows what the country needs,” he said, adding “Bernie’s a cool guy. I’m down with Bernie too.” Clinton’s embrace of Obama’s presidential legacy, and her argument that Sanders would begin to unravel some of Obama’s policies on healthcare and other issues, also has made an impression. Darien Gambrell, 23, said she heard Clinton planned to continue a number of Obama’s policies. “I think that’s a good thing. I liked some of his ideas, even the ones that didn’t seem to work at first,” she said, adding she would not want a candidate who would reverse Obama’s work. (Additional reporting by Luciana Lopez and Jane Ross in Nevada, Emily Flitter and Steve Holland in South Carolina, Michelle Conlin in New York, Amanda Becker in Washington; Editing by Stuart Grudgings) This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production. | 0fake |
One Of Trump’s Groping Victims Just Came Forward, Campaign Is PANICKING (VIDEO) | After a tape was released in which Donald Trump was heard talking about how he loves to grope women, even married women, you can expect a rash of his victims to come forward. The first one, it appears, was with his one-time business partner, Jill Harth.The New York Times wrote about Harth s experiences on Friday. In it, she called Trump relentless. The man she described in the interview was a predator a would-be rapist.She and her longtime boyfriend, George Houraney attended meetings with Trump in the early 90s. Even when sitting at a table with her boyfriend, Harth recalled Trump putting his hand up her skirt, all the way up to her crotch. I didn t know how to handle it. I would go away from him and say I have to go to the restroom. It was the escape route. Darth and Houraney had approached Trump with a business proposal that was right up his alley. They wanted to hold calendar girl beauty contests, an automobile show, a music competition and other events at his Atlantic City casino. They wanted Trump to do business with them, but as the evening wore on, Harth was getting more and more uncomfortable.The first sign of trouble came the day before the evening groping, in an initial business meeting in which, Harth and Houraney say, Trump spent the time asking about the breasts of the beauty contestants real or enhanced? and staring at Harth, then 30. At one point he asked Houraney, Are you sleeping with her? Houraney explained awkwardly that they were a couple, but Trump was unfazed. You know, there s going to be a problem, Trump told Houraney, according to a 1997 sexual harassment lawsuit Harth filed against him. I m very attracted to your girlfriend. About six weeks later, Trump gave Harth and Houraney a tour of Mar-a-Lago. They brought some of the calendar girls, but Trump wanted Harth. He pulled her into Ivanka s room (that s right, he tried to have sex in his daughter s bedroom.) I was admiring the decoration, and next thing I know he s pushing me against a wall and has his hands all over me, Harth told me. He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out. Harth says she was desperately protesting, and finally managed to run out of the room and find the group again. She and Houraney left rather than stay the night, as they had intended.Harth and Houraney tried to continue the business relationship. Trump kept persisting and Harth was afraid he was going to rape her. His mind was in a totally different place than mine, Harth recalls. He thinks he s God s gift to women. They did end up doing business with Trump. She didn t report it to the police. Trump, not surprisingly, tried not to pay the couple, but he eventually settled out of court, but only after she agreed to withdraw a sexual harassment suit, which detailed all the allegations.The couple eventually married and then divorced. They do not speak, but their stories, according to the Times, did match. Eventually, Harth ended up dating Trump. When asked why, Harth responded: I was scared, thinking, what am I going to do now? she says. When he called me and tried to work on me again, I was thinking maybe I should give this a try, maybe if he s still working on me, I should give this rich guy a chance. Here she is talking about it with The Guardian:Trump didn t respond to the New York Times, but he has publicly trashed Harth in the past, saying she was the one who was obsessed. She, surprisingly, wanted to work on his campaign, doing his hair and makeup. Still, the Times is convinced her story is true and after Friday s revelations, it wouldn t be surprising. We know Trump has zero respect for women. We know he sees them as a collection of body parts and that s it. We also know that he feels entitled to take whatever the hell he wants, even if what he wants is a human being. Trump is even accused of raping a 13-year-old. Would attempting to rape an adult be so inconceivable? It is going to be tough for Trump to spin his way out of this.Featured image Jill Harth via video screen capture | Featured image of Donald Trump via Diane Freed/Getty Images. | 1real |
OpEds | Eric Zuesse: 34 Reasons This Bernie Voter Will Vote Trump | “Why I Won’t Vote for Hillary Clinton | Evan Edinger” (but then he changes his mind on that) TO CLOSE : Evan Edlinger will vote for Hillary against Trump because he thinks that whereas Hillary’s actual track-record of policies (not mere statements) in public office have been horrific, Trump’s bad statements and lack of any track-record in public office at all, make Trump even worse. That’s what he thinks. I think it makes Trump better — the better choice — as opposed to the proven evil and catastrophically harmful public official, Hillary Clinton. Edlinger is preferring an evil record as a public official, to no record as a public official. Edlinger fails to make two crucial distinctions: One is that he fails to distinguish between mere political statements, versus actual political policies carried out as a public official (which show Hillary to be a proven neocon and tool of Wall Street); and the other is his failing to distinguish between a bad record in a person’s private or business affairs, versus a bad record as an actual public official. Only the bad record as a public official should be absolutely disqualifying — and that’s Clinton, not Trump, who has a horrific record as a public official. Trump has no record at all as a public official. Edlinger at 1:30 in his video says that when he contemplates voting for Hillary,”There’s always one thing that comes in the way, and that’s trust.” He says he doesn’t trust her — but what he doesn’t actually “trust” is her words; when he says he’ll vote for her, he’s simply ignoring her actions, he’s ignoring the real person-as-a-public-official, the person who is shown and displayed beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever. Proven selfishness in one’s private life is bad, but proven selfishness and evil in one’s public-office policies (such as “We came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha!” ) is utterly disqualifying. I argued in my “I’m a Bernie Sanders Voter: Here’s Why I’ll Vote Trump” , that Trump could possibly turn out to be a progressive President; but, even if he turns out to be a bad President, he won’t, on balance, be as horrific as will a President Hillary Clinton. With Trump, there is reason to have some hope for the future of the world; with Clinton, there is reason to expect unprecedented horrors . About the author Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . NOTE: The Greanville Post editors have a clear position on this so-called election: If you MUST vote, vote Green, for the Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka ticket, as a PROTEST VOTE. If that is not possible in your area, do not bother to vote, as all votes serve to legitimate a fraudulent process and the ongoing reign of the corporate/military/media complex. =SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.= free • safe • invaluable If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you— ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary. In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week. [email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”] NOTE: ALL IMAGE CAPTIONS, PULL QUOTES AND COMMENTARY BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS Print this post if you want. Share This: | 1real |
Exposed: The US is an Oligarchy Ruled by Billionaires and Dictators | Eric Zuesse Off GuardianEven for the post of U.S. President, the preferences of the American people have only a marginal, if any, impact upon the selection of the person to occupy that post.In Colorado s Republican race to win delegates to the Republican National Convention for selecting the Republican Presidential nominee, there was no primary, and there was no caucus.As the Republican magazine National Review headlined on April 11th, attempting to justify what a Republican wag had just headlined as Cruz Celebrates Voterless Win : Donald Trump Laid a Colorado Goose Egg because He Was Disorganized and Amateurish. Their argument (since they campaign for any Republican but Trump) was: he lost because he was disorganized and amateurish not because he had been cheated by the Party-hierarchy.National Review explained that in the process which had been set up by the Colorado Republican Party (it s set up by each individual state s Republican Party, not by the National Republican Party), delegates to the national convention would be selected at congressional-district conventions and the Republican s [sic] state convention , and this was done in order to give Colorado s delegates more flexibility, not done in order to require delegates to reflect the Republican (or any other) electorate in Colorado (since NR doesn t like even its own Party s electorate).This was the explanation that was provided by that magazine, which backs Cruz, and which has been campaigning ferociously against Trump. Their article was built upon, and extensively quoted, the justifications put forth by one particular Cruz delegate, who said, The grassroots made the decision that Ted Cruz was the best candidate for us, and the grassroots made the decision to come out for Cruz and absolutely swept the table. He called it our caucus system. Whatever it was, it shut out all rank-and-file Republican voters, and left everything to people like himself, who could afford to do this: You have to put in the work, you have to put in the effort, and you have to do it months ahead of time. In other words: only Republican Party activists in Colorado could participate in selecting the delegates who would participate in selecting the Republican nominee. No one else was allowed to. Their conception of the Colorado Republican Party is that it s only the Party s activists; and, if you re not a Republican activist, you have no say.It s as if to say:Only people who work in the government can have a say in how the government is to be run. It s for insiders only and, of course, indirectly it s for whomever pays those insiders and so enables them to put in the work to participate.National Public Radio had a different take on this matter. Steve Inskeep headlined there GOP Delegate: Trump Primary Wins Absolutely Irrelevant At Convention. He interviewed Curly Haughland, a member of the Republican National Committee who lives in North Dakota, and who said: No matter what the popular belief might be, there is no connection between primaries and the actual convention. Well, that s putting it rather bluntly. Haughland also said: Cited the GOP s convention Rules 37 and 38. He interprets these convoluted rules to mean that delegates may vote their conscience. The rules do not explicitly say this. Rule 37 is a detailed explanation of the procedure for roll-call votes. However, Rule 38 does say that no delegate may be bound by the unit rule, meaning that delegates from a state can t all be forced to vote the same way. Another of Haughland s points is indisputable: When the convention convenes, he said, the delegates adopt their own rules, which haven t been adopted yet. There is a standard template for conventions, but delegates could tweak the template, changing the game in any way that they want. In other words: the National Republican Committee says that all of the delegates to the Republican National Convention are allowed to tweak the template, changing the game in any way that they want. So: the delegates at that Convention won t actually be representing anyone but themselves there. They are entirely free to push for anyone whom they personally want to win the Republican U.S. Presidential nomination.They re not bound, not even on the first ballot. They might pretend to be, if they feel a need to put on a show that looks democratic , but any who don t feel the need to make such a pretense, can do whatever they want on the first ballot, just like on any successive ballot. They are free; all of them are free. It s only the electorate who aren t they re not represented, at all.What about on the Democratic side? Wyoming had held its Democratic Party caucuses on April 9, and there really were caucuses. Two days later, CNN headlined Wyoming Democratic Caucuses: Bernie Sanders Picks Up Another Win , and reported: Bernie Sanders won the Wyoming Democratic caucuses Saturday, providing his campaign with one more jolt of momentum before the race against Hillary Clinton heads east. Even so, he made no gains in Clinton s delegate lead, as each earned seven delegates as a result. On April 12th a youtube video was posted, MSNBC Morning Host Admits The Whole Voting System Is Rigged After Bernie Get s Cheated! Here the co-hosts had a conversation about the results: Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by twelve points, 56 to 44, He wins by twelve points. The accompanying image showed the delegate-count, in this contest that Sanders had won by 56% to 44%: 18 total. Hillary Clinton 11, Bernie Sanders 7. It wasn t 7 to 7, after all.Though Sanders had outscored Clinton by 12%, it was worse than even-steven for him; he had actually lost by 11 delegates to 7 delegates. This system is so rigged! said one host. There s absolutely no reason any of those people voted, said the other.A Hillary Clinton supporter was the expert on the panel, and he said, It s not rigged. These are the rules. He wasn t given time to explain that fine point or how the rules were necessarily not rigged. Also on April 12th, Public Radio International s Todd Zwillich headlined (falsely), Six Reasons Bernie Sanders Won Wyoming, But Still Tied in the Delegate Race , and Zwillig failed to explain that word Tied. He opened: How, many of you ask, could Bernie have won Wyoming 56 percent to Hillary s 44 percent, but still split the delegates with her 50-50? Then, he repeated that there had supposedly been The 7-7 split, but he also said Wyoming has a total of 18 delegates (which obviously isn tthe sum of 7+7) and he was also likewise incoherent, all the way through.Maybe the rules in the Wyoming Democratic Party are like that; but, whatever they are, is so convoluted, America s news-media couldn t explain what they were, much less were they able to argue persuasively that this was somehow a democracy.The only thing that s clear is that the electoral system in the United States is so convoluted, so complex and so different from state to state and party to party, that whatever the intent of the writers of America s Constitution might have been, the system as it is today, can be successfully gamed and won only by interests who can afford to spend whatever billions of dollars are necessary in order to win. It s certainly anything but democratic.Right now, according to RealClear Politics, there are only two Presidential candidates who are shown repeatedly, and almost consistently, to be preferred by the majority of the U.S. electorate: the Democrat Bernie Sanders is strongly preferred over the Republicans Trump and Cruz, and he is barely preferred over the Republican Kasich; and the Republican Kasich is strongly preferred over the Democrat Clinton. (Clinton loses strongly to Kasich and barely beats Cruz, while Trump is the weakest general-election candidate of all.)The strongest general-election candidates are, clearly, Sanders in the Democratic Party, and Kasich in the Republican Party. In a democracy, those would be the candidates. Throughout the contest thus far, neither of these two has been favored likely to win his respective Party s nomination, much less the Presidency.Whatever America is, it isn t a democracy a one-person-one-vote majority-rule republic. In fact, the only scientific study that has ever been done of the U.S. political system, finds that it s no democracy at all, but instead an oligarchy, a nation ruled by its aristocracy, its billionaires.It represents them, not the citizenry. That might not be the theory, but empirically it is the fact. An oligarchy is the commonest type of dictatorship, and it certainly is never a benevolent dictatorship, even if that phrase is not an oxymoron in itself.To sum up: the U.S. is ruled by and for the corrupters. It has been like that since at least 1980.***Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.READ MORE US ELECTION NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2016 Election Files | 1real |
Britain's May, party leaders agree to tackle sexual harassment with new measures | LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May and other party leaders agreed on Monday to introduce new safeguards for those working in parliament to try to contain a growing sexual harassment scandal. Britain s parliament is the latest institution to become embroiled in a sex scandal after abuse allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein prompted thousands of women and men to share stories about improper behavior. Allegations have been made against lawmakers in several parties, but the growing scandal is particularly damaging for May who, weakened after losing her Conservatives majority in June, cannot afford to lose any more parliamentary seats, especially when she is trying to negotiate a Brexit deal. May told reporters on Monday the agreement with Jeremy Corbyn, head of the main opposition Labour Party, and other leaders to introduce a new grievance procedure and face-to-face human resources support was an important step forward . The fact that they have taken place here at our seat of democracy should be a matter of shame for us all, she said. We ve taken an important step forward today. It s important we get this right and that is what I intend to do. Corbyn said the leaders had agreed that any form of harassment or bullying was completely unacceptable in this workplace or indeed in any other workplace in the country . We ve agreed we will establish a group of representatives of the parties and of the staff ... in this building and we will work out necessary procedures, he told Sky News. The scandal has led to one resignation - Michael Fallon quit as defense minister last week, but the number of allegations against lawmakers has increased almost daily. | 0fake |
JIM BEAM Fans Call For Boycott After Spokesperson and Liberal Actress Brags About Taunting VP Mike Pence For Defending Life | The decision of actress Mila Kunis to make monthly donations to abortion business Planned Parenthood in pro-life Vice President Mike Pence s name has generated a call for a boycott of Jim Beam on Twitter.Jim Beam global brand spokesperson Kunis told Conan O Brien Thursday that she donates to Planned Parenthood in Pence s name to protest his pro-life policies. O Brien asked Kunis to explain her prank: I apologize if I m offending anybody. It s not so much a prank as much as I disagreed with some of the stuff that Pence was doing and was trying to do. And so as a reminder that there are women out there in the world that may or may not agree with his platform, I put him on a list of recurring donations that are made in his name to Planned Parenthood.Every month, to his office, he gets a little letter that says like, An anonymous donation has been made in your name. I don t look at it as a prank, this is like, I strongly disagree, and this is my little way of doing it. It s a peaceful protest. Breitbart NewsThe new face of Jim Beam, the iconic bourbon brand, might not be quite what you expect. While a rough-around-the-edges cowboy or country rock star might seem to fit the bill Jim Beam has used Kid Rock at times in the past its newest spokesperson is the petite and beautiful Mila Kunis.The 30-year-old actress, who says she is a big fan of bourbon in general, is featured in two new 30-second Beam ads, as well as five other videos ranging in length from 15 seconds to more than three minutes. Ad WeekSome Twitter users are peacefully protesting in return by letting the makers of Jim Beam know they will be choosing the brand s competitors instead:Hey @JimBeam I didn't realize your spokesperson was so political & supported killing babies #AbortionHurts #BoycottJimBeam https://t.co/JwHkusu3xr Rockentowsky (@grendel_the) November 4, 2017Tell @JimBeam to stop having @MilaKunis as their spokes idiot #BoycottJimBeam pic.twitter.com/YFlqKFJ9X5 tom_simpson (@builditnow) November 3, 2017Just don't be surprised on that day you reap what you sow Kurt Watson (@crapshoot55) November 3, 2017 | 1real |
WATCH: Trump Blames Puerto Ricans For Recovery Effort Problems While Giving Himself An A+ | Donald Trump insulted the people of Puerto Rico just as he was getting ready to travel there to inspect the devastation caused by two Category 5 hurricanes.As a helicopter was standing by, Trump took questions from reporters as he walked to the landing pad.One question was about the hurricane relief effort that is currently underway in Puerto Rico.Trump responded by whining about the criticism of his response, which was slower than George W. Bush s response to Hurricane Katrina. Then he gave himself an A+ grade on the response and proceeded to blame the victims of the hurricane for all the problems.I think it s now no longer acknowledged what a great job we ve done. Texas and Florida we get an A plus. I think we ve done just as good in Puerto Rico and it s a much tougher situation. Now the roads are cleared. Communications starting to come back. We need their truck drivers. Their drivers have to start driving trucks. We have to do that. At a local level they have to give us more help. I will tell you the first responders, the military, FEMA, they have done an incredible job in Puerto Rico. And whether it s her or anybody else, they re all starting to say it. I appreciate very much the governor and his comments. He has said we have done an incredible job and that s the truth.Here s the video via YouTube.Keep in mind that Puerto Rico just suffered near total devastation. There is a lack of food and water and not nearly enough manpower and equipment. Much of the island still has no electrical power.Blaming the locals is what a poor leader does when he or she wants to shift the blame for their own mishandling of the situation. Trump responded badly to the dire situation in Puerto Rico and he refuses to take responsibility. Apparently, the buck always stops with someone else. Puerto Ricans should boo Trump s sorry ass back to the mainland, because he basically just doubled down on suggesting that they are lazy. Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They . Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2017 want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2017Trump should be ashamed of himself.Featured Image: Screenshot | 1real |
Kentucky Clerk's Office Issues Same-Sex Marriage License | In what was an emotional and contentious scene at the Rowan County, Ky., Courthouse this morning, one dramatic legal standoff came to an end when a gay couple was issued a marriage license.
James Yates and William Smith, who had tried this five times before, arrived at the courthouse just as the sun started peeking out from under the mountains on the horizon.
They walked past protesters — some condemning them and some cheering them — and entered the clerk's office.
Kim Davis, the county clerk who had stood in their way those five previous attempts, was in jail. She was held in contempt by a federal judge Thursday for refusing to hand out marriage licenses in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court. So early Friday, Yates and Smith walked up to Deputy Clerk Brian Mason.
Mason was all business. He checked their licenses, asked them if they were related, took their $35 and, in about five minutes, handed them an envelope and said, "Congratulations."
Yates and Smith had become the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license from Rowan County.
They exited to chants of "Love has won. Love has won."
"I don't want her in jail," Yates said of Davis. "No one wanted her in jail. We just wanted the licenses given out. This isn't a blessing. It's an official license."
"This means, at least for this area, civil rights are civil rights and they're not subject to beliefs."
Davis' husband, Joe Davis, was also outside the courthouse with a group of protesters who called this a moral fight.
"We don't hate these people. That's the furthest thing from our hearts," he said. "We don't hate nobody. We just want to have the same rights that they have. They're saying, 'Hey we're gonna make you accept us.' But they don't want to accept our beliefs. But they want us to accept theirs."
There is still some question about the legality of the marriage licenses handed out today, because they don't bear Davis' signature. | 0fake |
OBAMA: ‘There’s little difference between communism and capitalism’ [Video] | Riiiight just choose from what works | 1real |
WATCH: Delusional Trump Campaign Manager Makes Craziest Claim Yet To Deny Trump Is Losing | This is the craziest explanation of why Donald Trump is getting his ass handed to him in the polls and you have to hear it for yourself.The Republican nominee s newst campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was interviewed by the UK s Channel 4, where she was grilled about Trump s poll numbers and whether he can really win.Once again, Trump s minion dismissed the polls as being cherry-picked by the media because they supposedly want to destroy him.Conway claimed that online polls are more accurate because they allegedly show Trump in the lead and she argued that college students are keeping their support of Trump secret so they aren t alienated on campus. Donald Trump performs consistently better in online polling where a human being is not talking to another human being about what he or she may do in the election. It s because it s become socially desirable, if you re a college educated person in the United States of America, to say that you re against Donald Trump. The problem with online polls, however, is that anyone can take them and they can be easily skewed if a bunch of people take it with the intention of making the results lean one way or the other. In short, they aren t scientific, like real polls conducted by CNN, Gallup, NBC, and Quinnipiac, all of which show Trump losing badly to Hillary Clinton.Furthermore, polls are anonymous so there is no need to hide one s support of a candidate. But polls overwhelmingly show that Trump is getting trounced by Hillary among young voters, so it s pretty clear why Conway would make any excuse to explain the wide gap there.Conway then claimed that Trump will win the election in November because most of his voters are supposedly undercover. Yeah, you read that right. She literally said Trump has undercover voters that are in hiding until they can rush to the voting booth and cast their votes. The hidden Trump vote in this country is a very significant proposition, she said.When asked if she has numbers to back up her claims, Conway said she does but refused to share them. I can t discuss it, Conway said. It s a project we re doing internally. I call it the undercover Trump voter, but it s real. Here s the video via Youtube:Someone get this woman a straight jacket and a rubber room, because this claim is as delusional as the claim that the government will send black helicopters to whisk critics away in the middle of the night or that the government is going to take way all of our guns.Seriously, this a crock of bullshit. The idea that voters are undercover is totally ridiculous. Donald Trump s campaign is imploding and the best his new campaign manager can do is cite the vote of imaginary voters as proof that Trump will win? It s pathetic and it sounds like Trump needs yet another new campaign manager.Featured image via screenshot | 1real |
Indigenous woman registers to run for Mexican presidency in 2018 | MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - An indigenous woman backed by Mexico s rebel Zapatista movement registered on Saturday to run as an independent candidate in next year s presidential election, adding to a growing list of hopefuls bucking established political parties. Maria de Jesus Patricio Martinez is the spokeswoman for the National Indigenous Congress, the political arm of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), and in May was picked to be the group s 2018 presidential candidate. Local media reported that after Patricio Martinez registered with the National Electoral Institute (INE), she pledged not to accept any funding from the government to run her campaign. Mexico s major political parties have struggled to gain support in recent years, and voter surveys show all presidential hopefuls struggling to win support from as much as a third of the electorate. The front-runner in most polls is former Mexico City mayor and two-time presidential runner-up Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist with nationalistic leanings. The ruling centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) of President Enrique Pena Nieto, who is barred by law from seeking a second term, has yet to pick a candidate. Already, more than 10 first-time independent candidates have registered to run. Three of those contenders failed to meet initial requirements, according to the INE. Also on Saturday, maverick Nuevo Leon Governor Jaime Rodriguez, a former PRI member, expressed his interest to register his own independent run for the presidency. Last week, Armando Rios Piter, an independent former member of the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), formally registered his candidacy, further crowding the pool of anti-establishment candidates. Independent presidential aspirants have four months to gather 866,593 signatures, representing 1 percent of the electorate, in at least 17 regions of Mexico to qualify as an independent candidate ahead of the July 2018 vote. Patricio Martinez, a traditional healer and native Nahua speaker, is originally from the central Mexican state of Jalisco. Her support from the Zapatistas marks a more visible turn for the insurgent movement, which has faded in recent years. Just after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into force in 1994, the EZLN led armed indigenous insurgents in a declaration of war against the government in southern Chiapas state. A 12-day battle with the Army claimed at least 140 lives and become an early symbol for supporters of the anti-globalization movement. | 0fake |
A Rising Black Leader Who Pulled Off His Own Fake Obituary - The New York Times | It is impossible to know what Grady O’Cummings III might have represented to the group of youngsters he was holding court with in this photo taken in September 1963. Mr. O’Cummings, who was photographed with the youngsters outside his office in Harlem, announced the next month that he would seek the Democratic nomination to run for president in 1964. He was one of the first to run for president. Certainly Mr. O’Cummings must have represented hope and possibility to the boys who had gathered around him that day. Dedicated to economic and political empowerment for blacks, Mr. O’Cummings founded the National Civil Rights Party in 1963 to foster black enterprise and to appeal to liberal whites. He said at the time that the organization had 450 members, with branches in Chicago, Cleveland and Philadelphia. The party designated him its presidential nominee days before he decided to run as a Democrat. It will never be known where Mr. O’Cummings’s ambitious political aspirations might have taken him. His dreams appeared to be cut short when it was reported that he had had a massive heart attack and died at home in November 1969, at just 36. The New York Times ran an obituary about the unexpected death of the promising political novice who, sadly, was lost in his prime. Or was he? Mr. O’Cummings was not quite the determined political that he seemed. He had faked his death and was very much alive when he bamboozled The Times and The Amsterdam News into publishing his obituary. In fact, this report might well also serve as the newspaper’s long overdue correction. For it was only during the reporting for this article that The Times realized it had written of Mr. O’Cummings’s hoax. This is what actually happened. Just four months after he sent in his obituary to The Times, he — at a news conference in Brooklyn, which went unnoticed by The Times. For an explanation of why he faked his death, Mr. O’Cummings said he had simply been trying to elude members of the Black Panthers, who he said had made death threats against him and his family, according to an article about the news conference in The Amsterdam News. “I had to get out because I was trying to protect my family,” The News quoted Mr. O’Cummings as saying. He explained that he had fled to Buffalo, where he remained for months. “My wife, Winnie, was assaulted by four Black Panthers, and it made me very angry. I didn’t go to the police because I am not an informer and didn’t want to get involved. ” The News’s account never explained why he had decided that the threat to his family had diminished enough in just four months for him to and in such public and dramatic fashion. Perhaps at least partly because he had misled the public, he never attained the political success he sought. Years before, Mr. O’Cummings’s presidential run had proved to be as as his faked death. In early March 1964, about five months after he was designated the presidential candidate of his National Civil Rights Party, he withdrew and said he would become his party’s candidate for the seat held by Representative John J. Rooney, a Democrat, in Brooklyn’s 14th Congressional District (as reported by The Times in a brief article). Several decades later, The Times did mention Mr. O’Cummings and his candidacy for City Council, in an article about the 1993 race. Even then, though, the newspaper did not correct the story of his death or run an editor’s note about it. Professionally, Mr. O’Cummings worked in public relations, including as the community relations representative for the Welfare Policemen’s Benevolent Association. He was a native of Greenville, S. C. who graduated from City College of New York. Mr. O’Cummings also was publisher of New York Speakout, a weekly newspaper in Brooklyn, where he lived. And he served as a president of the youth council of the Manhattan division of the N. A. A. C. P. Mr. O’Cummings went on to live a long life. As for his death, it is never too late to set the record straight. The Times can now report with the authority of having seen Mr. O’Cummings’s death certificate that he died of natural causes on June 2, 1996, at the age of 63. It was 27 years after his obituary appeared in this publication. The Times did not publish a second one. This series will be part of a book with additional unseen photographs, and new stories, titled “Unseen: Unpublished Black History From the New York Times Archives,” to be published by Black Dog Leventhal in the fall of 2017. | 0fake |
Italy's 5-Star, stung by fake news claims, calls for OSCE election monitors | ROME (Reuters) - Italy s anti-establishment 5-Star Movement wants international observers to monitor next year s national election campaign to help ward off fake news , party leader Luigi Di Maio said on Sunday. His comments came after the ruling Democratic Party (PD) accused 5-Star supporters of using interlinked internet accounts to spread misinformation and smear the center-left government. Di Maio, who was elected 5-Star leader in September, said his party was often misrepresented by the traditional media and said the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) should oversee the forthcoming election. The problem of fake news exists and we think it is necessary to have the OSCE monitor news and political debate during the election campaign, Di Maio said on Facebook. Such a request is unlikely to gain traction with 5-Star s opponents, who allege that the maverick group is to blame for some of the most egregious smear campaigns. Last week unofficial Facebook accounts that back 5-Star published a photograph purportedly showing a close ally of PD leader Matteo Renzi attending the funeral of Mafia boss Salvatore Riina. In fact it was a photo taken in 2016 at the funeral of a murdered migrant. Di Maio says he wants to call up OSCE monitors. Why doesn t he call up U.N. peacekeepers and the Red Cross, and while he is at it, why not telephone (his associates) who are continuing to post this filth, Renzi told a conference on Sunday. The sharing of false or misleading headlines and mass postings by automated social media bots has become a global issue, with accusations that Russia tried to influence votes in the United States and France. Moscow has denied this. Some PD leaders called this weekend for legislation ahead of the elections, which are due by May, to crack down on the spread of false news. Renzi ruled that out on Sunday, but said his party would release twice-monthly reports on web abuses. We do not want to shut down any website, but we want accountability, Renzi said. The 5-Star party complains that it is unfairly treated by mainstream media, saying state broadcaster RAI is under the sway of the government, while the largest private media group is controlled by the family of former center-right prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Italy s leading newspapers, which are owned by large industrial concerns, have also been highly critical of 5-Star, which has promised a campaign against corruption and is seen as unfriendly to big business. Latest polls show 5-Star has built a stable lead over other parties, with support of around 28 percent against 24 percent for the PD and 15 percent for Forza Italia. A new electoral law which encourages coalition building ahead of the vote, means Berlusconi s center-right bloc should emerge as the single largest political force, albeit without a clear parliamentary majority. | 0fake |
Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine | References The Debate
It started when Daniel Blatman, an Israeli historian and head of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, penned an op-ed for the Israeli daily Haaretz stating that ethnic cleansing “is exactly what happened in 1948.” To support this, Blatman cited Benny Morris: the Israeli historian, Blatman wrote, “determined that most of the Arabs in the country, over 400,000, were encouraged to leave or expelled in the first stage of the war—even before the Arab nations’ armies invaded.” [2] Benny Morris, October 30, 2007 ( Aude / CC BY-SA 2.0 )
That prompted a response from Morris, who wrote an op-ed of his own titled “Israel Conducted No Ethnic Cleansing in 1948”. In it, he contends that Blatman “distorts history when he says the new State of Israel, a country facing invading armies, carried out a policy of expelling the local Arabs.” And Blatman “betrayed his profession”, Morris further charged, “when he attributed to me things I have never claimed and distorted the events of the 1948 war.”
Central to Morris’s argument is that “Blatman ignores the basic fact that the Palestinians were the ones who started the war when they rejected the UN compromise plan and embarked on hostile acts in which 1,800 Jews were killed between November 1947 and mid-May 1948.” Moreover, the neighboring Arab states had “threatened to invade even before the UN resolution was passed on November 29, 1947, and before a single Arab had been uprooted from his home.” Even prior to the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 181, which recommended partitioning Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, they Arab states had continuously declared their intent “to attack the Jewish state when the British left.”
He acknowledges that prior to the Zionists’ declaration of the existence of Israel on May 14, 1948, and the subsequent introduction of Arab states’ regular armies into the conflict, a few hundred thousand Arabs (though a number “apparently smaller” than the figure of 400,000 cited by Blatman) “were expelled from their homes and forced to flee”.
How can it be true that, on one hand, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and never allowed to return, yet also true, on the other, that there was no ethnic cleansing?
Morris attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction by arguing that “at no stage of the 1948 war was there a decision by the leadership of the Yishuv [the Jewish community] or the state to ‘expel the Arabs’”. In other words, it’s true that many Arabs were indeed expelled, but this was not the result of an official policy of the Zionist leadership.
“It’s true that in the 1930s and early ‘40s”, Morris further acknowledges, “David Ben-Gurion and Chaim Weizmann supported the transfer of Arabs from the area of the future Jewish state. But later they supported the UN decision, whose plan left more than 400,000 Arabs in place.
“It’s also true that from a certain point during the war, Ben-Gurion let his officers understand that it was preferable for as few Arabs as possible to remain in the new country, but he never gave them an order ‘to expel the Arabs.’”
And, true, there was an “atmosphere of transfer that prevailed in the country beginning in April 1948”, but this “was never translated into official policy—which is why there were officers who expelled Arabs and others who didn’t. Neither group was reprimanded or punished.
“In the end, in 1948 about 160,000 Arabs remained in Israeli territory—a fifth of the population.”
Furthermore, “on March 24, 1948, Israel Galili, Ben-Gurion’s deputy in the future Defense Ministry and the head of the Haganah, ordered all the Haganah brigades not to uproot Arabs from the territory of the designated Jewish state. Things did change in early April due to the Yishuv’s shaky condition and the impending Arab invasion. But there was no overall expulsion policy—here they expelled people, there they didn’t, and for the most part the Arabs simply fled.”
Morris acknowledges that the Zionist leadership in mid-1948 “adopted a policy of preventing the return of refugees”, but asserts this was “logical and just” on the grounds that these were the “same refugees who months and weeks earlier had tried to destroy the state in the making.”
What happened in 1948 does not fit the definition of “ethnic cleansing”, Morris concludes. The Arab states, on the other hand, “carried out ethnic cleansing and uprooted all the Jews, down to the last one, from any territory they captured in 1948”, while the Jews “left Arabs in place in Haifa and Jaffa”, among other places. [3] Arabs leaving Haifa as Jewish forces enter the city ( Public Domain )
That wasn’t the end of the discussion. Blatman responded in turn with an op-ed titled “Yes, Benny Morris, Israel Did Perpetrate Ethnic Cleansing in 1948”. In it, he writes that, “On March 10, 1948, the national Haganah headquarters approved Plan Dalet, which discussed the intention of expelling as many Arabs as possible from the territory of the future Jewish state.”
With regard to Morris’s denial that what occurred fits the definition of “ethnic cleansing”, Blatman quotes the prosecutor in the trial of Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian-Serb leader convicted for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia:
In ethnic cleansing . . . you act in such a way that in a given territory, the members of a given ethnic group are eliminated. . . . You have massacres. Everybody is not massacred, but you have massacres in order to scare those populations. . . . Naturally, the other people are driven away. They are afraid . . . and, of course, in the end these people simply want to leave. . . . They are driven away either on their own initiative or they are deported. . . . Some women are raped and, furthermore, often times what you have is the destruction of the monuments which marked the presence of a given population . . . for instance, Catholic churches or mosques are destroyed.
In other words, contrary to Morris’s argument, it doesn’t follow that, since there is no document in which the Zionist leadership explicitly outlined a plan to expel all Arabs or in which military commanders were instructed to do so, therefore what occurred was not ethnic cleansing. What the prosecutor describes is exactly what happened in 1948, Blatman notes: “Implied instructions, silent understandings, sowing fear among the population whose flight is the objective; the destruction of the physical presence left behind.”
Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949 :
The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack.
Blatman adds, “The expulsions were not war crimes, says Morris, because it was the Arabs who started the war. In other words, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who belong to the side that began the fighting have to be expelled. Maybe Morris would agree that the genocide carried out by the Germans against the Herero in 1904–1908 was justified since, after all, the Herero began the rebellion against German colonialism in Namibia.” [4]
Next to weigh in on the debate was Steven Klein, a Haaretz editor and adjunct professor at Tel Aviv University’s International Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation. Klein notes how Morris himself, in a 1988 essay titled “The New Historiography”, had explained how under Plan D, the Zionist forces “cleared various areas completely of Arab villages”, and how “Jewish atrocities . . . and the drive to avenge past misdeeds also contributed significantly to the exodus.” A Palestinian woman and child (Source: Hanini.org / CC BY 3.0 )
And in his book Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001 , “Morris observed that Ben-Gurion’s views on ‘transfer as a legitimate solution to the Arab problem’ did not change after he publicly declared support for forced expulsions in the 1930s, but that ‘he was aware of the need, for tactical reasons, to be discreet.’ Thus, so it seemed, he explained how Ben-Gurion could be responsible for the expulsion of many of the 700,000 Palestinian Arabs without ever issuing an order to that effect.”
Then in a 2004 Haaretz interview with journalist Ari Shavit, Morris had said, “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.”
“Morris, of course, is welcome to change his political view”, Klein continues. “But he, like any other historian, must understand that he has left a paper trail that tells a substantially different narrative than the one he now advocates. The Benny Morris of 2016 seems to be doing what he once accused the ‘old historians’ of doing—interpreting history and downplaying Israeli misdeeds in order to defend Israel’s legitimacy.” [5]
Next to chime in on the debate was Ehud Ein-Gil, who points out in his own Haaretz op-ed that among the Arabs who were allowed to remain were “15,000 Druze who had allied with Israel, 34,000 Christians, whom Israel treated decently so as not to anger its Western allies, and some Bedouin Muslim villages, whose leaders had allied with Israel or with their Jewish neighbors.
“Of the 75,000 Muslims who remained (less than 15 percent of the prewar number), tens of thousands were internally displaced—people who had fled their villages or were expelled from them and have not been allowed to return to their homes to this day.”
“Morris is right”, Ein-Gil continues, “when he mentions the ‘atmosphere of transfer’ that gripped Israel from April 1948, but he errs when he claims that this atmosphere was never translated into official policy.” He quotes the orders given to commanders in Plan D to either destroy villages or encircle and then mount “search-and-control operations” within them and, in the event of resistance, to expel all inhabitants. [6]
Finally, Morris responded once more to his critics with a Haaretz article titled “‘Ethnic Cleansing’ and pro-Arab Propaganda”, in which he characterizes their articles as not reflecting “a serious way of writing history.”
His own “opinions about the history of 1948 haven’t changed at all”, Morris asserts. He maintains that “Some Palestinians were expelled (from Lod and Ramle, for example), some were ordered or encouraged by their leaders to flee (from Haifa, for example) and most fled for fear of the hostilities and apparently in the belief that they would return to their homes after the expected Arab victory.
“And indeed, beginning in June, the new Israeli government adopted a policy of preventing the return of refugees—those same Palestinians who fought the Yishuv, the prestate Jewish community, and tried to destroy it.”
Morris contends, “In 1947–1948 there was no a priori intention to expel the Arabs, and during the war there was no policy of expulsion. There are clearly Israel-hating ‘historians’ like Ilan Pappe and Walid Khalidi, and perhaps also Daniel Blatman, going by what he has said, who see the Haganah’s Plan Dalet of March 10, 1948, as a master plan for expelling the Palestinians. It isn’t.”
Rather, Plan D “was intended to craft strategy and tactics for the Haganah to maintain its hold on strategic roads in what was to become the Jewish state. It also sought to secure the borders in the run-up to the expected Arab invasion following the departure of the British. Blatman’s contention that Plan Dalet ‘discussed the intention of expelling as many Arabs as possible from the territory of the future Jewish state’ is a malicious falsification. These are the words of a pro-Arab propagandist, not of a historian.”
Furthermore, Plan D “explicitly states that the inhabitants of villages that fight the Jews should be expelled and the villages destroyed, while neutral or friendly villages should be left untouched (and have forces garrisoned there).
“As for Arab neighborhoods in mixed cities, the Haganah field commanders ordered that the Arabs of the outlying neighborhoods be transferred to the Arab centers of those cities, like Haifa, not expelled from the country.”
Morris contends that, “if there had been a master plan and a policy of ‘expelling the Arabs,’ we would have found indications of this in the various operational orders to the combat units, and in the reports to the command headquarters, like ‘We carried out the expulsion in accordance with the master plan’ or ‘with Plan Dalet.’ There are no such mentions.”
True, “there was an ‘atmosphere of transfer,’” but this was “understandable in light of the circumstances: constant attacks by Palestinian militias over four months and the expectation of an impending invasion by the Arab armies aimed at annihilating the Jewish state to be and perhaps the people as well.”
This “necessitated occupation and the expelling of villagers who ambushed, sniped at and killed Jews along the borders and the main roads.” Moreover, “the vast majority of Arabs fled, and the officers of the Haganah/IDF had no need to face the decision of whether to expel them.” [7] On the night of April 7-8, under the command of Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini, Palestinian irregulars counterattacked the Haganah occupiers of Castel. The Palestinians are seen here moving to the counterattack. From Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora, page 334. ( Public Domain ) Points of Agreement
While there are a number of points on which Morris and his critics heatedly disagree, it’s imperative to begin by highlighting those facts that aren’t in dispute.
First and foremost, it’s completely uncontroversial that hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes by the Zionist forces during the 1948 war—about 700,000, according to Morris, by the time it was done.
Also uncontroversial is the fact that much of this flight and expulsion occurred well before the neighboring Arab states sent in their armies following the Zionists’ declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
In his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949 , Morris estimates the number of Arabs made refugees prior to May 14 at somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000. In his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine , Israeli historian Ilan Pappé writes, “There were in fact 350,000 if one adds all of the population from the 200 towns and villages that were destroyed by 15 May 1948.” [8] This is consistent with Morris’s remark that the number was “apparently smaller” than 400,000.
Another uncontroversial fact is that there was a prevailing “atmosphere of transfer” among the Zionist leadership—with “transfer” being a euphemism for the forced displacement of Arabs from their homes. As Morris notes in his book 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War , “an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed”, and, to be sure, “much of the country had been ‘cleansed’ of Arabs” by the end of the war. [9] David Ben-Gurion issues the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, beneath a portrait of Theodor Herzl ( Rudi Weissenstein )
Indeed, the idea that the Arabs would have to go was an assumption inherent in the ideology of political Zionism. The Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl, who is considered the father of the movement, outlined the Zionist project in a pamphlet titled The Jewish State in 1896. [10] A year prior, he had expressed in his diary the need to rid the land of its Arab majority: “We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border, by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” [11]
In 1937, the British Peel Commission proposed that Palestine be partitioned into separate Jewish and Arab states, but there was a problem: there would remain an estimated 225,000 Arabs in the area proposed for the Jewish state. “Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population”, the Commission concluded. It proceeded to draw attention to the “instructive precedent” of an agreement between the governments of Greece and Turkey in the aftermath of the Greco-Turkish War of 1922 that determined that “Greek nationals of the Orthodox religion living in Turkey should be compulsorily removed to Greece, and Turkish nationals of the Moslem religion living in Greece to Turkey.”
The Commission expressed its hope “that the Arab and the Jewish leaders might show the same high statesmanship as that of the Turks and the Greeks and make the same bold decision for the sake of peace.” [12]
Of course, the Commission was not unmindful of “the deeply-rooted aversion which all Arab peasants have shown in the past to leaving the lands which they have cultivated for many generations. They would, it is believed, strongly object to a compulsory transfer . . . .” [13] OBSTACLE TO PEACE The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Jeremy R. Hammond Order Now Learn More
As Morris notes in 1948 , “The fact that the Peel Commission in 1937 supported the transfer of Arabs out of the Jewish state-to-be without doubt consolidated the wide acceptance of the idea among the Zionist leaders.” [14] “Once the Peel Commission had given the idea its imprimatur, . . . the floodgates were opened. Ben-Gurion, Weizmann, Shertok, and others—a virtual consensus—went on record in support of transfer at meetings of the JAE [Jewish Agency Executive] at the Twentieth Zionist Congress (in August 1937, in Zurich) and in other forums.” [15] Chaim Weizmann, for example, in January 1941 told the Soviet ambassador to London, Ivan Maiskii, “If half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews could be put in their place.” [16]
The Zionist leader who would become Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, after the Peel Commission had recommended the “compulsory transfer” of Arabs, expressed his acceptance of the partition plan as a pragmatic first step toward the ultimate goal of establishing a Jewish state over all of the territory of Palestine. On October 5, 1937, he wrote to his son (underlined emphasis in original):
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that they are partitioning is not in our actual possession; it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual possession is a small portion, less than what they are proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant. But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though of course much less than we merit and desire. . . . What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish . A unified Eretz Israeli [ sic ] would be no source of satisfaction for me—if it were Arab.
Acceptance of “a Jewish state on only part of the land”, Ben-Gurion continued, was “not the end but the beginning.” In time, the Jews would settle the rest of the land, “through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means ” (emphasis added). If the Arabs didn’t acquiesce to the establishment of a Jewish state in the place of Palestine, then the Jews would “have to talk to them in a different language” and might be “compelled to use force” to realize their goals. [17]
“My approach to the solution of the question of the Arabs in the Jewish state”, said Ben-Gurion in June 1938, “is their transfer to Arab countries.” The same year, he told the Jewish Agency Executive, “I am for compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it.” [18]
The idea of partitioning Palestine was resurrected by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), which had drawn up the plan endorsed by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. This plan, too, contained the inherent problem of a sizable population of Arabs who would remain within the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state. Benny Morris documents the attitude of the Zionist leadership with respect to this dilemma:
The Zionists feared that the Arab minority would prefer, rather than move to the Arab state, to accept the citizenship of the Jewish state. And “we are interested in less Arabs who will be citizens of the Jewish state,” said Golda Myerson (Meir), acting head of the Jewish Agency Political Department. Yitzhak Gruenbaum, a member of the Jewish Agency Executive and head of its Labor Department, thought that Arabs who remained in the Jewish state but were citizens of the Arab state would constitute “a permanent irredenta.” Ben-Gurion thought that the Arabs remaining in the Jewish state, whether citizens of the Arab or Jewish state, would constitute an irredenta—and in the event of war, they would become a “Fifth Column.” If they are citizens of the Arab state, argued Ben-Gurion, “[we] would be able to expel them,” but if they were citizens of the Jewish state, “we will be able only to jail them. And it is better to expel them than jail them.” So it was better not to facilitate their receipt of Jewish state citizenship. But Ben-Gurion feared that they would prefer this citizenship. Eli‘ezer Kaplan, the Jewish Agency’s treasurer, added: “Our young state will not be able to stand such a large number of strangers in its midst.” [19]
In sum, there was a consensus that such a sizable population of Arabs within the borders of their desired “Jewish state” was unacceptable. The events that followed must be analyzed within the context of this explicit understanding among the Zionist leadership that, one way or another, a large number of Arabs would have to go. Ruins of the former Arab village of Bayt Jibrin, in the West Bank west of Hebron. ( Public Domain ) Who Started the War?
One of Morris’s main arguments underscoring his denial of ethnic cleansing is that it was the Arabs, not the Jews, who started the war after having rejected the UN partition plan. He points to hostile actions by the Arabs between the end of November 1947 and May 1948, but, of course, there were also hostile actions by the Jews during this same period. So is there a particular incident Morris can point to as having marked the initiation of these hostilities?
In fact, in his book 1948 , he does point to a specific event. Early in the morning on November 30—the day after Resolution 181 was adopted in the UN General Assembly—an eight-man armed band from Jaffa ambushed a Jewish bus near Kfar Syrkin, killing five. Half an hour later, the gang attacked a second bus, killing two more. “These were the first dead of the 1948 War”, Morris writes.
Yet Morris also acknowledges that these attacks were almost certainly “not ordered or organized by” the Arab Palestinian leadership. And “the majority view” in the intelligence wing of the Haganah—the Zionists’ paramilitary organization that later became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—“was that the attackers were driven primarily by a desire to avenge” a raid by the Jewish terrorist group Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang, on an Arab family ten days prior. Lehi “had selected five males of the Shubaki family and executed them in a nearby orange grove” as an act of revenge for the apparently mistaken belief that the Shubakis had informed the British authorities about a Lehi training session that prompted a British raid on the group in which five Jewish youths were killed. [20]
So why wasn’t the murder of five Arabs by the Jewish terrorist organization the initiating act of hostility marking the start of the 1948 war, in Morris’s account?
Clearly, to try to assess responsibility for the war by pinpointing this or that incident of tit-for-tat violence is an exercise in futility. Moreover, apart from overlooking the Zionists’ own acts of hostility, Morris’s claim that the Arabs started the war serves to remove the mutual hostilities that broke out in the wake of the General Assembly’s adoption of Resolution 181 from their larger context—and it is only within that larger context that a proper assessment of which side bore greater responsibility for the war can be made.
As in the above example, Morris tends to portray Jewish violence against Arabs as always being preceded by Arab violence against Jews—even though, as just illustrated, it was equally true that the Arab violence had, in turn, been preceded by Jewish violence. Elsewhere, in contrast to how he characterizes Arab violence, Morris describes unambiguous war crimes committed by the Zionist forces as merely “mistakes”.
Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.” [21]
Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command. [22] Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war (Source: Hanini.org / CC BY 3.0 )
“But generally”, Morris continues, “Haganah retaliatory strikes during December 1947–March 1948 were accurately directed, either against perpetrators or against their home bases”—meaning the Arab villages where they lived. Thus, according to Morris’s own criteria, when the Haganah attacked an Arab village that happened to be home to one or more combatants and proceeded to go about “accurately” killing innocent civilians and destroying their homes, this was by no means a “mistake”.
Instructively, Morris quotes a document from the intelligence wing of the Haganah on the consequences of what he describes as the “Jewish reprisals” that occurred during those months: “The main effect of these operations was on the Arab civilian population ” (emphasis added), the Haganah noted, including “the destruction of their houses” and psychological trauma. Among other consequences, “The Jewish attacks forced the Arabs to tie down great forces in protecting themselves ” (emphasis added). [23] Thus Morris’s characterization of Arabs as the aggressors and the Haganah as being on the defensive throughout this period is contradicted by his own account, citing primary source evidence that precisely the opposite was true.
Indeed, Morris goes into considerable detail documenting how, in his own summation, “the Yishuv had organized for war. The Arabs hadn’t.” [24]
Morris’s characterization of the Arabs as always being the aggressors and the Jews as being on the defensive, despite occasional “mistakes” such as those just noted, extends well prior to the onset of the 1948 war. While Lehi’s murder of five members of the Shubaki family on November 20 seems to fit Morris’s criteria for a “mistake”, he could, in turn, also point to Arab attacks on Jews that had occurred well prior to that incident.
He writes, for example, that in the spring and summer of 1939 the Irgun Zvai Leumi, “which had been formed by activist breakaways from the Haganah, subjected the Arab towns to an unnerving campaign of retaliatory terrorism, with special Haganah units adding to the bloodshed through selective reprisals ” (emphasis added). [25] Once again we see that, while Morris doesn’t try to justify such acts of terrorism, he does characterize them as only occurring in retaliation for earlier acts of aggression by Arabs.
Indeed, Morris could go back a decade prior, within this exercise of trying to pinpoint responsibility for the initiation of such tit-for-tat violence, and point to the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron; or, further, to May 1921, when Arab mobs murdered Jews in Jaffa; or further still, to April 1920, when Arab rioters killed five Jews in Jerusalem.
There is no dispute that these earlier incidences of violence were initiated by Arabs. But the question remains of why they occurred. Did these murderous attacks reflect an inherent hatred of Jews among the Arab population? Or is there some other context that the debate Morris has had with his critics is still missing? The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Jeremy R. Hammond An overview of the crucial period from the rise of the Zionist movement until the creation of the state of Israel. Order Now Learn More
Those were questions the British occupiers asked themselves and conducted inquiries to try to answer. The inquiry into the outbreak of violence in 1921, the Haycraft Commission, determined that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious. We are credibly assured by educated Arabs that they would welcome the arrival of well-to-do and able Jews who could help to develop the country to their advantage of all sections of the community.” [26] The outbreaks, rather, reflected the growing apprehension and resentment among the Arabs toward the Zionist project to reconstitute Palestine into a “Jewish state”—and in so doing to displace or otherwise disenfranchise and the land’s majority Arab population.
Nor were the Arabs’ fears unfounded; indeed, the Zionists were quite open about their intentions. When the acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission was interviewed, for example, “he was perfectly frank in expressing his view of the Zionist ideal. . . . In his opinion there can only be one National Home in Palestine, and that a Jewish one, and no equality in the partnership between Jews and Arabs, but a Jewish predominance as soon as the numbers of that race are sufficiently increased.” [27]
The Shaw Commission inquiring into the cause of the 1929 violence arrived at the same conclusion and further observed:
In less than ten years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For eighty years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have differed in some material respect from those which previously obtained. Of this we found ample evidence. The reports of the Military Court and of the local Commission which, in 1920 and in 1921 respectively, enquired into the disturbances of those years, drew attention to the change in the attitude of the Arab population towards the Jews in Palestine. This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our enquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine. [28]
Morris likewise notes in 1948 that the attacks were chiefly motivated by “the fear and antagonism toward the Zionist enterprise”: “The bouts of violence of 1920, 1921, and 1929 were a prelude to the far wider, protracted eruption of 1936–1939, the (Palestine) Arab Revolt. Again, Zionist immigration and settlement—and the prospect of the Judaization of the country and possibly genuine fears of ultimate displacement—underlay the outbreak.” [29]
As Jewish Agency chairman David Ben-Gurion wrote to the director of the agency’s Political Department, Moshe Shertok, in 1937, “What Arab cannot do his math and understand that immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine?” [30]
As Morris also documents, Ben-Gurion understood the Arab perspective perfectly well. With respect to the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt, Ben-Gurion told his colleagues, “We must see the situation for what it is. On the security front, we are those attacked and who are on the defensive. But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, the village. We live in the Diaspora and want only to immigrate [to Palestine] and gain possession of [ lirkosh ] the land from them.” [31]
Ben-Gurion told Zionist leader Nahum Goldmann years later, after the establishment of Israel, “Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?” [32]
Another aspect of Morris’s assessment that warrants emphasis is how he takes for granted that the UN partition plan was an equitable solution and that it was unreasonable of the Arabs to have rejected it. While accusing his critics of “pro-Arab propaganda”, this assumption reveals his own demonstrable prejudice toward the Palestinians. In truth, the UN partition plan was preposterously inequitable. Here, too, some additional historical background helps illuminate the context in which Resolution 181 was adopted, as well as the questions of why the 1948 war started and who bore greater responsibility for it. Lord Arthur Balfour in Tel Aviv, c. 1925 (from the G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection at the Library of Congress ) The Zionist Mandate for Palestine
During the First World War, the British came to occupy the territory of Palestine, having conquered it from the defeated Ottoman Empire. On November 2, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to financier and representative of the Zionist movement Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild that contained a declaration approved by the British Cabinet. The declaration read:
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
This statement, which became known as “The Balfour Declaration”, was cited by the Zionist leadership as having legitimized their aspirations, which had been reiterated by Lord Rothschild just a few months prior, on July 18, in a memorandum that expressed “the principle that Palestine should be re-constituted as the National Home for the Jewish People.” Any opinion the Arabs might have had about their homeland being so “re-constituted” was of no consideration. [33]
The purpose of the declaration was to secure Jewish support for the war effort. As Prime Minister Lloyd George noted, it was for “propaganda reasons”. The aforementioned 1937 British commission headed up by Lord William Peel explained that “it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry . . . .” The Zionist leaders promised that, “if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause.” [34]
“The fact that the Balfour the Balfour Declaration was issued in 1917 in order to enlist Jewish support for the Allies and the fact that this support was forthcoming”, the Peel Commission further remarked, “are not sufficiently appreciated in Palestine.” [35]
The wording “national home for the Jewish people” was chosen because it was not politically feasible for the British government to “commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State” in the place of Palestine; the best it could do was to facilitate immigration and deny self-determination to the people of Palestine—the only one of the formerly mandated territories whose independence was not recognized—until such time as the Jews had managed to establish a majority. [36]
The problem with this plan was that the Arabs recognized that the goal of the Zionist project “would ultimately tend to their political and economic subjection. The Arabs were aware that this prospect was definitely envisaged not only by the Zionists of the ‘extremist’ kind, . . . but also by more responsible representatives of Zionism, such as Dr. Eder, the acting chairman of the Zionist Commission . . . .” [37]
The Peel Commission further acknowledged that “the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against the will of the Arabs . . . would mean that national self-determination had been withheld when the Arabs were a majority in Palestine and only conceded when the Jews were a majority. It would mean that the Arabs had been denied the opportunity of standing by themselves: that they had, in fact, after an interval of conflict, been bartered about from Turkish sovereignty to Jewish sovereignty.” [38]
In an effort to allay Arab apprehension and garner their support, as well, for the war effort, Western governments promised the people of the region their independence. In January 1918, President Woodrow Wilson outlined his “fourteen points”, promising respect for the right to self-determination and independence for the people living under Turkish rule: “The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” [39]
On November 7, 1918, the British and French governments issued a joint declaration stating that “The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the war let loose by German ambition is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of National Governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.” [40]
The British were not incognizant of the self-contradictory nature of its promises. In a memorandum to British Foreign Secretary George Curzon on August 11, 1919, Lord Balfour acknowledged the “flagrant” contradictions of British policy, but dismissed it as a matter of no concern:
For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country . . . . The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, and far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.
No declaration had been made by the British with regard to the inhabitants of Palestine, Balfour added, that “they have not always intended to violate”. [41]
As the Peel Commission later noted, “It was never doubted that the experiment”—meaning the Zionist project—“would have to be controlled by one of the Great Powers; and to that end it was agreed . . . that Palestine should have its place in the new Mandate System . . . .” [42]
The League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine was intended to give the color of law to Britain’s occupation and the policies enacted under its administration. It was not only favorable toward their goals, but was effectively written by the Zionists themselves. As the Peel Commission pointed out:
On the 3rd February the Zionist Organisation presented a draft resolution embodying its scheme for the execution of the Balfour Declaration. On the 27th of February its leaders appeared before the Supreme Council and explained the scheme. A more detailed plan, dated the 28th of March, was drafted by Mr. Felix Frankfurter, an eminent American Zionist. From these and other documents and records it is clear that the Zionist project had already in those early days assumed something like the shape of the Mandate as we know it. [43]
Not surprisingly, given the Zionists’ role in drafting the Mandate, it included the terms of the Balfour Declaration, charging the British with enacting policies to “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home”—including the facilitation of Jewish immigration—and requiring the British administration to consult and cooperate with the Jewish Agency toward that end.
It contained no provisions assuring the Arab majority that they would have a say in the administration of their homeland by the foreign occupying power and its European colonialist partners. [44] The Arab Legion attacking the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, May 1948 ( John Phillips/Life Magazine ) The Expropriation of the Land
As Theodor Herzl had envisioned, the Mandate facilitated the process of expropriation and removal of the poor Arab peasants by the Zionists, including by denying them employment. The Constitution of the Jewish Agency for Palestine signed in Zurich on August 14, 1920, stated:
Land is to be acquired as Jewish property and . . . the title to the lands acquired is to be taken in the name of the Jewish National Fund [JNF], to the end that the same shall be held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people. . . . The Agency shall promote agricultural colonization based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed . . . . [45]
A 1930 report by Sir John Hope Simpson for the British government on immigration, land settlement, and development noted that, “Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that the land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land.” [46]
The prejudice underlying the JNF’s policy blinded the Zionist leadership to the harm it also caused to Jewish landowners. The 1921 British Haycraft Commission report cited an example: [T]he Zionist Commission put strong pressure upon a large Jewish landowner of Richon-le-Zion to employ Jewish labour in place of the Arabs who had been employed on his farm since he was a boy. The farmer, we were told, yielded to this pressure with reluctance, firstly, because the substitution of Jewish for Arab labour would alienate the Arabs, secondly, because the pay demanded by the Jewish labourers, and the short hours during which they would consent to work, would make it impossible for him to run his farm at a profit. [47] Learn Real History and Economics. Get FREE Books.
Join Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom today to get access to courses on how the economy really works and history the political establishment would prefer you didn’t know. Plus get 3 FREE books by award-winning journalist Jeremy R. Hammond. Learn More
Relations between Jews and Arabs in the JNF colonies were contrasted by relations in the settlements of the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA) funded by Baron Edmond de Rothschild. The 1930 Hope Simpson Report observed:
In so far as the past policy of the P.I.C.A. is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Arab has profited largely by the installation of the colonies. Relations between the colonists and their Arab neighbours were excellent. In many cases, when land was bought by the P.I.C.A. for settlement, they combined with the development of the land for their own settlers similar development for the Arabs who previously occupied the land. All the cases which are now quoted by the Jewish authorities to establish the advantageous effect of Jewish colonization on the Arabs of the neighbourhood, and which have been brought to notice forcibly and frequently during the course of this enquiry, are cases relating to colonies established by the P.I.C.A., before the KerenHeyesod [JNF] came into existence. In fact, the policy of the P.I.C.A. was one of great friendship for the Arab. Not only did they develop the Arab lands simultaneously with their own, when founding their colonies, but they employed the Arab to tend their plantations, cultivate their fields, to pluck their grapes and their oranges. As a general rule the P.I.C.A. colonization was of unquestionable benefit to the Arabs of the vicinity.
It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies. [48]
Had the Jewish settlement in Palestine proceeded along the lines of the PICA colonies, history would undoubtedly have been very different. Alas, it was the policies of the JNF that came to characterize the nature of the colonization project. As the Hope Simpson Report noted:
At the moment this policy is confined to the Zionist colonies, but the General Federation of Jewish Labour is using every effort to ensure that it shall be extended to the colonies of the P.I.C.A., and this with some considerable success. . . . It will be a matter of great regret if the friendly spirt which characterized the relations between the Jewish employer in the P.I.C.A. villages and his Arab employees . . . were to disappear. Unless there is some change of spirit in the policy of the Zionist Organisation it seems inevitable that the General Federation of Jewish Labour, which dominates that policy, will succeed in extending its principles to all the Jewish colonies in Palestine. . . . The Arab population already regards the transfer of lands to Zionist hands with dismay and alarm. These cannot be dismissed as baseless in the light of the Zionist policy . . . . [49]
Another aspect of the Zionists’ land purchases was how it disenfranchised Arab inhabitants who had theretofore been living on and working the land. This was achieved by exploiting feudalistic Ottoman land laws. Under the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, the state effectively claimed ownership of the land and individuals were regarded as tenants. Subsequently, the law was amended so individuals could register for a title-deed to the land, but landholders often saw no need to do so unless they were interested in selling. Moreover, there were incentives not to register, including the desire to avoid granting legitimacy to the Ottoman government, to avoid paying registration fees and taxes, and to evade possible military conscription. Additionally, land lived on and cultivated by one individual or family was often registered in the name of another, such as local government magnates who registered large plots or even entire villages in their own names. [50] The British Shaw Commission report of 1929 described another common means by which the rightful owners of the land were legally disenfranchised:
Under the Turkish regime, especially in the latter half of the eighteenth century, persons of the peasant classes in some parts of the Ottoman Empire, including the territory now known as Palestine, found that by admitting the over-lordship of the Sultan or of some member of the Turkish aristocracy, they could obtain protection against extortion and other material benefits which counterbalanced the tribune demanded by their over-lord as a return for his protection. Accordingly many peasant cultivators at that time either willingly entered into an arrangement of this character or, finding that it was imposed upon them, submitted to it. By these means persons of importance and position in the Ottoman Empire acquired the legal title to large tracts of land which for generations and in some cases for centuries had been in the undisturbed and undisputed occupation of peasants who . . . had undoubtedly a strong moral claim to be allowed to continue in occupation of those lands. [51]
Much of the land acquired by the JNF was purchased from absentee landlords, with extreme prejudice toward the poor Arab inhabitants who by rights were its legitimate owners. [52] According to the Shaw Commission, no more than 10 percent of purchased land was acquired from peasants, the rest having been “acquired from the owners of large estates most of whom live outside Palestine”. [53] In the Vale of Esdraelon, for instance, “one of the most fertile parts of Palestine”, Jews purchased 200,000 dunams (more than 49,000 acres) from a wealthy family of Christian Arabs from Beirut (the Sursock family). Included in the purchase were 22 villages, “the tenants of which, with the exception of a single village, were displaced: 1,746 families or 8,730 people.” [54] As another example, in the Wadi el Hawareth area, the JNF purchased 30,826 dunams (more than 7,600 acres) and evicted a large proportion its 1,200 Arab inhabitants. [55] Suba Ruins of the Palestinian village of Suba, near Jerusalem, overlooking Kibbutz Zova, which was built on the village lands. ( Doron / CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Resolution 181 and the Early Phases of the 1948 War
Despite their best efforts, by the end of the Mandate, the Jewish settlers had managed to acquire only about 7 percent of the land in Palestine. Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district, including Jaffa, which included the largest Jewish population center, Tel Aviv. According to the UNSCOP report, “The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 percent of the land.” A subcommittee report further observed that “The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State , is owned and possessed by Arabs” (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Jewish population in the area of their proposed state was 498,000, while the number of Arabs was 407,000 plus an estimated 105,000 Bedouins. “In other words,” the subcommittee report noted, “at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”
UNSCOP nevertheless proposed that the Arab state be constituted from about 44 percent of the whole of Palestine, while the Jews would be awarded about 55 percent for their state, including the best agricultural lands. The committee was not incognizant of how this plan prejudiced the rights of the majority Arab population. In fact, in keeping with the prejudice inherent in the Mandate, the UNSCOP report explicitly rejected the right of the Arab Palestinians to self-determination. The “principle of self-determination” was “not applied to Palestine,” the report stated, “obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle.” [56]
Given the proper historical context, we can now return to Benny Morris’s argument that “the Palestinians were the ones who started the war when they rejected the UN compromise plan and embarked on hostile acts”. This argument assumes that the Arabs’ rejection of the plan was somehow unreasonable. It was not .
Morris’s argument also assumes that Resolution 181 somehow lent legitimacy to the Zionists’ goal of establishing a “Jewish state” in Palestine within the area proposed under UNSCOP’s plan. It did not . While it is a popular myth that the UN created Israel, the partition plan was actually never implemented. Resolution 181 merely recommended that Palestine be partitioned and referred the matter to the Security Council, where it died . Needless to say, neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council had any authority to partition Palestine against the will of the majority of its inhabitants.
Although Resolution 181 was cited in Israel’s founding document as having granted legitimacy to the establishment of the “Jewish state”, in truth, the resolution neither partitioned Palestine nor conferred any legal authority to the Zionists for their unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. [57]
When Morris says that the Arabs states had declared their intent “to attack the Jewish state when the British left”, what he really means, therefore, is that they declared their intent to take up arms to prevent the Zionists from unilaterally declaring for themselves sovereignty over lands they had no rights to and politically disenfranchising the majority population of Palestine.
Morris employs this same rhetorical device—a mainstay of Zionist propaganda—in his book 1948 to suggest that it was the Arabs who were the aggressors, while the Jews were simply defending themselves. For example, he emphasizes that “most of the fighting between November 1947 and mid-May 1948 occurred in the areas earmarked for Jewish statehood”—thus implying that most of the fighting occurred on land rightfully belonging to the Jews. However, the fact that most of the violence occurred within this area is completely irrelevant and tells us nothing about which side was guilty of aggression. After all, Arabs owned more land than Jews and much of this fighting took place in Arab villages and towns located within that same “earmarked” territory.
It is largely on the basis of his assumption that the land proposed for the Jewish state under the partition plan was indeed rightfully the Jews’ that he can sustain his narrative that, “From the end of November 1947 until the end of March 1948, the Arabs held the initiative and the Haganah was on the strategic defensive.” [58] “Going into the civil war, Haganah policy was purely defensive”, Morris repeats—although he grants that “the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders”; and its “defensive policy” during the early months of the war “was dictated in part by a lack of means” as it “was not yet ready for large-scale offensive operations”. [59] But the Arabs initiated the violence, in Morris’s account, and the Haganah acted in self-defense while “occasionally retaliating against Arab traffic, villages, and urban neighborhoods.” [60]
Ilan Pappé sheds some additional light on how the Haganah’s “defensive” operations were undertaken:
The first step was a well-orchestrated campaign of threats. Special units of the Hagana would enter villages looking for ‘infiltrators’ (read ‘Arab volunteers’) and distribute leaflets warning the local people against cooperating with the Arab Liberation Army. Any resistance to such an incursion usually ended with the Jewish troops firing at random and killing several villagers. The Hagana called these incursions ‘violent reconnaissance’ ( hasiyur ha-alim ). . . . In essence the idea was to enter a defenceless village close to midnight, stay there for a few hours, shoot at anyone who dared leave his or her house, and then depart. [61]
For example, on December 18, 1947, the Haganah attacked the village of Khisas at night, randomly blowing up houses with the occupants sleeping inside, killing fifteen, including five children. With a New York Times reporter having closely followed the events, Ben-Gurion issued a public apology and claimed the attack had been unauthorized; but “a few months later, in April, he included it in a list of successful operations.” [62]
“Much of the fighting in the first months of the war”, writes Morris, “took place in and on the edges of the main towns—Jerusalem, Tel Aviv–Jaffa, and Haifa. Most of the violence was initiated by the Arabs. Arab snipers continuously fired at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic and planted bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.” He describes “several days of sniping and Haganah responses in kind”—a typical example of how he characterizes the Haganah’s violence as occurring in self-defense or as retaliation for earlier Arab attacks he identifies as having initiated any given round of fighting. [63]
Pappé again offers some additional illumination that once again calls into question Morris’s assertion that it was the Arabs who were mostly responsible for initiating the violence. With respect to Haifa, Pappé writes:
From the morning after the UN Partition Resolution was adopted, the 75,000 Palestinians in the city were subjected to a campaign of terror jointly instigated by the Irgun and the Hagana. As they had only arrived in recent decades, the Jewish settlers had built their houses higher up the mountain. Thus, they lived topographically above the Arab neighbourhoods and could easily shell and snipe at them. They had started doing this frequently since early December. They used other methods of intimidation as well: the Jewish troops rolled barrels full of explosives, and huge steel balls, down into the Arab residential areas, and poured oil mixed with fuel down the roads, which they then ignited. The moment panic-stricken Palestinian residents came running out of their homes to try to extinguish these rivers of fire, they were sprayed with machine-gun fire. In areas where the two communities still interacted, the Hagana brought cars to Palestinian garages to be repaired, loaded with explosives and detonating devices, and so wreaked death and chaos. A special unit of the Hagana, Hashahar (‘Dawn’), made up of mistarvim —literally Hebrew for ‘becoming Arab’, that is Jews who disguised themselves as Palestinians—was behind this kind of assault. The mastermind of these operations was someone called Dani Agmon, who headed the ‘Dawn’ units. On its website, the official historian of the Palmach puts it as follows: ‘The Palestinians [in Haifa] were from December onwards under siege and intimidation.’ But worse was to come. [64] Haifa before the ethnic cleansing (Source: PalestineRemembered.com ) Plan D
Morris’s debate with his critics centers largely around “Plan D”, for “Dalet”, the fourth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In contrast to what he describes as the Zionists’ “defensive” stage of the war, Plan D marked, by his own account, the beginning of their “war of conquest”. [65]
Morris is correct that Plan D did not explicitly call for “expelling as many Arabs as possible from the territory of the future Jewish state”, as Blatman suggests. But neither did it order that “neutral or friendly villages should be left untouched”, as Morris contends.
Under Plan D, brigade commanders were to use their own discretion in mounting operations against “enemy population centers”—meaning Arab towns and villages—by choosing between the following options:
—Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.
—Mounting combing and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be wiped out and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state. [66]
Thus, while Plan D allowed for Arab inhabitants to remain as long as they did not resist the takeover of their villages by the Zionist forces, it did not order Haganah commanders to permit them to stay under such circumstances—as Morris falsely suggests in the second of his responses in Haaretz .
Nor is Morris incognizant of the critical distinction. In 1948 , he explicitly notes that “brigade commanders were given the option ” of destroying Arab villages (emphasis added)—which would obviously necessitate expelling their inhabitants—regardless of whether any of the villagers offered any resistance. “The commanders were given discretion whether to evict the inhabitants of villages and urban neighborhoods sitting on vital access roads”, Morris writes (emphasis added). “The plan gave the brigades carte blanche to conquer the Arab villages and, in effect, to decide on each village’s fate (emphasis added)—destruction and expulsion or occupation. The plan explicitly called for the destruction of resisting Arab villages and the expulsion of their inhabitants.” [67]
As Ilan Pappé expounds, “Villages were to be expelled in their entirety either because they were located in strategic spots or because they were expected to put up some sort of resistance. These orders were issued when it was clear that occupation would always provoke some resistance and that therefore no village would be immune, either because of its location or because it would not allow itself to be occupied.” [68] By these means, by the time the war ended, the Zionist forces had expelled the inhabitants of and destroyed 531 villages and emptied eleven urban neighborhoods of their Arab residents. [69]
Pappé further notes how the facts on the ground at the time challenge Morris’s characterization of the Zionist’s operations as having been “defensive” prior to the implementation of Plan D:
The reality of the situation could not have been more different: the overall military, political and economic balance between the two communities was such that not only were the majority of Jews in no danger at all, but in addition, between the beginning of December 1947 and the end of March 1948, their army had been able to complete the first stage of the cleansing of Palestine, even before the master plan had been put into effect. If there were a turning point in April, it was the shift from sporadic attacks and counter-attacks on the Palestinian civilian population towards the systematic mega-operation of ethnic cleansing that now followed. [70]
In Haaretz , Morris adds that in the larger urban areas with mixed populations, under Plan D, the orders were for the Arabs “to be transferred to the Arab centers of those cities, like Haifa, not expelled from the country.” Morris also writes that the Zionists “left Arabs in place in Haifa”, and he cites it as an example of a place where Arabs “were ordered or encouraged by their leaders to flee”—as opposed to them being expelled by the Zionist forces.
But the details Morris provides in 1948 of what happened in Haifa tell an altogether different story.
By the end of March 1948, most of the wealthy and middle-class families had fled Haifa. Far from ordering this evacuation, the Arab leadership had blasted those who fled as “cowards” and tried to prevent them from leaving. [71] Among the reasons for the flight were terrorist attacks by the Irgun that had sowed panic in Haifa and other cities. On the morning of December 30, 1947, for example, the Irgun threw “three bombs from a passing van into a crowd of casual Arab laborers at a bus stop outside the Haifa Oil Refinery, killing eleven and wounding dozens.” [72] (Ilan Pappé notes that “Throwing bombs into Arab crowds was the specialty of the Irgun, who had already done so before 1947.” [73] And as Morris points out, Arab militias took note of the methods of the Irgun and Lehi and eventually started copying them: “The Arabs had noted the devastating effects of a few well-placed Jewish bombs in Jerusalem, Jaffa, and Haifa . . . .” [74] ) Arab laborers inside the plant responded by turning against their Jewish coworkers, killing thirty-nine and wounding fifty (several Arab employees did try to protect their Jewish co-workers). [75]
The Haganah retaliated by targeted a nearby village that was home to many of the refinery workers. The orders were to spare the women and children, but to kill the men. “The raiders moved from house to house, pulling out men and executing them. Sometimes they threw grenades into houses and sprayed the interiors with automatic fire. There were several dozen dead, including some women and children.” Ben-Gurion defended the attack by saying it was “impossible” to “discriminate” under the circumstances. “We’re at war. . . . There is an injustice in this, but otherwise we will not be able to hold out.” [76]
Marking “the start of the implementation of Plan D”, writes Morris, was Operation Nahshon in April 1948. [77] By this time, tens of thousands of Haifa’s seventy thousand Arabs had already fled. [78] The Haganah had been planning an operation in Haifa since mid-month, and when the British withdrew their troops from positions between Arab and Jewish neighborhoods on April 21, it provided the Haganah with the opportunity to put it into effect. [79] The Haganah fired mortars indiscriminately into the lower city, and by noon “smoke rose above gutted buildings and mangled bodies littered the streets and alleyways.” The mortar and machine gun fire “precipitated mass flight toward the British-held port area”, where Arab civilians trampled each other to get to boats, many of which were capsized in the mad rush. [80]
The British high commissioner, Sir Alan Cunningham, described the Haganah’s tactics: “Recent Jewish military successes (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press and among the Jews themselves a spirit of arrogance which blinds them to future difficulties. . . . Jewish broadcasts both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany.” [81] An elderly man and a girl, refugees of the 1948 war (Source: Hanini.org / CC BY 3.0 )
It was under these circumstances that the local Arab leaders sought to negotiate a truce, and in a British-mediated meeting in the afternoon on April 22, the Jewish forces proposed a surrender agreement that “assured the Arab population a future ‘as equal and free citizens of Haifa.’” [82] But the Arab notables, after taking some time to consult before reconvening, informed that they were in no position to sign the truce since they had no control over the Arab combatants in Haifa and that the population was intent on evacuating. Jewish and British officials at the meeting tried to persuade them to sign the agreement, to no avail. In the days that followed, nearly all of Haifa’s remaining inhabitants fled, with only about 5,000 remaining.
While in his Haaretz article, Morris attributed this flight solely to orders from the Arab leadership to leave the city, in 1948 , he notes that other factors included psychological trauma from the violence—especially the Haganah’s mortaring of the lower city—and despair at the thought of living now as a minority under a people who had just inflicted that collective punishment upon them. Furthermore, “The Jewish authorities almost immediately grasped that a city without a large (and actively or potentially hostile) Arab minority would be better for the emergent Jewish state, militarily and politically. Moreover, in the days after 22 April, Haganah units systematically swept the conquered neighborhoods for arms and irregulars; they often handled the population roughly; families were evicted temporarily from their homes; young males were arrested, some beaten. The Haganah troops broke into Arab shops and storage facilities and confiscated cars and food stocks. Looting was rife.” [83]
This, then, is the situation Morris is describing when he disingenuously writes in Haaretz that the Zionist forces “left Arabs in place in Haifa” and that Arabs fled Haifa because they were “ordered or encouraged by their leaders”.
We can also compare Morris’s account of how the village of Lifta came to be emptied of its Arab inhabitants with Ilan Pappé’s. 1984 contains only one mention of Lifta, a single sentence in which Morris characterizes it as another example of how Arabs fled upon the orders of their leadership: “For example, already on 3–4 December 1947 the inhabitants of Lifta, a village on the western edge of Jerusalem, were ordered to send away their women and children (partly in order to make room for incoming militiamen).” [84]
Pappé tells a remarkably different story, describing Lifta, with its population of 2,500, as “one of the very first to be ethnically cleansed”:
Social life in Lifta revolved around a small shipping centre, which included a club and two coffee houses. It attracted Jerusalemites as well, as no doubt it would today were it still there. One of the coffee houses was the target of the Hagana when it attacked on 28 December 1947. Armed with machine guns the Jews sprayed the coffee house, while members of the Stern Gang stopped a bus nearby and began firing into it randomly. This was the first Stern Gang operation in rural Palestine; prior to the attack, the gang had issued pamphlets to its activists: ‘Destroy Arab neighbourhoods and punish Arab villages.’
The involvement of the Stern Gang in the attack on Lifta may have been outside the overall scheme of the Hagana in Jerusalem, according to the Consultancy [i.e., Ben-Gurion and his close advisors], but once it had occurred it was incorporated into the plan. In a pattern that would repeat itself, creating faits accomplis became part of the overall strategy. The Hagana High Command at first condemned the Stern Gang attack at the end of December, but when they realized that the assault had caused the villagers to flee, they ordered another operation against the same village on 11 January in order to complete the expulsion. The Hagana blew up most of the houses in the village and drove out all the people who were still there. [85]
The lesson learned was also applied in Jerusalem. On February 7, 1948, Ben-Gurion went to see Lifta for himself and that evening reported to a council of the Mapai party in Jerusalem:
When I come now to Jerusalem, I feel I am in a Jewish ( Ivrit ) city. This is a feeling I only had in Tel-Aviv or in an agricultural farm. It is true that not all of Jerusalem is Jewish, but it has in it already a huge Jewish bloc: when you enter the city through Lifta and Romema, through Mahaneh Yehuda, King George Street and Mea Shearim—there are no Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Ever since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans—the city was not as Jewish as it is now. In many Arab neighbourhoods in the West you do not see even one Arab. I do not suppose it will change. And what happened in Jerusalem and in Haifa—can happen in large parts of the country. If we persist it is quite possible that in the next six or eight months there will be considerable changes in the country, very considerable, and to our advantage. There will certainly be considerable changes in the demographic composition of the country. [86]
Note that all of this happened well before explicit orders were given to destroy villages and expel their inhabitants if anyone resisted occupation by the Zionist forces. From mid-March onward, in Morris’s own words, “In line with Plan D, Arab villages were henceforward to be leveled to prevent their reinvestment by Arab forces; the implication was that their inhabitants were to be expelled and prevented from returning.” [87] The Haganah “embarked on a campaign of clearing areas of Arab inhabitants and militia forces and conquering and leveling villages”. [88] Plan D implemented a “new policy, of permanently occupying and/or razing villages and of clearing whole areas of Arabs”. [89]
Morris’s contention that what happened wasn’t ethnic cleansing because most Palestinians fled, as opposed to being expelled by the Zionist forces, becomes a moot distinction in light of how, for example, a massacre that occurred in the Arab village of Deir Yassin in April was “amplified through radio broadcasts . . . to encourage a mass Arab exodus from the Jewish state-to-be.” [90] David Ben-Gurion (center) with Yitzhak Rabin and Yigal Allon during the 1948 war ( Israel Defense Forces / CC BY-NC 2.0 )
In the Galilee, “the Arab inhabitants of the towns of Beit Shean (Beisan) and Safad had to be ‘harassed’ into flight”, according to a planned series of operations conceived in April (“in line with Plan D”, Morris notes). In charge of these operations was the commander of the Palmach, Yigal Allon. [91] On May 1, two villages north of Safad were captured. Several dozen male prisoners were executed, and the Palmach “proceeded to blow up the two villages as Safad’s Arabs looked on. The bulk of the Third Battalion then moved into the town’s Jewish Quarter and mortared the Arab quarters”, prompting many of Safad’s Arab inhabitants to flee. [92]
After five days, the Arabs sought a truce, which Allon rejected. Even some of the local Jews “sought to negotiate a surrender and demanded that the Haganah leave town. But the Haganah commanders were unbending” and continued pounding Safad with mortars and its arsenal of 3-inch Davidka munitions. The first of the Davidka bombs, according to Arab sources cited by a Haganah intelligence document, killed 13 Arabs, mostly children, which triggered a panic and further flight. This, of course, was precisely what was “intended by the Palmah commanders when unleashing the mortars against the Arab neighborhoods”—which, “literally overnight, turned into a ‘ghost town’”. In the weeks that followed, “the few remaining Arabs, most of them old and infirm or Christians, were expelled to Lebanon or transferred to Haifa.” [93]
Yigal Allon summed up the purpose of the Palmach’s operations: “We regarded it as imperative to cleanse the interior of the Galilee and create Jewish territorial continuity in the whole of Upper Galilee.” He boasted of how he devised a plan to rid the Galilee of tens of thousands of Arabs without having to actually use force to drive them out. His strategy, which “worked wonderfully”, was to plant rumors that additional reinforcements had arrived “and were about to clean out the villages of the Hula [Valley]”. Local Jewish leaders with ties to the area’s villages were tasked with advising their Arab neighbors, “as friends, to flee while they could. And the rumor spread throughout the Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands.” [94]
Morris adds that, “To reinforce this ‘whispering,’ or psychological warfare, campaign, Allon’s men distributed fliers, advising those who wished to avoid harm to leave ‘with their women and children.’” [95]
Morris’s denial that these events he describes constituted ethnic cleansing seems difficult to reconcile with Allon’s statement that the goal of the Palmach’s operations in the Galilee was “to cleanse” the area of its Arab inhabitants. In his 2004 interview with Ari Shavit, Morris also noted with respect to the use of the verb “cleanse” to describe what happened throughout Palestine, “I know it doesn’t sound nice but that’s the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.”
Indeed, Morris himself used the term repeatedly in his discussion with Shavit, in which Morris expressed his view that this “cleansing” of Palestine was morally justified:
Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here. . . .
There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands. . . .
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide—the annihilation of your people—I prefer ethnic cleansing. . . .
That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. . . .
I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. . . .
But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered. . . .
If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. . . .
If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself. . . .
The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake. [96]
Morris’s recent denial that what occurred was ethnic cleansing is also difficult to reconcile with these earlier comments of his. Indeed, that would seem quite impossible, which is presumably why Morris made no attempt to do so after Steven Klein, in his contribution to the debate, had pointed out these words of Morris’s. Arab refugees crowding a British ship carrying them to Acre, April 1948 (Life Magazine. Source: PalestineRemembered.com ) The Fallacies of Morris’s Arguments
Now that the proper historical context has been established, let’s return to Morris’s arguments and address each in turn.
Morris denies that the Jewish leadership “carried out a policy of expelling the local Arabs”. This denial is untenable. Logically, the goal of establishing a demographically “Jewish state” would require the “compulsory transfer”—to borrow Ben-Gurion’s phrase for it, in turn borrowed from the Peel Commission—of a large number of Arabs. Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders had explicitly stated their desire to effect this “transfer”, and once war broke out there was a clear tacit understanding between the political leadership and the military commanders toward that end. As Morris himself has pointed out, there was an “atmosphere of transfer”, and commanders who carried out such expulsions were not punished.
Moreover, from mid-March onward, commanders were given explicit instructions for how this “compulsory transfer” was to be carried out. If the expulsion of Arab villagers prior to Plan D had received the tacit approval of the leadership, the expulsions thereafter received their explicit approval. Commanders like Yigal Allon understood their orders very well: it was “imperative” to “cleanse” their areas of operation of their Arab inhabitants.
After Blatman cited Morris to support his assertion that Palestine was ethnically cleansed in 1948, Morris accused Blatman of attributing things to him that he had never claimed. Yet Morris himself had previously described what happened during the war as “ethnic cleansing”—and expressed his view that Ben-Gurion’s error was not doing a thorough enough job of it.
Morris argues that Blatman’s assertion “ignores the basic fact that the Palestinians were the ones who started the war”. Even if we accept his assumptions that the Arabs’ rejection of the UN partition plan was unreasonable and that they were responsible for starting the war, it does not follow that no ethnic cleansing occurred. In keeping with his comments to Ari Shavit, what Morris really seems to be arguing here is not that it didn’t happen, but that it was justified; it’s not that Palestine wasn’t actually ethnically cleansed—clearly, by his own account, it was—just that, in his view, this wasn’t a crime.
And while legal scholars may debate whether such actions were prohibited under the laws of war at the time, there isn’t any ambiguity about the fact that they are recognized today as war crimes—and, regardless of what any international treaties had to say about it, just as immoral then as they would be today.
Moreover, Morris’s assumptions that the UN partition plan was an equitable solution and that Resolution 181 lent legitimacy to the Zionists’ unilateral declaration of the existence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948, are both categorically false . He bases his arguments that the Jews were acting defensively on the grounds that the Arab states had threatened “to attack the Jewish state” and then carried out that threat by “invading” Israel. But given the illegitimacy of the May 14 declaration and the inherent prejudice of the Zionist project toward the majority Arab population, this narrative crumbles. To characterize the Arabs as the “invaders” while Palestine’s Arab inhabitants were being systematically expelled or driven into flight and its Arab villages literally wiped off the map is simply to flip reality on its head.
Morris denies that there was ever a decision by the Jewish leadership “to ‘expel the Arabs’”. He repeats that Ben-Gurion “never gave [his officers] an order ‘to expel the Arabs.’” It might be true that no known documents, including Plan D, contained those exact words, but the leadership’s intent was clear. Indeed, in the very same sentence he says Ben-Gurion gave no such order, Morris notes that Ben-Gurion “let his officers understand that it was preferable for as few Arabs as possible to remain in the new country”. His implied logic is that without such an explicit order, it wasn’t ethnic cleansing. This is a non sequitur. No explicit order need have been given; it was enough that Haganah commanders understood the leaderships’ intention to have “as few Arabs as possible”, to quote Morris’s own words, in the “Jewish state” they were seeking to establish. Palestinian refugees fleeing their homes, October 30, 1948 (Source: PalestineRemembered.com )
Moreover, Plan D did make explicit the operational orders to expel Arabs from their villages. Morris also suggests that since not all Arabs were expelled, therefore it wasn’t ethnic cleansing. But once again his logic is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that since there were Arabs who were allowed to remain in the territory that became Israel that therefore the expulsion of the majority of that territory’s Arab inhabitants didn’t constitute ethnic cleansing. Morris can opine that Ben-Gurion didn’t do a thorough enough job of it; but he can’t sustain the suggestion that the lack of thoroughness means it wasn’t ethnic cleansing.
The “atmosphere of transfer” is acknowledged by Morris; yet he asserts that Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion and Weizmann, who “supported the transfer of Arabs” in the 1930s and early ‘40s, later “supported the UN decision, whose plan left more than 400,000 Arabs in place.” With this comment, he implies that Ben-Gurion and other leaders changed their minds and decided that a population of 400,000 Arabs within the area they desired for their “Jewish state” would be just fine. Once again, his argument is a non sequitur; their acceptance of the partition plan did not constitute a repudiation of their desire to rid the land of Arabs. On the contrary, it was seen as a pragmatic step toward achieving the ultimate goal of establishing a Jewish state with “less Arabs” (Golda Meir).
Indeed, he further acknowledges that the “atmosphere of transfer” still prevailed in April 1948, but, he argues, this “was never translated into official policy—which is why there were officers who expelled Arabs and others who didn’t.” But, once again, the fact that some Arabs—about 160,000, according to Morris—were permitted to remain does not mean that the rest weren’t victims of ethnic cleansing. Once again, explicit orders to expel Arabs needn’t have existed for us to recognize what occurred as ethnic cleansing; it was enough that a tacit understanding existed between the political leadership and the military commanders, which Morris acknowledges was in fact the case—including by pointing out that those commanders who expelled Arabs from their villages weren’t punished. Moreover, again, the “atmosphere of transfer” was translated into official policy with Plan D.
On March 24, 1948, Morris argues in Haaretz , Israel Galili “ordered all the Haganah brigades not to uproot Arabs from the territory of the designated Jewish state.” In 1948 , he specifies that “Galili instructed all Haganah units to abide by standing Zionist policy, which was to respect the ‘rights, needs and freedom,’ ‘without discrimination,’ of the Arabs living in the Jewish State areas.” [97] How does Morris reconcile this with the explicit orders under Plan D to collectively punish the civilian population by expelling them from their homes and destroying their villages? How does he reconcile it with the fact that, by his own account, commanders who expelled Arabs and destroyed villages weren’t punished for defying what Morris characterizes as a direct order? Instructively, he makes no attempt to. But he does note that “Things did change in early April”, meaning that this ostensible order to respect the rights of Palestinian civilians was rescinded. As he notes in 1948 , the policy outlined in April was “generally, to evict the Arabs living in the brigade’s area.” [98]
So how does Morris, in light of this admission, maintain that “there was no overall expulsion policy”? He notes that “here they expelled people, there they didn’t, and for the most part the Arabs simply fled.” But, again, neither the fact that some Arabs were allowed to remain nor that many fled out of fear is inconsistent with the recognition of what happened as ethnic cleansing.
Finally, Morris acknowledges that the Zionist leadership as a matter of policy prevented the Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes. Indeed, this was made largely impossible by the complete destruction of their villages. He makes no effort to reconcile this policy with his denial that ethnic cleansing occurred. Instead, he opines that this policy was “logical and just”. We see once again, thus, that Morris isn’t so much arguing that there was no ethnic cleansing as he is that the ethnic cleansing was justified. He is attempting to argue that the ethnic cleansing that did occur—which he has explicitly acknowledged did occur, and which he documents extensively in his own writings—was not a crime.
Benny Morris is entitled to his opinions. But to deny that the “Jewish state” of Israel was established by ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes in Palestine is simply a display of the very intellectual dishonesty he accuses his critics of.
The standard he applies is telling: he defends the ethnic cleansing on the grounds that all of the Arabs who were made refugees by the war and whom Israel refused to allow to return “had tried to destroy the state in the making.” Inasmuch as their very inhabitancy in the land the Zionist leadership desired for their “Jewish state” stood in the way of that project, he has a point. Their very existence in the land constituted a destruction of the Zionists’ ideal. Hence they had to go. In Morris’s own words, “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them.”
Beyond that, Morris’s hypocrisy is glaring. He knows perfectly well that most of those expelled were civilians who had taken no part in hostilities. Hence what he is really saying here is that it was “logical and just” for the civilian Arab population to have been collectively punished for the crime some among them committed of putting up resistance to the Zionists’ operations to seize control of the territory they wanted for their “Jewish state”—precisely the collective punishment that Haganah commanders were ordered to carry out under Plan D, the blueprint, by Morris’s own account, for the Zionists’ “war of conquest”.
That Benny Morris applies such a hypocritical standard should not be too surprising. He is, after all, himself a Zionist. As a historian, he has contributed greatly to the literature on the subject, and in so doing, has helped move the discussion forward. By helping us to understand the origins of the conflict, he has empowered us with knowledge that brings clarity on how to achieve a peaceful resolution. It is unfortunate that he’s lately made such a concerted effort to move the discussion backward again. It is in the context of his own deeply held and scarcely concealed prejudice toward the Palestinians that his attempts now to deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine must be understood. Haganah men patrolling the streets of Haifa, April 1948 (Life Magazine. Source: PalestineRemembered.com ) Conclusion
Was what happened in Palestine during the 1948 war “ethnic cleansing”?
Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, author of Ethnic Cleansing , writes that, while the term “defies easy definition”, it can be generally understood as “the expulsion of an ‘undesirable’ population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.” [99]
The US State Department, in a 1999 report titled Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo: An Accounting , described “the Milosevic regime’s brutal, premeditated, and systematic campaign to expel many Kosovar Albanians from their homeland.” [100]
In a February 2007 judgment, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) noted that the term “ethnic cleansing” was used in practice “to mean ‘rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area’”. [101]
By any of these definitions, ethnic cleansing is precisely what occurred in Palestine during the 1948 war.
As Ilan Pappé writes in the beginning of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine , “This book is written with the deep conviction that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine must become rooted in our memory and consciousness as a crime against humanity and that it should be excluded from the list of alleged crimes.” [102]
Indeed, what happened in Palestine in 1948 was not an “alleged” ethnic cleansing, as Benny Morris would have us believe. It is regrettable that he seems to have decided that trying to justify Israel’s legitimacy as a “Jewish state” is more important than presenting the public with an honest historical representation of how Israel came into existence. But far from being “alleged”, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine must today be recognized as an uncontroversial historical fact. That this ethnic cleansing occurred is indeed today very well documented—including in Benny Morris’s own important contributions to the literature on the subject.
It is also regrettable that the US mainstream media treat the matter as taboo. This silence must be broken. The means by which the “Jewish state” of Israel came into existence—via the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population of Palestine—must be brought out of the darkness and into the light. Only by doing so will the prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians have any chance of coming to fruition. Jeremy R. Hammond
Jeremy R. Hammond is an award-winning independent political analyst and editor and publisher of Foreign Policy Journal . Described by Barron’s as “a writer of rare skill”, he is the author of Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2016), Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis (2012), and The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict (2009). Find him on the web at JeremyRHammond.com . | 1real |
TRUMP FINANCIAL ADVISOR Has Great Tax News For Job Creators: “I think they need to get that done quickly”…MAGA! [VIDEO] | President-elect Donald J. Trump s economic advisor Steve Moore told Neil Cavuto the incoming administration may introduce two separate tax bills to increase chances of prompt Congressional approval. Moore says Trump s tax reform plan should primarily focus on slashing the corporate tax rate to somewhere between 15% and 20%. | 1real |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.